I am a parent judge and new to debate judging.

Please be respectful to fellow competitors.

Absolutely no spreading, please speak slowly and clearly.

In high school my main events included Congress, Info, Extemp, and a bit of PF. I did a very minute amount of LD and CX, so while I am definitely not an expert, I know some basics of the events and understand most of the arguments that can be presented.

Speech events:

Please annunciate and speak relatively loud. I will rank you higher if you utilize your gestures effectively, have good voice inflection and tone, can tell me about your topic in an informed and thought-out manner, and present the information in an organized way.

For prepared speaking events, I am really looking for that clean and crisp presentation. It is a memorized event, so it can be easy to start droning on when speaking. Please try to make your speech as engaging as possible with your presentation style, and I probably will rank you higher.

For limited prep events, if you show me a good amount of analysis on your topic that shows that you know what you're talking about. You most likely will get more points from me. Also, if your speech is organized in a way that makes sense and flows well that will get you more points as well.

Debate events:

I don't particularly enjoy debaters that are super pushy and aggressive in their questioning and speeches. If you have a point that is going to completely destroy your opponents argument and you know it, please don't be snarky and don't put down your opponent. I get it, you have a good argument, explain it and explain why it is the better argument and keep it at that. If you do decide to be snarky, then just keep in mind your speech points will likely reflect.

I love contention. That is what debate is all about. If you (and your partner) are second speakers, and have multiple cases, then use a case that will provide the most clash. In Congress, don't talk about the same thing as everyone else, be unique and present arguments that clash well with everyone (I find it extremely difficult to rank speakers highly that just repeat everyone else in a different way, even if you are a great speaker).

I am not a fan of spreading. I did it a bit in high school, and it is not my thing. With that being said, if you feel the need to spread, understand that I am certainly out of practice flowing speed and most likely won't be able to keep up. I prefer quality over quantity with your arguments. I will not give you a warning word or anything along those lines. If you see me looking up and not flowing. Most likely it is too fast.

Arguments (Partner-debate):
Topicality/Theory: I used these arguments a lot in high school and thoroughly enjoy them. However, I will not vote on it unless you actually go for the argument, so be careful. I also want to see a lot of justification for these args if you go for them.

DAs: I love good DAs. Present me the link chain and explain the argument well and you could easily get a vote from DAs. Especially when paired well with a CP.

CPs: Typically I won't vote on these arguments specifically, so make sure to pair it with another arg such as a DA or maybe topicality. Also be able to explain why it is mutually exclusive otherwise I will just flow the arg towards the aff.

Kritiks: I do NOT enjoy kritiks. I understood their place in high school, and thought it was interesting, but it is very unlikely that I would ever vote on a kritik. I have not voted on them in the past, as many times the debaters do not themselves understand the argument they are trying to make. However, if you simplify the argument, and really really explain it, then there is the slight chance I might vote on it. Please, explain to me exactly why I must vote for it if you really want to run this argument.

Everything else (inherency, solvency, etc.): I will vote on any other arguments you present as long as you explain the impacts and do impact weighing.

Overall/TL;DR:
Don't spread. Explain your args well. Don't kritik. Weigh your impacts, I prefer probability over magnitude, but will vote on anything if argued well, and PLEASE extend your arguments throughout the debate.

I will vote off of the flow. I.E if you don't say the argument in your speech, I most likely won't vote on it. Even if it was in Cross-ex.

Special note:
I make several references of things I did in high school and such. Please know that I am now a few years removed from the S&D scene and have only judged a few tournaments over the years. After reviewing my paradigm, I think it all still applies, but especially on the spreading aspect, I am very much out of practice with flowing, and will likely need you to speak at a conversational pace for me to keep up. Thanks!
Best of luck to all.

I mainly did PF for 3 years in high school and I have also judged LD many times in the past. I would very much like it if you did some impact calc as it helps me a lot in knowing what to weigh more. Also, if you're planning on using speed and/or spreading, please send your case over to me so I can flow more effectively. Otherwise I can't guarantee everything will be flowed. I would strongly prefer if you can cross-time prep as well as speech times. If you're a progressive debater and you won't do traditional, strike me, it will make it easier for everybody. I will not hesitate to dock your speaker points if you are being unnecessarily rude, or if you are sexist, racist, or bigoted in any way.

Basically just don't make this overly convoluted and make it easy for me to flow the round and keep track of what I'm weighing. Good luck and I look forward to judging for you! :)

I do enjoy conversational speed of delivering an opinion or speech. One doesn't have to be loud to be heard. I'm interested in seeing interaction and engagement. 

I am a parent judge who has some experience judging PF and BQ tournaments.

Be respectful to the judge and fellow competitors.

Be nice and enjoy your debate. Tell a clear story and make it count.

Speak slowly and clearly. Absolutely no spreading.

I value presentation, clarity of argument and good eye contact.

I am fine if you go a bit overtime with prep.

Except for responding to responses, DO NOT bring up any new arguments in summary

Don’t go overboard with debate terminology.

I will immediately drop you if you say anything sexist, racist, homophobic etc.

PF

PLEASE SIGNPOST - tell me where you are during your speech

Extend the full argument and explain it - don't just tell me to "extend [card name]" or "extend [contention]"

Please weigh - tell me which impact is more important and why

BE NICE - I'll drop you if you're rude/disrespectful to your opponents

let me know if you have questions.

LD

I have gotten very dumb in my old age (22) so please take it easy on me and debate slowly and as clearly as possible. I am very familiar with PF but am new to judging LD.

Hey guys! I'm Sebastian Javadpoor, and I competed on the circuit for 4 years in Public Forum, Congressional Debate, Duet Acting, Duo Interp, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Impromptu Speaking. As for qualifications so you don't try to trick me (O_O), I've won state championships in three different events, was nationally ranked in four, and qualified to nationals in four (Extemp TOC, NIETOC, and NSDA). Currently, I am a Public Forum debate coach in NYC while studying Political Science/Psychology at Columbia, so I am still keeping up to date with what is going on in the PF scene.

PF Paradigms:

1. Do. Not. Spread. Please. I've done debate for a while, and it's still annoying, and it doesn't really help the debate space. You can speak quickly, but once I say clear, do not go back to that speed.

2. S I G N P O S T ! It's a really ez way to make the judges luv u!

3. I won't time checking cards for the first 30 seconds, after that it comes out of prep. Also please reference the name of the card in your case so I can flow it more easily. And if you want me to check an opponent's card personally, lemme know and I will do so while forming my decision.

4. I don't flow cross fire but if it gets a bit too heated I will probably give ya a dirty look and may drop your speaks a bit. Please be nice. Being a meanie but winning on your args still will result in a drop.

5. I am pretty strict on the flow, and I want to see some good clash and weighing. What isn't extended throughout the round to the end will not be used as a reason for my decision. So please coordinate and flow through what you want to collapse on!

6. Time yourselves please.

7. Debater math is insta-dropped. Have evidence for your calculations!

8. If you spot misrepresenting in an opponent's card, call it out and I will specifically ask for it. If I find that you are right in contesting the card, it is dropped. Don't clip, powertag, splice, make up your own news source, etc. It also would make me drop your speaks.

9. I really really really don't like theory in PF (especially disclosure theory in local tournaments). However, if you argue it well, I won't let my bias prevent you from winning off of it.

10. Speaks start off at a baseline of 26. 30s are rare but I will be favorable to those that incorporate rhyme into their speeches.

11. If you ask if I favor tech>truth, the answer is a "mostly yes"

Policy Paradigms!

Not much policy experience but I'm a flow judge so it'll be fineeeee.

BQ Paradigms!

I also do not have much experience in BQ, but considering its similarity to PF in terms of structure, most of those points still apply. Again, I'm flow, so take that into consideration when forming arguments.

also - email for speech docs (if necessary) - sebastianjavadpooracp@gmail.com

Hi, I am a parent judge. I understand that since I am parent, I am not as qualified a professional judge, so feel free to strike me. With that said, I do have quite a bit of experience judging have judged several national circuit debates and late elimination rounds at nationals.

Overall, I really appreciate if you go slow and really explain your arguments. For me, while sounding pretty is good, I will look at who is winning the merit of the argument and throughout the round who most consistently rebuts and actually analyses the arguments better on a technical sense.

Crossfire is also important as well as other regular lay norms.

I have a judged a few times before but I am still very new. Clarity is most important to me so make your arguments understandable and don't go too fast. I will do my best to evaluate the round and the team that seems most prepared and defends their points best will win.

Parent judge, please go slow and explain thoroughly. I don't speak English well, so please warrant!

I am a lay parent judge. I value the following:

- depth in understanding of the core issue;

- relevancy of evidences and sources;

- overall delivery/presentation, including your manners to your opponents;

Other notes:

• Please don’t spread;
• Keep track of your own time and your opponent’s time.

I am a lay judge.

- Speak clearly and avoid speeding while talking. There is a possibility that I may miss your important arguments

- Great points with supporting evidence and reasoning

- Be polite and respectful to one another

- Remember to have fun, relax and enjoy yourself!

I am a parent judge with a year of experience. I value the flow of a debate round with a clean structure that I can follow.

PF Preferences:

• Keep it civil, be respectful of each other. If there is an issue then let me know in a professional manner.
• I appreciate when you outline and conclude your speech with the narrative, rather than cramming cards or arguments into a speech.
• I ignore cross fire completely.
• Do not spread.
• Each team should keep their or their opponents time.  I may stop listening if 20 seconds over time limit.
• I value sign posting and succinct off time roadmaps. Off time roadmaps should not include arguments or new evidence.
• No theory debate, its not productive and will be dropped.
• Impacts should be clearly flowed all the way through.
• Do not try to pull me into the debate as an individual.  As a judge, I consider both sides, not the emotional appeal. 

This is my first year judging PF. This means that you must do your job to adapt to me as a judge, but at the same time I will do my best to follow what you say, take notes and provide feedback. I understrand that you have spent time and effort on it so I take judging very seriously.

You can speak as fast or as slow as you want, however, explain everything that you are saying very clearly. Do not skip any steps in your logical chains – things that are intuitive to you might not seem that way to me.

I will do my best to judge the round fairly as long as you do your best to convince me why you should win. Please speak in a conversational tone – don’t yell – and be as persuasive as you can. Be respectful!!

For the October Topic, I do have a little topical knowledge on it and I've seen unique arguments for both sides!

I am a parent judge! That being said I have judged countless rounds on the Nat circuit and local circuit for 5+ years.

A few things I prefer:

Keep speed and clarity in mind when debating.

For any complicated economic argument please provide actual warranting when you are extending it.

Collapse and do weighing on the argument you want me to vote on, I won't do it for you.

Debate is about having fun so don't let the round get too heated.

Signpost, Signpost, Signpost

I usually won't question your evidence myself, so if you find bad evidence on your opponents side bring it up in round and in a speech as a response.

Defense is not sticky; make sure to extend it in summary if you are going for it

Frontline in second rebuttal, second summary is way to late in the round for your first time frontlining.

Comparative weighing wins rounds

- No spreading!

- I take into account what is said during cross

- I also take into account your attitude and the amount of professionalism that you show.

- I have only judged PF, so please explain LD and it's components before you speak.

I am a parent judge.

Don't spread. If I can't comprehend your argument/ what your points are, I will not flow it, and therefore will not vote on it.

I don't like aggression, especially in crossfire: you have no reason to be aggressive to your opponents - you're both here for the same reason.

I pay attention to cross-fire, and am willing to vote on it.

I appreciate off-time roadmaps. Even then, be structured in your speeches, so I can follow.

Be clear when evaluating and/or weighing.

I do prefer more recent evidence, but if you cannot explain what the evidence is saying, or your argument is not logically sound, I won't consider it.

Parent/Lay judge- I vote off of presentation and logic

I am a lay judge. I prefer if you go slow. Make sure I understand all your arguments and refrain from excessive debate jargon.

I am the Speech and Debate advisor at BASIS Chandler. I have some experience with debate, but I'm mainly looking at communication.

I am a lay judge

What that specifically entails:

1. No spreading, no blippy arguments, no theory/K's, etc. Moreover, I put a huge emphasis on presentation skills and the ability to speak well/slow/confidently.

2. I need very very very clear warranting, clear link chains, and clear impact analysis. Assume that I am not super well versed in the topic so explain everything.

3. Absolutely no technical terms as there is a high chance I do not know what they mean. This, once again, emphasizes the need to explain everything.

My paradigms:

1 - Clear and well cited arguments

2- Respectful behavior towards judges and competitors.

3- Active engagement during crossfire rounds.

4- Talk at a reasonable speed so that others can understand you well 

My preferences for a good debate:

1. Clear and well-cited arguments. No theory debate, will drop the argument.

2. Respectful behavior towards the judge and your competitors.

3. Active engagement during Crossfire rounds. I don’t flow crossfire. 

4. NO SPREADING.

5. Cite sources and use reliable evidence. If caught with evidence violations, will drop the debater.

6. NO DEBATER MATH. 

7. Time yourself.

I did PF for four years, graduating in 2021. I qualified to Gold TOC and Nationals and finaled Blake and Harvard my senior year, so I can keep up with most rounds.

Tech > Truth

I'll vote for anything, but there is an inherent burden of proof that needs to be met for me to consider an argument. I won't assume something functions as offense/defense solely because you tell me it does.

I'm not super strict on evidence ethics. I think it's very easy to respond to evidence the way you respond to any other argument, and I encourage you to do so. Paraphrasing is totally fine. It's more realistic, and you have to actually understand the content. I've seen way more evidence ethics issues with cut cards than paraphrased evidence. That said, please still have all your cards cut so evidence sharing runs smoothly. If you take too long, I'll dock speaks. I'll only call for evidence if it's disputed, and I actually need to read it to make a decision.

I have a surface-level understanding of progressive arguments (Theory, K, etc.). I understand the basics, but if you read them, there needs to be a lot of warranting. I will not vote for your argument if your warranting is just a bunch of jargon smushed together. Generally, I think paraphrasing is fine and disclosure is good, but I can be convinced either way.

If you're going to read an actual warranted framework, it needs to be read by first rebuttal at the latest. "Offensive overviews" in second rebuttal are dumb, and my threshold for a good response is much lower.

evidence < warrant < evidence + warrant

Cross doesn't matter (I'll still listen), but concessions are binding. Also, please be nice, it's really not that hard.

Frontline in second rebuttal. Conceded defense doesn't need to be extended in first summary (but definitely in FF)

Earlier the weighing the better. I'll allow new weighing in first final if there's no other weighing in the round, but nothing expanding on existing weighing (no new evidence, prereq analysis, etc.)

If you're going to do weighing, please do more than just pointing out that your impact number is larger. Obviously, I'll still evaluate it, but I want actual comparisons between arguments. Weighing impacts on probability makes no sense, please stop doing it. Strength of link means nothing to me if I don't have some kind of metric for comparing the strength of different links and a reason for why I should care about a link's relative strength.

I prefer slower tech rounds. Speed is still totally fine, just remember that the faster you go, the more likely it is that I miss something, and I'm not flowing off a speech doc. If you go fast in the first half, please at least slow down a little in the back half, especially in final focus.

If you don't signpost in summary and final focus, I will have no idea what is going on in the round, especially if you're going super fast and ignoring the line-by-line

I don't flow card names. If you say a card name, you need to tell me what the card says (including when you're extending stuff in sum/ff).

Please time each other. No grace period, finish what you were saying if you started before time was up, anything else won't be flowed

Extend the full link chain + warrants + evidence for whatever argument you're collapsing on in both summary and final focus. I will not evaluate something if it's not in both speeches or you just skip over your entire link story. Please don't make me drop you because you didn't extend something.

Pleeeeeease collapse.

Nothing new in summary or final focus unless it's responding to something new the other team read in their previous speech, except for weighing.

I default first speaking team.

I start at 28 speaks, and I'll go up or down based on how well I can understand you and how well you debate. Debating well with poor clarity warrants higher speaks than speaking clearly but debating poorly. I will probably give somebody a 30. I won't go lower than 27 unless you say something bigoted or are just straight up being mean.

Post rounding is fine. If you really think you won, odds are I missed something because you went too fast, and it was super blippy.

You don't have to call me judge, Arjun is fine and kinda preferred

For email chains, use arjunrsingh333@gmail.com

If you have any other questions, you can ask me before the round. I am willing to change any part of my paradigm if both teams agree (speech times are non-negotiable).

TL;DR

Extend through summary/final focus and weigh to win

I have been debating and doing IE's as a competitor and judge since the 1970's with a long break in the 90's and 2000's while working in the private sector. I have been coaching a team that does primarily Oregon-style parli and Public Forum debate, but I did NDT and CEDA as a college competitor and understand all formats.

I judge as a policy maker looking for justification to adopt the resolution, and will accept well-justified arguments on both substance (the issues of the resolution) and procedure (framework, theory). In policy rounds I have a bias against affirmative K's, because I believe the Aff prima facie burden requires that I be given a reason to adopt the resolution by the end of the first Aff constructive in order to give the Aff the ballot. Arguments founded in social justice approaches are fine as long as they lead to a justification for adopting the resolution and changing the status quo.

I can handle speed but remember I'm not seeing your documentation--a warrant read 600 words a minute at the pitch of a piece of lawn equipment might as well not be read from the judge's seat. You flash each other, but not me, so make sure I understand why your evidence supports your argument. I won't debate for you, and I don't flow cross-ex/crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument, introduce it during one of your speeches. In formats other than policy, particularly in Public Forum, I expect a slower rate and more emphasis on persuasion with your argumentation as befits the purpose of those other formats. In LD, I expect arguments to be grounded in values, not "imitation policy."

I will automatically drop any debater who engages in ad hominem attacks--arguments may be claimed to have, for example, racist impacts, but if you call your opponents "racists," you lose--we have too much of that in the contemporary world now, and we are trying to teach you better approaches to argument and critical thinking.

Above all else, I like good argumentation, clash, and respectful conduct. No personal attacks, no snark. Humor welcome. Let's have some fun.

Hello, my name is Ninad Tambe.

Few things to keep in mind:

- I have basic topic knowledge but I would appreciate really clear arguments so that I know at the end of the round without a doubt who I should vote for.

- I can't understand speed, so if anybody goes too fast for me, I reserve the right to shout "CLEAR" or stop taking notes. If you see my pen go up or you see me stop writing, that should be a cue that you're going too fast for me and you've lost me.

- Please don't be rude or overly aggressive, especially in cross - I want to see reasonable and calm crossfires, not the two speakers shouting at each other.

- I appreciate humor, and if you can make me laugh (NOT at the expense of your opponents) I'll award extra speaks.

- If you cannot prove to me why the impact of your case is more important than the opponents', I will have to decide myself.

Good luck to everyone!

Hi I am Miranda Vega. I competed in PF debate, Congress, info, and various interp events in high school, and now I am the assistant coach for ACPHS. This will be my 4th year judging debate, so I am looking forward to it! I will disclose quickly after the round if time permits; however, I will not disclose if the tournament directors explicitly tell me not to, or if one of the competitors are not comfortable with it. I do try and provide really extensive feedback within the ballots but for some reason if I forget to finish it or it cuts off please email me @ mirandakathleenvega@gmail.com you put in a lot of time and effort and you deserve your feedback.

(ASU Congress scroll all the way to the bottom)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is some general paradigms I have:

Spreading: I think this is an educational activity; therefore, I do not like any sneaky tactics that give you an unfair advantage, like talking at the speed of light. For this reason, I HATE SPREADING, I think this makes debate inaccessible for the general person, and forces your opponent to also spread so they can respond to all of your points. This is especially true for debate formats like PF and BQ, as they are meant for lay judges. DONT SPREAD IN PF AND BQ. If you spread in PF or BQ two things will happen. Generally I will be very annoyed and hate judging the round, and I will not get very much down on the flow which will more likely than not lead to you losing the round. At a certain point I just stop flowing, and as a tech judge you are probably going to get the L. If you are going to spread in LD and CX, that is fine. HOWEVER, you should only be spreading the card text and I should still be able to understand what you are saying. If you are mumbling and I don't know what you are saying then I am not going to understand the evidence being read. You need to slow down on the Contention Names, card names, tags, warrants, and analytics. Spreading anything that isn't card text will ultimately end up with me not really flowing and you, most likely, losing the round. Debate is an oral argument so I should be able to hear and understand what you are saying. That is why if you are going to spread you only spread card text. Anything else I won't get on the Flow

Evidence Violations:If I catch you committing an evidence violation I will automatically drop you and cite that as the reason for the loss. Evidence violations are getting worse on the circuit and I believe it is no longer enough to just drop the argument. So make sure your card says what is says and don't misconstrue the evidence. This also includes debater math. You can't just mush two stats together and call it a day.

Cross examination/fire: I never flow this. I am typically writing in the ballot during this time; however, I am still paying a bit of attention to make sure you guys are being respectful to each other. If I notice it is getting out of hand I will give a warning to the person being disrespectful, and if it happens again then I will drop debater. If something completely and horribly disrespectful happens in round (racism, sexism, xenophobia, ableism), I will just drop debater. This is also a period for you to clarify things, not do another rebuttal. CX no tag teaming. The reason I say this is that 1). It was never originally meant to be that way anyway 2) that is time that your partner can be prepping. No tag teaming.

Tech>truth: you still have to tell me that your opponents dropped something I am not just going to automatically flow that through. Also, if you run something really far fetched you can, but the second your opponent calls it out as such I am less likely to buy it.

No sticky defense: if you drop an argument it is conceded in the round. That doesn't mean I am just going to automatically flow it to the opposing team. They still have to extend in every speech that it is conceded. If you pick up a dropped argument, I will not weigh it at the end of the round. Generally, when you do that you are wasting time that you can be telling me why you should win the round.

Signpost:Please please please signpost! Telling me you are responding to the first contention isn't enough. Tell me "On their C2, "specific warrant", we have "number" of responses". Or for progressives tell me what part of the progressive you are going to attach. If you are responding to a DISAD tell me if you are responding to uniqueness, external link, impact or internal link. Please be as organized and specific as possible. If you are going to address an argument as a whole TELL ME THAT, and tell me why that should be enough.

Weigh: Tell me why you win! Please weigh for me! If I have to do this you may not like the outcome. Also, it is not enough to tell me "I outweigh therefore I win". How do you outweigh? Are you outweighing on magnitude, scope, timeframe???

Extensions:You MUST extend in every speech. However, just saying EXTEND is not an extension. You need to analytically interact with your opponent's responses and tell me why I should buy your argument over theirs.

Everybody should time their own prep: I am timing speeches and cross. There is no 10 second grace period, I don't know where everyone got this rule from, but it doesn't exist. I stop flowing at the end of the time regardless if you keep speaking.

STAND FOR ALL SPEECHES AND CX PLEASE (exception GCF in PF)

If aff doesn't win enough offense or impacts for me to weigh that offense I presume negation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLIC FORUM

The paradigms mentioned above are pretty much it.

If no framework is mentioned my default is a cost-benefit analysis.

The team that wins my ballot will tell me why their impacts outweigh the others.

NO PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS. I can't believe that I have to say this, but this is a lay friendly debate format. There is also not enough time to properly run and respond to them. I will drop the argument if it is run. Please just don't I will be so annoyed. If that is something you love to do then join LD or CX, but no progressives in PF.

I don't take prep time for calling and reading cards. That being said. If a card is called and it cant be located within 2 min it is dropped. It should be already cut and easily found. If there is a tech issue that is different. That being said. If you are reading the card don't take an eternity either.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POLICY DEBATE

Refer to the general paradigms I listed above.

You can put me on the email chain with my email, but know that I am only flowing what I hear you say. You can spread but ONLY CARD TEXT. You need to slow down on your tags, warrants, impacts etc and for your analysis for why I should extend your argument further in the round. I am NOT going to yell clear, so if you see me stop flowing you need to slow down otherwise you are most likely going to lose the round.

Run whatever you want, just make sure that what ever you are running is formatted correctly.

SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST PLEASE I BEG OF YOU For some reason policy people don't sign post enough. If you are reading responses to a disad or the plan you should tell me what parts you are responding to so for example this is what I am expecting:

"Onto the [BLANK] Disadvantage. First onto uniqueness, we have [#] of responses. 1) response response response 2) response response response. Then onto the external link we have [#] of responses" That is what I am expecting when I say signpost.

Any other questions please ask me!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

I think I have judged LD on a circuit only a few times. I judge my LD kids all the time, and judge Policy now on the circuit regularly.

Like I said no spreading but card text. If there is an email chain put me on it, just know that I am only flowing what I hear.

The way I will judge the round is whoever wins under the winning framework. So just because you don't win your framework doesn't mean you can't win the debate. If you can still prove to me that you solve for the standard better than your opponent I will vote for you. That being said I understand that sometimes your arguments may be mutually exclusive from your opponents.

Since I judge policy so often I am fine with progressives run whatever! I am cool with K's, performance K's if you want (just make sure your K's are well linked), any plans or CPs I am cool with.

If you have any other questions please let me know!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESS

For the love of all that is holy, this is Congress not debate. Do not use debate jargon. Dont say drop, extend, my opponent, vote aff.... this is Congress you say "pass this bill" or "fail this bill", "my fellow representative/senator" etc...

PLEASE TAKE YOUR SPLITS BEFORE THE ROUND! My biggest pet peeve judging Congress is when y'all agree on a docket, and there is no first aff or neg. And you have to take a bunch of 1 minute recesses. Those are also a pet peeve.

I really do not like rehash, at a certain point in the cycle you need to start doing rebuttal speeches and if you are all the way at the end of the cycle then do a crystallization speech.

Try not to rely heavily on your legal pad.

The more you sound like a Congress person the better you will rank. Rhetoric is your best friend.

I will rank PO pretty high if you do a good job. I won't rank PO in the top 6 though if there are A LOT of precedence and recency errors.

I've coached Speech & Debate for around a decade now. I do not support any form of progressive debate in PF. Prove you understand the resolution and the content of the topic. Here’s some advice:

- No spreading, I’ll say “clear” if you need to slow down

- Use taglines and signpost to maintain clarity of flow

- I do not flow cross examination so be sure to include ideas in speech

- I am a believer in pragmatism over the ideological

- Clear elaboration and correlation is as important as card use

-Link the arguments, don't make assumptions or just point to a card

-It should not take over a minute to find cards, please be familiar with your evidence

- Keep the round moving, I’ll keep time of speeches and prep

TLDR: Tech > Truth; pretty standard flow judge; follow the line-by-line; there's no need to go super saiyan speed; strong warranting + weighing wins my ballot; skip to the bottom to find some fun speaks boosters (please use these and entertain me. . . please)

Bio: Competed in PF for all four years mostly on the local circuit but also a bit on the national circuit (unfortunate small school tingz :/) at Paradise Valley in Phoenix, AZ; senior at ASU studying Math, CS, and Econ.

Argumentation:

- All substance arguments fly as long as they are well warranted

- Warranted cards >>> Warranted analytics >>> bEcAuSe tHe evIdEnCe sAys sO

- Do not trust me to properly evaluate progressive arguments, I'll probably make a decision that you don't like; if you want to read disclosure theory, then you should probably rethink that strategy

- Weak warranting on an argument means weak responses are sufficient

Structure:

- Arguments that you want evaluated should be extended with a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus

- Second rebuttal and first summary must frontline, otherwise it's conceded

- First summary should extend turns and key defense

- Do not extend through ink, I will drop the argument if you do

- Road maps, signposting, and numbering responses are fantastic, do it

- Collapse and avoid messy rounds; if you want to kick out of something, explain what defense you are conceding and why it kicks out of the turn

- DAs / Overviews are cool, but don't just read a new contention disguised as one

Weighing:

- Just do it. Please. Otherwise I'll decide what's more important and you probably won't like what I pick

- Real comparative analysis, not just "wE oUtwEigH beCauSe 900 mIllIon LiVes iS mOrE tHaN $500 miLliOn"

- Carded weighing overviews/framing should come in rebuttal; other traditional mechanisms can come up through summary

Speaks:

- Speaker points are dumb so I will try to be generous (no free 30s though)

Speed:

- Slow rounds > fast rounds; I can handle some speed but the faster you go, the more I might miss

- Slow down on argument tags; I don't flow author names

- If you plan on spreading...don't

Evidence:

- Read the author, date, and source, it's not that hard

- I'll call for evidence only if either team tells me to

Misc:

- Don’t be a dick; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - that's a real quick way for me to drop you immediately and tank your speaks

- I like a relaxed, informal, and chill vibe in rounds. Good jokes are great. You can swear, I don’t care.

- Wear whatever the hell you want. Be comfortable!

- Creative references to sports (basketball, football, soccer, tennis, cricket, F1, etc.), chess, or Kendrick Lamar will get you a boost in speaks

- Have fun!

Experience: I have 4 years of experience in high school policy debate at CK McClatchy (2009-2013), and a semester of policy at Arizona State University (2013). I have coached policy debate at Chandler Preparatory Academy (Spring 2014-Fall 2018) and was the head coach at BASIS Chandler (Spring 2017-Fall 2019), policy coach at McClintock High School (Spring 2022), and policy coach at Skyline High School (Fall 2023-April 2024).

I will to listen to any argument provided that I am given a reason why it should affect my decision. Make sure to tell me how I should evaluate and weigh arguments. The more freedom I am given to think for myself, the more likely I am to make decisions that hurt your position in the round. I am comfortable with speed and focus on resolving substantive issues on the flow in order to make my decision, though I'm fully open to theory arguments.

Please ask me if there is anything specific that you would like to know not included in this paradigm. I try to keep it short because I believe that the point of the debate round is to establish both the facts and the framework for the decision, and writing down my every opinion on debate theory doesn't seem productive for allowing you to debate the way you want.

Email: longdsyee@gmail.com

I am the Scott Woods who teaches and coaches at BASIS Scottsdale in Arizona. There are others. For instance, I am not the slam poet Scott Woods (although I enjoy his work), so if you try a slam poetry case because you think that your judge is a pretty famous slam poet, you will probably be disappointed by the ballot.

About me: I teach middle school English and high school speech and debate. I competed in interp and platform events in college. I'm a Scoutmaster, a Republican, and I go to church regularly. Many people who know me don't believe that I am as conservative as I think I am.

I want the debate round to be for the benefit of the debaters. I have been coaching and judging debate for several years, mostly in PF, but some LD. I also judge policy rounds occasionally. I've judged at the TOC four times and at NSDA Nationals three times. When I judge on a panel, my decision is often different from the majority, possibly because my judging skills are so refined and subtle, or maybe for other reasons that escape me.

I think of debate as an educational game that should be fun, challenging, and life changing for the good. I don't like sneaky approaches to debate, tricks, or unsporting behavior. I especially don't like anything that attempts to achieve an unfair advantage over an opponent. Among the behaviors I don't like to see are spreading, because it seeks to gain a time advantage by squeezing more content in the given time, forcing one's opponent either to spread or to be disadvantaged, because it makes debate into a ridiculous exercise (and I consider making good things appear ridiculous in order to achieve personal gain to be bad form), and because it is aesthetically unpleasant (and I consider intentional ugliness inflicted on others to be bad form). Also, if you spread I won't flow as much, won't understand as much, and won't believe you as much. If both teams spread, then I'll just have to guess at who won, which is very likely something that you don't want me to do. Please speak in a clear, persuasive voice at a reasonable public debate speed, and be sure to point out when the other side is spreading, show the harms, then show why they should lose on that. I'll probably buy it.

If your debate strategy includes using tactics that have the effect of giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent, your chances of winning will go down. Your arguments should give you the advantage, not your sneaky approach, your hidden claims, your abusive framework, or your tricky wording. Again, call out your opponent's sneakiness. This is especially fun and elegant in an LD round when your opponent values morality, justice, fairness, etc., and you call them out for violating standards of morality, justice, or fairness.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts. Show me magnitude and probability. I will evaluate these by taking on the stance of an intelligent person who is well educated, open minded, and not a fool. If you read a card but don't put it into the context of a clear argument, then I won't care about it. You have to use evidence to support your warranted arguments. Your cards are your evidence. I hear many LDers giving lengthy quotes of dense philosophy, without contextualizing the quoted speech. I would much prefer that you summarize the entire argument of the philosopher clearly, briefly, and accurately, rather than quoting some paragraph that seems to support your interpretation. I almost never buy appeals to authority. If you say that Philosopher X says Y, therefore Y is true, I will probably not believe you. Feel free to call your opponent on this.

Since I think that debate is a worthwhile activity that can positively shape the character of youth, I value having fun and being nice. I don't want to spend an hour or so with people who are being mean to each other. Let's have fun and enjoy the round.

I won't leave my knowledge, training, or prejudices at the door, mainly because I can't (if I were truly tabula rasa, I would be an infant or an imbecile). Instead, I'll try to be aware of them and limit the impact of my own opinions or knowledge on the debate. If you don't make the argument, I will try not to make it for you. You must do all the work in the debate. I will, however, apply my knowledge of effective argumentation and the "reasonable person" test to the arguments in the debate. If you give me a weighing method and a clear path to signing the ballot for you, your chances of winning the round go up. Please understand that I will fail to leave behind my biases, assumptions, prejudices, etc. This is a feature of being human. We can't control the processes of our thought very well, and we are largely unaware of what guides and controls our thinking. Your job as a debater is to make these biases, assumptions, and prejudices irrelevant against the overwhelming power of your arguments. Good luck.

Please understand that I will likely be judging you after having taught children all day or having traveled a long distance and slept poorly. I will probably not be at my best. This is true for many of your judges. You should consider taking this into account when you write your cases and make your arguments. After you lose a round that you think you should have won, don't complain about the stupid judge. Instead, consider what you could have done differently to compensate for that judge not being at his or her cognitive best. That's your responsibility. I don't want to think during a round. Thinking is hard. It's not my job. I often disappoint debaters when I am required to think. Your job is to pre-think the round for me, better than your opponent does. The team that does this best will win.

It's up to the round to decide on the framework. If your framework is abusive or unreasonable, I'll drop it and favor your opponent's analysis, especially if your opponent calls it out as such. I prefer realistic frameworks that generously look at the resolution as though the debate were really a public forum (even in LD) for discussing an important issue. I also prefer realistic arguments that are accessible to the public.

It bothers me when debaters don't know their case because someone else wrote it, they haven't researched the topic, or they are just using the cards that came with the briefs without trying to understand the bigger picture. This become a problem when debaters misinterpret cards or philosophers they don't understand. If your opponent calls you on your card and disputes what it means, then I will call for the card at the end of the debate and make my own judgment. I don't want to do this for a number of reasons, mainly because I don't want to do the work that you should be doing. That being said, I know a lot about many subjects, so if I think that you are misinterpreting a card, I may call for it, even if your opponent has not called you out on it. I don't like to do this, but I also don't like misinterpreted or false cards to affect a round, and I don't expect high school students to have comprehensive knowledge of the world. If I think that your card was misinterpreted, then I will drop the argument it supports.

Please do the work for me. Make it easy for me to decide who wins. Tell the story of the round. Be organized on the flow in your rebuttals.

If your opponent calls for a card, they may continue to prep while you search for it, without that time counting against their prep. This is the procedure at the TOC, which I particularly like because it encourages teams to provide their opponents with the cards they ask for in a timely manner. If you don't have the card, and the context surrounding it, then I will drop the argument that is supported by the card. If your card clearly says something other than what you say it does, I will very likely vote for the other side. Please don't misrepresent your evidence.

Regarding policy debate: Every round that I have judged in policy debate has come down to judge adaptation. Whoever adapts best to my limitations as a judge (see above) will likely win the round (or, if you prefer, my ballot). My recommendation is that policy debaters should have two cases: one that they normally run and another that they write for judge adaptation. Debaters should also practice adaptation whenever they can, making sure that their arguments are comprehensible (at a minimum) and convincing (this should be the target) to normal, educated people.

I am a parent lay judge. This is my third year judging PF.

Please speak slowly and clearly. Clearly express your side and argument. Be polite and respectful to judges and your opponents, and display good sportsmanship.

I am a parent lay judge and have judged a several both speech and debate rounds.

Please speak slowly and clearly. Clearly express your side and argument and tell me which side of the debate (pro, con) you are going to talk about in a speech. Be polite and respectful to judges and your opponents, and display good sportsmanship.

Pronouns: They/She

Email: patriciayango@arizona.edu

I am a 2020 graduate of Perry High School (AZ) and a 4 year competitor in a variety of speech and debate events at both the local and national levels. I am competing for the University of Arizona. I'm the Arizona District Assistant Coach of the Year (2021).

tldr; signpost always. run whatever you want (no trix tho pls). check your privilege.

you are responsible for the weighing, extensions, and impact calc (and explaining unfamiliar lit).regardless of if you debate trad or progressive, good comparative impact calc will prob win you my ballot. if i don't understand ur contention, i probably wont vote on it. if i don't understand ur k/t/phil/da/cp/whatever else i probably wont vote on it.

i am a lazy judge. in an ideal world, you are filling out my ballot for me. tell me what i need to vote on EARLY IN THE ROUND and why. if you leave that up to me, you probably wont be happy with my RFD. pretty much any argument goes as long as you have a warrant and can explain it well.

I am a parent judge and have judged more than thirty rounds in several tournaments since October, 2021.

I favor clear structure, comprehensibility, and the quality of arguments over quantity and complexity. I am not a subject matter expert on the topics you are debating. So I will listen to you very intently, take notes, and do my best to render a fair and balanced decision.

Please number your contentions so that I can keep better track of them, as well as using your opponent's numbers in your rebuttal. In judging, I will consider the clarity and organization of your case, whether and/or how well you respond to your opponent's case, the impact of your case vs. the impact of your opponent's case as well as your professionalism, clarity of speech and sportsmanship.

I really care about final summary and final focus which can give you another chance to convince me to vote for you. I am not a native English speaker, so please speak clearly and slowly. If I can not understand you, I cannot vote for you. I am not a professional judge which means that I don't know the detailed technique debate skills. I only vote for the team who can make me understand and convince me by their well organized and thorough arguments. 

By the way, I don't like the very aggressive attitude. Please be polite and respectful to your opponents. 

Have fun and good luck!

I am a parent judge. I'd always like to try on different things in my life, being a speech debate judge is an eye-opening experience to me. I'd like to see different debaters show their professional skills in the events, while being respectful to their rivals. That being said, I vote my ballots mainly based on the actual performance of the debate teams.

BTW, I am a relatively new judge, and I cannot judge for varsity debate.