Speech Paradigm

H! My name is Griffin. It is my pleasure to be your judge for speech. I have judged and coached circuits including NSDA, TOC, WSDA, NHSDLC, CHSSA and GGSA. All topics of speeches are acceptable to me and a more or less emotional piece, performance, speech topic or approach will not automatically score you higher in a round.

Foundational speaking skills are taken heavily into consideration when judging a performance.

Volume -Being clearly heard and not too quiet is essential for engagement with the audience.
Gestures -A moderate balance of gestures are important for visual engagement of the speaker or your characters during a performance.
Eye Contact - Eye contact with an audience shows confidence as well as creates further visual engagement with an audience.
Memorization - Memorized pieces are required in order to score at the top of a round. Memorization means fluency and shows the dedication and practice
Stumbling - If you stumble, fumble your words or other spoken errors. Do not worry, just breathe and continue. You want your speech as confidence as possible.
Emotion - Passion, emotion and tone are very important for conveying the mood of your words to an audience
Stage Presence - A strong speaker will captivate the stage and will make for a much higher score over the course of a round.
Content - If your content is too simple, or not depthful, it will most likely hurt my interest in your piece

Remember to have fun, performance is a gift. You are all very talented and should be proud of your performance.

Debate Paradigm

Hi! My name is Griffin. It is my pleasure to be your judge for debate. I have judged and coached circuits including NSDA, TOC, WSDA, NHSDLC, CHSSA and GGSA. I approach debates with an open-mind and no inherent bias towards any argument pro or con. Tech, Circuit, Flow Judge. This means I take notes on everything and prioritize technical arguments and abilities over emotional narratives.

Very Important

I am not a fan of judge interference. This means I do not like to interject or connect the dots for your team. Succinct explanations are essential for me to be willing to favor your arguments. Lines like, "this helps all of the economy, or this helps society be better" without any explanation is going to be a meaningless sentence. Furthermore, saying "we had bigger impacts, or we have more evidence" without explanation will also hold zero weight in my considerations for your team.

Views on Evidence vs Analytics

1. Firstly, analytics are not a substitute for evidence. This means that you cannot say you have proven a point which is solely built on conjecture and expect me to believe it.
   
   
2. Secondly, evidence must be portrayed accurately. I will ask for a card myself if I feel it is not accurate or too perfectly read. Misrepresented evidence will hurt the overall persuasiveness of your argument.
   
   
3. Thirdly, I weigh evidence as having more value than analytics. This means that if you try to outweigh or deny an argument with solely logic, it will most likely not hold in weight or persuasiveness compared to an effective piece of evidence.

General Things

1. I live for the line-by-line debating.
2. A rebuttal that clearly signposts which part of a contention you are responding to will be taken more effectively.
3. Direct responses with warrants are taken at more value over indirect general responses.
4. Line-by-line frontlines with signposts will be taken at more value than indirect general responses.
5. Spreading is fine for me, and I will not count against it you as long as the speaker has clarity.
6. If you insult your opponent during cross-examination with an attack outside the scope of the debate, I will vote against your team.
7. I flow crossfire examination and take heavy consideration on what happens during crossfire. That being said, if you keep cutting your opponent off and then say, "they did not respond to our points," I will not take that comment at any value. Let your opponent answer the question.
8. Clashes which clearly establish the impact weighing mechanisms (probability, magnitude, timeframe, scope, reversibility) are very effective.
9. No new arguments in Final Focus. New arguments will not be flowed or given any weight in the debate.

Expectations:

Clarity: Clear communication is crucial. Speak at a pace that allows for understanding and enunciation of arguments.

Argumentation: Present well-developed arguments supported by evidence and logic. I value quality over quantity.

Clash: Engage with your opponents' arguments and provide meaningful rebuttals. Directly address the key points of contention.

Weighing: Provide comparative analysis and weigh the impacts of competing arguments. Show why your side's impacts outweigh those of your opponents.

Respect: Maintain professionalism and respect for your opponents throughout the round. Adhere to time limits and avoid disrespectful behavior.

Thank you and I look forward to watching and judging.

Lay judge with limited experience.

Suggestions for contestants: Be respectful, stick to the facts, watch the timer.

Parent judge with no prior experience.

Please be respectful and speak clearly.

Try to avoid using debate jargon and make sure to explain your arguments thoroughly, as anything that goes unexplained may not be taken into consideration.

Hello Participants,

These are my expectations for a scholastic debate:

1. Conciseness. Please refrain from repeating yourself over and over again.

2. I like to see a flow based on logic. Your argument should be driven by facts and not opinion.

- First speakers: For your summary speech, make sure to clearly state which contentions you want me to consider during final focus/voting issues.

3. Speak at a conversational pace - Like to see inflection points as appropriate.

4. Please sign post/give me an off-time roadmap of your argument.

5. Remember that while it's okay to be assertive when debating, I will not tolerate rudeness or derogatory comments.

6. I'll allow a 5-10 second grace period for you to finish your thoughts at the end of speeches, but don't be afraid to call each other out on time.

All the best!

add me to the chain: stefan.boone12@gmail.com

Frontlining:

I believe that defense should be sticky. My likelihood of believing/accepting frontlines decreases as the round progresses. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required.

This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. But you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to.

Extensions of Defense:

With a three minute summary, I think it's not too difficult to extend defense in the summary speeches. So please do so. At all times, extending defense is a great way of reinforcing your point and persuading me more. (However, dropped defense sticks to infinity if it goes unresponded to by the other team)

More specifically, you must extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped.

Second summary should definitely be extending defense and responding to frontlines that are made, but I will allow defensive extensions from second rebuttal to second final focus, because I think frontlining is super important to debate. But, again, the more you repeat/extend an argument, the more likely it is that I understand it and I factor it into my decision.

Extensions of Offense:

an extension of an argument is only accepted if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances

keep your summaries and final foci consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments)

Please consolidate the debate as early as possible (2nd rebuttal + First summary) into the most important arguments, then focus on those arguments. I prefer 1 well-explained, well-extended, well-weighed argument over 100 that aren't done very well.

Weighing:

don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponents' to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.

Evidence Stuff:

I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well With this in mind, there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.

1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.

2. There are competing interepretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.

3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.

Speed:

You can go pretty quickly in terms of speed for a PF round, but don't be full on spreading unless a) you can be super clear while doing it and b) your opponents are ok with it. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing.

Tech vs Truth:

i'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well

Miscellaneous:

i vote for the neg on presumption unless warranting given for a different way of presuming.

i will always prefer the more clear, specific, and well-warranted argument.

i am mostly inexperienced with theory and K debate. I don't think you should run it in front of me.

Speaks - ill give the highest the tournament allows me to

I cannot keep up with speeds over around 900 words /four minute. Give a speech doc if u plan on going faster.

please ask any questions you may have before the round

Judge, Judge Contreras, or just Contreras are fine

pronouns: they/them/theirs (don't call me miss/ma'am)

Head Coach at LC Anderson HS in Texas

Email chain: theedebatecoach@gmail.com

Order:

1. General Comments
2. PF
3. LD
4. Congress
5. Miscellaneous

1. General Comments

Trigger warnings are a norm you should be taking part in. Allowing competitors the chance to opt-out is not only encouraged but extremely important for making this activity safe. This is true for every event but more true for some- DI, looking at you!

I will not rank a triggering performance first. There’s no need for you to vividly reenact violence and suffering at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning (or like, ever). Triggering performances without trigger warnings will have their rank reflect the performance. Use your talent to tell a story, not to exploit pain. I have a "you should do a different piece" mindset on this issue and if you can't reenact that narrative without exploiting suffering, something is wrong.

If I'm judging your round and another competitor triggers you, you are welcome to quietly get up and walk out during their performance. I will not dock or punish you for this, your mental health is the most important. Please take care of yourself and each other!!

Respect and safety are crucial to speech and debate. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, transphobia, or any other kind of discrimination in or outside of round. If another competitor or participant is making you feel unsafe, you can always bring it to me. That behavior in round will be reflected in your speaks and on the ballot.

I love novices, I love fundamentals of debate. I will answer any questions after round to the best of my ability if we are respectful and wanting to learn. That also means do NOT dunk on novices in front of me. Reading 6 off on a novice might win you the ballot but I will tank your speaks.

I don’t disclose speaks.

Number responses!! the art of a clean flow/speech seems to be lost or at least elusive.

Broke: is anyone not ready?

Woke: Is everyone ready?

2. Public Forum

I’m fully flay. While I will evaluate most things, a K in PF is an uphill battle. I’m used to LD-style K’s and they have the advantage of longer speech times that PF doesn’t have. My flowing is strong, if I miss an argument it’s because it’s blippy. I don’t use the doc in PF because you should not be going fast enough to necessitate that.

My least favorite trend in PF is how cards are cut. Please include at least a paragraph of context. Your tagline should be an actual claim! “Furthermore” “concerningly” and “luckily” are NOT taglines. This is bad evidence ethics and if it comes down to a card v. card debate, yours will lose.

My second least favorite trend is insufficient extensions.

Extensions mean: tag/author and warranting. You don’t need to reread the card, you DO need to restate the claim and warrant.

I like theory. TFA rules allow tournaments to decide if judges can vote on disclosure. If allowed by tournament hosts, I will evaluate it.

3. Lincoln Douglas

I’m much more lay in LD. I will use the doc to flow but only if I’m in outrounds on a tech panel. In prelims, you should adapt. Many debaters believe they can spread, few debaters can achieve those speeds with clarity. Lay appeal is important, persuasiveness is important, style is important. If I’m your judge, that’s a great opportunity to improve upon those skills! I will reward adaptation with high speaks.

I like stock/policy arguments, theory/T, counterplans and am most comfortable with these arguments. I love framework debate.

Ks are really interesting to me, you will need to do more judge instruction and comparative to win on one but I will absolutely vote on the Kritik.

4. Congress

I love judging congress and don’t get to do it often. I listen just as much to content as I do to presentation and both factor into your rank. I appreciate a full buy-in to the congress LARPing (AGDs about your interns and time on the floor) and tend to prefer those to personal anecdotes. Intros are important, they need to be relevant to the topic, concise, cleanly delivered (ideally memorized), and impactful.

2 points, 2-3 sources per point.

Clash!!! It’s called congressional debate for a reason!

Good questions are everything! Being active in the round sets you apart from your fellow representatives.

I reward strong PO skills with high ranks in prelims. In finals, I do my best to fairly evaluate the PO vs. the speakers.

5. Miscellaneous

I occasionally judge World Schools Debate. In Worlds, I don't have as much technical knowledge about the nuances of WSD but will flow, watch for extensions, responses, and weighing/worlds comparatives. I will evaluate the round based on the argumentation, evidence, and logic. Prepare to do judge instruction and explain WSD jargon. Be so explicit about why your side and your world is better than your opponent's.

One time at a national circuit tournament, a PFer asked me if I "could evaluate complicated arguments"- don't do this. I will evaluate the most complex argument if you, the debater, can simplify, explain, defend, and weigh said arguments in the round. If I can't follow your case, it's either: a) so tangentially related that it's irrelevant, b) not clearly explained, or c) lacking links in your logic or evidence chain that would make it make sense.

Email chain please: gdetuya@columbushs.com

PF:

PLEASE DO NOT PARAPHRASE YOUR CASE OR MISCUT EVIDENCE. YOU RISK JUDGE INTERVENTION WHEN EVIDENCE ETHICS IS QUESTIONABLE

PF/LD

1. CLARITY IS KEY!! That applies to speech, organization, signposting, etc.

2. Please warrant your claims and evidence once brought up, not later in the round or next speech (see point 1)

3. Speed is... okay I guess. I only judge what I can flow however, so I cannot say I am going to get everything down if you are spreading. I definitely prefer slower more traditional rounds. With that said, if you want to spread make sure your opponent is okay with it. You shouldn't spread/speed in PF, it's in the rules and norms of the event. It is called PUBLIC forum for a reason. With that said I will still vote on T args like disco, but be clear on your interps hand harms.

LD: Though I used to judge policy years ago - in the intervening years y'all have gotten better at speed while also running tons of tech. Hard for me to keep up with both. My level of experience says I should be able to handle tech rounds, and I wont drop on some principal that all tech is bad ~(unless you're running tricks ), but be aware that you're running the risk that I dont catch something.

4. I studied philosophy during my time in university. I don’t like K debate. Most Ks stitch together noncontextual links, but if it isnt, I will vote on it if done well. Please do not throw out theory or K's without having done the necessary background research to really know what you are talking about. Links should be lock tight. The round will be messy because of if not, which takes us back to point 1 on clarity.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

1. Slow down, this isn't policy. You not only need to argue effectively, you need to persuade.

2. Principled arguments >>> specific examples and evidence. Not to say you shouldn't have specific evidence, but often the more philosophical grounds of reasoning get left out in favor of, basically, carded evidence.

3. New arguments in the back half of the debate are unadvisable and don't allow the other side enough time to have a developed response.

4. Keep your eye aware for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion. If you're asking POIs, keep it to 15 sec or less, dont badger your opponents with multiple back to back attempts at asking.

5. Framework is something that should basically be agreed on by the end of the second speeches. In instances where it isnt (and for most cases, it really shouldnt be - lets have reasonable grounds for debate here) disagreements should then be handled as permutations (their highest ground, our highest ground) so I at least have responses on each side if framework is a push or if I am eft to decide who presented the most common sense definitions/burdens/etc. Win on substance. Please.

I am a parent judge (read Lay Judge :-)

My paradigm is

1. Clear and Slow in both Speech and Debate, so that it is easy for me to understand
2. Structured presentation, demonstrating clarity of thought, so that I can follow your contentions and speech
3. Robust roadmap, so that I know what you are going to tell me
4. Logical flow of thoughts that tie back to your thesis and roadmap ensuring I am not lost
5. I am analytical and critical, so not easily swayed by tangential statistics and overload of references that don't support your contention. I am looking for examples that support your argument and thesis. 
6. I am a parent judge, so my feedback is geared completely at making you better.
7. Most importantly, all contestants are typically so good, it is extremely difficult to pick the top 3-5 places, there are usually very minor nits that differentiate. A contestant ranked fifth is almost as good,  if not the same, as contestant ranked first. While this is not fair to the contestants, the reality is that I am forced to pick 1st to 5th place and sometimes very minor nits force my hand.  So please don't be discouraged. 

Good luck. Remember, you are all amazing. I applaud you on choosing to spend your fun childhood years on rigorous and tough extra curricular activities, like Speech and Debate competitions, instead of random texting. You are all winners in my book, just for making this difficult choice. 

Email: hannahdu@gmail.com

I am a lay judge with limited knowledge of the debate topics. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable rate of speed.

I like well organized arguments with supporting citations and evidences. Please have the full original cards available to share in case they are requested.

Lay Judge

* Speak slowly and clearly. Keep things simple and logical. Don't use debate jargon.

* When you read evidence, please say reasons behind it also (don't just say we have _ card and move on).

* I prefer reason over evidence. I like when teams remind me of their final case arguments but don't spend a whole minute on it - just say it in one or two sentences.

* If you collapse, please say clearly that you are collapsing.

* I don't believe improbable arguments like nuclear war and extinction. A piece of advice is to run smaller impacts for me to believe and vote for it.

* Please be respectful to each other

Thx and have fun.

TL DR

Treat me like a lay judge, probably.

I debated for Lake Mary Prep for 3 years in high school

I am not well read on the topic, usually. I'm probably well read on any econ arguments that may come up.

Speed is tolerated but not recommended. Warrants, links, and weighing are highly recommended if you want my ballot.

Good luck have fun.

Crossfire:

I will be paying attention to crossfire, unless I am obligated to write down comments within the ballot. I believe that crossfire is a key part of the debate round, and any concessions and answers to questions will be binding. If you want something from crossfire to be on the flow, however, mention it in a speech.

Frontlining:

I believe that defense should be somewhat sticky. My likelihood of believing/accepting frontlines decreases as the round progresses. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required.

This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. But you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to.

Extensions of Defense:

With a three minute summary, I think it's not too difficult to extend defense. So please do so. At all times, extending defense is a great way of reinforcing your argument and persuading me further.

More specifically, you must re-extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped.

Second summary should definitely be extending defense, but I will allow defensive extensions from second rebuttal to second final focus (if it is not interacted with), because I think frontlining is super important to debate. But, again, the more you repeat/extend an argument, the more likely it is that I understand it and factor it into my decision.

Extensions of Offense:

An extension of an argument is only accepted as offense if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances

Keep your summaries and final foci consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments).

Please consolidate the debate as early as possible (2nd rebuttal + First summary) into the most important arguments, then focus on those arguments. I prefer 1 well-explained, well-extended, well-weighed argument over 100 that aren't done very well.

Weighing:

don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponent's to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.

Evidence Stuff:

I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well with this in mind, as there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.

1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.

2. There are competing interpretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.

3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.

Finally, I require qualifications of sources. Saying Smith 19 doesn't quite do it for me, who is smith and why should i trust his opinion? Oral citations should preferably include Last name, qualification, and the date. If you don't read qualifications at least in case, which can be as basic as the website you are citing from, your speaker points won't be over a 28.5

Speed:

You can go pretty quickly in terms of speed for a PF round, but don't be full on spreading unless a) you can be super clear while doing it and b) your opponents are ok with it. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing.

Tech vs Truth:

I'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well.

Other:

Please don't say judge or refer to me in the round. If you say "judge" over 5 times in one speech I'll make an angry face.

I will evaluate progressive arguments but I'm not well read on the literature. If you read these type of arguments, go slow, be clear with your links and warrants, and how the role of the ballot should operate otherwise.

When there's no offense in the round I could default either neg or first. I probably default neg if I'm not explicitly called on to default first.

4 years of PF, UVA '23

Winning my ballot starts with weighing, in fact, weighing is so important I'd prefer if you did it at the begiNning of every speech after first rebuttal. Be cOmparative, I need a reason why I should look to your arguments firsT. Please collapse, don't go for more than one case arg in the second half, its unnecessaRy. I'm a lazy judge the easIest plaCe to vote is where I'll sign my ballot. I'm not going to do more worK than I need to. I will not vote off of one sentence offense, everything needS to be explained clearly, warranted, and weighed for me to evaluate it(turns especially). I try not to presume but if I do, I will presume whoever lost the coin flip.

I will evaluate progressive arguments.

If you are going to give a content warning please do it correctly - this means anonymized content warnings with ample time to respond.

I'm very generous with speaks, speaking style doesn't affect how I evaluate the round and I don't think I'm in a place to objectively evaluate the way you speak. With that being said I will not tolerate rudeness or ANY bm in round. I can handle a decent amount of speed but do not let speed trade off with quality.

Online debate I will be muted the entire round just assume I'm ready before every speech and time yourselves and your own prep. I will disclose if the tournament allows.

Questions: chashuang1@gmail.com

Send emails to bhughes@ocdl.org

I’m a teacher/coach and a parent, but I'm also a human being who is trying to provide you with a grounded educational experience. I'd recommend treating me like a flay judge.

I believe judges should be tabula rasa/blank slate. You probably know a lot more about the resolution than I do, so I don't know much until you tell me. In my opinion, Pro/Aff has the burden to prove the resolution with a preponderance of evidence, and I base victory on the number of contentions/assertions and weight of impacts. Ties almost always go to Con/Neg.

I'm not really concerned with cards until there is an actual point of contention. If you feel that your opponent is misreading (or worse yet intentionally misrepresenting) their evidence, please point that out to me and ask me to call for the specific card; otherwise, it's unlikely that I will ask to see any cards during round.

Finally, I attribute speaker points to a debater's argumentation, refutation, organization and presentation on a modified scale of this rubric. Level 1 (24) Level 2 (25) Level 3 (26) Level 4 (27), Level 5 (28 or 29) Level 6 (30)

Do

• Carry contentions/arguments through from start to finish (constructive to final focus)

• Use engaging speaking skills (eye contact, pausing/repetition, inflection). You're likely communicating far less to me than you think you are, so these techniques will be the most effective way to make sure I hear you

• Actively identify any misinformation from your opponent

• Speak in complete sentences and words

• Include context/meaning when using debate-specific jargon

Don’t

• Speak too fast (around 120-150 wpm is normal for me)

• Engage in hostile/snarky interactions with teammates/opponents/me.

• Argue with me about my decision after the round.

• Begin with an off time roadmap: it doesn’t help me, and it seems like a way to extend your speaking time

• Link your contentions/impacts to nuclear war (unless the resolution is specifically connected to nuclear disarmament)

Experience/Background (if you’re curious)

Education

B.A Government/Pre-Law (Claremont McKenna College): Parliamentary debate

M.A Education (San Diego State University)

California State Credentials: Social Studies/History, English/Language Arts, Administration Services

Current Employment

Director of P-8 Speech and Debate (Fairmont Private Schools, Anaheim CA): Public Forum, Modified Parliamentary, Model UN (25 years)

Lead Instructor (New England Academy, Tustin CA): Modified Parliamentary, Speech (10 years)

********************************************************************************************

I will give teams 1 extra speaker point per speaker if they properly use an email chain during the round. This means:

-Case writeup with the cards used in case below should be sent in a word/google document (like this) BEFORE your first constructive speech

-Any cards being planned on read after that should be sent in a word/google document (like this) right BEFORE it is read in speech.

This likely means you'll have to cut your cards BEFORE ROUND (I know, shocker!). Don't be spending 5 minutes cutting cards during the round to earn this point, you'll each lose half a point as a result if you do. Case docs should be ready to send the second you enter the call too

Email is adnan.m.ismail@berkeley.edu.

***********************************************************************************************

I'm a 4th year bioengineering student at UC Berkeley, and I've competed in PF for about 5 years in middle and high school.

Lets start with the obvious: DON'T BE RACIST TRANSPHOBIC HOMOPHOBIC SEXIST ABLEIST ELITIST OR EXCLUSIVE IN ANY WAY OR I WILL DROP YOU, GIVE YOU 0 SPEAKS, AND MAYBE MORE.

-Warrants in everything are especially important to me, and it's really important your warrants are clear. Lack of clarity will make me confused, drop your speaks and most likely drop you the round.

-Additionally, I look for the path of least resistance to the ballot. In other words, if you have an argument that's been clean dropped and you weigh that argument very well, 8/10 times I'm voting on that argument.

-The best way to create a clear-cut path to the ballot and follow the first two bullet points is by collapsing well on good arguments, especially in the second half of the round. Collapsing creates a much more narrowed/focused round that is easier to judge and follow, and it allows you to nuance and explain your arguments more fully. The more in-depth analysis you do when collapsing/as a result of collapsing, the more likely I'll vote for you.

-For the most part, anything that you say in final focus should be in summary. On the note of the second half of the round/frontlining in 2nd rebuttal or whatever,...I don't care. Just be consistent. Specifically:

----If you frontline in 2nd rebuttal, it's gonna be hard for me to accept new frontlines in 2nd summary. I'll give more leeway for defense that's not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal but almost impossible for turns.

----So long as the defense is untouched, first speaking teams can extend defense from first rebuttal to first final focus. But if the first speaking team extends defense in first summary, that defense is the only defense that can be extended into final focus.

-You can start your weighing whenever, even in final focus. But BIG weighing mechanisms (like those overviews that outline a certain argument/impact as the most important in the round for example) should arrive before second rebuttal. On that note, weigh! It's good to get the ballot. Not just buzz words. But like, actual weighing. Answer questions like these in your weighing: "How does your impact outweigh on magnitude?"

-Lastly on the note of the second half of the round, and I cannot stress this enough: YOU HAVE TO EXTEND EVERY PART OF THE ARGUMENT YOU WANT ME TO EVALUATE. THIS INCLUDES THE LINK, THE INTERNAL LINK(S), AND THE TERMINAL IMPACT OF YOUR ARGUMENT WITH THE WARRANTS FOR EACH PART OF THE ARGUMENT. NOTHING BLIPPY!!

-Don't spread please. I'm good with a brisk pace of talking (If you're confused, err on the side of slightly slower instead of slightly faster).

-I'm not extremely familiar with more technical argumentation (K's, theory, etc.). My philosophy is that while they look more "spooky" or "cool", all arguments share the same structure, where they require some sort of link, an explanation for why it matters (an impact) and warrants all throughout and in between. So just make sure to make the warranting for these arguments crystal clear.

-On that note for theory, the bar for whether or not a team is abusive is quite high. So run at your own risk. If you do think that your theory shell is very warranted and the abuse is substantial and you want to win off of it, I should expect it to dominate your speech time in the second half of the round. As in your entire FF should be dedicated to the shell that you read. Also if you read theory, I'm more inclined to listen to a well hashed shell compared to "paragraph theory." It's easier to flow and simply more clear for me. But I won't get angry at you if you read paragraph theory.

-And lastly don't know much, if anything, about the topic, and definitely not familiar with the topic lit at all. So clarity in warrant/impact analysis and extension of arguments and whatnot is esp key to pick up my ballot this tournament.

Good luck and have fun! Any questions email me at adnan.m.ismail@berkeley.edu

I am a parent judge. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus. Please do not bring up new evidence in final focus (especially if you are the team speaking second)

hi! i'm sky.

please conflict me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

add both emails to the chain:

spjuinio@gmail.com

nuevadocs@gmail.com

if you would prefer to set up a speechdrop instead of an email chain, that works too! no matter the agreed-upon avenue for exchanging speech docs, it should be set up before the round starts. i do not like wasting time searching for evidence in the middle of a round. do not fear the exchange! there should be nothing for you to hide.

while on the topic of time, please try to have pre-flows done before the round. as you can tell, i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. there are many ways to win my ballot. ordinarily, you should explain and contextualize your arguments. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should have more answers than questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you have won the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do not forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in your round helps me follow your speeches and ensures i get as much information down as possible. generally, judge instructions are helpful for everyone participating in the round. it is for that same reason that i highly encourage signposting. jargon is useful for clarifying the functions of your responses, but you should take some time to elaborate on the actual response you're making for an easier evaluation. without such elaboration and an overreliance on jargon, i might not fully understand or buy into your points. in addition to your storytelling and organization, you should extend evidence properly and ensure that your cards are all cut correctly (please refer to the NSDA evidence rules). otherwise, i strike the evidence from my flows. sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

sometimes, students desire to read arguments that do not involve the usual narrative building in debate (e.g. tricks). these are quite controversial, but i have evaluated and voted on such arguments before. debate is a game, so play strategically. if you can persuade me to vote on it, i'll do it.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. as nueva gc artfully articulated, "feel the rhythm, feel the ride, get ready, it's spreading time!" any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

i always try to time speeches. it is strongly encouraged that you also time yourselves and your opponents. you should aim to finish punctually. if you're mid-sentence after your allocated speech time has ended, you can finish your statement. however, i stop flowing after an additional 15 seconds have passed.

teams who use hateful language automatically lose. i’ll end rounds early if given a compelling reason to (e.g. evidence violations).

want to sit, stand, or do a sick backflip while you speak? do whatever you're comfortable with (maybe skip the backflip).

don't be mean. don't lie. don't shake my hand.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds and feedback so you can improve in your next round or competition. write down or type suggestions that you find useful (this might even help you practice flowing better). feel free to ask me any questions, but do not fight me on my decision. let any decision, win or lose, motivate you to become a better debater. i truly want you to be! i miiiiight not disclose if you're part of the first flight and/or if the next round is expedited to stay on schedule. if you want me to give you feedback and i was unable to, or you'd like further clarification on my comments, know that i accept emails and other online messages. i'll do my best to respond.

now, specifics!

topicality. tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses, so read real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. voters should be terminalized (e.g. if fairness, education, etc is good, what does it look like? how have your opponent(s) killed fairness, education, etc?). tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. please don’t forget your alternative. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your points well and i might vote for you. i just find it difficult to grant offense to an argument with no advocacy). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly (linking the NSDA evidence rules in case). i read every piece of evidence in the back half, so don't be lazy. evidence only counts when extended properly. otherwise, your "evidence" flows as analysis. make sure to identify cards correctly and elaborate on their significance. tell me why your cards are so great. ultimately, your evidence should enhance your narrative coherence. parli debaters need not worry about my typical stance on evidence because parli is a non-evidentiary format.

public forum debaters should practice complementary partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking some prep time before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments mentioned in the final focus need to be brought up in summary for me to evaluate them. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions. none of these will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on arguments you are genuinely winning. additionally, i tend not to evaluate purely analytical arguments in the back half. the exception is when i am specifically told to vote on analysis and given reasons why i should do so. this is a rare occurrence. typically, reading zero evidence leads me to presume neg because i cannot test the truth of your claims. i am not asking that you regurgitate what your cards state verbatim or reread every piece of evidence from constructive, but you should read at least one carded link and impact. i’ll consider any analytics if they logically correspond to your evidence. i look to the link debate to determine whether you access your impacts, so extend your arguments well! winning the link debate means you are winning your impacts. on the impact level, please weigh, meta-weigh, and terminalize! knowing exactly what i am voting for helps me vote for you confidently.

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

She/her

Background: 3x nats senate 1x toc congress, 1x toc info 2x nietoc various events, decent amount of experience in PF, I understand LD and progressive debate but I've never done it done it and so better to err on the side of caution if you are going to get funky, if I'm judging policy then we all better put our big brain hats and cross our fingers

add me: alexandrakallaher@gmail.com

Some things to consider if I'm judging you no matter event + a note on online judging:

1. Signpost. You could have the best refutation ever but if you don't signpost I might miss it.

2. don't be rude, debate is supposed to be accessible and fun for everyone, so respect your opponents! Debaters who look like they're having a good time are way more fun to judge.

3. If for some personal or act of god reason you need to step away from the computer please just say something. I will do my absolute best to accommodate you within timely reason.

4. Speed isn't an issue for me but online there might be some lag problems so just know your wifi.

5. I enjoy niche arguments in every event as long as they aren't unfairly specific

Some things to consider if I'm judging you in Congressional Debate:

1. Key word up there is debate. I highly value refutation in congress speeches. No worries if you give an authorship, but try to show me different facets of your argumentation skills and speaking styles. I'm judging on a holistic model of who is the best legislator in the round- not necessarily who has the best argument or speech.

2. I'm not a fan of when no one is prepared to give speeches. If you get up to give a speech because there is a lull, even if you are not perfectly prepared, I will mentally award you brownie points and it will contribute to the "best legislator" notion.

3. I do pay more attention to CX in congress than other debates because of how few times you get to speak. But it won't make or break you. That being said, if you ask the same question again and again to different speakers I will probably find you annoying and not contributing to the debate.

4. I love crystallizations and later round speeches in congress. If you are giving the last speech do not give a constructive. Congress is about engagement and adaption. If you give a constructive 13 speeches in the debate I am going to wonder what you have been doing. The later the cycle goes the more weighing should be done.

5. I value argument>speaking 99% of the time. But, congress does have speaking elements to it. As long as you are loud and clear we should not have a problem. It is nice if you don't look at your flow pad too much.

Some things to Consider I'm judging you in PF/LD:

1. Voters. I will vote off of what you tell me to. If a team doesn't give me voters I default to the other teams. Be clear and do the work for me and I won't care

2. Weigh

3. I'm tech can be over truth but I do like hearing warrants and am responsive to teams calling out logical gaps/ inconsistencies in link chains

4. If you want me to read a card than tell me to call for the card otherwise sry bud

5. Don't flow cross so if something happens than you better bring it up in a speech

A note on Theory and K's:

1. Theory is necc. to keep debaters in check but I'm not a fan of tricks, time wasters or other trivial nonsense. Please explain it clearly like you are talking to your well educated but slightly demented grandma

2. running theory just to be strategic kinda makes me queasy and I will have more leniency for your opponent if it's silly

3. Running theory against clearly inexperienced debaters is a form of abuse in itself

lay/parent judge

I like people debating with solid/strong points supported by the evidence. I would like to see people with passion in their debate, but does not encourage bullying other teams. I look for people making clear/concise statements with clear articulation. I try to be diligent in tracking/flow of contentions and arguments.

All the best!

PF: My paradigm for public forum is fairly simple. If you are using a framework make sure to weigh properly on it throughout the round. Weigh your arguments in the summary and final focus so I know who to vote for. Also be nice to each other please.

LD: Please do not spread in the round. I am a more traditional LD judge and was very traditional when I competed. If you run policy args you are going to have to do a very good job of convincing me because I will be coming in with a bias towards those types of arguments. Please use a value and value criterion and engage in the value debate.

Parent judge. Argument should be precise and clean. Try not to repeat yourself too much. No spreading. Being passionate is great in cross examination but not too aggressive.

Gina Li is a strategy, merger and acquisition professional with 20+ years working experiences in various sectors. She was an expat working abroad for 15 years with global perspectives. She has been judging both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas since 2018 at various events, in addition to facilitate local student-run speech and debate volunteer activities in the bay area.

She requires all contestants to speak clearly, not necessarily faster the better, try to maximize the given time to rationalize the best data and evidences to support the key arguments. While majority of the contestants are well prepared on their contentions, the winner normally possess the abilities in better framework, effective arguments to counter opponents positions during rebuttal, crossfires and closing. Also please RESPECT your opponents, try not to cut them off if possible.

Knowing everyone is working very hard on each tournament, I wish each contestant the best luck!

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!

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking and debate company. And I have judged many rounds of speech and debate events and I love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

I vote for the debate based on the reasonableness of the contentions, how the debtors defend their points and how they attack their opponent’s points , and how their speaking skills are in order to successfully deliver the message to the audience (such as enunciation , tones and clarity) .

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. Refer to specifics below

New stuff: In all honesty, I do not like the state of PF debate in the last 2 years. Evidence ethics, spreading weak incomplete arguments, and people using K and theory wrong. It has driven me to become increasingly less willing to be Tabula Rasa. Education is the priority and in my experience the truer argument usually wins.

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 long time since I judged one so I would be too 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. Very rusty right now.

Speed Do not spread. Speed is generally fine. (PF less than 900 words for a 4 min speech) 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

Hello Debaters,

I have been judging Public Forum debate tournaments since fall of 2020.

I look for clarity, consistency and quality of delivery. Please try not to speak too fast so it is easier to follow. It is important to be respectful to your opponents. Also, please explain your arguments in plain terms.

Please ensure your data and stats are factual and supported by credible sources.

Finally, don't forget to have fun!

Thank you and good luck!

Be kind. Have fun. Don’t be afraid of me — I was once you!

⸻

TL;DR: I care deeply about this activity and the people in it. I value kindness, clarity, and educational growth. I’m tab-leaning but happy to be directed—just tell me what you need. Be nice to each other, have fun, and ask me questions if you’re unsure!

⸻

Speaker Points Philosophy: Speaks are heavily influenced by the level of kindness and congeniality shown in round. Be respectful to your opponents, your partner, and me. I’m judging because I love debate as much as you do, and I want to help you improve if I can!

⸻

Current Affiliation:

• East Chapel Hill High School
• Yale School of Management — Associate Director for Digital Communications (outside of debate)

⸻

Previous Affiliations:

• The Bronx High School of Science (2011–2015) — Coach for Public Forum and Congressional Debate (started as an extemp coach).
• Columbia University — Competed in policy debate for one year
• River Valley High School (Mohave Valley, AZ) — I competed in policy debate and judged/coached PF in the years after graduating. I also competed in several speech events (e.g., extemp).

⸻

Paradigm Overview:

Tell me what to do—i.e., tabula rasa to the extent that anyone can be. I will try to evaluate the round based on the framework you give me. Explain to me what my ballot should look like and why - you are writing my RFD. Ask me questions before round if you’re not sure what I’ll be fine with — I will answer!

Run what you want: hypotesting, retro theory, dense phil, nothing at all. I’ve seen a lot and I’ll keep up. I’m less receptive to lightly-developed theory shells than I used to be. If you’re banking on a low theory threshold, make that expectation explicit early in the round.

Ultimately, I believe in “Debater > Debate.” This is an educational activity, and your well-being comes first. Speak up if anything makes you uncomfortable—tell me, your coach, or a trusted adult right away. I believe in the platinum rule: treat others how they want to be treated.

Let’s make the round a safe, respectful space. You’ve got this!

⸻

Event-Specific Notes:

Since I get this question a lot...

"On Speed / Spreading":

I’m comfortable with speeds above 300 WPM — I can keep up. That said, clarity and strategic control is key, and unless you’re confident in your enunciation and signposting, I’d recommend maxing out around 220 WPM. If I can’t flow it, I won’t evaluate it. Be strategic with your speed—go faster where it’s warranted, slow down when it matters.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD):

• I enjoy well-developed value/criterion debates and dense philosophical argumentation when it’s explained clearly and accessibly.
• I’m comfortable with progressive arguments (theory, K, tricks, etc.), but I want you to warrant your args, collapse clearly, and tell me how to evaluate the round.
• If you’re "spreading", signpost and slow down on tags, especially if you’re new or in front of a mixed-experience judge pool.
• I enjoy well-developed value/criterion debates and dense philosophical argumentation when it’s explained clearly and accessibly.
• Weighing and framing matter. I’m less inclined to evaluate theory that is poorly contextualized or feels frivolous, especially if it becomes abusive in practice.
• Please extend your advocacy clearly in the 2NR/2AR and do the comparative work.

Public Forum (PF):

• I’m a "flow judge" who believes PF should be rigorous but accessible. Yes, I mainly competed in Policy, but remember I've mainly coached Public Forum and have likely judged more LD rounds at this point. You don’t have to talk fast—just be clear, strategic, and responsive.
• It is your job to represent the evidence in round. I will only call for cards if you give me reason.
• Frontline efficiently in rebuttal and weigh early—I reward teams who collapse smartly and don’t leave me to do the work in Final Focus.
• Framework debates (like util vs deont or strength of link vs probability) are welcome and can help resolve messy rounds.
• Turn comparison, impact calculus, and clear summary strategy will win my ballot more often than card dumps or overviews with no clash.

I am a parent judge and you can assume that I will not know deep debate terminology. I will weigh your arguments based on the factors such as relevance, logic and likelihood. Things that matter to me: clarity of arguments (it does not matter how solid your argument is if you cannot explain it clearly) and politeness (focus on the ideas, not the person).

UPDATE FOR BERKELEY: I am a first time judge. Please do not speak fast or spread, as I will not understand you. If I do not understand your argument, I will not be able to vote for you. Additionally, please do not use debate jargon as I will not understand that either.

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

I am a parent judge with limited experience. I would prefer your case/script email to me or share it in the tab room file share section. This will help me warm up my minds before going to the debate.

Thank you

Linda Qian

Show me the warm-weather or dome-team dynasty. If you look at pro football: New England — cold, private, covert, intense, physical.

1. PLEASE have fun, speak confidently, and be respectful to your opponents and partners! Any sort of disrespectful behavior will have a massive effect on your speaks and possibly my decision, so just be nice Please explain things clearly to me 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

Hi!

I'm a recent UC Berkeley graduate and an assistant Speech and Debate coach for Flintridge and Westridge. I'm a former debater who mainly competed in Parliamentary debate for Claremont High School. Alongside Parli, I've competed in and/or judged LD, PF, Worlds, BQ, Congress, and several speech events (mainly OO, Impromptu, and Extemp). I always appreciate a competitive and respectful round, so I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!

General Debate Notes

Please focus on your links! I believe they are just as (if not, more) important than your cards and impacts. Arguments that depend on well-thought out logic are always more interesting to listen to than a random card without much analysis from the debater. I weigh magnitude and probability heavily, meaning I will not vote for your nuclear fallout argument just because you tell me to based on a 0.0000000001% chance.

Please provide a roadmap and signpost in each speech! I want to be able to flow your case and refutations as accurately as possible, but it's difficult when you spew random facts at me for 7 minutes without taglines or titles. Remember, you could have the most beautiful argument to ever be conceived of in human history, but if I don't know where/how to flow it, I can't give you credit :(

For events with Cross, I won't flow every question or answer, but I'll be listening very closely with 100% of my attention. Please utilize cross to point out flaws in your opponent's case as opposed to a reiteration of tags/arguments (unless absolutely necessary).

Lastly, be respectful! Especially during POIs and Cross. That also means avoid making faces or facepalming in person or while your camera is on. I'll tank speaks without hesitation if a debater is being disrespectful throughout the round.

Kritiks & Theory

I'm very open to hearing these arguments as long as you can justify them. There are definitely rounds where these arguments are necessary and will impact my decision. I'm not the most familiar with more unique K's or performance K's, so please explain each component to me! If there's one thing I hate more than spreading, it's frivolous theory/k's that you wrote at camp 5 months ago and decided to shoe into your case without consideration for the topic or opponent. Please make sure the K makes sense for the specific round/opponent (Links matter to me!). Please avoid running K or Theory against novice debaters. Don't feel pressured to run these arguments either, you don't need to use jargon or one singular argument structure to convince me that a definition or argument is abusive/flawed!

Speaking

I'm pretty generous (I think?) when it comes to speaks. If you make me laugh I'm probably going to boost your speaks too. Be respectful to your opponents, being rude is an easy way for me to dock your speaks without feeling bad. Don't Spread, Don't Spread, Don't Spread. If you spread, I'll likely miss important parts of your argument, which will only hurt your chances. Or if you, for whichever reason, feel that you must spread and cannot make the necessary adjustments, at least send a speech doc via the tournament designated file-sharing program.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask them in round! :)

I did PF for 6 years at Fairmont, qualified to gold TOC twice.

Ask any specific questions you have before the round.

email chain-- hitakshi2021@gmail.com

Some stuff lol:

1. be polite, your speaks will be docked if you are rude/problematic etc *especially in cross

- cross is not a time to be making speech like arguments, use it to ask questions, clarify, set strategy etc I will not be writing things on my flow during cross unless its to clarify something

2. if its not in summary it should not be in FF. PLS EXTEND CLEAN link warrant impact if u want me to vote for it.

- big on the warranting. extensions that are blippy are not extensions i want to vote on and neither are just card names- extend warrants

- i will not vote for turns that are not terminalized or are very blippy

3. At least frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal (if you start condensing here i will be happy- feel free to drop arguments early and build clear narrative)

4.time your own speeches (and prep) and be respectful about it- a couple seconds grace period is fine

5. i prefer you do not spread, speed is fine **if it will be very fast let me know beforehand and give me and the other team a speech doc

- if it is early in the morning or late at night pls go easy on my brain lol

6. sign post please; if you are doing something weird give me a roadmap

7. prog/K/Theory/Tricks etc- I'm good with it as long as u explain it/warrant well and it isn't just to mess ur opponents up

8. evidence exchange should really not take more than a minute have ur stuff ready

9. WEIGH!!!!!! and actually clash and interact with their points

making me laugh will boost ur speaks; debate is a game play it

have fun <3

I competed for 4 years, primarily in PF and a bit of policy. When it comes to Public Forum I don't want you to just read evidence at me, stop trying to make PF policy! Explain your evidence and warrants, give good analysis. Also I really enjoy Framework debates, if you're going to read framework carry it through the entire round. Care about FW arguments because thats how i'm going to end up voting if i'm not given an alternative FW. Make sure there is actual clash, dont just tell me why your positions are important.

Since im fairly new to CX I dont have a ton of preferences, just dont expect me to understand super high theory off the bat, and if you do run it, make sure to explain it really well. Other than that just do your thing and be kind to each other. I am generally a laid back person, however i have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to being purposefully cruel or bigoted to your opponents or otherwise. Lets have fun and learn from each other, thats what this is all about.

I've been judging PF debate for almost 3 years as a parent judge.

I usually try to learn about the debate topic before judging a debate. I like arguments that are presented in an organized manner. I like arguments with supporting numbers and questions. I like debaters talking in moderate speed and with good presentation skills.

I would like to see debaters treat each other with good manner and have fun.

Please have persuasive reasoning responding to the argument and interactive exchange of ideas where debater is responding to the other's argument.

I do not like spreading.