Hi my name is Anwar Abu Hilal, I am a parent judge. I have judged several rounds before. My only preferences are that you speak clearly and make your arguments clear. Also please do your best to not go over your time and do not interrupt your opponents.

This is my second tournament judging, so I am not very familiar with many arguments. I am not a primary english speaker. Please be very clear as to what your arguments mean and tag all of your arguments and refutations. if you don't tag them, I may not write it properly. Like I said, I don't have much experience judging. While I know some things because my son does debate, don't assume I know anything past common knowledge. Other than that, please be confident and respectful to each other, and debate to the best of your ability! Good luck!

Please deliver your facts and arguments clearly and understandable. Your goal is to persuade your audience and/or your opponent, so make sure people can understand you. Good luck!

I am a lay parent judge. Please no unintelligible “spreading” during debate. Speaking at a fast pace is acceptable.

I seek engaging debates that are challenging and backed by solid evidence. Kindly avoid resorting to personal insults as I value respectful discourse. Rapid speaking (such as spreading) that makes it difficult for me to comprehend what's being said will also not be tolerated and I may penalize if necessary. Additionally, I do not like information that is made up.

I was a reasonably competitive policy debater for all four years of high school and for one tournament in college. I also practiced law for nine years. Spreading is fine; I can definitely still recognize quality over nonsense mumbling. I will not tolerate disrespectful/unethical behavior, shady tactics and unnecessary aggression. The flow is determinative in that I will not make arguments for you if you didn't articulate it in the round. Proper skill in navigating the flow is something I very much appreciate and respect.

Finally, be passionate even if you don’t personally believe in what you’re arguing for; learn to be an advocate. Have fun!!

So apparently I haven't judged in a while..

not quite familiar with the current norms of parli now

I'm just down to hear some good args and chill

I probably judge reasonably the same as before

Updated September 2020

Mostly everything below still applies. Main update about kritiks: I am pretty down to hear kritiks, but will get sad if the kritik misrepresents source material. Buzzwords and tags only will make me sad, but if you've actually read the source material, actually UNDERSTAND what the arguments mean, and can EXPLAIN CLEARLY the argument, I will be very happy :)) THE K IS NOT A TOOL FOR EXCLUSION. IF YOU DO(and with any other argument as well), THAT IS GROUNDS FOR ME TO INTERVENE IN THE ROUND.

K affs should be disclosed, and if you do not disclose, I am very sympathetic to disclosure arguments.

And because I cannot stress this enough..

On weighing: SUPER IMPORTANT DO IT. PMR should have access to weighing arguments, unless it's a new internal link scenario. I would generally like to see weighing arguments starting in the MO, but will allow LOR to make weighing arguments, but depending on the scope of the weighing, may give it less weight. Generally speaking, whoever does better weighing tends to win the round. Hopefully that incentivizes you to weigh.

ALSO please i love helping people with debate, so if any questions, email me at shirleych@gmail.com

(and i literally mean any, doesn't matter if i've judged you before or not, PLEASE reach out to me)

_______________________________

Background

debated HS parli for 3.5 years, public forum for 2 years, coached MVLA for two years and in my third year of coaching Gunn parli

General

Tabula rasa

tech over truth, but keep in mind subconsciously I may be more likely to believe arguments that are the truth if the tech debate is close

Fine with speed(~250 wpm)

Fine with tagteaming, but only flows what speaker says

will do my best to protect, but you should still call POOs on new arguments in case I do not catch it, if there are things that are kind of new but not really, I will give them less weight in the round

no shadow extensions

no stealing prep

WEIGHING WILL WIN YOU THE ROUND. WEIGHING SHOULD ALWAYS BE COMPARATIVE AND CONTEXTUAL TO THE ROUND. The easiest way to my ballot is to weigh. I don't like bad weighing arguments that are generic and not comparative but if nobody else makes weighing arguments in the round, then I will appreciate your effort in at least trying.

some examples of incorrect and correct weighing arguments

Incorrect: "We win because our adv 1 has the biggest magnitude in the round since they did not refute our adv 1" (does not contextualize and compare to other arguments in the round)

Also incorrect: " " (<- the reference here is not doing weighing)

Correct: "We win because our adv 1 saves MORE lives than their DA 1 due to the fact that [x thing mentioned in Adv 1] affects more people than the potential [y problem in DA] would affect" (note how this is comparative and contextual)

An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication, and I am hesitant to vote on only claims

I hate voting on presumption and if I have to intervene a little bit to not vote on presumption, I will do that. This is not to say I just randomly like to intervene. I find that the times when I get close to voting on presumption is when BOTH teams have not made explicit offense but rather have gotten close to making an offensive argument(usually in some implicit form). In that case, if one side gets closer to making an offensive argument than the other, I will generally be okay with doing the work for them and considering that just offense. Note that this is just what I default to, not that I will never vote on presumption if the argument is made.

I generally dislike voting off of arguments that are not in the LOR, even if it's in the MO. I do not need the full explanation in the LOR if it's explained in the MO, but it should at least be highlighted as a tagline in the LOR.

How I judge rounds

to note: for me defensive responses on an arg function as mitigation to the risk of the arg happening (ie I'll be more skeptical of the arg and I will evaluate this as the arg having very minimal risk of happening. Depending on how good the defense is, the risk will differ of course, but it's rare that I will believe an arg has 100% chance of not happening unless the other team straight up concedes it. Because this is how I evaluate args, weighing is super super super important)

Case

I read mostly case in hs. I enjoy seeing specific impact scenarios, warrants, weighing arguments and strategic collapses. I care a lot about weighing. If no weighing arguments are made, I look at strength of link * magnitude. I rarely vote on magnitude in a vacuum.

CPs

I like them and they're cool. not a huge fan of condo, am a fan of pics, these are just what my preferences were when I debated, but I'm open to hearing arguments that go both ways

Theory

I default to competing interps. I don't like frivolous theory and will probably have a lower threshold for reasonability and RVI on friv theory.

Having specific interps is good.

Kritiks

I was not a K debater and am unfamiliar with most lit. I have a pretty good conceptual understanding of cap, biopower, security, colonialism, orientalism, and some nihilism args, but probably won't know the specific author you may read. I will probably know very little about any post modern lit you may want to read. Overall, please make sure to explain your K thoroughly and don’t go too fast, and explain any weird jargon.

Things I have read actual lit on: critical race theory, ableism, and Daoism. I have also read literature that references orientalism and discusses applications of orientalism, but have not read Said's original work. Reading these arguments could go in your favor but it could also not. I like seeing these arguments, but I'll know when you're misrepresenting the argument if you do, and I don't like it when people misrepresent arguments.

I am okay with K affs, but if you do not disclose, I am sympathetic to disclosure theory.

Speaker Points

I do not give speaker points based on presentation. Strategic arguments, warrants, weighing, and collapsing will earn you high speaks. I tend to find that the better and more weighing you do, the better your speaks will be. Hopefully this an incentive for you to do more weighing.

also dedev is cool, will give high speaks if read well

Hello my name is Marisa (she/her/hers). I'm a beginner parent judge still learning the various speech and debate formats.

I come into every round with an open mind. I evaluate the round the best I can.

I am flexible, but following are some things to keep in mind:

- Voice volume does matter; I need to be able to hear your speech.

- Speed and enunciation matter; I need to be able to digest what you are saying.

- Be courteous to your team members, your opponents, and me. Unruly and unsportsmanlike behavior will negatively impact your speaker score.

- Have fun!

I am a Debate Parent. I am judging for last 6 years. I expect the speakers to be evidence based talk over analytics. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

Parli

- Don't generally like counterplans, unless there are serious advantages to them. Timeframe counterplans, for example, must be seriously warranted to overcome the diminishment of educational value.

- Do not run multiple advocacies - such as disadvantage to plan WITH a counterplan (unless the CP solves the disad, in which case it's an advantage to CP).

- In case you didn't gather, I am not a fan of policy-style debate conventions in the parliamentary format. I will always pref solid case args over theory or "game-y" debate strat.

- Debate the resolution, clash via argumentation and POIs. POIs very important so that clash points can be explored.

- If you abusively POO, I will down you on poor sportsmanship and diminishment of educational value.

- debate value, policy, and fact rounds appropriately. For example, don't try to argue a fact or value resolution based on net benefits, etc. etc. etc. Fact rounds are "preponderance of evidence" and value rounds must identify a paramount value. I will down you for diminishing educational value of parli by co-opting everything to policy format.

LD - I don't currently coach LD, but did so in the traditional style some years back. Framework is important and the criterion needs to function as a criterion to the value. Like, a measurable, functioning criterion. - My heart sinks when competitors turn LD into a policy round and run net benefits or some other non-value; net benefits, for example, is just an ill-defined placeholder for any number of values within a pragmatic/consequentialist framework. - P.S. Morality is not a value. I see it run all the time to my consternation. Morality denotes no actual value... it rather describes a system of principles to describe right and wrong - it is up to you to actually define those principles. There are many types of morality as it is relative to cultural context: Christian morality, prison morality, etc. etc. etc.

- I don't know much about circuit LD but will always pref traditional debating styles (resolutional analysis, evidence, analysis, clash, weighing) over esoteric theory. I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Congress

Not much new here: I look for incisive, insightful analysis of relevant issues. Quality of research matters.

In general, less is more: I'd rather a competitor focus in a single issue and really zero in on the implications/weighing of that rather than superficial coverage of multiple issues.

Stand straight, polished appearance, good projection and vocal nuance. These things are still relevant in a rhetorically-driven debate style such as Congressional Debate.

PF

I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.

Speech Requirements:

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)

- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")

- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus

Things that are important for me:

- Signposting

- Clarity

- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)

I do not want you to:

- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document

- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction

- be rude/condescending/curt in CX

I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Hello! My name is Kayla (she/her/hers),

Having competed in team debate on the HS level, parli and LD in college, and having judged for LD/parli/IEs/IPDA for middle school, high school, and college tournaments, I will enjoy most arguments you want to raise, so long as they are respectful. I believe that ethical communication happens when teams respect each other and don’t use their arguments to degrade each other. I am open to all types of argumentation but will drop teams for problematic rhetoric.

For HS:

I will vote on procedurals (including condo) and topicality. I prefer to see proven abuse, or at least a clear instance of potential abuse, for most theory arguments. Policy debate, or a K on the Aff or Neg is welcome. I am comfortable with speed, but am willing to vote on speed theory if the debate becomes inaccessible.

For College:

I would self-describe my style of judging as somewhere in between a "flow judge" and a "truth judge." While, in most instances, I will vote on the flow, if one team goes line-by-line and fails to address the thesis-level of the debate, I might break this norm. If the debate involves multiple conditional positions, I find cohesion in the round (slightly) less important: this makes the thesis of the debate less important than the line-by-line.

Theory is always an a priori issue to any other positions in the round. If you go for theory, collapse to theory.

I enjoy K debates and will be happy to hear them on either the Aff or Neg. I am also interested in your advantage/disadvantage debate, it’s whatever you think fits the round best or whatever you’re most comfortable with. I am less familiar (although somewhat familiar) with Lacan and Freud-based Ks, but I enjoy most other critical arguments and have a particular penchant for Foucault.

For speaker points, I will evaluate your content over the style in which it is presented. Speed is fine, but I could be persuaded to vote on a speed argument. Using language that is violent or degrades your opponents could also result in a reduction of speaker points.

Ask any questions in-round if you have more!

I am a new judge so keep that in mind when speaking.

Parli:

• I want to see good structure so tell me where you are on the flow with clear taglines.
• Don’t Lie To Me
• Make clear connections and break arguments down especially structural ones.
• I want to see impacts: why does this matter and what are you protecting by arguing your side
• Absolutely no spreading
• Be polite to everyone, you will be marked down for rudeness.
• Topicalities are a-prior issues to me, so be careful when presenting them.
• I believe Opposition has Presumption
• Gov has the right to define but Opp can take that right to define if Gov doesn’t make use of it.

Speech:

• Delivery is very important: I will vote for the clearest, interesting, and engaging speaker.
• Please stay on time

Hello I am a new judge. Please read your case in a manner in which I can understand. Thank you and have fun!

1. Relatively inexperienced at judging debate competitions

2. I appreciate fast thinkers who speak slowly

3. Facts and historical references are more convincing than opinions and speculations

4. A strong and well exposed argument carries more weight than several weak arguments exposed in a hurry

5. As a non-native speaker who studied ancient Greek and Latin in high school, I understand erudite words better than slang words, but I still prefer Aristophanes to Cicero.

I debated for four years on the national circuit.

My paradigm breaks down quite simply:

PUBLIC FORUM

1. Engage arguments constructively. Clash is so important but increasingly teams don't know what that means. When I'm given an argument and a response that just make the polar opposite claims, it becomes impossible to evaluate if both teams don't do extra analysis, so do the extra analysis. Warrants are infinitely more important than card-stacks – good logic beats bad evidence every time.

2. Weigh on the link and impact level. Don't just give me prewritten reasons your impact is large (i.e., "scope and severity"), but instead tell me why your link into the impact is explicitly stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for, and why your impact is more significant than theirs. Direct comparison of impacts/links will take you far – one good, common sense weighing mechanism adapted to the content of the round is better than four weak pre-typed ones.

3. Be consistent. Not only between summary and final focus (first summary defense is optional but strongly encouraged if important), but also with a story throughout the round. If you read arguments that explicitly contradict each other for strategic value, I might not drop you, but you'll have a hard time establishing credibility (or high speaks). Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through (extending both warrants and impacts at minimum).

The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote.

With regards to pretty much everything else, I am non-interventionist. I won't tell you how fast to speak, or force you to answer turns in second rebuttal, or ban specific types of arguments, but exercise good judgement. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unfair, abusive, rude, or prejudicial to members of any minority community, I will do something about it. Your speaks will certainly be impacted and the threshold at which I will cast a ballot for your opponent will fall. In elims, that threshold will fall faster because I can't tank your speaks. Don't risk it, and when in doubt, ask.

PARLI

Do not ask if I am familiar with material before a round because I will most likely not answer. The following breaks down categories of Parli that you may have specific concerns about to help you find your answer. If your question is not answered here (and it is NOT about material), you are welcome to ask me about it before a round starts.

Types of Debate: It is my belief that there are three fundamental resolution styles in Parli: policy, value, and fact. Make sure you are aware of which resolution you are working towards in a round. If there is a dispute on this during the round, please make sure to address it during the round and not ignore it.

Policy: Policy should be fun, engaging, and the most creative format of Parli that we can debate on. I value strong fundamental set-ups for plans (i.e. AFF should have a clear and engaging inherency/problem). I also find it important to express creativity in this style. Being able to execute creative plans (even if they seem realistically ridiculous) is always interesting to watch from my perspective and will engage me more with your speeches. Of course, strong fundamentals and a clear understanding of the style/resolution is crucial. If "creativity" means you have weaker overall debating, then avoid it and stick to what works for you. I will always prioritize strong fundamentals. All tactics (i.e. CPs, perms, PICs, Ks, topicalities, etc.) are welcome for both sides. If you feel like you are being excluded via speed or that their plan is especially niche in its application, then express that during your speeches properly and I will flow it. I will probably be familiar with most of the literature (if you are using any) during these tactics, but that does not mean you should neglect it or skim by it. I am a firm believer in flowing only what I hear during the round and if I do not hear you properly explain something to me, then I will not flesh it out for you.

Value: Make sure to have your own value or I will assume you are working under AFF framework. If AFF does not have a value, then I will work under NEG framework. If no one gives me a value, then I will go with whatever framework has been presented during the round at all. The idea here is that we do not need to come to a consensus for a framework as you would normally in a policy round. Simply achieve your value best and (bonus points) try to show why you are ALSO achieving your opponents' value better than them. This is your time to really hone in on niche arguments and incorporate some aspects of philosophy that touch on moral or philosophical issues. For instance, human lives may/may not be the best impact here, so be creative with how your arguments work UNDER YOUR FRAMEWORK.

Fact: This is a simple fact-oriented debate. I do NOT weigh rounds based on quantity of factual material, but will weight based on quality. Of course, just having one good statistic is not going to win the round for you, but do not expect to just pour out a bunch of facts on me without proper explanation of what they mean and why they matter and expect to win. Treat this round as classic debate without bells or whistles and just try to win the round via strong warranting and impacting.

And on that note, ask me if you have any other questions.

NOTE: Effective use of Kanye West, J. Cole, and/or Frank Ocean lyrics will be rewarded with a bump in speaker points ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 points.

Hello! My name is pronounced Hiwad (HUH-wahd). My background is in Parli Debate, where I competed for 1 year each at the high school/college levels and I now coach.

I weigh Education and Organization heavily. I enjoy when the second constructive speeches add new information to the round.

On Speed, I prefer when debaters are strategic and quickly go through important points and slow down for arguments you want to emphasize for me/your opponents. I do not prefer spreading as it is usually tough to flow; if you do, I welcome the opposing team to call “slow” in chat or aloud if needed.

I reward Theory when it is carefully and thoughtfully run, but not when it amounts to filling time. It is okay to run Theory and not collapse to it in the end, it is just like any other argument and only a priori if you argue that it is.

For kritiks, be prepared to send your opponents the main text upon request: Role of the Ballot and the Alternative. I find round-specific, as opposed to canned, kritiks to be the most compelling, effective, and educational. I have limited exposure to aff kritiks, FYI.

Provide quick off-time roadmaps. Always weigh your impacts. Don’t hesitate to use POIs and POOs. When you collapse to the argument you want me to vote on, please do so clearly and ideally more than once.

Good luck and have fun!

Over a decade's experience of being a parent-judge. Feel free to spread - if the opposing team can track you and debate you, I can follow. I flow - help me by clearly enumerating your arguments. Theory and kritik arguments are ok to an extent - don’t make the entire debate about that.

In the end persuade me.

Stockdale High School '20

UCSB rn

Currently do parli in college. I did policy debate on the national circuit in high school, but am familiar with pretty much all forms of debates. I know prefs are annoying so this will be short.

All debates

Any argument you want to read works. Impact weighing is an absolute must.

Policy

I know a lot people automatically are looking for how judges feel about the k. In terms of where I land on the spectrum of policy to kritikal arguments, I probably more comfortable with policy arguments but this does NOT mean I hate the k. I will vote for anything that is well explained, but a lot of times teams will rely on the judge being very familiar with their scholarship in order to get away with their tricks and skip explanations; if you do this you will lose. If at the end of the debate I'm not scratching my head about what the advocacy/alternative does and what your thesis is because you explained it well, you'll be in good shape.

Disad stories should be well explained. Don't just read a zillion 1 sentence cards; actually answer the specific warrants of the link and uniqueness claims of both sides. It's possible for there to be zero risk for something.

The counterplans can be either textually or functionally competitive. If you're reading more than 4 conditional positions I'd probably think that's abusive; but if you win condo good than hey, condo's good.

T is incredibly strategic, more teams should go for it. That being said, if the t debate just is a bunch of the classic one liner arguments being thrown by both sides, then it is incredibly difficult to evaluate. Also, in framework debates, aff should be sure to answer the 1nc warrants thoroughly and not just put 15 disads on the flow.

Impact turn debates are always a good time.

Final word: I personally can't stand excessively long overviews. Its become a trend to hide a bunch of offense in there and then go onto the line by line and answer stuff with "that was in the overview." Do your explanation and whatever you else you feel you need to do at the top, but please do the line by line on the line by line.

I start at 29.0 and work my way up. If you slip in a sports joke I'll boost you an extra 0.05. I'll tank you if you say something hella problematic.

I’m a new judge. I won’t count your arguments unless I understand you so don’t talk too fast. I enjoy a clear, concise argument.

Thank you for letting me judge. I'll do my best to explain why I'm voting a certain way. I tend to favor arguments that are clearly organized and have some emotional resonancy. It's great if you can lay out the framework and tell me how the arguments should be weighed.

Hey! I'm Christopher (he/him, xe/xem) and I'm excited to be your judge! I'm an third-year undergrad student at UCLA pursuing Communication and Disability Studies. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round or email me at chris.p.ikonomou@gmail.com.

Experience:

I'm currently coaching parli at New Roads High School, and I’m a former parli debater and captain of the Menlo-Atherton High School debate team. I have 5 years of parli experience. My partner and I were in the top 10 of the NPDL rankings for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years, and I’m well versed in both lay and flow debate (I personally prefer the former).

TL;DR: I’m down to listen to anything you can get me to understand, but I prefer topical, warranted, and logical debates. Just make sure you explain yourself. Take a couple POIs.

Formalities:

Put your pronouns on Tabroom if you feel comfortable doing so! A small gesture can make the debate space a bit more comfortable for trans/nonbinary debaters (I know it helped me feel welcome). I don’t want to put you on the spot before the round by asking for pronouns, so only use pronouns your opponents have confirmed and use gender neutral language (partner, opponent, etc). On NSDA Campus and Zoom, you can edit your screen name to include your pronouns (if you feel inclined).

If you need an accommodation (be it related to a disability or something else) please ask before the round starts (or shoot me an email before). Remember this is supposed to be fun!

Case:

This is what I was best at. Good case debate will reward you. Have warrants for your claims/links, quantify, diversify, and weigh impacts. Tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents so I don't have to. Just saying "our impact negates/outweighs theirs" doesn't work if you don't give me any context for why, especially if the argument is less well known. Offense is important, tell me why they lose (and use that to prove that you win).

Good speaking is often associated with case debate. I personally enjoyed using rhetorical flourish myself when competing! However, you won't be penalized if speaking isn't your strong suit. I trust you're doing your best.

Theory:

I have a fairly high threshold for voting on theory. I need proven abuse to vote on theory and I default to reasonability. I will vote on theory that points out exclusion from the other side (speed, misgendering, etc).

Kritik:

Don't run an AFF K if you don’t disclose and give your opponents an opportunity to engage. NEG Ks are fine. I’ve run some projects about exclusion and my experience in the debate space, and I prefer criticisms that are genuine and have a link and alternative that effects actual change in the round or participants' mindset. Do not run identity-based Ks about groups you are not apart of (unless an instance of oppressive language/behavior happens in round about a marginalized group). If you lack experience responding to Ks, mention that in your speech and let me know how I should weigh your arguments against the K (i.e. should I rely more on logic than how many arguments you can counter, discussing current events are more impactful than theoretical debates, etc)

I can vote on other Ks, I just may not feel good about it. Explain anything related to literature well, especially terms and any abstract concepts (post-modernism is confusing and you probably want me to understand what you're talking about). I have little patience for debaters who run Ks just for an easy win against a less experienced team.

Speed:

Not too good at it. I’ll let you know if you’re going too fast (I’ll yell slow or clear). If you don’t listen, there's no guarantee I'll flow the rest of your speech). Don’t spread your opponents out, seriously.

Speaks:

Points are rewarded for speaking, humor, good strategy, etc. Average speaking will get a 27.

Enjoy yourselves. Debate was my thing in high school (I debated into out rounds instead of going to the hospital for a collapsed lung once in my junior year). Have fun, it’s not the end of the world, and ask any questions before and after round. (I’ll disclose with RFD if rules/time allows)

I will drop you if you are racist, transphobic, queerphobic, misogynistic, ableist, etc, even if your opponents don’t make it a big voting issue. I will lecture you in my RFD. You’ll also get the lowest speaks I can give you. Bad rhetoric is the first step towards violence and dehumanization in the real world.

I would like the debaters to do the following while in the round:

1. No spreading. I am a parent judge. If I do not understand, I will not follow you. So please go slow and make yourself clear.

2. Make clear arguments that are well warranted and have clear impacts

3. Please give me clear reasons of why I should vote for you.

4. Finally, have fun. I believe the debate is an educational activity - you learn when you lose or win!

School Affiliations:

Dougherty Valley Lay Judge

How many years have you been judging?

I've been judging for 2 years.

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

I award speaker points based on fluency and ability to maintain the overall structure of their case throughout the debate.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate?

I examine what points were made from each side and which ones may have been conceded or dropped. I also think about which points I bought more in terms of plausibility and magnitude.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?

I do take notes during the debate, but it is definitely not flow. I mostly just take notes to help myself follow each side's arguments and rebuttals.

Preferences on the use of evidence?

I do find arguments more compelling if they are backed by reputable and up-to-date evidence. However, depending on the resolution, it could hold the same value as an argument based on reasoning.

How do you value debate skill over truthful arguments?

I find truthful, credible, and comprehensive arguments more valuable than mere debate skill. It is definitely helpful when a competitor is good at explaining concepts in a way that's easy to follow as a lay judge, but at the end of the day, truthful arguments are what provide the substance in the debate.

I am super lay.

Speak slowly.

Break everything down for me.

The most understandable person wins.

No theory or spreading.

Be polite.

I am good with off time roadmap as long as you don’t make any arguments and keep it short.

Keep jargon to a minimum or explain your terms.

If there are any disagreements, then I will take note of it and consult with the rule book.

15 second grace period for speech and debate.

LD Winter Classic UPDATE 12/2/23: Please refrain from spreading if possible as I have judged approximately 1x per year since 2015. This tournament has proven difficult for me to flow 20-30+ page long cases, even with the file in front of me. This is especially since I have not familiarized myself or with the LD fossil fuel topic ahead of this tournament, so I don't know some of the specific acronyms and terms used for this LD topic. I'd recommend using your lay case and adding some cards as I do not require it to be completely slow or any fluff you'd add for parent judges. I just want to be able to fairly evaluate the round and this year the spreading has been way more significant than past years. Maybe try not to have more than ~ 17 ish pages as the 25+ page cases have been too fast.

My Background: I am a graduate of UC Davis. My background is in Biology and Political Science. I competed primarily on the LD circuit but also did some parli, impromptu, and IX). I debated all 4 years at La Costa Canyon High School (2011-15) but also had to compete independently under Leucadia Independent. I also competed in NPDA (parli) my freshman year of college, and Model UN for 3 years. Feel free to clarify any questions before the round.

Evaluation of rounds: I will first evaluate wins the framework debate, then followed by who links their offense best back to the framework. Don't forget to do offense and defense on framework if conflicting. You are more than welcome to collapse framework if in agreement.

Speed: Slow down for taglines and authors. I haven’t competed or judged recently so I don’t trust my own ability to flow speed very well. If you do speed, please do so proportionally to your clarity. I will yell clear and/or slow. If I have to say slow/clear more than 3 times I won't ask again - you are too fast/unclear. Also, some people think they are spreading but they are actually just poorly trying to spread - it's slow and just hard to listen to. These people would be better off just not trying to spread. If you are sharing case files please try to order your cards in order read and delete or clearly designate cards as not read (for ex. highlighed all red, tiny font) and/or clearly say "skip XXX evidence." Best practice, if you are emailing/passing me a case I'd prefer you just cut the card entirely because it's really hard to scroll and follow.

Theory/T: You can engage in theoretical debate if there is abuse. Please avoid if possible though as I would rather see a substantive debate. If so, please provide a reasonable abuse story. I prefer if you frame it like a shell (a, b, c, d…). I must explicitly hear a warrant for “drop the debater” if you want me to vote that way. I don't like any theory read presumptively

Policy Arguments: I am familiar with disads and counterplans/plans. When considering impacts, please try and have a clear link chain with warrants. Please note I have never judged or competed in policy debate and most of this familiarity is with respect to LD.

Kritiks: I never ran K’s. Generally speaking, I don't like K's and I would not run a K in front of me if you can help it.That said, if you do run a K, I do not understand a lot of K lit. Of course, I’ve hit the basics. Please explain a K to me. Use cross-x wisely here. If I don’t understand the argument, I will likely buy your opponent’s refutation. That said, I will vote on a K if well executed. Also, when running a K, do not drop your opponent’s case. I will not cross apply your K arguments to your opponents framework. Try to engage your opponent's case. This is often where I would find a way to beat a K. I don’t like it when debaters get handed a K and read it because they think it’s a definite win. It’s not, and I expect debaters to be able to beat a poorly run K.

Speaker points: Don’t make me yell clear/slow a lot, or be disrespectful in round. I believe word economy and fluidity also factor into getting high speaker points. Again, please slow down for tags and authors. If you don't, and I can't flow these well, this is your loss and your speaker points should reflect that.

Things I dislike: excessive intros/off-time road maps, "new in the two" aka new evidence in the 2AR or 2NR, skep, performance cases, Kritiks (especially weird ones), voting on presumption, lying in cross-x, anyone who cites CHSSA rules as a reason for me to drop the opponent, being rude, spreading (just can't do it anymore).

Things I like: good weighing, clear extensions (claim, warrant, & impact), strategic use of cross-x, a solid framework, sticking to an off-time road map. Try to not use some stock case you use at every tournament. I like relevant, topical debate.

That said, I love LD, and I look forward to being surrounded by it once again. I look forward to judging a good round! :)

I don't mind speed but please share the document you are reading from if you plan on reading quickly. I am willing to hear and consider progressive arguments. I prefer quality over quantity. As a judge, I would prefer both debaters present arguments and explain why those arguments ought to win the round. If you have any questions about what you can and can not run the general rule is that you can run anything so long as you explain it to me well.

I am a lay parent judge. Please avoid spreading, speak clearly and concisely. Make your information and arguments palatable to the general public, and stick to the merit of the debate. I do not appreciate K's and theory. I value civility in debaters, overall just be civil and respectful. Be well researched and prepared for your topic, and for logic based arguments make your link chain clear. Signposting is absolutely necessary for clarity in the debate, and is greatly appreciated and aids in flowing the debate. Most importantly, have fun!

Ground Rules:

1. Specify the amount of time each speaker will have to speak.
2. Explain the proper decorum that participants are expected to follow, such as speaking one at a time and refraining from interrupting other speakers.
3. Clarify the process for making points of information and asking questions.
4. Outline the procedure for challenging a speaker's argument.
5. State any other relevant rules or guidelines that the participants need to be aware of.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Will be scoring the debate, such as by taking into account the quality of arguments, delivery, and research
2. and aspects of the debate such as organization, persuasiveness, and evidence.

In both speech and debate, a cogent speech or case will be preferred.

Hi, this is Ted Shafer, parent judge, from San Diego.

This is my first season judging.

I would like the debaters to do the following while in the round:

1. Be courteous - no profanity
2. Please signpost in your round
3. Make clear arguments that are well warranted and have clear impacts
4. No spreading. I am a parent judge. If I do not understand, I will not follow you. So please go slow and make yourself clear.
5. Please give me clear reasons for why I should vote for you.
6. I am not familiar with any debate philosophy (e.g. Kant) hence I would prefer util.
7. Finally, have fun. I believe the debate is an educational activity - you learn when you lose or win!

I am a lay judge.

I am affiliated with Dougherty Valley High School. I usually judge parliamentary debate and am familiar with the event. This is my third year judging. I will award speaker points by looking for clarity of thinking and cogent delivery.

I will base my decision at the end of the debate on strong arguments and good responses. I'm fine with CP's as long as it has solvency. PIC's are a great strat. Don't run conditional cps. TALK SLOW. If you are going too fast, I will say slow once. Don't read K's. Not a big fan of theory either but I default to reasonability. On framework, I enjoy util.

I will take a lot of notes and pay thorough attention throughout the debate. Don't overuse statistics and evidence. Evidence is there to support your argument, so use it when necessary.

Real-world impacts are important. Talk about real-life scenarios as much as possible.

I value truthful arguments over debate skills. Debate skills should help you extend and defend truthful arguments. Don't try to win on technicalities, use logic, and strong argumentation to win the round. If your opponents concede your argument, I will acknowledge it, but don't use that concession to win the entire round. If your arguments are better and you defend them well, you will win. Please weigh in your last speeches.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Updated September 2021

I am a parent judge and it is my second year judging (mostly Parli). Having judged at least a dozen tournaments, I am comfortable with terminology and have heard a variety of styles and strategies. That said,

1. Please signpost - it helps me organize my notes and make a decision

2. No spreading if possible, I have trouble flowing when you speak fast

3. You can use theory but it has to be well explained.