Hello! I have experience debating and judging Policy, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas.

For All Debaters:

- I am comfortable with most debate styles

- Most often, I favor tech over truth

- I don't give speaks lower than 27.5 (unless you're mean)

For Policy Debaters:

- Slow down on tags and non-evidence arguments

- Add me on the email chain (Morgan.a.chamberlin.24@dartmouth.edu)

- If you are reading a kritik, analysis > cards. Also, if your K is named after a person (Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Bataille), then you should probably explain it like you would to your parents.

- I am fine with spreading, however just be clear, especially during online debate.

- I think the CX is a useful time to develop the advantages of your argument

I am an Oakland Catholic parent volunteer judge.

I prefer clear and organized cases. I do not mind speed as long as I am able to understand your argument. If I cannot understand your case, I cannot flow your argument. I prefer that debaters argue in the order of their flow. In rebuttal I do like to hear why a debater feels they won the round and why I should vote for them.

I do expect that debaters treat each other with respect. I will deduct points for rudeness or disrespecting your debate opponent.

My name is Jackie Hertzel. My pronouns are she/her. I am a traditional judge, in my 4th year of judging. I take my notes on an online flow during the round. I am interested in hearing what debaters have to say so please be mindful of your speed. I appreciate off time roadmaps, calling out dropped arguments and noting voting issues. If one debater’s argument goes unchallenged then I will assume it is valid. I am not a fan of spreading. Good luck and have fun!

I graduated in 2021 from Pine Richland and did Public Forum all 4 years of High School.

PF: While I understand that public forum is getting more technical, I tend to prefer a more traditional style of debate. Generally I will look at arguments and your response to them as a whole and am a solid believer that you do not need to refute every single piece of evidence presented as long as you adequately deal with the larger point. This is not policy. I am fine with debate language, but please make sure it's actually backed up by substance.

Crossfires are important. I will pay attention to them. That said if a key point comes up, please be sure to carry it through your speeches. I like voters in summary and final focus. Carry through your framework if it is important to weighing or a relevant point of contention.

Please don't spread, it will be reflected in your speaker points. Generally, the average debate speaking pace is alright. Keep in mind if you speak too quickly and I don't catch your point I can't weigh it. Please time yourselves (I will keep official time) and be mindful of going over. You can always finish your thought, but after that I will stop taking notes.

LD: As far as Lincoln Douglas goes my preferences are pretty much the same as they are for PF. Make sure to carry through any framework, your value and value criterion throughout the round.

I really enjoyed my time in PF and want everyone else to have the same positive experience. Please be respectful, have fun, and try your best.

I am a relatively new judge to debate, and as such wouldn't count on a technical debate strategy benefitting you (jargon such as front lining, terminal impact, bright line, etc.) unless you are able to explain what it means. That being said, I will not disqualify a Tech>Truth argument so long as it is not absolutely ridiculous to the point of comical or insulting. THIS ALSO MEANS SPREADING. If I can't understand it, I can't and won't flow it. I don't mind defense in the summary, so long as you tell me what I am going to be weighing in the final focus.

As I am new, I am not hyperaware of the implicit meaning of "dropping cards" or such. YOU HAVE TO TELL ME WHY THESE THINGS MATTER IN-ROUND IN REAL-WORLD TERMS.

Please be clear, well-paced, and moderate in your speaking, logical, thorough, and respectful in your case and in argument, and I shouldn't be a hard judge to sway.

I have been our school's coach/administrator of our speech and debate team for many years. I am also an English teacher.

When judging debate, I would like to hear every word, to follow every argument. I do not like fast-talking because it leaves me guessing what I heard. I would like the two teams/two sides to listen to each other and ask questions and rebut in ways that show good listening. I enjoy clash. I enjoy when clash brings a debate round to greater levels of thinking and crisper points being made on each side. I like when the teams/sides help me, the judge, better see my way to an RFD. (Of course, I have to agree, but I enjoy when sides/teams state in logical and intelligent ways why they should win and show when doing so that they have a solid grasp on what just happened in the round.)

When judging speech, I appreciate the commitment that students show in constructing a well-organized speech and preparing to perform it. I appreciate the energy, pathos, honesty, charm, intelligence, drive to connect with an audience, and all-around skills of a well-delivered speech.

Regarding literary interpretation, I am an English teacher; I love it all.

I was my school's debate coach for five years and have been judging both public forum and Lincoln Douglas debates during that time period.  I am now retired but continue to judge for my former team. 

While I am ok with speed, please do not spread and be careful that you enunciate clearly.  If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't be able to flow your speech and I will be frustrated at the end of the round. 

I do work my way down the flow and prefer that debaters argue in the order of the flow.  I do pay attention to dropped points but only if there is additional commentary on why the drop is important. Organizational skills matter so please go in the order that items were mentioned and try not to bounce around. If a round is close, I do consider voting issues to be a good way to break ties so please leave yourself enough time to include them.

I also expect all competitors to be respectful of each other. I will dock points for outwardly rude or arrogant behavior.

Hi! I am part of Pine-Richland's class of 2021, and I did Public Forum all 4 years of high school.

First, I believe in TRUTH>TECH. Public Forum has changed a lot since I began debating, but I still prefer a more traditional round. I will be judging based off of your flow/how well you carry your points through. With that being said, please don't spread. You don't need to have a rebuttal for every single piece of evidence presented as long as your argument as a whole is strong and coherent, and you deal with the overarching point. I am fine with speaking fast as long as it is still easy to understand and take notes on; if you are speaking too fast and I miss something, I will not be able to weigh it. Crossfires are personally my favorite part of debate, and I will pay close attention to them. If an important point is made in crossfire, though, please be sure to carry it through/elaborate on it in your other speeches or I can't really weigh it. As for summary and final focus, I like voting points because it makes the round clearer/easier to judge. I don't think off time roadmaps are necessary; if you want to outline your speech, do it on your own time. Finally, please be mindful of time.

As for LD, I've never debated it but I have judged it. As long as you uphold and weigh your value throughout the round, you should be fine. Be sure to impact and clash. Like I said for PF, I am fine with fast speaking but not to the point where I can't understand you.

For ALL debaters: Please be respectful throughout the round. If you are rude or continuously talk over your opponents, it will be reflected in your speaker points. I want you all to have fun and try your best! :)

Name's Anju Saggi and I have been doing debate judging for couple of years.

Speak clearly - I will not flow if I do not understand what you are saying.

I am open to any and all arguments. That being said, only run theory if there is clear abuse in the round. I would much rather hear actual arguments than listening to back and forth about the technicalities of debate.

Have fun, and be respectful.

All debate styles - I do not read shared files until the end if I need to refer to a piece of evidence. Debate is supposed to be understood not read. I do not mind speed but make sure it is enunciated and intelligible. Watch my body language, if you have any questions if I am understanding you....Head down and flowing your speech...I understand you. Watching you without a pen in my hand....you are not making any sense to me and I can not follow your arguments.

Policy (CX) - I am a stock issue judge. Focus on the stock issues and why the AFF does or does not satisfy them. Spreading is okay but make sure your arguments make sense. Do not start a bunch of arguments in the 1 NC just to drop most of them by 2 NC or the 1NR. There are very few times an extinction argument truly works. Do not run one just to run it. Most of the time, it makes the NEG look desperate.

Lincoln - Douglas (LD) - Focus on your value and value criterion. Be clear on why your value criterion is better than your opponent's or why you satisfy your opponent's value criterion better than they do.

Public Forum (PF) - While it is easy to have most everything prepared and ready before the round, do not forget to address your opponents' argument and point out where you are different and why your side is the better choice.

If you have further questions please ask me before the round starts.

My paradigm isn't very complicated, but you'll notice that I'm a bit different that your average judge out on circuit these days. I'm pretty old school. At my core I'm a policy maker. I'm not a fan of critical arguments however, if they can be explained as a policy option then go for it. However, if I wanted to judge a round about how great the world would be if we were all just nicer to each other, then I'd be over in the LD pool. I have voted on both critical affs and negative K arguments, but I have a lower tolerance for them. Speaking of LD, I'm going to add on some LD specific stuff at the bottom.

I will never say that I'm a Tab judge. I'm just not. I will not make any excuses for that. I think it's unrealistic to assume anyone comes to a round with no biases. For example, I spent 20 years as a meteorologist. I have a degree in Atmospheric Sciences and was on television for most of that 20 years. SO, I will evaluate ANY warming arguments both for and against with a great degree of scrutiny. If you're going to run climate arguments in one my rounds you had better know your stuff because I will almost guarantee that I know the material much better than you do and I did it for a living and I won't accept half-baked or poorly understood arguments. Just because you can read something doesn't mean I have to accept it as truth especially if I know better, no matter WHAT your opponent says. THAT is the real world.

Politics arguments...understand that you can run them but know this, I am a complete non-believer in the theory of political capital. I don't believe it exists, nor will I ever be convinced that it exists. I do however believe that decisions are made and will be made with political considerations as a key motivator. That however doesn't mean that a president's ability to get something passed is impacted by some immeasurable, unquantifiable power metric that has no threshold where success or failure can be predicted.

Are you getting the idea that I'm a real world kind of judge? Good, because that's me in a nutshell. I love high quality, well researched discussions on what ifs, but they need to be based on real science, realistic scenarios, or at least scenarios with impacts that can be reached with a quality link chain. This year's resolution is EXTREMELY tangible and has so many real world implications that you should treat it as such. If we end up in the weeds talking about garbage that's only important to half a dozen people in a fringe think tank located in the broom closet of a lost downtown community college, then don't waste 90 minutes of my time.

Okay, enough with the I hate stuff. How about what I like. Well constructed arguments with strong links, well thought out analysis and clearly delivered. I like debaters that look like they're having fun. This is verbal gladiatorial games, and that's why we love it. Keep it cordial. Make it light when you can and engage with the judges when it's appropriate. We have to spend a good amount of time in a room together, so let's make the best of it. In the end, one team will win, and one team will lose, but we should all feel like we spent meaningful, entertaining, and educational time together.

With regard to LD since I judge that occasionally, like I said above, I'm a bit old school and that applies here as well. I DO NOT like my LD to be like my policy. They are different events for a reason. I detest progressive LD with a passion because every time I've judged it, it has turned into really poorly done policy debate. I'm a traditional LD judge that enjoys the value clash. I'm sure that will come as a disappointment to many of you, but it is what it is. Spreading in LD is unnecessary. I've been judging policy for nearly 20 years so It's not like I can't handle it. I just don't like it in LD. Just like I mentioned above, if you read it, I like clear analysis. Strategic arguments are worth their weight in gold...and speaker points. Keep it fun. Keep it fair. Keep it entertaining.