I judge based on the strength of the arguments. I favor clarity of speech over volume of information.

I'm a parent and have judged few times before.

The information below will help you, help me judge you better:

1. Please signpost - tell me where you are and always tell me when you're switching cases

2. Speak slower and add explanation to your arguments - use less jargon or if you use it, please explain it

- I will say CLEAR if I can't understand you due to your enunciation or

- I will say SLOWER if you're speaking too fast

3. Tell me voters - there are a lot of arguments in this round. The better understanding I have, the easier it is to vote for you. I look for consistency throughout your argument but also new points of interest, perhaps developed through good listening to the other side.

4. Weigh - always compare impacts, which one should I vote for with clarity.

5. Timing - please do your own

6. Be respectful to each other :}

GOOD LUCK and have fun!!

Hi I'm ben. I did debate in high school but I haven't done policy before. I will be basing speaker points on those who speak confidently and clearly. I will dock you points if you speak to fast, I want to be able to actually hear what you are saying. I am fine with cross-ex tag teams just make sure it is 50-50.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh. I listen for good impact weighing that is connected to your value criterion.
• Though I flow, I cannot keep up with spreading. Please keep it to a traditional speed in PF.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh. Communicate impact or measure.
• Do not make assumptions.
• Do not say racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.

Miscellaneous:

• I don't like crossfire. I won’t flow, and you shouldn’t go over time.
• Do not steal prep time.
• Persuade me that you deserve the ballot.
• Weigh.

Make it the best debate possible. Be respectful of your opponent I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

Hello! Before getting into any specifics, I ask that you all try to speak clearly and briefly give context to any jargon, as I have limited experience with debate and am still learning the ropes. I will try my best to give cues as to whether or not I understand things that you have said, and will likely ask you to speak more slowly or explain something if I find I'm having trouble keeping up. I appreciate your patience! Please also note that I will give you no lower than a 26 unless you are presenting offensive or demeaning arguments or materials.

As for debate philosophy, I prefer students to respond to arguments in the order that they were produced and with thoughtfully presented rebuttals when possible. Please be specific, present evidence with a measurable metric, such as timeframe, probability, or magnitude, and provide me with information on the effects of your claim. Focus on the strengths of your position rather than the weaknesses in your opponent's! Earning points with me is simple: be clear, be bold, and speak well, and have good cross. Anyone can win in any round!

On that note, please remember to have fun and be bold! I look forward to judging and seeing you all showcase your skills. Best of luck!

I like to hear clear signposting!

ei. Contention 1..., my framework is..., attacking my opponents contention subpoint 2a....

My paradigm is this: persuade me.

Here are some things that will help:

-I need to hear you clearly to understand you

-I need to believe you when you reference evidence

-I need to see a thread connecting your evidence to your claims

-logical arguments are more persuasive to me than the volume of evidence. I will respect evidence, but I will not count cards.

In CX, I don't want to hear hyperbolic assumptions. I will try to flow, but I tend towards big picture...just being honest here.

In LD, I want to hear a justification for your philosophical framework and to see how that framework is guiding your position. That will be more compelling to me than speed, cards, or rhetoric.

In PF, just make me believe you are right. 

I am a parent judge who has been judging for four years.

Do not say untrue or imprecise things about the economy. I know how it works.

I’ll do my best to flow, but can’t guarantee that I’ll get everything if you are speaking too quickly

I understand minimal debate jargon. Don’t use it.

Make my life easy - provide clear extensions of your arguments and tell me why they matter.

Don’t lie. I won’t like you if you lie.

Don’t steal prep time - it is massively annoying.

If you are late, your speaker points will probably be lower.

I do not like it when debaters are rude. I get that you have to clash, but there is a line to walk, and it truly is not a fine line. It is not hard to not be rude. Do not mansplain or be condescending. Do not laugh at your opponents. I am less likely to pick you up if you do.

Don’t make bigoted arguments. I may not be as “woke” as my younger judges but it will not fly with me.

Ideally, please use the chat or file share for sharing evidence! I need to see it and it's weird for me to be on email groups with teenagers. These in-app tools are provided for your use.

Duncan Stewart

As of 9/14/15

Background

I participated in parliamentary debate at The University of Utah for 4 years. I currently coach for Lewis & Clark College.

Overview

My preference is that you do what type of argumentation you like to do, and/or what is most strategic given the topic. I will not use my ballot as an attempt to discipline the activity in the direction I think it should go. If you win the argument on the flow I will vote for it-every time. That being said, I judge debate via a line-by-line flow. If you have an alternate way you’d like me to evaluate the round, solid! I will consider the debate in any manner you’d like me to. Just be clear about what that method is. I will use only your explanations of arguments to make my decision. Meaning even if an argument is ‘dropped’ it’s difficult for me to vote for it absent warrants.

Theory

I don’t hold any standardized positions on theory arguments. Debaters should get access to their arguments without an offensive theoretical objection explaining why that should not be the case. Have that debate. Please repeat your interpretations twice.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Links come before risk calculation. Impact calculus will win you these debates. Unless specifically told otherwise, I will compare arguments via timeframe magnitude and probability. Defense makes both of our jobs easier, but only when accompanied by offense.

Counter plans

Evaluating the round becomes easier if the 1NC reads theoretical justifications for their counter plan. This prevents new theory answers I have to consider in the 2AR.

Kritiks

To be especially compelling these should be operationalized as if I have no familiarity with your literature. You should be specific about what you are criticizing. For example, if you are a questioning of methodology you should say so in the LOC. Your criticism is easier to evaluate when the critique of the aff happens on the thesis/links level, not in the framework. On the topic of critical affs, go for it!

Other general statements

Speed is good, but not at the cost of excluding someone.

I currently serve as the head coach for Park City High School.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Collapse.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Because I coach, I am very familiar with the resolution you are debating.
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.
• A sense of humor is always appreciated. Have fun. Don't take yourselves too seriously. Please do not be condescending to your opponent during cross.
• Weigh.
• I am an experienced coach and judge. I know the rules. Win the round fairly (because your arguments/analytics are better). It's that simple.

• I have been involved in debate with Park City High School since 2017. I respect and admire students who are committed to learning about and engaging in academic conversations. Thank you for being a part of debate.

Make this your best round possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

Finally, should I judge something other than PF: In terms of theory, I don't like it. If you insist upon running it, I will listen/judge begrudgingly and choose truth over tech. I hate frivolous or abusive theory - only run it if it's a true violation.

My email (for questions): awilliams@pcschools.us

I am a parent judge and have been judging for about 6 years - primarily IE, PF, LD, and Congress. I am a marketing professional with a large software company, but also have experience in public policy research (I have a master in public administration). I love data -- so feel free to provide a lot of evidence to back up your contentions. Just be sure that it is relevant and logical. I take "tech" over "true" and expect opponents to question data/evidence and point out falsehoods.

Please do not spread -- you will lose the debate because I will not be able to follow you. Speak up, use eye contact. When doing debate virtually, please don't stand too far away from your laptop and check in once in awhile to be sure that the connection is still sound.

Please provide me with sign-posts -- where you are on the flow and when you move to the opposition's case. Be sure to let me know your voters and what to weigh. Let me know the impacts of your contentions/arguments and why they matter.

For speaker points, focus on showing me your strategy, thought process, impacts, sign-posts. Extend your arguments and explain well. Don't just repeat yourself, but further your argument and explain why your side will have the best outcome (impact).

Some other points:

- Don't use gratuitous profanity. There are so many words in the English language that you don't need to swear.
- No K-debates. Please debate the given topic. You won't win if you veer away from the topic
- Be kind. Be passionate about your argument, but don't get mean or condescending
- Be sure of your facts. If you bring something about current events into the argument, be sure that you are clear about the facts. I read the paper too, although I will not bring my own knowledge of the events into my judging until your opponents bring up the falsehood. It just reflects badly.
- Don't be too catastrophic in your impact, unless you really can show that, in all probability, the end of the world is at hand