Public Forum

Emphasize logic and flow, facts & evidences; value respect and professionalism. Manner, behavior and sincerity matters.

Judged in SCU & North Bay.

Parent judge.

Some of the expectations that I have for debaters if I am your judge:

1. Clear facts and evidence. Do not throw out claims that are not backed up by evidence. If I notice lack of evidence behind claims, I will deduct speaker points.

2. Logic. The ability to explain your arguments logically can potentially earn you speaker points.

3. Do not spread. Read at a slow/moderate tempo. I will not take into account arguments that I did not understand in your 1AC/1NC.

4. Confidence. If you are confident in your 1AC/1NC, in Cross-examination, and rebuttals, that earns you speaker points.

5. Respect your opponent. Disrespectful remarks and behavior are not tolerated. Not only will speaker points be deducted, you can receive an L.

6. Honesty. Answer questions during Cross-examination honestly. If I suspect that you are lying or if your opponent is able to prove it, you will lose speaker points and potentially receive an L.

7. Special note if you are in the Public Forum event: I want you to work as a team. If only one person is carrying the debate, it will not look good for you. Both speakers on the team need to be prepared.

Best of luck to you in your debate rounds.

Debate:
You can talk fast and time your own rounds. I will not time your rounds.

Treat me as a lay judge that will evaluate more squirrely technical arguments if the warranting is there. Warranting, strong links, and comparitive analysis is the most important items I evaluate on.

No theory, Ks or other progressive arguments. Be stringent on keeping your speech on time along with prep. Do not add me to the email chain. Set one up before round if you want to. Don't ask for an excessive amount of cards.

Speech:

No requirements

I am a parent judge. I have judged parliamentary debate before so I am aware of the format.

Arguments

Please be clear and read your arguments slowly so that I can understand. If you read them fast (spread), I will not be able to flow properly. Try not to use extremely technical terms that are not very obvious and even if you have to, please explain it clearly.

I prefer traditional on case debate. I'm fine with counterplans but please explain it clearly.

I am not familiar with Ks (kritiks) and theory so please refrain from running those arguments UNLESS there is actual abuse of rules present. If that is the case, please explain the abuse VERY clearly. Please don't run theory just for the sake of running theory.

Other

Use the last speech to explain exactly why you should win the round. Weigh out the impacts of both sides.

You will be awarded high speaker points for speaking clearly, having a good presentation, and being respectful to your opponents.