Hi!! I'm a newer judge here so just be patient with me, I will be flowing the round and will write your feedback.

Try to please, please, please, slow down a bit and try not to fit too much in your given time. Signposting will definitely make my life easier.

Explain whatever abreviations you are using, as you should assume I know nothing about this topic's literature.

Feel free to contact me after the round if there was a question with your feedback you can reach me at: padma.asrani@gmail.com

Have fun debating!!

I prefer impacts debating showing me how your side effects the world. Make sure you go back and relate your side to the round criteria. If your opponent makes a logical mistake in their debate make sure you point it out specifically. Do not assume I will recognize it or deduce things for you. I am not a big fan of fast talking debate.

Hi,

I am relatively new to judging, though have been familiar with Debate for some time. Please plan to speak clearly. Make your important points clear. Respect your opponent team. Also, please track your own time and opponent's time.

thanks,

Madhav

I am a parent judge with about 6 years of experience judging Public Forum debates

Speak clearly and do not spread

I attempt to flow the round,it helps if you signpost your arguments

I am a judge with experience judging multiple debate tournaments throughout the entirety of 2021. I've mainly done LD and PF, but I also have judged some Parliamentary, Congress, and individual events as well.

I believe it is important for things such a debate to be accessible to anyone, so clarity in communicating ideas and speaking at a clear, easy to understand speed will be important to me, as well as clearly articulating tag-lines of arguments, and I would prefer refraining from jargon when possible.

I will mainly try to judge Tabula Rasa, as I believe it is fair and important for the debaters to have control over what the rules of the debate are, and if those rules are mutually agreed upon, then it sets everyone up for the highest level of success. I won't be bringing preconceived notions into the debate, as I would prefer to judge to debaters on the merits of what they bring to each round.

In the last speeches of the round, I want you to tell me which argument you think I should vote on and WHY, and how it compares to the other team's argument.

Hello debtors,

I am a new parent judge. Please try not to spread, I am afraid that I can't effectively judge. Good Luck!

Hello future debaters! I look forward to judging your rounds, but please keep in mind of these few things.

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!

Fourth year judging.

Please be up to the point and logical. I'd like to take notes and as well as observe so please do not spread and try your best to signpost.

Will look for how you articulate your contentions and the backing evidences..

Please be respectful to the opponents and the judge.

Looking for a fair debate.

I am a parent judge. I don't have any personal debate nor coaching experience. The fundamentals of your argument is the most important to me. I appreciate clarity and structure in speech so please speak in reasonable speed, and I don't understand debate jargons. Poise is important as I value communications in a civil and educated manner. I appreciate the opportunity to go on an intellectual ride with you and your components, so please speak clearly, be civil, and most importantly show me your ability to think critically.

I am a parent judge. My email is saidcomprising@gmail.com

Please speak in a conversational pace.

Stay focused on the merit and substance of your cases, instead of spending a significant amount of time on attacking procedural errors of your opponent's.

I am unpersuaded by existential risk arguments -- there is a very low bar for responding to these.

I expect cameras to be on all the time.

I don't believe "the more" is necessarily "the better." That is, I won't be impressed just by the quantity and speed of words delivered. I encourage you to speak in your normal speed, be calm, firm, concise and highlight your key points repeatedly.

I value logic reasoning, common sense as much as relevancy of the evidence. Hope you can understand that continuous recitation of a large chunk of quantitative evidence can hardly be absorbed in such a short time. I encourage you to be selective for only those strongest numbers.

Counter-arguments and other responses to your opponents indicate the extent and depth of your preparation. I put a lot of focus on those.

For final speeches, please emphasize the points that I should care about.

Please deliver your arguments to me as you would to your younger sibling. This means speak slow and don't assume that I already know anything about what you're talking about. I am more interested in the quality of the arguments than in their quantity.

Please also listen carefully to your opponent and respond to their arguments or explain how their arguments are irrelevant. Merely repeating your position in response their arguments is not persuasive. I tend to be persuaded by the side that has done the best job of clearly identifying the disagreements between the two sides. Whoever can do that often has the stronger contentions anyway.

if you debate the entire round without technology, you'll get auto 30s

For everything else please refer to Yuvraj Walia’s paradigm.

I am a lay judge with 3 yrs of judging experience. I would like participants to speak loud and clear. Also, would be great if they can keep the camera on their face while talking. Sometimes I see their heads only and hard to figure out what they are saying.

I evaluate Public Forum Debates based on strong logical arguments, supported with evidence. Slow down , since I can flow only what I can understand. Abusive/Disrespectful arguments are not tolerated.

I am a parent judge who has judged for about two years. I won't understand super fast talking of any kind, so I advise you to speak at a normal pace.

I will only vote based off what is said in the round, and will not make any assumptions myself. This means that you should assume that I know nothing about the topic, which is probably true. If you want me to consider an argument, I suggest you bring it up in the final speeches of the debate. This is mainly where I will make my decision, so I think clearly stating your reasons on why you won here is important.

Other than that, have fun.

Current Public forum/World Schools debater:

1. Extend in summary!!!

2. Defense is not sticky

3. Frontline in second rebuttal and summary

4. Please weigh - preferably in rebuttal, but at the latest during summary

5. Make sure to have fun during the round, remember debate is supposed to be a fun educational space!

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

Lay judge! Please be slow and clear. Your arguments should not be overly complicated in the round. Be respectful to your opponents.

I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon

Nur YILMAZ | Junior | Beverly Hills High School

Hello, there! I hope to ensure that a respectful environment is present during debates. I want to emphasize that it is vital to be respectful and understanding during debates. Having fun and learning from each other is top priority.

First of first: Please speak clearly and loudly no matter how tired you are. Otherwise you may lose your game. I know it may be too ridiculous to believe. However, when there are threes judges in a debate, you may find I am the only judge who are trying his best to remember and note every sentence of your speech. Please, do yourself a favor, speak clearly and loudly to let the other two judges be aware of what you are talking about. I wrote this paragraph because I care about the fairness. (To editor, I hope you can understand my kindness and please do not delete my post, Thanks!)

Hi there, my name is Feng Zhang. Although I have limited judging experiences, I am a good learner for debating and judging. Since I got A grade for all STEM lectures from elementary school to graduate school, from China to North America, in Chinese and English, I like logical analysis and data analysis from history facts and economical facts. I am a flow judge and will take notes.

Overall note:

I think that the first crossfire part is the most important part in a debate. Each team will find the opponents’ weakness and ask the sharp questions to challenge each other. The intensive debate always starts from sharp questions. Please do not drop sharp questions and try your best to fight back from there.

Performance:

Debate is both a game and the real world. Bring real word issues to the forefront within debate rounds is extremely important. I hope it can creates change in our community and, as such, is something I take very seriously. Hence, I will attempt to evaluate every round as fairly as I can, while recognizing I do not check my status as a moral agent at the door.

Speak Points:

26-30, unless you do something very rude or exclusionary.

29-30=excellent

27-28.9=average

26-26.9=below average