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!

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!

First 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 but I have given plenty of speeches to various types of audiences in my career. 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 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 concise and highlight your key points repeatedly.

I value logic reasoning, common sense as much as 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.

I compete in Public Forum for Mission San Jose High School. I’ve done PF for 2 years in Middle School (2018-2020) and another 1 year in High School Varsity (2020-2021). If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Turkey-NATO:

I am pretty well versed in the arguments and background info surrounding the topic. With that being said, I will try to judge the round without any of my personal knowledge getting in the way. This means you have to explain all of your arguments like you would to someone who has never heard of the topic.

Novice/JV:

1. Signposting is very important. Signposting is when you pause and tell me which argument you will be talking about next, instead of flip-flopping around all the different arguments presented.

2. Cross-fire is very important. Cross-fire will definitely factor into your speaker points. Be civil while also pointing out flaws in your opponents' arguments. Joking around is alright as long as you are not being rude.

3. Please do not speak fast. Anything above 200 words per minute is too fast! That means your case should be around 730 - 780 words.

4. I like when debaters collapse down to one argument in the last speeches.

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 PF for about two years. I would like to hear arguments clearly laid out during rebuttal. Crossfire contributes to speaker points only. Summary and FF are very important to summarize why you think you are winning. I make decision entirely on what you have pointed out to me.

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 education space!

Emory

1. Innovation is knocking and will be rewarded with favorable speaker points. Sure give me wipeout, Pess, Spark, Skep Psycho, etc. but make it spicy!

2. LDers stop asking for marked docs as if evidence comparison or carded warrants even cross your mind. Nothing is more annoying than sitting and waiting for a doc to be sent just for it to change absolutely nothing. Admit you can't flow and just take prep. On the flip side don't send 9 off docs and then proceed to skip every other card, know your limits... I promise you lose more ethos doing this.

3. Sure, include me on the chain. Npiredebate@gmail.com

2020-2021

Facts about me that you can arbitrarily and subjectively use to pass judgments about me:

Did policy and LD in HS and college. I read existentialism and postmodern philosophy for pleasure. I have an interesting affinity for reading and researching things relating to Mao, Maoism, and weird contours of communist organizing despite being a rather open capitalist.

TLDR: Tech>Truth (default). Do what you want...no actually like read and do whatever you want/whatever you think is the most strategic. I judge the debate in front of me. Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading. Yes, T/fwk. By nature of the last 2 sentences, I judge a lot of clash debates and KvK debates.

The following three points are borrowed from J. Stidham's paradigm which I think captures some of my general beliefs:

"-No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. I have coached strictly policy teams, strictly K teams, and everything in between because I enjoy all aspects of the game. Debate should be fun and you should debate in a way that makes it valuable for you, not me. My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application. Tech and truth both matter... I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible. Impact framing/judge instruction will get you far. The predispositions I have listed below are the general heuristics I use when making a decision, but I will ultimately vote for the team who wins their argument, even if it strays from these conventions. I appreciate debaters who do their thing and do it well.

-Don't base your strategy off of your (probably incorrect) assumptions about my own debate career.

-For everyone: Stop being afraid of debate. Cowardice is annoying. Don't run away from controversy just because you don't like linking to things. If you don't like defending arguments, or explaining what your argument actually means, please consider joining the [Chess Club]."

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff? I ultimately think the aff has to...well do something regardless of what style of argumentation.

-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.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is bad at the end of the debate I will vote aff. Similarly, if the 2AC fails to extend/explain why they actually solve anything I will vote neg on presumption. I see this problem a lot in T debates and it just baffles me. Congrats you won that your aff is topical but not that it is good.

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

-If you expect a judge to stop the round after a debater reads a Shapiro or Patterson card...I'm not the judge for you.

-I go into rounds as a blank slate, you should tell me how you want arguments treated/used("filter the debate through the permutation, etc.) This makes framing HUGE!

-Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means a claim, warrant, and implication.

All the COOL kids give args their own section so they're below if you care.

Ks

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

I do enjoy postmodernism for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature as well as ID pol 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".

DA

Not much needed to be said here. Have good internal link analysis. You don't need to be an aspiring poly sci major, just be knowledgeable about what you're reading. Econ, Biz Con and of course Heg are among my favorite here.

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/general theory

I don't have any major predispositions here. Just tell me how to weigh and layer please.

T-USFG/FWK

I'm pretty even on this honestly. If you're actually reading this section, I would encourage you to read all of it and not cherry-pick sentences to make sweeping judgments.

I think debate is a game cause it is. This does not mean it can't have spill out or have important meanings for certain groups but at the end of the day, it's a competitive game that both sides want to win.

-Did I read an aff without a plan my entire junior and senior year and most of college? Yes

-Do I think T-USFG/Fwk is a true arg in the sense that it's probably unfair given certain models of debate? Yes

-Does what I ran or think is true play into my decision? Nope. As I said above tech>truth just because something is true doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

For aff teams, you should answer T the way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 1ar that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

You should probs have a counter interp or model of debate.

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 | Sophomore | 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 is the number one 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