Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 3-4 years.

DECISION:My decision evaluates all scopes of the debate: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence, links, etc. However, telling me why your IMPACTS are important and how you better achieve them than your opponent is key for you to win this debate. I do not care about what kind of impacts you give me, but it would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize with broad ones so I know where you are deriving your impacts from.

FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis, however, I prefer OVERVIEWS (not only in your 2ars or 2nrs) because they clear things up for me and make the ballot easier too.

OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD . If you speak marginally fast or faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY because I will probably not understand it or flow it. By chance if I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate and I will probably just ignore it.

HAVE FUN DEBATING ;)

I am a parent judge and this is my fourth year of judging debate. I strongly prefer that you speak slowly and clearly and emphasize the important arguments in the round.

I am a parent judge and judging for past two and half year.

I prefer if both teams would reference their evidence and make their arguments concise and easy to understand.

I look for consistency in the arguments throughout the debate

Judgement is limited only to the arguments presented and contested in the debate

I was a high school debater back in the 1970s. I have been judging debate for approximately 5 years. I am a math and physics graduate from the University of Illinois and a EECS graduate from UC Berkeley.

I'm currently a freshman at UC Berkeley, studying Computer Science. My primary event was Policy, which I competed in for four years at Silver Creek High, finishing off my debate career by winning the NCFL Championship in 2021. I also did a bit of LD and Extemp on the side and did some PF before high school so I'm more than capable of judging those events.

Pronouns: any pronouns

Put me on the email chain: dakshjain@gmail.com (feel free to email me after the round if you have any questions too)

SVUDL Ryan Mills Invitational Specific Notes:

I have not kept up with any of this year's topics, so assume I have 0 topic knowledge. Explain acronyms and any particularly confusing link-chains. Also, if your opponent is only used to lay debate, be as accommodating as possible. My biggest pet peeve is when teams think they can win an easy ballot by spreading an unprepared team out. Just because I am a somewhat technical judge does not make that alright. So if even just one of the teams is more comfortable with lay debate, I will default to that style of judging paradigm.

NDF PF Specific Notes:

I'm one of the LD lab leaders, so I don't have a lot of topic knowledge, but I've also debated for 4 years, so I have a pretty decent idea of what's going on with NATO / the Baltics. Most of the stuff below is specific to Policy / circuit LD, but I still recommend you read it to understand what kind of judge I am.

Even if you disclosed to each other before the rounds, I want access to the documents, it makes sorting any claims on evidence far simpler.

If you need to call for evidence, that's prep. I refuse to continually start and stop the timers for you to call for evidence. And on that note, don't save all of your prep for the final focus at the cost of decent rebuttals. Use your prep as needed.

Also, please properly extend your arguments, and do line-by-line work. You'd think I wouldn't have to say this stuff, but you'd be surprised.

Other than that, be respectful (especially during crossfire), and have fun y'all!.

Random Notes:

If at any point, anyone in the round is uncomfortable due to the actions of myself or the opponents, please let me know, and I will stop the round in order to resolve the issue. I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind and will not refrain from giving you an auto-loss, 0 speaks, contacting tab, etc depending on the severity of your actions. Please hold me accountable for the same.

I prefer if arguments are consistent across flows. IE. don't run a Cap K with a DA that has an econ impact. Probably won't factor in my decision unless the opposing team reads PrefCon convincingly enough, however I thought I'd mention it.

Flashing / Emailing is not prep, but if I think you're stealing prep I will call you out on it.

If you have pretyped analytics, please send them out. Especially during online debate, it just makes things easier.

Please keep your camera on if possible. It allows me to tell if you are stealing prep.

Tell me if you have any tech issues, and we can try to sort them out. Don't worry about using prep for that.

Preface:

I like smart debates. Show me your analytical skills rather than how fast you can spread. I will be flowing, and will be considering the line by line to an extent, however you will always be better off making a few well thought out arguments, rather than 50 crappy ones. I also think that analytics are severely underused, and with the right explanation, you can overcome any evidence. Past that I will vote on anything (provided it is not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc), so run what you are comfortable with, but be sure you're explaining everything throughout the round, and condensing down to only your best arguments. By the end you should be laying out my ballot for me, and telling me why you win. THIS MEANS IMPACT CALC.

T:

As with all other arguments, I will try to be neutral about this, however, I will say after seeing every bad time suck T violation in the book, your time is better spent elsewhere. That is of course unless, there has been actual abuse, and you've lost significant ground. If this occurs, your speech should make it explicitly clear, what you could not run as a result of the violation.

Theory:

Again I will vote on anything, and after all of the BS I've seen, PerfCon and Condo could very well be convincing in the round. Just be sure that (just like with T), there has been actual abuse, and be ready to explain it well.

CPs:

One of the most underutilized portions of traditional policy debate. And especially with this topic, there is almost always going to be some CP that will net you offense. I prefer case specific / advantage CPs that are well researched, over the generics states CP, but again, run what you are comfortable with. Also just because this is something I used to pull a lot, I kind of love the cheeky one line, no solvency, CPs, assuming they make logical sense. Be careful about theory on those, however, as I will remove my bias from weighing that side of the debate.

DAs:

Most DAs are trash. Period. Y'all are still out here on the goddamn CJR topic, claiming that Trump is going to get credit for something that he is vehemently opposed to, and thus we should do jack sh*t to help marginalized populations? K. Can you tell I don't like politics? Like I've said 50 times already, I'll vote on anything, but you better have a good link story or some strong analytics can cause your politics DA to come tumbling down. THERE IS SUCH THING AS 0% RISK. I think DAs can definitely be great, you just need to make sure that everything makes logical sense. Extra points if the DA is creative in some way, or is specific to the AFF.

Ks:

I like watching K rounds, however I will say that you might loose me in some of the lingo. I've been doing debate for long enough to know a lot of the concepts from the major Ks, however the amount of literature I have actually read is much less broad. Specific links are your friend, and I especially love if you can pull out specific lines from the 1AC that link. The impacts are normally solid on Ks, however I think the alt is often forgotten. There are certainly instances where the K can function without the alt, however, if the alt doesn't solve, this is often a great net benefit to the perm, or a possible indictment of their thesis. Point being that it can really go either way, and really depends on how both sides leverage it.

K AFFs:

No real preference here. I will certainly listen to K AFFs, and I will certainly listen to T/FW + Cap K against it. KvK debates or any more creative approach to the debate would be fun, but the tried and true methods are tried and true for a reason.

Case:

Everyone sleeps on case, but case debate is where it is at. It is legitimately the most interactive part of a debate, and thus I am willing to weigh case highly. I try to be reasonable on this, so I would really still like some offense (could even be a case turn), but depending on how the debate goes, the AFF might have 0% solvency in my eyes.

I had no experience competing, coaching, or judging speech and debate prior to becoming a teacher coach for Yerba Buena High School's speech and debate team in 2020. Since then, I have judged policy, public forum, world schools, original oratory, and impromptu.

I enjoy listening to all types of arguments, but please treat me as a layman judge and thoroughly explain your arguments, especially if uncommon debate jargon/terms are involved. As an English teacher, I expect every argument brought into a round to be followed with strong evidence and warrants. I tend to favor a well-supported argument over several weak arguments (quality > quantity). I prefer that debaters do not spread because this often leads to my missing important points/arguments; as a non-debater, I cannot follow arguments in the same way that debaters do. Whether or not you spread, providing a roadmap before your speech and signposting during your speech will make it easier for me to follow your argument.

For email chains: lae@esuhsd.org

Speech & Debate Teacher Coach (2020 - Present)

DCP El Primero High School

She/Her Pronouns

Add me to your email chain: jlew-munoz@dcp.org

Personal Background

Consider me as a lay judge. Never competed in speech or debate events in high school or college. Earned a BS in Mathematics and MA in Teaching. Became a teacher coach as there is an alignment with constructing mathematical proofs and constructing logical arguments as seen in both speech and debate. Main experience teaching/judging policy debate and impromptu speech.

Policy Debate

Please, please, please …

• No spreading. I am okay with normal to moderate speed. Talk clearly and enunciate.

• Explicitly state your claims (arguments), warrants (evidence/reasoning), and impacts (why it matters/net impact).

• Signpost and give me an off-time road map. Make it easy for me to flow.

• Rebut/Clash. Attack your opponent's case as much as possible. So make sure to keep track of what they are saying. (FLOW!) Note: I’ll vote on dropped arguments if I catch it. Also, if there is genuinely no defense or clash, I default neg.

• On a similar note, weigh all arguments using impact calculus. Talk about magnitude, scope, probability, etc. Show me how the plan can either create a net positive or net negative impact on the world.

No K’s, theory, or tricks.

My email (for email chains, or questions): edklin@gmail.com

Background and Experience:

I did policy debate for Leland High School from 1998-2002. I placed at state, went to nationals, earned ToC bids, was in semi-finals of Berkeley, etc. In other words, I competed at a high level in front of both parent judges and circuit judges (slow and fast debate).

For approximately 3+ years after graduating from high school, I came back to Leland to coach policy debate.

However, as you can see, that was MANY years ago. I have been coaching debate at a small private school (The King's Academy) since 2018. I have NOT judged (in practice or in a tournament) any truly circuit/fast debate rounds for over 10 years. [I have judged a few fast rounds at local league tournaments, but these are not the same, of course, as fast rounds on the circuit--I would call this medium speed policy debate].

While I still believe I can handle fast-type arguments (Kritiks, theory, CPs, etc.), two possible problems: 1) I might not be up-to-date on contemporary debate lingo or newer concepts and 2) I might not be able to handle top spreading speeds due to my lack of practice listening to spreading.

Since coming back to debate in 2018, I have judged other debates (LD, PF, etc.), and they generally make sense to me even though I may be less familiar with their cultures. I should be able to handle a medium speed debate in these non-policy debate events.

Profession:

I have been teaching in the sociology department at UC Berkeley since 2014. My subfields are in immigration, globalization, and international development. I also frequently teach classes on sociological research methods (and evaluation of evidence). This is just for your reference so you know what kinds of ideas, concepts, ways of thinking I would most likely be familiar with.

Overall Paradigm:

I do consider myself to be tabula rasa (blank slate). That means that I will try my best to keep my personal opinions out of the evaluation of the debate round and only consider what you say. This means that if you do not say it explicitly (for example, you do not say, the disadvantage outweighs the affirmative case because...) then I cannot evaluate that argument. I will first try to judge the round based strictly on the arguments made in the debate, but if I feel like it is impossible for me to decide who wins based on the arguments in the round, then I will end up intervening and using my own judgment of what arguments were made more persuasively or less persuasively (based at least somewhat on my own personal opinion and feelings about those arguments that are made, or feelings about how good the presented evidence was). I prefer NOT to intervene, but many debates often end up this way because the 2NR/2AR (last two speeches) do not clearly explain how I should vote and/or both teams make the same arguments over and over and neither seem to be winning logically over the other team and so I have to step in and decide what I think is the better argument.

Key Points to Pay Attention To:

- Be clear and explain thoroughly.
- 2NR and 2AR (last two speeches) needs to have clear articulations of how the judge should vote (including impact weighing/comparisons)
- In policy, I am neither "stock issue" or "policy" paradigm, but rather, you explain what you think I should be or do to evaluate the debate round (you tell me what is the best way to evaluate the round and why--convince me to adopt a paradigm if you want me to adopt one, or just convince me why I should vote for you).

gavinloyddebate@gmail.com - Yes, I want to be on the email chain. -- please format the subject as "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs. Neg School NG." Example: "TOC -- Finals -- MBA BM vs. WY MM."

If you have any questions before the round starts, please don't hesitate to ask.

LD specific stuff is at the very bottom.

Quick Bio:

Hebron '20. Did CX all 4 years. Read K affs/negs sophomore-senior year. 2A Soph, 2N Junior, 2A Senior.

UT Austin '24

TLDR:

Spreading - Yes

Open CX - Yes

Flex Prep - Yes, but only clarifying questions

No Plan Text (Varsity/JV)- Yes

No Plan Text (Novice) - No

Kritiks - Yes

Disclosure Theory -- Ideally, you'll have some proof of mis/lack of disclosure to make things easier, but I'm willing to vote on it.

Cards in Body of the Email - You get 1 per speech given. If there are more cards than that, then you put them in a document.

If you open-source and do round reports with the details of the 1AC, 1NC, and 2NR, tell me right when the round ends, and I'll increase your speaks by .2 after checking.

I do not keep track of your prep unless you explicitly ask me to and there's some reason you can't do it.

General Philosophy:

I conceptualize much of debate as who is winning the "framing issue." How do I evaluate offense, what do I prioritize, post fiat or pre-fiat? Answer this question of debate for me, and it'll give you a strong cushion to supercharge your line by line and gives me very simple ways to conceptualize my RFD.

I'll vote on anything, but some things I'm more comfortable evaluating than others. My debate history was entirely Ks, but don't over-adapt to me.

Reconcile what impacts come first or how to weigh them relative to your opponent's.

If you say something racist or sexist, I reserve the right to drop you and go on about my day.

Disadvantages:

Look, it's a DA; just extend it properly, please.

Ideally, do not read a soft left DA versus a plan text aff.

Counterplans:

Clever counter-plans and PICS are fun. Generics are also fun if run well. I probably lean neg on most CP theory except for consult and solvency advocate.

If a CP text just has "do the aff" or something similar instead of explicitly saying the portion of the aff that the CP is doing, the Aff team can just say "They don't know how to write a plan text. They don't fiat an action - textuality matters so they don't get the part of the CP that claims to do the aff" and that will be sufficient for the aff to win that portion of the CP, or maybe all of it depending on the context.

Kritiks:

4-minute overviews make me cry. Case-specific links are great. Generic links are fine and can definitely be won.

I have the most experience with Settler Colonialism, Afropess, Virilio, Heidegger, Cap, and Black Nihilism. However, I also have worked with Ks like Agamben, Baudrillard, Foucault, Security, Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, etc. That does not mean I will do the work to fill in the analysis for you.

Unfortunately, most framework debates in the 2NR/2AR often become meaningless with a lack of clash. At that point, I functionally default to weigh the aff, but the K gets its links in whatever form they are. If this isn't strategic for you, put the work in and win FW by answering their stuff and not just extending yours.

I'll vote on all the cheaty K tricks like floating PIKS or all in on FW. Similarly, I'll vote on hard right approaches to answering Ks, whether that means going all-in on heg good/impact turning the K.

Root cause arguments are not links. If your only link is just a root cause, then I won't be voting negative.

I seem to judge a fair amount of Wilderson/Warren debates, so here are a few things.

On the state good side -- just winning a list of reforms isn't enough for me. I need to hear a clear counter-theorization of how the world operates and comparative claims to take out social death/equivalent claims. Reforms prove that counter-theorization but don't make a theory itself. This doesn't require reinventing the wheel. Think "progress is possible. institutions are malleable tools of humanity and biases can be overcome."

On the Wilderson/Warren side -- you need to justify your theory of the world rather than rehashing debate's greatest hits. Saying "Jim crow to prison industrial complex" repeatedly does not make a full argument. Ideally, I'll hear some thesis-level explanation, like a few seconds on social death or what the libidinal economy is, rather than just "extend the conceded libidinal economy." The "Jim Crow to PIC" explanation requires the thesis-level explanation to be true.

For both teams -- I've found that I decide most debates by who undercovers ontology/libidinal economy the most. Many arguments on the flow come secondary to winning this and applying it to those other things, so identify what you can afford to give up to make my decision easier. You can still win ontology/metaphysics and lose the debate, but there are fewer scenarios where that's true.

University K's that PIK out of the university or debate suck. Do with that information as you will.

Kritikal Affs:

For the negative - I am a bad judge for going for fairness as a terminal impact. So, I'll probably need some external benefit to fairness like clash. Don't read this as me being dogmatically against voting on fairness. Instead, I need an incredibly robust explanation of fairness with significant case mitigation to vote on it. A couple of conditions that the neg ideally meets at least one of for me to vote on fairness as the 2NR terminal impact include:

1. Dropped TVA/Neg is clearly ahead on TVA that solves all of the Aff's offense.

2. The aff has failed to explain a counter-model for what debate is/should be and concedes that debate is only a game with no implication past that.

3. Significant explanation for how fairness implicates and turns aff offense at the level of the aff's explanation, not just generic claims.

4. External offense not within that framework flow that impact turns the Aff's value claims and implicates the Aff's fw offense.

Independent of all that, fairness is a great controlling IL to filter things, so definitely leverage it as a part of other impacts if you go that route.

Ks vs the K aff are cool. A good debate here is realistically one of the top places I'll give high speaks along with impact turns. I default to the aff gets a perm, but feel free to win they don't. Just winning your theory of power isn't sufficient for me to vote negative, but it definitely supercharges link arguments.

Impact turns are great. Feel free just to drop 10 scenarios and challenge the fundamental assumptions of the 1AC.

DAs -- if a K team is trying to be tricky and give you topic DAs. Feel free to go for the DA and CP, but make sure you have case mitigation or some framing device.

For the aff -

You need to either win a) your model is better than theirs or b) their model is really, really bad if you don't have a c/i.

I find myself voting negative in these debates when the Aff fails to give me a framing argument to filter negative offense.

Be ready to defend your solvency mechanism if it is attacked. I need a coherent story about what my voting aff does. Do I signify a good political strategy, does my ballot literally break the system (lol), does it change mindsets, etc. Presumption is persuasive, so don't disrespect it by under-covering it.

I'm not the judge for rounds where you and the opponent agree to have a "discussion" and talk about important issues outside the traditional speech times of debate. These things are likely important, but I don't want to have to decide on something like that. It requires too much judge intervention for my liking. Strike me if this is something you plan on doing. If you do not strike me and this type of round happens, then I am flipping a coin. Heads for the aff. Tails for the neg.

Topicality:

I am not anywhere near the best judge for T. If your A strat is Topicality, then I'd recommend striking me or having me hover around a 4. If you are forced to go for T in the 2NR/answering it the 2AR, then hold my hand through the RFD and explain how things should interact.

If you're put in a position where T is your only option, don't worry and keep the things below in mind.

I default to competing interpretations.

Give me a case list, especially if it's a weirder interp.

Go slower than you would with a DA/K/CP. I find it harder to flow T than other off-cases at high speed.

Make sure you tell me why I should vote for you rather than just have floating offense.

Weird and Random Technical Things:

Speech times are a rule, while things like topicality are a norm. That means I'm willing to entertain a debate about the benefits of topicality/FW vs. a K aff. If you speak over the timer, I will not flow or evaluate what you are saying, even if it is a part of your argumentation.

No, the neg will never get a 3NR.

I greatly dislike completely new 1AR cards if the argument was made in the 1NC and dropped in the 2AC. There is a big gray area here for what it means to be "dropped," but you should be able to realize what is abusive or not.

1NC/1AC mistakes -- if you read something like a CP or T and forget to read some critical component or have a massive typo in that critical component (where relevant), the 2NC is not an "oopsie, we can revise that" speech. This also includes situations where a policy aff forgets to read a plan text in the 1ac. If your T/FW shell is missing a violation in the 1NC, you do not get to create one in the 2NC. If you read a CP text with a massive typo including part of the text of a different 1AC from a previous round rather than the 1ac you are debating, you don't get a new one in the 2NC. However, if you have a typo in your speech doc and verbally correct yourself in the 1NC, I am completely ok with that revision. I'm sure other judges and people in the community have different opinions about what the 2NC/2AC can and can't do, but I'm going to be transparent about my bias. Theoretically, you could argue to change my mind in the debate, but it will be an incredible uphill battle.

Off-case positions should be clearly labeled in the 1NC.

I'll generally evaluate inserted rehighlighting of the opponent's evidence. There is obviously a point where a team could abuse this -- don't do that. But, I think that teams should be punished for under highlighting/mis highlighting their evidence. Due to time trade-offs/competitive incentives, I think that forcing you to verbally re-read the evidence punishes you more. Essentially, one or two key inserted rehighlightings is fine, but if you're inserting the entire 1ac re-highlighted, that's not ok.

Don't say "brief off-time roadmap." Just say roadmap, please.

The only thing I want to hear in your roadmap is the name of off-case positions and specific case pages. If there's a large overview, then maybe add that to the roadmap. "Impact calculus" happens within one of those flows, so just signpost in speech rather than making it a part of the roadmap.

Please don't send pdfs. Verbatim > Unverbatimized Word > Google Docs > Pdfs.

LD --

I am not evaluating tricks.

In order of args I'm best suited to judge (best to worst) -- K, LARP, Phil, Tricks.

Most of my thoughts on policy debate apply to LD. However, the way y'all debate T, theory, procedurals, etc sounds like a second language to me that is vaguely mutually intelligible to my own. I'm not great for these arguments in policy, so I'm probably even worse for them in LD. Y'all will need to be very clear and overexplain argument interaction to get my ballot

Hi, my name is Katelyn, and I am former policy debater for Skinner West and Whitney Young. I now currently judge/mentor both teams, and have been in debate for around 6-7 years. I judge both PF and policy.

My email: kjluu@cps.edu

Here are some general rules/things I like to see:

- Time yourself please, this should be a debater's responsibility

- Spreading is always nice but give roadmaps + signpost (clarity>speed)

- Always include impact calculus in the rebuttal speeches

- I prefer overviews in speeches rather than giving me an underview with remaining time (overviews are always good to hear)

- Organized line by line in the rebuttal speeches is always good

- tag teaming is ok but don't take over CX

- please overexplain rather than underexplain to get through more arguments

- I tend to prefer substance of the debate over generalized arguments or evidence, so make sure you are not just extending cards and evidence but also providing analytics and building clash

- I tend to not take questions/arguments made in the CX into account in my ballot, you must bring whatever it was that occurred up in a speech for me to weigh it and flow it

- tech over truth

AFF:

- always always always extend your impacts- I tend to weigh presumption so please give me impact extensions through your rebuttals

- evidence/source debate is good clash in my opinion, updated evidence is always good

- I don't vote too heavy on perm- I want to see why you expand on refuting net benefits, solvency advocates, etc

- I vote on T, so please take your time to refute it - I really REALLY like well thought out and run T arguments

- I typically go for extinction rather than moral/human rights arguments

NEG:

- I vote on NEG presumption, so please expand squo solves arguments and turns- there are a lot of good case turns that can be abused that typically are not extended in debate rounds- I would love to see clash on case

- I weigh all offcase arguments, but I tend to see DAs as net benefits or loopholes rather than physical arguments on their own (please do run DAs though)

- I don't weigh K too heavily, but I do appreciate framing and theory arguments

- I really like T arguments and clash - please go all in or drop T in the rebuttals- I really hate to see poorly run Topicality

- Be clear when kicking out of offcase arguments and please don't commit a forfeit offense :)

- I am familiar with a few K args, majority of the CPs, DAs and more, but I love to hear new arguments every now and then

That's all I've got, I love to see respectful and educational debates filled with clash. Thanks for reading my paradigm, and good luck debating!

Jenny Marsh

jennymiller96@gmail.com for email chains

4 years debate at Washburn Rural High School, Topeka Ks

On/off debate involvement with the Atlanta Urban Debate League/judging for the last 6 years

I am close with quite a few people still heavily involved in college debate/coaching HS debate, but this involvement is admittedly tangential. Please feel free to ask me any specific/clarification questions before rounds.

In general I would classify my paradigm as tab ras, and I default offense-defense. That being said I will contentedly vote within the paradigm best defined and defended in the round. I certainly will not connect any dots for you, so even if something may seem apparent if everyone in the room is familiar with debate, if you don't make the argument yourself I'm not going to do that work for you.

I'm very open to pretty much any debate style/argument: the exception being racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise hateful speech directed at anyone. Devil's advocacy is fine. Hate speech, triggering speech that is not appropriately forewarned, and harmful behavior towards your competitors is not something I will tolerate.

I value debate very strongly as a critical thinking exercise, and you will me much more likely to get a positive ballot from me if you engage with the arguments in the round in a logical way. I'm fine with a more technically-oriented debate, but reading a bunch of complex args that you don't seem to understand is not going to endear you to me. I do like humor, effort, and genuine thought; these things will endear you strongly to me.

I enjoy a good T debate. That being said if you go for T in conjunction with a bunch of other off case args, and don't clearly articulate your harms, I may not be persuaded.

Theory debates are fine. I want what you say to make sense, but within that scope, if you can logically justify it to me, I'll vote on it, I don't necessarily need a strong case for abuse if you have some other justification.

I'll vote on a K. If you don't know or are mischaracterizing the literature you're reading, I won't be especially enthused, but if the other team doesn't call you out on it I can't hold it against you (just keep in mind that I may be aware that you're mischaracterizing, and that won't make you my favorite). I really just care about a clear explanation of how the K interacts with the aff, and what my vote means in the context of the round. I won't be thrilled if you run a K I think is dumb, but if you can clearly articulate why I should vote for it, and the other team doesn't respond, I'll still vote for it.

I love a good case debate, and it's my personal preference versus a bunch of off case. DA's and CPs- standard schtick. I will vote against them if there's a good case for in round abuse, I'll happily vote for them if they make sense and have well explained voters.

All of this is just meant to provide helpful context, at the end of the day run whatever you want and give me a logical reason to vote for it, and we'll all be happy. I'm also happy to clarify/answer any questions.

I am a parent judge and I have been judging events for the last 2-3 years.

For congress debate tournaments:

I look for clarity, speaking to the point, using floor space, eye contact, respect to other members. If you spread, talk too fast, run through impact parts too fast, I won't be able to keep track and will ignore them.

I try to focus and listen the entire duration of your speech. I write my feedback simultaneously as I listen to the speech. I also listen carefully to cross examinations, and will take account of every time you make a good point or defend effectively. Use your cross examination time effectively, I won't reward when there is a stalemate.

My decision is based on: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence... Focus on why your impacts are important why they are better than your opponent. It would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize.

Who is this judge?

I am an Economics and Government Classroom Teacher. I have also taught World History and United States History. My background is in Anthropology. I have co-coached debate for three years and predominately judged Policy Debate. I go by he/him pronouns.

What does this judge care about?

The debate for me is about civil discourse and should be honored in that respect. I emphasize equity of voice and time management. Debaters should not seek to dominate the air time, but find balance in the discussion. Debaters should track their own time carefully as well as that of their opponents. Before starting speeches or taking preparation time you should check with judge and opposition in order to ensure and equal and fair competition as possible. Debaters should ensure that judge, opposition and partner are ready before launching into their arguments/rebuttals.

How does he award Speaker Points?

Purely based on who the best speaker is, which is a totally subjective system. If you can speak clearly yet quickly, maintain eye contact when appropriate and keep filler words to a minimum you'll get higher speaking points. If you can find a way to speak to me instead of at me, you'll get higher speaker points. Don't feel like you need to do anything special.

How fast can I go?

As fast as you want while remaining clear. Do not spread, speak quickly. If you must spread, make sure the tag and author/date are very clear. If I can make out the individual words you're using, I can keep up. I'm not going to tell you if I can't keep up, you should be able to tell if I can keep up by watching me. I am usually much more in favor of a smaller amount of well supported and reasoned arguments though. Technical skill alone will not win a round judged by me.

My background is 90s policy debate for Vestavia Hills HS & Georgetown University. I'm confident that I can handle aggressive pace and esoteric arguments. However, I demand clarity, appreciate intonation, and I am more likely to vote for arguments that I personally believe are true. Please don't read bad evidence. I might punish you for that. Personally, I have an undeniable preference for justice-based arguments like human rights and economic egalitarianism. However, I aspire to be non-interventionist/tabular as a. You can win just about any argument if you make a compelling case within the debate.

I am a parent judge.

Zita Wang

I am a parent judge. I judged speech and debate in different tournments in the past three years.

Take your pace, provide framework, and love to hear your summary about why you should win.

Be confident, run your flow, respect your competitors, and have fun!

• I am a lay parent judge, so please no "spreading."
• Please speak slowly and clearly so I am able to take notes on your speeches and introduce yourselves before your first speeches.
• Do not be disrespectful towards the other team in any way (no ad hominem) and avoid escalating cross examination/fire.
• You are responsible for timing yourselves.
• Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge. Please do not use jargon or speak too quickly.