I'm a relatively new parent judge.

DO NOT SPREAD. If you talk too quickly, I'm not going to understand you and I'm going to stop listening. Note that this does not mean you can't talk at a reasonably quick pace. However, if you're speaking so fast that it's incomprehensible, the win will go to your opponent.

I'm not open to progressive arguments. Don't run theory shells, Ks, etc. Debate is a communicative event. If you are running insane complicated arguments, not only will I not understand you, but your opponent will likely not either, and I believe that a debate without mutual understanding is not a debate.

I largely prefer traditional argumentation but if you are running borderline arguments like plans and counterplans, make sure that you very clearly explain them.

Avoid the acronyms! If you're running a counterplan, say you're running a counterplan. Don't just say CP. It's just one extra syllable and it makes a large difference in both my understanding and your opponent's.

Truth > Tech. I don't care if your opponent didn't address your argument that the earth is flat or any ludicrous falsehood. If it's very obviously not true, I don't care about the technicalities.

Be respectful. Don't insult the other person. Just focus on attacking their arguments.

Speak clearly! If you're mumbling or you're lagging out, I'll let you know.

To make things clear, I am a lay judge in progressive debate. Make theory and progressive tools (i.e. kritiks/counterplans) very, very clear.

The Affirmative must present a problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

Speed: Be clear. Be very clear. Do not spread. Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it. I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Theory: Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I would like for the debates about the debate to be interesting. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence: Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. Do not take evidence out of context by cutting qualifiers like "might" or "maybe". Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it. I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Be courteous. Modulate your volume.

Hello

My name is Parrish Eyre. I own a small Management Consulting firm specializing in Business and IT Process reengineering. I have no formal training in debate but absolutely love it and have the greatest amount of respect for those that are willing to step up the the mic and articulate an argument.

From an experience perspective I spent 4 years as a University student grade/infraction appeal judge and a traffic court judge.

If you read nothing else: be respectful to one another. You will not win if you are not kind.

For LD Sections Debate:

I am not an expert in LD. Take it easy, and treat me as a lay judge here. A lot of the same points mentioned below about PF apply to a typical LD round in some form. Debate definitions first, and explain everything.

Thoughts: I believe every argument you make must be founded on evidence and research. Arguments with no sources won't be weighed. If a team introduces evidence that is found to be outright falsified, the round ends in a loss for that team and a discussion between myself and their coach. It is every competitor's responsibility to ensure your teammates and your opponents are properly using evidence.

I judge based on the evidence and arguments presented in the round. That means if your opponents argue that the sky is green, and you don't question them or their evidence, then the sky is green.

Things I like in debate:

-Clear frameworks. This is how I will vote, and usually means defining key parts of the resolution and presenting a weighing mechanism.
-Weighed impacts. How do your impacts stack up against your opponents'? Tell me explicitly, especially in summary and final focus.
-Organized arguments. Signpost. I can better keep track of organized arguments, helping you win.
-Critical thinking. Point out logical inconsistencies, make sure your opponents aren't misrepresenting evidence, etc.
-Unique arguments. As long as your evidence and logic are solid, these can be fun. Make sure they're in the scope of the resolution.

Things I don't like in debate:

-Non-topical arguments. Often called "Kritics" or "K's," these do not fly with me. You have a resolution, debate it.
-Shot-gunning evidence. One good source is always worth more than a dozen poor sources.
-Argument spreading. “Judge, they dropped our third and tenth contention, so you must vote for us.” I will not.
-Talking too fast. Slow down. There is no need to yell. If I can actually write down everything you say you'll be better off.
-New arguments after rebuttals. I may consider new evidence if you are asked for it, but brand-new arguments won't be considered.
-Falsifying or supported evidence.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have before or after the round. We are here to grow and learn new skills.

Lastly, good luck and have fun :)

Congress:

I value insightful responses to challenging questions during the questioning period. By that same token, if you ask challenging and provoking questions, it will reflect well on your round placement.

I wholeheartedly value speeches that embody the congressional debate sentiment: a focus on the American constituents who "elected" you to office. At the end of the day, that is who you represent. The best speeches are compelling, comprehensible, motivating, and delivered at a normal speaking pace (no spreading). I definitely don't mind a joke/pun or two. Speaking well, in a very compelling way, is just as important as what you are saying. Try not to read from your screen or notes too much.

For PO contests, speed and efficiency is key. The better PO is the one that successfully moves the round along with minimal hesitations, almost as if you don't even notice their presence.

World Schools Debate:

I heavily value speaking compellingly and passionately. That means that you shouldn't be spreading. Also, make sure that you keep in mind that because this is WSD, you should be considering the perspective of the world, not focusing your debate on a specific country.

Public Forum:

Try not to spread, as Public Forum is intended to be accessible to the average non-debater. Additionally, make sure your arguments are presented in a compelling way; what you say is just as important as how you say it. For online tournaments, your arguments are communicated more effectively if you are not clearly reading from your screen for the entire speech. Try to look up at the audience every once and a while. I am also comfortable with nonconventional arguments (at least nonconventional for PF) as long as they are presented compellingly and have a clear tie-back to the topic at hand.

About me:

I participated in Congressional Debate and World School's Debate in high school, attending both CA State Finals and US Nationals. I am now an undergraduate student at Yale University.

Christina Lim- Los Osos High School

Background: Predominantly spent my 4 years doing PF and Congress and Parli occasionally. I have judged a few tournaments when I could in college.

I can judge LD but I'm not great at it.

If you get me for policy, lol

To get me to vote for you, tell me why I should care about your side and what you're doing better than your opponent to achieve your means/goals.

General notes (mostly applies to PF):

-PF is the people's debate and a good team is the one whose arguments can convince me, convince my mother, or convince a random person on the street that their side is right. The best debaters don't use speed or information dumps to win but rather choose the strongest, most efficient arguments to convey in a way that is understandable by all.

-I value framework and concise, logical arguments that tie into your framework. Right off the bat, I want to know what your weighing mechanism is, why it's better than your opponents, and how each of your arguments supports that wm. Tell me why I should care about what you're saying. I like creative, unique arguments but my plausibility can only be stretched so far.

-I will not accept any new contentions outside of the 1AC/1NC so make them count. I think it's perfectly fine to drop minor arguments that don't serve the big picture of what you're trying to argue for but if you're on the opposite side and want to capitalize on the drop, please tell me why it's actually important (i.e. just saying an argument was dropped isn't enough). Summary and final speeches should be centered around voter issues and it's important you prove why your side addresses the resolution the best and your opponents did not.

-Signpost, signpost, singpost. Guide me to whatever conclusions you want me to come to. Don't let me make them myself because it might not be the one you want. Off-time roadmaps are ok with me.

-I love evidence and I think it's crucial to supporting arguments but you need to tell me why it's more important/better than whatever evidence the other side brings up. The side that has 10 impactful pieces of evidence will always win over the side that dumped 1000 headlines on me and expects me to know what to do with it.

-I believe more in arguing the spirit of the resolution and less in the letter of the resolution so if the debate gets too into the weeds with definitions and technicalities, I will give the win to the side that was able to best argue the idea of the resolution. I don't care for the more progressive debate styles and I don't like how it takes away from the core aspect of PF which is supposed to be a format that can be accessible to the general public.

-Fairness is important to me so if you think it'll be fun to run framework/arguments that are too abusive or narrow (especially if you're trying to flex on a less experienced team), just don't.

-I will flow only what I can actually understand so spread if you want to be impressive, don't spread if you want to win.

-Be aggressive, but civil especially in CX. Rudeness nets you low speaks.

-I trust you to keep your own time and will allow a few seconds to finish up your last sentence if you go over. Don't do this too often.

That is just about it when it comes to my preferences and things I look for in a debate. Anything I didn't address you may ask before the round starts. I look forward to hearing you debate!

I have extensive experience with Parliamentary debate, and am comfortable with whatever you want to run. I flow reasonably well, so spreading is fine. However, if I can't understand you, it'll be tough to flow your speech onto my excel file.

Debate theory is fine, Kritiks are fine, Topicality is fine (though don't abuse this tactic). I won't reject them out of hand, but you must give me a reason to care about any of these issues if you choose to run them. Make your statements impactful and give me explicit voters.

I do not count off-time roadmaps and salutations towards your time, and I will begin timing once each speaker says "go."

Points of Order will cause me to stop the clock and begin again once everyone is ready. POOs are judges discretion, and I will not disclose how I rule on POOs. However, feel free to use them if you feel the need.

I like to see debates in a debate, so clash is a must. Asking lots of POIs will never lose you points.

I have a fairly broad knowledge base about most parli topics, but I will not bring my own knowledge into the debate. If your opponents assert that the earth is flat, and you do not contest this, I will assume that the earth is flat for the purposes of this debate.

Have fun!

A good debate means both sides have strong, well researched cases with points that are supported with evidence and easy to follow. Debaters are respectful of each other and the spirit of the event.

I judge on framework and flow. The debater that wins will be the one who best defends their case with supported rebuttals and upholds their value through the end of the debate.

I am an experienced coach and experienced competitor. I have been tournament champions of numerous tournaments (in Originals and Interp) and have been to State every year of competition and qualified to Nationals. My team has always sent a delegation to Nats every year we have been a program. I do my best to leave quality and constructive criticism on ballot.

Debaters:

I sure love it when debaters signpost. That helps me and you stay organized on the flow sheet.

If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. So make sure you are speaking clearly and slowly enough so I can digest what youre saying.

I have a conditional love towards "out of the box" plans and ks but keep them tasteful and thoughtful. Anything facetious or "edgy" is not it for me. But an interesting take and or something whimsical but thoughtful I will appreciate. In the end, is it something you would run in front of your coach? If yes, I'll take it. If you do extinction theory, it's not going to go well. That's not showing me how good of a debater you are. I am much more about the spirit and intention of argumentation, not the letter of the flow.

Speechies:

Please enunciate and project. Again, if I can't hear or understand you, I can't judge you. For originals I am expecting a well organized and analyzed speech. For you Varsity/Open competitors, you should be completely memorized (but a few flubs here and there will NOT make or break your speech). For interpies, please have clean and distinct character pops, and the cut of your piece should follow the elements of story telling and make narrative sense. Also, remember, if I didn't see you emote, did you? Be mindful of facial direction, and focal points. If I can't see you, I can't judge you.

Spontaneous speakers, if I see that you are canning your speeches, your rankings will reflect that. Spon events are testing on your ability to organize and complete a speech spontaneously. If you are using canned examples and just swapping out phrases or words, that is not speaking spontaneously. I will penalize HEAVILY.

I like to see a lot of clash between arguments. I like it when competitors explain their argument and the impact of their arguments. I weigh heavily on the value criterion and voting issues expressed in the first constructive speeches, extending to the last rebuttal speeches. I do not like fast reading or spreading. I am OK with value debates, policy debate and philosophical debates.