Hello! My name is Utsav and I am a third year Computer Science student at Simon Fraser University. I did participate in debate competitions throughout middle school so I am familiar with such events. I look forward to building my experience as a judge!

Hello, I was a former policy, extemp, and lincoln douglas debater during my high school days. It's been a while though.

Extemp: please provide as many sources as you can. I prioritize evidence over eloquence.

Policy:

I don't particularly care for kritiks and theory; I prefer the standard counterplan/disad/ style of debate. Solvency is a dealbreaker for me, and I judge by the traditional policy-making paradigm.

Lincoln Douglas: Value criterions are number one for me and qualify as the standard through which I will judge the round.

Last note: I will take points off if you're a jerk or unnecessarily mean. It degrades the round and yourself, and I speak from experience. Have fun and don't stress.

Hi there, I've been judging debate (LD, PF, Congress, Parli, WSD) for about 6 years. I am tabula rasa when it comes to judging a round; don't expect me to know the topic. It is up to the debater to provide a framework that best upholds their arguments. I flow but if you spread, send me (and your opponent) your speech doc. That said, I don't want to look through pages and pages of your speech doc with a couple of words highlighted on each one. If you couldn't tell, I'm more familiar with traditional LD and have little experience in circuit debating. I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I like evidence and logical link chains with clear warrants. I like clash. I don't like falsified evidence, misleading evidence, disclosure theory or bad theory. I especially won't vote on disclosure theory if your opponent seems like they are new to debate or genuinely tried their best to reach out. I'm less familiar with K's, so make sure I can thoroughly understand them if you decide to run them. I'm pretty flay, so make your preferences accordingly. Please be respectful to one another. Being rude, disrespectful, racist, homophobic, and aggressive is not cool and will result in low speaks and/or loss.

World Schools:

I adhere to the rules of WSDC, which means 40% content (what you say), 40% style (how you say it), and 20% strategy (why you say it). My evaluation of content includes good analysis (logical, relevant, important, tracking evolution), quality of examples, and thorough rebuttal. Debate in good faith, without straw-manning the other team's arguments. Style includes appropriate word choice, eye contact, body movement/hand gestures, voice projection and control, speed/variation of delivery. Strategy would be the choices made in motion interpretation, time allocation, prioritization, speech structuring, correct identification of issues in the debate, taking adequate POIs, weighing and use of comparisons, and relevance of material to the debate.

Proposition has the burden of proof and has to define the motion, being clear and fair to both sides. They should describe their characterization of the status quo and present substantive arguments in favor of their case, and where appropriate, present a solution to the identified problem. The opposition should oppose the prop's motion and probably have their own substantives. No new constructive material or POIs in the reply.

There are only 3 people on the bench for each side. Non-speaking team members and other spectators must not make signs or signals to debaters on the bench and must maintain room decorum. POI's should be brief and no more than 15 seconds.

Good luck everyone!

TOP-LEVEL:

1. If you come from a big debate program with a lot of resources and you DO NOT have your cards cut properly, I will drop you immediately with the lowest speaks possible. If I just described you or you even remotely think this may be you, please just strike me. This DOES NOT apply if you are from a smaller debate program or if you are newer to the circuit.

2. Please enjoy your rounds. I understand that debate is a competitive activity and that winning is great, but just relax. I am not saying that you should take this activity as a joke and play around, but just have fun!

For evidence exchange, questions, or anything else, please use this email: timdodebate@gmail.com.

I competed mainly in PF as the second speaker as well as some speech events during high school. Due to limited funding, my high school team mainly competed on the VHSL district level, where I won speaker and team awards.

I graduated from Johns Hopkins University (Class of 2024), where I participated in American Parli, broke, and received speaker awards. I majored in neuroscience on the pre-med track, so if you have any questions about what the pre-med track is like or have any questions about college, please let me know!

Even though I have taken a step back from debate, I judge 10+ tournaments every season, mainly in PF and CX. I am not going to lie to you guys about my skillset because you guys spend so much time preparing your cases, and you all deserve a judge that you know about and want. There are too many judges who are adjudicating and evaluating rounds that they should not be because they are not transparent about their skill levels (like saying that they are a tech judge when they really aren't), which in turn affects you guys.

With that in mind, I am an experienced judge in PF and in Parli, an average judge in CX and LD. Take that however you want.

General:

Please do not give me bare statements that are simple reiterations of what your research says. Remember to always warrant, mechanize, and impact/weigh your arguments.

I do not flow cross-ex. Responses or arguments that you find important and relevant must be in your speeches.

I can, and will, follow speed. However, if you start to speak at a pace that is incomprehensible, I will say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ up to three times - if you fail to adapt, I will flow what I can and whatever I cannot will be missed.

I will not time you, so please time yourselves. This does not mean that you should use that to your advantage and try to steal extra speech or prep time; don't even think about it and, especially, don't even try it.

I am very strict on debate being inclusive and equitable. If you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted towards your opponents, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible.

Please do not post-round me in bad faith. My decision never changes, I promise you.

Evidence:

A lot of debaters a) misrepresent evidence, b) do not have their cards cut properly, or c) do all of the above. If this happens in your round, I will not intervene but I am more than happy, even excited, to hear arguments about this.

Evidence analysis is great. Evidence comparison is even more great.

Speech docs must be sent. If asked, analytics must also be sent.

Sending evidence or marked docs should not take more than one minute. If it takes more than one minute, I will run your prep time. This does not apply if there are computer or internet problems.

PF:

I am a tech judge.

I am open to any argument, minus any egregious offenses, that you want to run. Do I believe there are dumb arguments? Yes. Do I believe there are certain arguments that are inherently better to win the round? Yes. However, at the end of the day, I will evaluate you the way you want me to evaluate you.

I thoroughly enjoy and am more than happy to evaluate K and theory rounds; however, if you are abusing these things because you believe that it will give you a competitive edge in the round, then I will not be happy.

You can expect me to have topic knowledge.

You need to over-emphasize your links/mechanisms.

Tagging your responses is important.

I love analytics, especially if they are well executed.

Saying that "you are going to collapse on x argument because it was dropped" and then subsequently doing nothing with it will do you more harm than good.

Saying that "this is frontline" or telling me to "extend this" and then subsequently doing nothing will likewise do you more harm than good. You need to explain why what you are frontlining or extending matters in the round.

I prefer weighing to come out in the 2AC/2NC. At the latest, weighing must be in the 1AR/1NR.

Think about whether or not your arguments make logical sense. If they don't make logical sense to you, I can promise you that they will also not make any logical sense to me.

Also, ask yourself why you are saying what you are saying. This makes your rounds much cleaner because you start to understand the importance of your arguments and how they interact with your opponents' arguments.

The best debaters are going to be comparative; they are going to be able to internalize what happened in the round, think about what your opponents' best arguments are, know what your best arguments are, and how these all compare.

How do you win my ballot? Be good, and do not ever make me do extra work.

CX:

Average CX judge, unlike Sim, who is an exceptional CX judge.

Best at evaluating straight, policy arguments.

Decent at evaluating Ks and other progressive arguments.

If I am your judge, please go a bit slower and over-explain things.

LD:

Average LD judge.

I do not know much about truth-testing, tricks, combo shells, and paradoxes.

If I am your judge, please go a bit slower and over-explain things.

Speaks:

Average speaks: 28.5.

29.5 - 30.0: You impressed me, and I expect you to break.

29.0 - 29.5: You did well, and I believe you can break if you are in a bubble.

27 - 28.9: You performed as expected.

<27: You did something absolutely egregious and I had no qualms docking you.

No speaks theory.

I’m a lay judge, so Please explain your arguments very clearly. I am looking for logic, evidence, and analysis in arguments. And don’t forget to have Fun!!

My name is Params Kumarasamy. I am a lay parent judge. Please layout the roadmap for rebuttals and speak slowly and clearly.

Wish you Good Luck!

Best

Params

Hi! I'm Alex Martin, a former La Reina High School LD debater based in Denver, CO. I'm currently in my junior year of University.

I competed for 5 years and attended local and national tournaments. I also did some college debate in my freshman year of college.

I'm experienced in flowing both slow and fast rounds. Progressive debate is okay as long as both competitors are comfortable with fast speeches and are willing to share cases.

I prefer evidence/case sharing to occur in the NSDA campus file share but email is okay too as long as you ask. My email is Alex.Martin@du.edu

Please be respectful. Bigoted behavior will not be tolerated. I'm pretty fair with speaker points as long as you put in your best effort.

Feel free to ask about more specifics during the round.

Tournaments: I usually reserve my weekends for debate related gigs/activities. If you are looking for hires, definitely consider me.

I have experience in mainly Lincoln-Douglas Debate, both as a debater and a judge. As a debater I understand the basics of the other categories but may ask a few questions beforehand to make sure I judge properly.

Pronouns: she/her

tech > truth (Essentially I will judge only on the information that you provide in round, I may ask for copies of your case to ensure I have all the correct information.)

General:

Be clear when explaining the biggest impacts of your argument; the benefits of your side should be obvious. I don't usually flow during cross-examination but I might consider it for speaking points.

Do not be rude to your opponent. I understand the competitiveness and intensity of debate rounds, but that is never an excuse to be blatantly rude or disrespectful to your opponent.

LD Judging Preferences:

I'm alright with speed during speeches. I may interrupt you to let you know that you are going too fast at any time during the round. However, if you are spreading just to force your opponent out of the debate, that is an immediate drop.

Have clear links and connections, no matter what the card says it has to be proven relevant to the topic at hand or it is not considered in flow.

Framework is crucial, it is the defining factor of LD. Therefore, there is no need to overdo it but you definitely should do you best to mention it.

In terms of Theory and Kritiks, I am not very familiar with these and would suggest avoiding them unless absolutely necessary. If you do end up using them then please be sure to explain each part clearly.

Make sure to give off-time roadmaps when appropriate. Stay organized, especially in rebuttal speeches. SIGN-POSTING IS KEY in order for me to follow your flow and arguments.

When giving your rebuttals and final speeches, I encourage you to use voters to your advantage. Make it extremely clear why I should vote for you.

Voting Criteria: (for all events)

I will do my very best to give a holistic look at the round before making my decision. With that, please note that utilizing voters effectively only helps you.

In terms of arguments and rebuttals, make your defenses and offenses clear. Dropped arguments will hurt you only if they are pointed out, I will not look for what you dropped. Make all links and impacts as clear as you can.

Speaker points are pretty straightforward for me. I give anywhere between 27-29, unless you're perfect I might give you a 30. You'll get a 27 if your speeches are alright but need a bit of work. A 28 is average debating. A 29 is above average debating, eloquent, well-thought out, and easy to follow. I will automatically give you an extra speaker up to 29.5 if you can reference a meme during any of your speeches.

Any rudeness, hate speech, harmfulness, or profane language will have your speaks dropped all the way to the minimum and you will be dropped on the ballot for exactly that.

I look forward to judging you today and hope that you have fun! :)

I am a parent judge and would like debaters to consider the following:

• I will only make decisions on arguments that are understandable to me. So if presenting complex arguments, please try to break them down and explain them clearly.
• Please do not speak too fast; it will be harder for me to follow and process your arguments. Speak at a normal conversation pace and keep arguments clear and concise.
• Please be polite and respectful to the opposing candidate during cross-ex.

Hello All,

Background

I am a business consultant. I judge for San Luis Obispo, and have judged in the past at a few tournaments in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum. As a heads-up, I do take notes during debate, but not in the usual "flowing" format. I am mostly knowledgeable on the topics provided for these events.

Speaker Points

I will most likely give you 27-29 if you:

a) Speak loudly and clearly. Please no "spreading". I will not be able to understand what you are saying so speaking slower will allow me to process your arguments as you go.

b) Are polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude/unfair (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks. Please remember that team work is key and I find that the best debaters can work together efficiently.

c) Explain arguments thoroughly. Remember I do have some background in topics but not in debate so terms such as "uniqueness" should be more well elaborated upon. Another important aspect is organization so try to state clearly what you will be talking about. (ie. Next, lets talk about the first contention.)

Decisions

I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can using the above criterion as well as the debate itself. I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me. I do not care as much about evidence but more about which team is able to persuade me more effectively. Additionally, presentation will probably also influence my decision. Be confident, if you make it seem like you are losing then I will think that.

Other

Clothing/Appearance; this will not influence my decision, however, please do respect the tournament dress code. Use of evidence; this will be weighted heavily in the debate, I want to know that your arguments have evidence to back up your claims. If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know. Real world impacts; this will also be weighted heavily. If your impacts do not show me why a normal person like me should care, then I will probably be less likely to vote on it. Cross-examination; this does not matter as much to me, although I will be listening.Try not to be disrespectful during this time and remember to look at me, your judge when answering or asking questions. Debate skill over truthful arguments; I value both skill and arguments highly. I do believe that truthful arguments should be prioritized, however, if you lack the presentation skill or argumentation skills to sell your argument, then truthful arguments may not matter as much if your opponent is able to convince me better of their argument.

Remember to have fun, good luck!

Debate:

- I'm not picky about arguments and love to hear what ways you go about a topic.

- I prefer off-time road maps (but I do really love road maps!)

- I judge from the flow so please sign post. (if I don't know where to flow something I can't flow it)

- Be polite and respectful especially during CX

- I am a debater but please don't spread.

IE:

- I judge on content, performance, and charm (strong speech, pronunciation, and maybe a smile)

- I'll do my best with time signals, but if I miss one please take it as a compliment :)

Congress:

- Be respectful (attack the points, not the speakers)

- Try not to waste time (don't ask pointless questions)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My experience:

- High school and middle school Debate (Pofo, Policy, and LD)

- High school Speech (Impromptu and Extemp)

- High school Congress

- Judging (Middle School)

- Speak clearly

- No spreading

- Do NOT be rude

- Have fun!

3rd year undergrad at UCLA, 4 years HS LD.

dishayadav756@gmail.com

Run whatever you feel comfortable running, with the obvious exceptions. In the case of no framing, I default to offense/defense. A proper analysis will be given more weight than simply reading a card. Line by line argumentation please. Be civil and communicate well.

Online Debate/Speed- I suffer from chronic migraines and have auditory issues. Something about the additional audio noises that arise from the computer messes with me. I cannot keep up with spreading, and will not be able to provide a fair assessment of the round if you do. Please be respectful of this request. Prioritize clarity over an influx of arguments. I really cannot stand to hear you constantly gasping or taking those large breaths. I'll say clear once, if you still do not fix your speed or comprehensibility, I'm done flowing. If you would prefer me to raise my hand instead of saying clear, inform me before the round.

I prefer traditional debates, just easier to keep up with and a lost art.

Affs- I would prefer the affirmative to follow the direction of the resolution. Planless affirmatives are absolutely fine; don’t make the mistake of solely extending aff cards and not explaining the solvency mechanism. K affs are not my favorite, but I will vote on them. That being said, if your K does not have a plan text that is relevant to the resolution, you will not get my ballot.

Disads and CPS- Love a good DA, they're won through the link chain. Bury the affirmative with quality argumentation and concrete evidence. You need to explain the casual chain, there’s no disad without the internal links. Counterplans have to be functionally competitive. I believe counterplans are an effective means of testing out the affirmative’s plan through competitive policy. PICs, conditional, international fiat, and states counterplans are all fine.

Kritiks- Yes, I’ll vote on them. Don’t assume I’m familiar with your literature. Ensure it’s specific to this round and make the link chain clear. Don’t be vague have a well-defined alt. If the alt is to reject the aff, explain how that accomplishes anything. Impact calc. If I look confused or annoyed, I probably am. Fix that, if your goal is to win the round. Explain to me clearly what happens when we make policies that make this wrong assumption.

Theory- I’m not voting on frivolous theory, don’t waste my time or your opponents. In terms of topicality, only run it if there’s a good reason. Don’t just use it as a time skew, make sure all the information you give is specific to this round. Warrant your claims, provide examples.

I love rounds that have direct clash and completely cover the flow. Have concrete link chains and weigh your impacts. Run what you know and clarity above all.

I have no tolerance for derogatory comments, discriminatory actions, making fun of debater’s limitations, etc. An immediate loss, I will refuse to listen any longer and walk out.

Have fun!