Hello Debaters,

My name is Jessica Acosta and this is my first time judging. Please make your points clear and articulate. I prefer that participants speak slowly, so please do not spread. Be courteous and respectful to the judges and your opponents. Good luck!

Thank you for reading my paradigm.

Background

I live in San Diego, California where I am currently studying to attain a Bachelor's in Business Administration with an emphasis in Global Supply Chain Management as well as a Bachelor's in Political Science with an emphasis in Public Policy. I have interned in the industries of higher education advocacy, healthcare advocacy, and real estate development across the state of California.

Although I do not judge frequently, I have a competent understanding of the format of these debates and their topics.

Preferences

-Proper decorum is appreciated during the round.

-Keep the heckling to a minimum

-P.O.I.s and P.O.O.s should not be abused.

-Keep in mind that my decisions come without bias and are made by the quality of your examples, evidence, and delivery. Therefore, please prioritize the quality of your delivery.

-Organization is important.

-I appreciate it when speakers are able to keep their arguments relevant.

-I do not prefer arguments that utilize fallacies and theory.

-I do not prefer overly broad answers. I do not expect specific figures. However, I do look for answers that show your ability to think critically.

Decision Making

-I will work to ensure that my implicit biases are not used in my decision-making process.

-My decisions are influenced by your ability to sustain and reaffirm your argument throughout the debate. Therefore, if your foundation is flawed, it may be hard to receive my vote.

-I will also judge your delivery and ability to answer questions.

Other

-If you need me to time, I can. However, I do prefer you and your opponents keep track of time so that I can give all my attention to the debate.

Hi--thanks for looking me up!

I'm a debate parent, a career English and Ethnic Studies professor, and a former member of the USC Debate Squad. My events were duo interp. and the "After Dinner Speech" (i.e., precursor to TED talk with goals to entertain and instruct). This is my 3rd year judging and I have voted with the majority in 85% of debate elim rounds.

Debate: I will flow your case and vote on the strength of it as a whole (no petty line-by-line here). My academic background is in rhetoric, so I like good evidence and precise word choice; it follows that I see overstatement as intellectually sloppy, annoying, and sometimes a critical error (looking at you, extinction-level arguments!). The best debaters will use superb sources and be vigilant about their opponents' blocks for the same. Cross is a strategic opportunity to open holes or create a path for your own case, so "repeat this" questions that primarily offer your opponent more airtime reflect poorly on you. Tone matters, so cross can be aggressive but not demeaning or bullying. Logical links should be made often and with crystal clarity. Real-world examples that are not cliche and offer you an opportunity to "make real" your framework and showcase the depth and adeptness of your thinking are always impressive.

Don'ts: I am totally unimpressed and dispirited by teams that share or use common cases. In my field we call it plagiarism and consider it illegal. Therefore, duplicate cases will be judged with great disadvantage. (Opponents are advised to drill down and demand logical links and sophisticated explanations from different points of view that folks who copy cases often cannot provide.)

Spreading: I am not (yet) convinced that spreading works. I see it as a flashy (and cheap) excuse for not doing the harder intellectual work of analysis and concision that debate, at its best, demands. Please don't waste my time and yours by subscribing to this rhetorical game that undermines the essential and transferable skills at the heart of this amazing program.

Furthermore, I am offended by the practice of sending written cases since I believe it compromises the careful listening and oral argument abilities that debate is designed to cultivate in real time. Please don't ask me if I'd like to be sent your case--you will be revealing that you haven't read my paradigm.

IEs: I believe in genre categories, so a Dec should sound like a speech and not a DI. HI should be LOL funny instead of weird/odd. Interp speeches should be cut to highlight a clear plot arc with tension, depth, and a satisfying conclusion. Sources matter and should be clearly and respectfully credited. Platform speeches should sound professional and resist drama creep.

I don't profess to be "right," but I believe that earnest feedback is a gift; I will do my best to be diligent and offer you what I can. I am grateful to learn something from you in nearly every round I have the pleasure of hearing (thank you!).

Most importantly, I celebrate you! I'm impressed that you've made the choice to participate in Speech and Debate, and I believe that your hard work here will benefit every aspect of your future. Many of you are already more advanced than my freshmen and sophomores in the CSU. It's such a pleasure to listen to you and to watch you grow over the seasons! :) Let's go!

Prof. Cassel

Debaters,

I am a parent of two debaters, one is in college, one in high school. I've got 4-5 years of judging experience dating back to 2018. I like to be brief in my direction to debaters, so I will leave my guidance to you in the following points:

Please treat each other with respect.

Please ensure any ground rules set at the onset of each round are agreed by all participants.

Please do not speak over each other.

Please try to not speak too quickly.

Always approach each round ethically, with dignity and respect for your fellow competitors.

I will always follow your logic and will be more impressed by your argument. Confident speaking style is important - but it will not win me over without a strong, factual-based argument.

Good luck!

The Basics: Hi! I’m Alex, I use they/he pronouns, and I compete for El Camino College in both IEs and debate. I have experience in parli, POI, impromptu, IPDA, LD, and extemp with judging experience in public forum.

The Real Stuff:My decisions usually come down to who has the most realisticimpacts with strong links and clear inherency. Not a huge fan of nuke war/any global extinction impacts unless you’re giving me a fantastic link story. You can run theory (agood, well-structured, purposeful K is one of my great debate loves) but make sure it has a purpose in the round that isn’t just to give your opponent more stuff to cover and, again, is well-structured.

Also- be creative!! Forensics is a performing art as much as it is an academic event so don’t hesitate to get silly!

Be respectful, be organized, have fun ☆

I judged parli at Jack Howe, and I judged both parli and pf at La Costa. I look for arguments that are well thought out and not far reaching, though I will vote for "new" or "unusual" arguments if you can thoroughly explain your logic. I am not familiar with kritik structure and literature or theory, but if you frame it as more of a regular argument and explain its importance I might vote for it (depends on the rest of the debate material). Don't hinge the entire round on a theory argument. Please do definitions and be clear about why a counter-definition is important if you provide one.

Logic > Evidence (usually)

Be polite during your rounds, respect your opponents, and I will immediately vote against anything that is racist, homophobic, or sexist.

Former high school debater, primarily competing in parli, impromptu, and extemp. Competed in top tier of California league and invitational parli, coached at SNFI, and judged at a variety of invitational and league tournaments, primarily in parli, but also in PF and IE's. Go whatever speed and make whatever arguments you want - I'll listen to most anything at any level of theory, but if you make an argument that seems especially weak, I'll be more likely to accept refutations to it with less effort. I'm expressive as a judge - use that. Just want to watch some good rounds, learn some new things, and hopefully laugh a bit.

Hello,

I am a parent judge and have judging experience. My preferences are as follows:

Debate:

Speaking:

Do: I am comfortable with slang terms. Speak clearly and comfortably. I generally don't care about speed as long as it's clear and understandable.

Don't: Speak extremely fast(spread).On the topic of speed, spreading is an easy way to lose me and also an easy way to lose the round and/or speaker points. In my experience, someone who spreads is trying to hide something in their case. A debate isn't a "who can speak faster" contest. I want to see who has the better arguments and understanding of the resolution. I understand that a debate can get heated(which I'm fine with), but don't get overly aggressive. There's a difference between taking a stance and attacking your opponent.

Content:

Do: Give me a clear outline of your points. Don't assume I know when you're moving on to a new point. Off-time roadmaps are fine and help me follow along, just don't make them super long, and don't bring up arguments in the roadmap. I weigh heavily on rebuttals and clashes, so make sure those are good. Cross-examination will most likely not be a big part of my decision, but it's a good area to earn extra speaker points(Ask good questions and have good responses).

Don't: Faking evidence is not acceptable. Don't go over the allotted prep time or the speech time+grace period. If someone asks for a piece of evidence I want to see you guys look at it during your prep time. I'm not a big fan of sharing a piece of evidence through email because there is a lot of room for problems and errors, but if that's what both sides are comfortable with then go for it. If you refuse to show a piece of evidence, I will take it as you have no evidence, and could lead to you losing the round. I am also heavily against using duplicate cases. I see duplicate cases as plagiarism. So, if I watch a round and a few rounds after someone has an identical case, it will be judged heavily against. I take duplicate cases as a sign that you didn't want to put in the effort to create a case with your own creativity. I also think it's unfair to have an entire debate team work on one case that they all use and then go against someone who actually put in the effort to create an original and unique case. A duplicate case won't result in an automatic loss, but you would really need to show me that you can put your own thoughts and interpretation into a duplicate case.

Speech:

Platform: In a platform speech you have the freedom to talk about basically anything. Thus, in the majority of platform speeches, I want to see some sort of advocacy. I also weigh heavily on humor, I think humor is a good way to lighten a heavy topic and can also help keep the audience engaged. Don't plagiarise and make sure to be creative.

Interp: I understand people can be limited on interps, but I still want to see some form of advocacy in your speech. However, an opt-out of advocacy could be a really funny interp. Typically the highest-ranking interps are the ones that have a good advocacy and have some light(or dark) humor.

Spontaneous: For impromptu, I like to see creative points. I see that the most successful impromptu speeches are the ones that just talk about what's on their mind(while still related to the topic). I'm not the biggest fan of making long stretches(ex. connecting football to US economic problems), but a good connection can lead to a higher ranking. Let loose on jokes. I think Impromptu is one of those events that really allows you to make the audience laugh. For extemp(both IX and NX) I enjoy a speech that has 3 really strong points that convince me to believe your answer/interpretation of the question. Jokes are also really useful in extemp.

I am the Advisor for our Speech and Debate team and a judge with one year of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, and oratory skills. Please be respectful during the round.

Keep things professional and respectful. I value eloquence in presentation. A couple well-developed and delivered arguments are more meaningful than a large quantity of underdeveloped arguments.

Impact it out. I only weigh the issues that've been clearly presented to me, not what I have the outside knowledge to understand is important. Make sure you emphasize some key points- timeframe, magnitude, severity, probability, reversibility.

Respect your competitors' requests for slow/clear. Don't be obnoxious with speed to exclude them from properly participating.

Avoid oral prompting or interrupting your partner's presentation as much as possible. Passing notes or whispering is preferred during flex.

I discount new arguments made in rebuttals, even if no point of order is raised. I stop flowing when my timer ends. Hold one another accountable if you opt to time yourselves.

Most importantly, I want to see everybody having fun!

Hi my name is Patrick Kim. I am a debate parent, and fairly new to debate. I do appreciate listening to good arguments and would prefer that debaters speak at a reasonable pace so I can capture all the points from each speaker.

I am a judge/parent.

Good luck students! In your debates please make your points clear and articulate. I will appreciate how the speaker walks through the points/arguments and ties it up all in the end.

Please be respectful and courteous of your fellow opponents and the judges time. Clarity in the speech, a pace which everyone can comprehend is greatly appreciated.

Do your best! stay positive and have fun! Best wishes.

This is geared to Parli debaters...

I'm a debater's parent, but I like and respect arguments. I have watched a lot of rounds and PRs, and learned/read/thought about parli more than the average lay parent (as far as I can tell).

Reach an agreement among the teams on you will indicate a POI.

How to win:

Talk to me not at me. Debate is about persuasion, convince me!

Use clear and compelling arguments with links to important impacts.

Roadmap. Define relevant terms. Signpost. Impact. Weigh.

For all debate events- I don’t encourage spreading, though it is allowed. I prefer to have debaters speak at a normal pace so that I am able to hear all of your arguments and use them to help make my decision.

TLDR: Your round! Run whatever framework you want and make my job easy.

I am a graduate student studying Communication Studies at CSULB, where I also teach public speaking as part of the program. I have been coaching speech and debate at Palos Verdes high school since 2020 and at El Camino College since 2023, where I also competed for 2 years in parli, impromptu & extemp, DI & POI, and IPDA.

Communication: Pass notes or talk to your partner it's up to you, just don't be disruptive. I'll flow whatever is said but don't egregiously speak while it's your partner's turn.

Impacts: Please have impacts. Tell me why the thing is bad don't just say it's bad and don't elaborate.

Speed: I've gotten worse with speed over the years but generally I don't mind it. I might clear you if you're unclear.

Kritiks: Mostly I include this section because I'm just waiting for the day that someone runs a K in front of me at a high school tournament. It happened once and it was so fun. Kritiks should have a clear link to the resolution. Advocacies and their solvencies should be clearly explained. K's (esp on the aff) should have a very clear framework for evaluation, a K without framework is hard to evaluate. Run whatever K you want. I ran anthro a lot when I was debating and I love a fun cap K. I'm not an expert on any given advocacy, treat me like a lay judge who happens to understand framework and theory.

Theory / Topicality: I'm open to a good T debate so long as it's properly structured (interpretation violation standards voters). If I vote on T, usually it's on articulated abuse. I don't mind running shells just to kick them, but it's a very bad decision to collapse to a theory shell that is just a time suck. Honestly open to any theory position, even jokey stuff as long as it's not bad, just don't run dumb stuff in the MO (I've seen new theory in the MO and it was a mess). I'll default to competing interps but you should state that somewhere in the theory.

RVIS: RVIs are fine when they are justified (your opponent is egregiously racist/misgendering/queerphobic/problematic or they run 7 blipped theory shells and kick all of them). I have never voted on an RVI, but I could. Usually, I think it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt or work it out on the flow, but if you gotta check someone you gotta check someone.

Signposting: Use taglines and tell me where you are on the flow "they say this, we say this" "judge go to advantage 1 and look at their solvency"

Timing: Time yourselves and time your opponents. I don't mind if you are slightly under or over time, but ensure it's not abusive. Call your opponents on time abuses if they are happening.

I am a parent judge.

I do not like off time road maps. I believe that you are given a certain amount of time and anything you need to accomplish should be done within that time.

I judge based on technique and responsiveness not on how closely your assigned opinion matches my personal opinion. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Though, if an argument sounds completely absurd to me or the links feel weak, I won't buy it.

Please speak slowly and clearly. I believe that in Speech & Debate, one learns the art and skill of public speaking. If no one can understand what you are saying, you may as well have said nothing. If you think you are talking slow enough, talk slower.

This is a formal event. Please do not be casual. Take every round seriously. Every second of the round influences my vote.

I am of the opinion that the teams should avoid interrupting each other. Listen to your opponents and take notes. Any crosstalk can be achieved effectively in the Cross Examination rounds. (Side note: I really like when teams look at each other during cross. I know it is not standard but I think it makes for better clash)

I believe that if your opponents raise a question, even if the rules say you don't have to respond, you should always respond.

I consider myself open minded. I will always be friendly but am also well aware of when someone is being disingenuously nice to me. I don't give points for behavior outside of the rounds.

Don't refer to me as "judge" within the round - it is my biggest pet peeve.

For email chain: eric.mayron@gmail.com

My background: I'm primarily a Speech Coach and have been since 2003. I coached Public Forum a long time ago and judged Public Forum and Lincoln/Douglas at the high school level since our school was heavily invested in those forms of debate.

I am "old school" and prefer debaters speak to me as if I were a lay judge. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I know nothing about debate. It's just that I really don't like to hear a lot of debate slang. If you speak too fast for me to understand you, I will stop typing or writing. I don't like abusive arguments, but if you are on the receiving end, you should mention your opponents’ argument is abusive and why it's abusive. And if anyone runs an "everybody dies" or "nuclear war and the world ends" kind of argument, it better tie VERY logically to the topic or I will drop you.

I like rounds where there’s clear framework set in place. Give me a way to weigh the impacts in a round.

Please respect your opponents and all people in the room. I will dock speaker points if debaters are rude or don't let opponents get a word in during crossfires or cross-examinations. On the other hand, I will hand higher speaker points to those who use soaring rhetoric and appropriate humor - did I mention I'm a Speech coach?

I am currently a 2nd Year member of the El Camino Speech and Debate Team and I compete in Parli, IPDA, LD, Impromtu, and Extemp.

All Debate Events

Long story short, give me voters. I lean more on flow over anything else when judging parli. A team that can tell me which aspect of the round holds priority and why their side wins that argument is in better light than one that cannot.

Communication -I am ok with brief interactions between partners during speech time, but it cannot be constant. IE let your partner speak for themselves.

Speed -Talk at a pace where everyone in the round can understand you. I will allow spread, but if anyone calls pace, please respect that and adjust accordingly.

Topicality - I fully encourage topicality arguments as long as they are structured properly. Include the full T shell.

Ks - Go on Ahead

Signposting -I welcome signposting and parli talk with open arms. Give me signposting with as much of the case as possible. It helps me organize the arguments and shows how structured a team is.

Timing - I would like for all sides to keep a timer. If you run out of time on a speech, I will let you finish your sentence.

Overall, we are all here to have fun and to further educate ourselves. ANYTHING that deters us from that, such as abusive language and arguments, will lose you the ballot. Be courteous and respectful to all parties involved.

I am a parent volunteer who has judged several tournaments over the past 2 1/2 years. I am also a high school teacher who appreciates a respectful, courteous, and assertive (not aggressive) style of communication. I also prefer quality over quantity, so please don’t speak too quickly, and be sure to include strong evidence backed by credible sources. Thank you.

Hello, I'm a parent and lay judge. I have never debated, but am a fan of a good argument, as long as the both sides are debating the same terms. So for Parli debaters, please define your terms and if you disagree with your opponents' definition feel free to challenge them with the goal of agreeing at least on what you are debating.

• AFF, please write the resolution on a whiteboard.
• NEG, please read the resolution and confirm that you agree it is the correct resolution. If you say nothing, I'll assume that you agree that it is correct.
• AFF, Please sit on my left (your right). NEG, Please sit on my right (your left).
• If you feel your opponents have broken a rule or gone over time by more than 30 seconds, please speak up.
• Speaking quickly fine as long as you are clear, I'll let you know if I can't understand you.
• Please don't be rude or mean, and feel free to be yourself.

For Public Address Speech competitors I will score a speech using 5 criteria:

For Interp Speech competitors I will score a speech using 3 criteria:

Not my first time judging, however still quite new. I encourage coherency over speed.

I'm a former policy debater, judge, coach a couple decades ago; recently returned to judging and coaching, now Parliamentary.

I can flow speed, but don't think I should have to in Parli. An organized flow is important to me, so please number your arguments, signpost, avoid jumping around the flow. Keep roadmaps a few seconds long. If you're signposting as you should, a roadmap isn't really necessary. I generally prefer good clash, line-by-line, etc.

I prefer good case debate. If it's not against the rules (including equity expectations), it's generally up for debate, and I'm not categorically opposed to any argument types. That said, Parli isn't the best forum for too much complexity. I think it's a good idea to disclose to your opponents anything that may surprise them. I have more patience than most for debate theory. Kritiks can be great but almost never are, especially in parli.

Neg, don't wait until the second aff/gov constructive to ask about plan specifics or definitions and then scream abuse in the next constructive. Obviously, aff contradicting their 1A in the 2A would be an exception.

POI - Follow the rules. You can refuse POIs if you have reason to, but I'm suspicious of a speaker never accepting one.

I am a parent judge. This is my first season judging debate and I have tried my best to be as prepared as possible, but I am a lay judge.

I prefer when the speaker talks at a moderate speed. Please do not spread as I will be taking notes. Additionally, clear signposting and thorough explanations of jargon are appreciated. The better I understand your arguments, the better I can judge.

If you feel that an offtime roadmap would help me follow what you are saying, please keep it brief (no more than 15 seconds).

I have a bit of general knowledge on the topic, but do not assume I know as much as you do. I will keep my bias out of the round.

I expect teams to time their speeches themselves. But, if you want me to time, I can do that as well.

Good luck!

As a lay judge, with minimal experience judging or participating in any debate/speech competition, I prefer that participants speak slowly, be courteous and polite to each other and present their arguments in a clear, logical fashion.

Have fun! I like solid evidence and opponents poking holes in cases. Pls dont get personal.

Competed in Parliamentary debate in high school. Main thing is to respect the other team. Otherwise I am happy to consider most arguments, they just need to be persuasive.

I did PF for 6 years at Fairmont, qualified to gold TOC twice.

Ask any specific questions you have before the round.

email chain-- hitakshi2021@gmail.com

Some stuff lol:

1. be polite, your speaks will be docked if you are rude/problematic etc *especially in cross

- cross is not a time to be making speech like arguments, use it to ask questions, clarify, set strategy etc I will not be writing things on my flow during cross unless its to clarify something

2. if its not in summary it should not be in FF. PLS EXTEND CLEAN link warrant impact if u want me to vote for it.

- big on the warranting. extensions that are blippy are not extensions i want to vote on and neither are just card names- extend warrants

- i will not vote for turns that are not terminalized or are very blippy

3. At least frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal (if you start condensing here i will be happy- feel free to drop arguments early and build clear narrative)

4.time your own speeches (and prep) and be respectful about it- a couple seconds grace period is fine

5. i prefer you do not spread, speed is fine **if it will be very fast let me know beforehand and give me and the other team a speech doc

- if it is early in the morning or late at night pls go easy on my brain lol

6. sign post please; if you are doing something weird give me a roadmap

7. prog/K/Theory/Tricks etc- I'm good with it as long as u explain it/warrant well and it isn't just to mess ur opponents up

8. evidence exchange should really not take more than a minute have ur stuff ready

9. WEIGH!!!!!! and actually clash and interact with their points

making me laugh will boost ur speaks; debate is a game play it

have fun <3

I am a debater at El Camino College that competes in Parli, IPDA, LD, Impromptu, and Extemp. I'll keep things simple and straightforward:

•With any argument you make, keep it logical with links and warrants to support it.

•I will onlyflow/weigh what you tell me and nothing else. I won't be considering anything that is not said within the debate round.

•Signposting and no spreading! Signposting makes your arguments far clearer and easier to understand. Spreading, on the other hand, does the opposite and potentially loses you points.

•I will consider any topicality argument made as long as it is properly structured.

•Impact calculus and votersare encouraged as it clearly lays out why I should vote for you!!!

Lastly, just be respectful to each other. I don't want to hear or see any disrespectful behavior from either side. I understand that there can be some headbutting in rounds but anything inappropriate or out of line could lose you the debate. At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be fun and educational, so keep it that way.

Good luck!

Kriti Sharma

- Presentation High School - Class of 2015 - 3 years of LD Debate, 4 years of Speech

- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Class of 2019 - 2 years of Parli, LD, and Speech (Interp)

- I use they/them pronouns!

Things I Like
- Environmental & Systemic Impacts
- Plan-specific links, disads, and CPs
- Impact calculus that isn't just about magnitude
- Clever CX
- Clear roadmaps
- Good speaks

Things I Dislike
- Accidental racism, sexism, etc. that isn't corrected with an appropriate apology
- Men talking over female debaters
- Climate Change Denial
- Affs that aren't topical
- ASPEC/OSPEC
- Avoiding clash in the debate
- Both debaters speaking during the same speech outside of prompting

Things That Will Cause You To Automatically Lose
- Any kind of harassment or intentional 'isms'
- Misgendering someone repeatedly
- Referring to undocumented immigrants as "illegals"
- Clipping cards, manufacturing evidence, or otherwise cheating

Evidence

Cards should be used as logical support for your contentions. I especially respect empirical evidence and real-world examples. Evidence means nothing until you link it to your case and the resolution. Explain why the evidence brought up matters. For me, content is what counts. I am more likely to weigh evidence if the content is thoroughly covered and does have a fair impact in the round.

Topicality

If you run T, do it right. T is a question of "is the aff topical." Break it down. Read cards on it. Do not use T as a time skew. If you choose to run T, make sure that you have a version of the aff that is topical.

CP/DA

I will vote on these if they are convincing and if legitimate and compelling evidence is used and explained to back up the argument. Simply make sure that they are actually competitive against the aff, and tell me why I should vote on it. As for the aff side, please explain why I should vote accordingly with your own evidence and reasoning.

Kritik

If you use K, explain it as clearly as possible since K should never be used to make yourself, as a debater, sound more like a genius or to inflate your own ego; nor should it be used to force your opponent to respond to it even if it isn't topical (aka abusive argumentation).

Theory

If run and explained well, I will weigh it in the round. "Reject the argument, not the team" is generally sufficient, but I am familiar with some other theory if you decide to use it. That being said, still explain the theory as well as the reason why the theory argument applies; do not just name drop it or leave it underdeveloped.

Framework (Value and Value Criterion)

I love framework debate. Framework is fundamental in high school LD Debate, so while you read each contention, I expect you to outline a clear connections back to your value criterion as well as back to your value (like a link chain). Contentions should contain smaller arguments for why your V/VC is the most ideal/most pertinent/most important etc. Make your lines of reasoning explicit. I may have an idea as to where you're going with your thoughts, but I can't write down these said ideas if you don't fully elaborate on them yourself.

Other Notes

- I'm generally okay with some speed/spreading, but I'm a stickler for clarity. If you're going too fast, I will say "Clear" so you know that you have to slow down in order for me to follow the flow.

- Follow your roadmaps. If you have to divert, be clear about where you are going on the flow. Please verbally emphasize and tag your arguments/evidence. Also, I definitely appreciate when debaters "write the flow for me"/crystallize/discuss voting issues towards the end of the round.

- I use a standard speaks system. Speak up and enunciate, but don't yell. Unless you need a lot of improvement, I wont give you less than 26. If I give you anywhere between 26-28.5, I'll explain what you need to improve. To get 29-30: As I'm also a speechie, I'll admit that I'm 5% lay judge at heart, so I definitely value confident, straightforward, eloquent, succinct, expressive delivery.

- I'm open to any argument as long as it is not offensive.

- As always, be respectful towards your opponent. That being said, I do enjoy clash/if you are clever during CX. However, try not to be too smug. Channel your inner Spock (for Trekkies - I mean TOS Spock).

- If you have any questions about your case, high school/college debate in general, or want to talk about college life, feel free to find me at the tournament or email me! :)

As a two year college level debater, i have modern experiences and can relate with whatever style or strategy you know. For Debate, my biggest takeaway is clash with opponents and that would win you my ballot even with decent on-case arguments. I'm open to Topicality, Kritiks and any other strategy you can employ. For speed, talk in a decent pace. If a non-debater walks in the room, can they relate with you? However, I can keep up with whatever speed. I just think that's a plus.

Foe I/Es, confidence, structure and performance is what i care about. Implement subtle humor where needed.

JUST DO YOUR THING!!!

Hey! I'm Sophia and I'm super excited to be judging your next round. I'm currently a member of the El Camino forensics team and have 2 years of PF experience from high school. Here are a few things to keep in mind during (NPDA) debate rounds:

• I flow ONLY what you tell me. Don't bring up unwarranted arguments or fail to explain what it is that is being argued. I will not assume things or close gaps between claims for you, so make sure your cases are thorough and detailed.
• Please don't spread!! Speaking too fast will only confuse your opponent and myself, especially when trying to keep up with the flow. Take your time and relax :)
• For final speeches: make sure to include impact calc and tie in voters while weighing them with your opponents'. Tell me why you deserve to win!
• I accept topicality as long as it's properly structured. If the Negation runs topicality, the Affirmation is expected to address it.
• Signposting is key! This is especially helpful when flowing and keeping track of rebuttals, as well as ensuring that you've covered the main components (SQ, links, impacts) of the argument.
• This goes without saying: be respectful and kind to your opponents.

This might be a lot to consider, but the most important thing is to have fun! You got this!

Hello kiddos,

I have been in Debate for quite a few years. I am down to evaluate whatever arguments you want to run. I am not here to tell you what to run or how fast to run it. This is your show. I am cool with speed, ks, policy, procedurals, theory, or anything else you want to do. I wouldn't want you to think the round is about appealing to me, I think it is my job to evaluate the discussion you all have. Best of luck to you all.

I am an experienced judge. I am happy to evaluate any arguments you want to run. I have been judging for 10+ years. I don't have any preferences and am excited to see you all approach the round you want to.

My name is Hameeda and I compete at the college level in IPDA, Parli, Impromptu, and informative.

Parli/IPDA: I judge based on structure and content throughout the debate. Arguments should be made clear with links and impacts that thoroughly explain your argument. I accept topicality and any other debate strategy you may use as long as it’s used correctly and at the right time. Be civil and courteous!

I/Es: I judge based on structure, confidence, delivery, and content. It’s best to have diversity in your examples as well as some added humor.

Good luck!

My name is Hameeda and I compete at the college level in IPDA, Parli, Impromptu, and informative.

Parli/IPDA: I judge based on structure and content throughout the debate. Arguments should be made clear with links and impacts that thoroughly explain your argument. I accept topicality and any other debate strategy you may use as long as it’s used correctly and at the right time. Be civil and courteous!

I/Es: I judge based on structure, confidence, delivery, and content. It’s best to have diversity in your examples as well as some added humor.

Good luck!

I have very few preferences other than the following:

- Accept POI's where possible.

-Signpost and to be as organized as possible; even if it takes away from rhetorical flourish, be organized.

- I like warrant comparison and impact calculus. please don’t just repeat your constructive speech in the rebuttals. Give me something new. I prefer impacts weighed through timeframe, magnitude, and probability (not in that order), but if you think structural impacts are more important I'll go with that too, just tell me otherwise I'll default to what I prefer.

- Above all have fun with it and enjoy yourselves!

First time parent judge. I will be looking for the most convincing team. Please don’t spread.

I prefer clarity over speed.