I have a background in judging World Schools, Asian Parliamentary, Public Forum, and British Parliamentary formats. I have been active (in high school and university debating) since 2013. I also have experience in coaching high school teams in BP and Asians format.

I appreciate speakers that are able to not only make comprehensive and well-analyzed arguments, but also argue the "meta" of the debate, and tell me why their arguments are the most important or relevant compared to the other team's contribution. I appreciate demonstration and discussing pragmatic benefits, but welcome principled argumentation as well. While I do use a timer, I also expect debaters to time themselves. If you have any questions or want feedback, feel free to approach me.

I have a background in WSDC, BP, and AP debating. I competed all four years in high school and am currently a university debater in the Asian circuit. I take notes and track the debate well. I dislike having to step in and will interpret the debate as is without interfering with my own personal biases. While I will be keeping my own timer to track, I expect you to time your speeches on your own.

That being said I appreciate speakers who are clearly able to weigh what are the principles in the debate and how they matter in relation to everything else presented in the debate. Additionally, I like clear, concise arguments that are easy to understand as an average reasonable person. I am not a fan of fluff or pretentious wording since I think they just make arguments less efficient, but this isn’t a really big deal to me as long as teams are still able to properly forward their points. Evidence is cool, but I don’t like speakers that throw a bunch of facts around without explaining their relevance to the speech or arguments.

I enjoy well-reasoned arguments and dislike arguments without substance. They do not have to perfect, and I am glad to provide feedback whenever possible to improve this skill. I also value creativity with regard to how these arguments are delivered. I look forward to seeing how debaters and orators persuade me

Thank You =)

I've been competing in the British and Asian parliamentary format for 7 years now (all four years of High School and currently active in my 3rd year in college), and my judging priorities stem from this background.
In general, I judge the debate based only what is explicitly said by speakers, and appreciate straightforwardness. In creating decisions, I generally prioritize good links or mechanization between the argument and its resolution. In responsive speeches, I would like speakers to show that have fully understood their opponent's arguments and respond to them accordingly.

Hello!

1. I prefer concise and coherent speeches, please try to follow the allotted minutes per speaker

2. Substantiated and structured arguments are highly appreciated. Include a premise, diagnosis, examples, and conclusion for your arguments.

3. During crossfire, have relevant and important discussions. Nuanced questions and answers would be great.

Thanks :>

I have been debating for 8 years using the British Parliamentary and Asian Parliamentary format but I have experienced judging in the Public Forum format as well both in training and in tournaments.

I would like to see speeches that weigh arguments and rebuttals in the round as opposed to building arguments alone with comparisons. Explicitly telling me the significance of your argument and evidence compared to your opponents' is preferred as well!

Jay Postrado used to be a WSDC, and Parliamentary debater during his highschool years. He believes that effective communication comes in being concise, understandable to the common masses, and using the simplest of words in the most effective way.