My name is Abraam, I'm a university student studying engineering. I don't have much experience in judging.

hints for high points

since the tournament is online please speak clearly and slowly, also send a copy of the case on Abraam778@gmail.com

good luck to everyone

Hello everyone reading this,

If I am your judge, you are in good hands, do not despair.

A few things about me: I'm a debater in high school, and I did public forum for around 4-4.5 years, and now I do policy debate. I competed a lot in public forum and there isn't much else to it. I flow everything and you can classify me as a flow judge(experienced judge). Feel free to ask any questions about me during round or by email if you need to. (Email is at the bottom).

A couple things I like to see:

RESPECT.I can't emphasize enough on how big respect is as a part of debate. If you aren't respectful, I will not give you the win. Now, being aggressive is different from respect. Learn the difference. If both teams are respectful, then both teams will get high speaker points, along with clarity and other things but respect is a big part of it.

CLARITY.I am a flow judge which means I will be flowing all of your rounds, so if you think I'm being distracted just know I'm either looking something up or just flowing. Getting back to the point, just make sure you don't speak too fast to the point where I can't understand you and your opponents can't understand you. If I can't understand you then I don't know what your arguments are, which means I probably won't vote for you.

CLASH. Back when I was a novice, no one had clash, which is just two sides which actually engage in refutation and responding to arguments, and having direct well clash in a debate. Make sure you have this, as the team that initiates clash will have a big boost in my rankings. Make sure that exists.

For a little about arguments that I like to see:

If I'm judging public forum, please do not run critiques, those are just too weird and complicated, no one really understands it and I doubt you have the time to run one effectively.

I like basic, plain arguments, that have a good link and good evidence backing it up. HOWEVER, I am open to other, non-conventional arguments if they make sense and if you are able to explain it in detail to me.

I'm not too big on argument structure, just make sure that you signpost and you tell me exactly where you are very clearly or I will be very lost on my flow and arguments will go where you don't want it to go, which is not on my flow.

I am a big fan of evidence debate, so if you're opponent has biased evidence, or just evidence from Wikipedia, please do go attack it. The same goes for having evidence at all. Please have evidence, and make sure it is valid evidences supported by warrants. I'm not gonna mark you down if you don't but I will mark you up if you do.

As a side note: I am a big fan of humor in debate, as it does make the debate a little more lively and interactive, but know when to use the humor.

EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. Treat me how you would treat a parent judge, as I might not know much about the topic.

If I'm judging LD:

expect that I know nothing about the topic, the format, and the types of arguments you are running, although I may have some knowledge. All rules of debate apply to every event so speed is still okay in LD.

If I'm judging Parli:

No specific rules or boundaries here. I did parli once at a tournament I know the standard rules and whatever. Just don't do anything too crazy and make sure to get to the room on time.

Final inspirational stuff:

If you make any kind of funny reference and I understand it, +1 speaker points. Also, if you are like mid speech or right before a speech and you get nervous, your legs feel hot, you don't wanna speak, just push through. Everyone's been in your position and only learning can come out of it.

If you have any other questions for me, just ask me before the round and I would be happy to answer. You can also email me at nakulbanka2013@gmail.com Have a good day!

ALSO, make sure you ask me questions about this paradigm if there is something I didn't cover.

Hey guys I am a parent judge and have been judging for about 1 year.

Please speak and a decent pace and make sure your arguments have been made clear. If you speak to fast or not clearly, It will be much harder for me to cast a ballot in your favor. Signposting is extremely important and helps me understand the points you are addressing. I will be casting my ballot based on who is more clear, have a clear flow of thoughts and a proper link chain to follow with. Make sure to have good, relative, and reliable evidence.

Tech judge

Put me on the email chain pls: tbhatnagar@thecollegepreparatoryschool.org and collegeprepdocs@gmail.com

Quick summary,

Impact weighing is good, link weighing is better

Defense is sticky.

Theory and prog args: I think paraphrasing is good, disclosure is bad, etc, but I will evaluate all shells fairly whether or not they fit with my personal beliefs.

K's are fine, I'm not super experienced with it, but know what you are doing, and please have solvency

If you say Among Us or make a Jojo Reference in any speech I will give you 30 speaks(real)

If you want a long version, look below(totally not stolen from William Pirone)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

* * * * *

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has recently become egregiously long so just skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.

General:

Tech >>> Truth. You can read any type of argument you want in front of me, as long as it contains warrants. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with.

Also,go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow strictly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. Please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments.

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

This is by far the most fun to judge. Below are some of my preferences/rules when it comes to tech substance debate, listed from the debate norms most specific to me to the least.

Part I - General Substance:

If parts of your argument are uncontested,you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal linksin summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though.

I like impact turns. A lot. Read them.

You also don't have to extend your opponent's link if you're going for impact turns, but you can if you want to.

Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm:I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on.

I really value word efficiency– do this well, and you will be rewarded.

"Who what when where why" is not a responseand if your opponents point it out they get auto 30s.

Part II - Evidence:

Smart analytics are great—but please add empirics/warrants to them. Do not dump blippy analytics, ever.

Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseread taglines if you are going fast. I beg of you. In case, rebuttal, everything. No, “thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Also, please don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”

Whether or not the tournament is onlineI will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; otherwise, sending a doc will not be required. Don’t send Google Docs and then delete them after the round, send either a word doc or paste the text into the body of the email.

Part III - Weighing

Weighing = great. Do it.

You still need to win sufficient offense on your weighed argument though—please don’t try to kick out of terminal defense through things like try-or-die weighing, I’m more than happy just voting on one team’s argument having the higher risk than the other team’s argument, especially if both terminalize to extinction.

—Weighing §1—

Impact weighing is good, link weighing is best.

Don't use "probability weighing" as a chance to read new defense. Probability = strength of link in my view, if you win an argument and warrant it then it is probable. General reasons why your argument is a better link, i.e. actor analysis and historical precedent are fantastic, just don’t use this to insert 27 new responses.

Clarity/contextualization/strength of link are not weighing mechanisms – just explain why your argument is more important than your opponents’ assuming that both sides have won their offense.

—Weighing §2—

In almost all circumstances, link weighing is way more important than impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better(larger, faster, more probable, etc).

On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.

Part IV - Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech. 4 minutes is 4 minutes, read whatever offense you want in both constructives/rebuttals.

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.

Pleasemake frontlining substantive. What I mean by that is actually reading warrants/evidence when frontlining instead of saying “no internal link/warrant/context” and arguments along those lines. Technical responses are fine when paired with substantive responses, but don't read 2 minutes of "1.) no warrant 2.) no impact 3.) no context 4.) the evidence is miscut 5.) we postdate…"

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

All arguments in this section are fair game, I’ve read basically everything you can think of at some point.

Theory:

Theory is ok, I read it a lot my junior year. We usually read disclosure/paraphrase/round reports, but I'm good with anything as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me.

I prefer techy substance rounds thoughso speaks might take a slight dip if you do this in prelims.

—Theory §1—

Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good.(Tanishq here: This is objectively wrong). No, I will not hack for either of these shells.

If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I’m happy to give comments and help as much as I can.

Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counter interp... if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you’re speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. However, I am willing to vote off of paraphrasing theory read after rebuttal if your interpretation is that people shouldn't paraphrase in rebuttal. You MUST extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in 1st constructive; you must frontline your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this).

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, andreasonability can be very persuasive– just read this off of your CI or as a turn on their interpretation. Please still read a counterinterp.

—Theory §2—

I default to spirit > text,CI > R,No RVIs,Yes OCIs*,DTA.

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure todo weighing between them.

If you read disclosure theory, you must have good disclosure norms—I will probably check.

I will never vote on an out-of-round violation other than disclosure/round reports and the like.

Don’t read blippy IVI sand then blow up on them — make it into a shell format.

Theory unaccessible is not a fantastic argument—there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to anything else.

Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win.

K:

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap/Baudrillard. For anything else please slow down and warrant things out.

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.

If you read the mythical Bayesianism kritik, I will give you 30 speaks, especially if you can point to specific links from their case.

If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way)you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.

Rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.

Also, theory almost always uplayers the K.You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments.

Perms are OP if you use them effectively. I like when people shotgun them.

CPs:

I will begrudgingly evaluate a plan/counterplan debate. This obviously differs based on the resolution (“on balance” phrasing is weird), but for fiated topics i.e., “Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution,” they’re probably fair game.

Also, totally open to theory against these– just make the arguments.

FW:

Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant,anything goes.

Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Tricks:

If you must, just make sure the other team is cool with them first. Theory against these is smart too.

Make tricks fun, arguments like a prioris or “eval after the 1ac” are meh butparadoxes, skep, etc are great.

Head to the presumption sectionsince it’ll probably be necessary for these rounds.

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise,I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF with my life.

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants.I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first.

Preferences:

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 2

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 4

Phil - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5

Performance - 5

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, I think it's educational.

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points forword efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends and the less prep you steal, the higher your speaks will be!

If you want a boost:

+0.2 speaks if you're disclosed and you tell me and it’s OS

+0.2 speaks if you don’t paraphrase (+0.2 for rebuttal too)

+0.2 speaks if you read the Keck/Dowd combo

+0.1 speaks if your cards are Times New Roman with green highlighting

+0.1 speaks if you have round reports

I will give you a 30 if you readALL defense/turns in second constructive(first rebuttal must frontline if this happens).

If it’s a prelim and both teams agree before the round, we can switch the resolution to a different one– it can be a previous topic or something new entirely.

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and enunciate. Have fun

I have been apart of the debate community via way of many friends. While I never formally debated I understand that I am to be non bias and take all arguments presented at face value and that the debate happens during the round- if its not mentioned, I cant vote on it. Please be clear, track your time, and understand that I am a public judge so I will be evaluating the round based on argument presented. Be clear about your framework, why it matters, and how your arguments meet it.

Speed: I hate it- keep it normal.

Notes: I will keep note and flow the arguments I hear.

Language: I don't not want to hear a round that promotes xenophobic, racist, or sterotyping rhetoric about ethnic, racial, and religious communities. Use fact and logic reasoning with your evidence.

Persuasion is important but must be grounded in logos, pathos, and ethos collectively.

Thanks for the opportunity to judge and good luck!

I am a first-time parent judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly. I will take notes; I am paying attention even if I am looking down to write.

Hi, I have debated for around three years for BC academy.

Even though I have to participate in various tournaments, most likely, I would still be inexperienced in judging other people, especially through the internet. So prior apologies for the technical mistakes I can make for me to learn from it.

(I need the inspiration to write this, so it will most likely be the same as the other PF judges.)

What I look for as a Judge

1. Evidence does not make an argument. Evidence for the sake of evidence is not helpful and does not help your argument. I want to see that you use the evidence as an extension of your logic and analysis to ground the idea. If the reasoning behind your evidence isn't explained, I won't provide it with much weight. Also, the evidence needs a citation, at least a simple one like what you read, a link to the website, and other basic stuff (name, date, etc.).

2. Don't be mean to anyone under any circumstances, as doing so will be met with low speaking points. Moreover, there is a difference between being aggressive and lousy attitude.

3. speed is mostly okay with me. But note that if the speaker is spreading and, worse, doing a bad job at it by mumbling or inadequate signposting, most likely, I would not be able to flow it. This will be your loss, so control the speed of your speech as you are here to convince than to rap.

4. Don't forget to weigh or show me a comparison between the arguments to show why I should vote for a particular side, and collapsing will help with this.

Also, just as a side note, I would most likely not flow crossfire, so if it is a great point, it should be mentioned in a speech.

Another also, note that you should keep time for the speech and the prep because I might forget to time.

I am a former policy debater who has coached Public Forum for the last year. Whatever arguments you would like to run, go ahead. I am open to any argument being run by either side, however I tend not to vote on theory arguments. Unless you can prove that an egregious abuse has been run in the round, I don't necessarily think that theory has a place. love kritiks and all other weird, quirky arguments you can think of. 

Spreading is okay, however if I do not have your argument on my flow then it never happened in the round. You must ensure I have all your arguments written down so that I can judge the round equally. 

Most importantly: 

-Have fun

-Do not steal prep, I will run the prep timer if I think you are stealing prep. 

-Whatever happens in a debate round stays in a debate round. Do not be sour/braggy about losing/winning the round. In other words, be a good sport. 

-Any reference to Star Wars during your speech has the potential to increase your speaker points marginally. 

Email: fangyandu@yahoo.com

I am a lay judge with limited knowledge of the debate topics. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable rate of speed.

I like well organized arguments with supporting citations and evidences. Please have the full original cards available to share in case they are requested.

Great honor to be a Judge for this event. Request if debaters can adhere to the following:

1. Relevance and Source: Will assess whether the evidence is relevant to the arguments presented and the credibility of the source. I will look for facts, statistics, and authorities that are supported by thorough research
2. Emphasis and Discussion: I consider the placement of the evidence within the debate's narrative structure, including how much emphasis was placed on the evidence
3. Quality of Research: Will evaluate the thoroughness and relevance of the research behind the evidence presente
4. Clash and Debate: Will also consider how well the evidence is debated, including how it is linked to arguments and whether it is properly clashed throughout the round

Just some preferences that I would like to see in round:

• Debaters using their evidence in rebuttals and linking it back to the main point
• Please make sure to signpost
• I am a lay judge, so I would not prefer any circuit debate/progressive debate arguments (K's, Theories, etc)
• Make sure to use appropriate language in the debate at all times

Looking forward for the event and wishing all candidates the best.

I've been in debate for a little over a decade now as a high school policy debater, coach for numerous teams across multiple events, as well as professionally at the Bay Area Urban Debate League. Essentially, do what you want. Debate is a unique educational and competitive space, please make the most of it. I will vote on most things if you give me a good enough reason. I do not lean towards traditional or K/performative debate. Both are good and valuable. Again, do what you want. Have fun. Be nice to each other.

Go ahead and add me to whatever email chain: gabriel.gangoso@gmail.com

Flex prep is fine. In's and Out's are fine. Any other practices like this are probably fine. If you don't recognize these terms don't worry about them.

I am new(er) parent judge. I am listening to your arguments while keeping an eye on the clock and will let you finish the sentence but like to keep the proceedings on time.

I am listening to understand the logic of your arguments and how you are building your case. I also like to see you use your chance to ask questions of your opponents.

Please do not be late. Do not speak too quickly, be as coherent and clear as possible.

[UPDATE for 2024 UKTOC World Schools]

I'm so excited to judge you in World Schools this weekend! I'll be applying the judging rubric and guidelines for World Schools provided by the UKTOC staff, which you can also find linked on the sidebar of the tournament's homepage. I respect the conventions of the event and I expect you to do the same as a competitor. Overall, you should strive for excellent lay appeal in your delivery/presentation, and content/substance that an intelligent, open-minded, and well-educated audience would find persuasive.

___

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

CURRENT:
Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

FORMER:
Coach: St. Luke's, Spence, Sidwell Friends
Competitor: LD, APDA

____

SUMMARY
Experienced, ‘truthful tech’ flow judge from a traditional debate background. I’m receptive to many arguments, styles, etc., but I prefer strategic case debate or substantive critical debate. Any clash-heavy strategy focused on well-warranted, comparative, topical argumentation should work well for you. I'm not a great judge for contemporary progressive debate (e.g. AFF Ks, performance, tricks, frivolous theory). I'm fine with moderate speed if you slow down on taglines, enunciate, inflect, etc., but I won't flow off the speech doc. Above all, please be kind and respectful to others. And have fun!

____

VOTING
I usually vote wherever the most thorough warranting and responsive weighing was done. If there's no meta-weighing by either team, I tend to prioritize probability/timeframe over scope/magnitude. I tend to value analysis (quality, depth) over assertion (quantity, breadth) on the flow – I'm unlikely to vote for something blippy and underdeveloped, even if it was conceded. I tend to vote against strategies I consider clash-evasive (e.g. frivolous theory, tricks, conditional CPs, unlinked Ks). Keep in mind that my own rhetorical responsibility is to cogently justify to the losing team why they lost — so being clear is always to your advantage.

____

CASE/POLICY
I think debaters chronically misallocate time to stating the obvious about impacts (e.g. "extinction irreversible"), instead of comparing not-obvious details about warrants/evidence. Impact terminalization is fine, but I'm reluctant to vote for extreme impacts with brittle links – I'd prefer to hear probability analysis rather than nuclear war/extinction reductionism. AFF needs to show how their advocacy/plan creates solvency. I like framework-heavy case strategies that challenge net benefits/utilitarian policymaking, especially strategies focused on actor analysis and ethical obligations.

KRITIK
I like K debate, but I also find a lot of it to be obtuse. The link is the most important part of the kritik, because it tells me what you're critiquing/what your opponent did wrong. Links of omission are not links, and reject the AFF/resolution is not an alternative. I'm not comfortable with Ks that ask me to make judgments about a student's immutable identity.My favorite K debates are topically-relevant examinations of academic assumptions, especially in discourse/rhetoric.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
I'm receptive to theory/topicality when it's needed to check in-round abuse, but unreceptive to it for its own sake. An abundance of technical skill shouldn't excuse someone from playing fairly. I'm willing to intervene against debaters who think that baffling their opponent with frivolous theory entitles them to my ballot, and I'm also happy to intervene in favor of a debater who don't know the minutiae of theory shells, but are contesting something that is excluding them from the round.

Hello!

Yes include me on the email chain—Kalebhornedebate@gmail.com

I am a policy debater at Liberty University.

General things---

1. Tech over truth—-my job is to determine who did the best debating in round. I will vote for any argument regardless of personal convictions.
2. Quality over quantity—-I am much more persuaded by a few warranted arguments than by numerous blippy ones.
3. Line-by-line—- do it.
4. Judge instruction—-my goal is to have the least interventionist RFD, and telling me what my RFD should look like will go a long way
5. case/da turns are great
6. If you make me laugh, I will boost your speaks
7. Be kind, if you're racist, sexist, etc. I will vote you down
8. I'm fine with any arguments other than death good, just do what you're comfortable with

PF---

1. Make sure you extend the story of your arguments and answer theirs.
2. Speed is fine, make sure both sides are okay with it.
3. Keep track of your own speech times and prep.
4. Crossfire questions should be relevant to the arguments you are going to make.
5. Arguments in the last speeches should be in earlier ones.
6. Impact calculus is great. Tell me why I should vote on your impacts first.
7. Please give me a reason to care early in the debate.
8. If you tell me why to vote for you I probably will.
9. I don't believe in RVI's in PF, maybe you can impact turn T but I don't think that happens in PF.
10. I'm not sure that PF is debate.
11. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact.
12. If you ask to preflow after start time, use prep time or I doc your speaks

i did pf for four years at leland high school in san jose, california (c/o 2023). lhuang2023@gmail.com

important notes

• conceded cards, even if misconstrued, are true if not called out. i will not reference the email chain unless I am told/have to.
• speed is fine, but clarity matters. I flow what I heard, not what I read.
• new arguments need to be flagged for me to strike them, with the exception of new arguments in the second final focus.
• second rebuttal must collapse. defense is not sticky.
• in a lay setting, i ask you adapt to the most lay judge on the panel. i appreciate when debaters make rounds accessible to everyone involved.
• terminal defense >>> weighing > mitigation >>> "we outweigh on scope."
• i have a low bar for extensions. a 10-second repetition of what affirming does and why that's good/bad is enough in my book.

progressive argumentation

• i will always prefer good explanation over buzzwords. leaving me confused in round = my decision is confusing. in other words, do good judge instruction.
• theory: fine for anything, would prefer not to be in the back of a disclosure round if your opponent does disclose in some form.
• ks: understand these to a very minimal extent, explain your literature well and any links to opposing argumentation.
• k affs: i don't understand these but you can run them if you want to. please err on the side of over-explaining everything if you do.

I am a parent judge. I would prefer for the teams to speak at a moderate speed, and thoroughly explain their arguments. I have not judged many debates before.

Respect is very important attribute for me. I expect the teams to respect each other.

I keep tab on the flow & time on my own. I would like to see each team use the time appropriately.

I would prefer if the debaters spoke clearly at a reasonable speed rather than rushing.

I am a lay judge.

I am a veteran teacher that loves vigorous debate and discussions. I prefer students to engage the topic with insightful and meaningful arguments. Be kind in the debate to the other students and make sure to respond to arguments made by your opponents.

Don't spread - I prefer conversation speed. If you go faster than that then you do so at your own risks.

Be firm and aggressive but not rude - I enjoy a heated debate but not mean and rude comments or disrespectfulness during speeches.

I wouldn't consider myself to be a specialized debate judge so if you use a bunch of debate jargon that may not work out well for you.

If you have questions feel free to ask. Good luck!

Hi, I am a lay parent judge. Please make sure to speak slowly and flesh out your points really clearly.

Do not be rude or mean to your opponents in cross fire.

Do not bring up new responses in second summary and final focus as that is unfair for the other team.

In later speeches, focus on specific arguments instead of trying to go over everything and clearly indicate the voter issues in round.

Compare the arguments and let me know which one I should prioritize looking at.

Have fun!

I am a high school English teacher and the co-advisor for our speech and debate team. I am no expert, by far, but I do appreciate a team who speaks clearly and are respectful. Beyond that, be yourself and do your best debating, while I try to do my best at judging.

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!

I am a college student. I did PF for 4 years previously.

Important points for me:

Speed: I'm okay with most speeds, but don't speak super fast and then end up with an extra minute at the end of your speech. Take your time, don't rush through it just for the sake of it. Also, please don't spread.

Timing: Please don't go over time. I will let you finish your sentence if it happens. However, if you end up going 30+ seconds over, I will stop flowing.

Crossfire: Please be polite. If you cut people off or yell at people or are just being generally really aggressive, I will not hesitate to drop your speaker points. Also, please do not spend half of cross sharing your ideas.

(PF specific) Theory/Ks/Progressive Arguments: I don't prefer these. Only run if warranted by something that happens in the round.

Don't be afraid to call something out or ask questions in the middle of the round. I want everyone to be able to have fun. Good luck on your rounds!

Judge Experience: two years of speech, one year of debate.

Philosophy: no against any philosophical view

Speak: clear and fluent, not just speed. Prefer to have some rhythm.

Argument: no bias, have patience to listen all argument evidences, opinions in crossfire, prefer to the message delivered by line-to-line.

Over all, I am a flexible judge to take notes on key points at each section. The winner will be based on the weights of all section performance.

some ppls paradigms are getting too long...

• high school PF debater, flow judge (competed for 4ish years)
• Don't spread, I'll let you know if it gets super unclear.
• have your evidence prepared in cut cards
• not a huge fan of theory and Ks so don't run them unless you warrant them really really well. (not really applicable to novice)
• i will not flow cross (or listen that closely) - but be nice (ad hominem attacks are a big no). let ur opps answer ur questions and also give them questions
• Please signpost, off-time roadmaps would be greatly appreciated if you stick to them.
• I'm mostly tech over truth, but be reasonable.
• Please weigh!!

Bonus things to boost speaks/make me like you

• throwing in a cool metaphor
• quoting famous people/movies/songs
• correctly identifying a logical fallacy made by your opponents
• being funny/making jokes/doing anything to lighten the mood

Hello Debaters,

I am a parent judge and I have judged a few times before. Please make sure to make eye contact. Be respectful of your opponent. Please be aware that we may be hearing your argument for the first time, so please do not rush.

I appreciate debaters that view debate as a strategic activity that requires effective communication and persuasion. This is not to say that you shouldn't go fast, but it does mean that debaters who are fast, clear, emphasize important arguments both in tone and time, will get high speaker points.

Most importantly, be confident, and have fun! You have prepped a lot, and you know what you're doing. Good luck!

About myself and my judging style.

• Judged in speech and debate events for two years.

• Value content over presentation style.

• Value Quality over Quantity. If I don’t understand the content, I can not give you credit for it. Please slow down if you are looking for better scores.

• Expect teams to respect the time limit, play nice and be polite and respectful.

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

Hello Wonderful Person,

I appreciate the opportunity to judge. As a judge, my primary goal is to fairly evaluate the arguments presented and provide constructive feedback. I value clarity, strategic argumentation, effective communication, and adaptability.

Communication: Clear and articulate communication is crucial. Ensure that your speech is well-paced, and your arguments are easy to follow. Please provide a clear roadmap and structure for your speeches.

Argumentation: I value well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and analysis. Impactful arguments that directly address the resolution or topic are particularly important.

Cross-Examination/POIs and Engagement/Rebuttal: Take and give POIs strategically. Quality matters over quantity. Engage actively with your opponents through POIs and responses during their speeches. Demonstrate an understanding of the key issues in the round. Maintain a respectful demeanor during cross-examination. Engage with your opponent’s arguments. Provide effective rebuttals by directly responding to the core of your opponent’s case. Be strategic in your prioritization of arguments and responsive to the flow of the debate.

Etiquette: Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round. Avoid any form of discriminatory language or behavior.

I look forward to an energetic and insightful exchange of ideas, while you showcase your unique debating style. See you soon!

Lindsay

I am a parent judge, with 10 years of experience.

Important:

Please speak clearly, avoid over speed, and explain your points thoroughly.

Online Debate:

For online debates, prefer cameras on and you are fully visible.

Relevant Thoughts:

• Evidence quality is important. Good data and analytics can beat bad cards.
• My experience is policy-heavy, and it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.
• You as the competitor should be clear in your thought while asking questions or answering them.
• In rounds just make sure to tell me where you are going in your speech.
• Speed is fine with me in beginning speeches but make sure your speed doesn't affect the quality of the argument.
• Don't hesitate to ask me any questions.

• Competed in PF and Public Speaking in HS
• jasminejw.park@mail.utoronto.ca
• Send me an email before/after rounds if you have questions; feel free to use this email for an email chain
• Minimal spreading is fine but if I can't understand you, it won't end up on my flow
• Clear taglines are helpful
• Tech > Truth
• Weigh in FF with voters!
• I don't flow crossfire; mention it in rebuttal/summary/FF if you want it to go on my flow
• If it takes you more than 5 minutes to find a card, you don't have it
• If you're asking for every single evidence and I don't see why you needed it, it won't benefit you
• Be respectful during the debate

I am a parent judge. 

I appreciate slower/ clearer speaking with structured arguments. Repeat your main arguments in final focus.  

lay parent judge, will take notes

I've been judging PF debate for almost 3 years as a parent judge.

I usually try to learn about the debate topic before judging a debate. I like arguments that are presented in an organized manner. I like arguments with supporting numbers and questions. I like debaters talking in moderate speed and with good presentation skills.

I would like to see debaters treat each other with good manner and have fun.

I am a new parent judge, so I will just look for being within the time limit and being respectful to each other.

I am a parent judge. I believe this is a great learning platform for all of us. I look forward to learning from your ideas, arguments and reasoning.

1. Greet everyone and introduce yourselves.

2. Demonstrate respect and professionalism. Adhere to time limits.

3. Be original and be comfortable. I will adjust to your style of presenting.

Please highlight maximum 3 main arguments for your case along with 3 supporting evidences. Additionally, pay attention to other team's arguments and respond accordingly.

My decision will be based on the strength of reasoning, impacts, rebuttal and weighing in Summary Speech(SS) and Final Focus(FF). Any additional weighing that is not stated in Summary Speech will be quantified in my choice. No new cards or arguments should be made in Final Focus(FF).

Hope you will have great learning experience and have fun!

While I am not new to the Bay Area Speech and Debate scene with CFL, this is my second year judging Public Forum.

I look for thoughtfully reasoned ideas, the logical flow of the arguments, and the augmenting evidence presented to support the team's position. I also think a good use of time (running down the clock to take advantage of the allocated time) demonstrates a higher level of preparedness and comfort in dealing with the topic.

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.

I am layperson, but experienced judging PF. I am somewhat hard of hearing, so please try to speak clearly and sufficiently loud to be heard.

Flow judge

4 years PF at Leland

he/him

PF:

-Put me on the email chain: dxie18@gmail.com

-Frontline in second rebuttal

-Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in both summary and final focus

-Weigh comparatively -- don't just say your impact is important, show why it's more important than your opponent's

-Give warrants. Don't just read statistics with no reasoning or warranting.

-Terminal defense > Weighing. make sure you at least access your impact in some way before weighing it

-Metaweigh, otherwise I'll probably just default to prereq/short circuit > link-in > everything else or evaluate based on mitigatory defense/whatever feels intuitive

-I don't like DAs that don't interact with the case at all but I'll evaluate them reluctantly

-Misconstrued evidence won't be evaluated and you'll probably lose speaks

-I really really prefer that you don't spread. I don't like flowing off a doc. I will evaluate spreading if you give me a doc but I'd rather not have to.

-Please time yourself.

-Tech > Truth. I'll vote on anything but keep in mind that crazy arguments that don't make a lot of sense are a lot easier for your opponents to respond to

-Don't be problematic

-I don't flow cross and won't vote on it. If something important happens in cross, it must be mentioned in speech for it to be on my flow.

-I don't like calling for cards. I will try to avoid calling for cards. MAKE MY JOB EASY, do the indicting and the evidence comparison in your speech. I will always try to evaluate evidence clashes solely based on what is said in the round, me calling for evidence should be the last last resort if I can't break a clash.

-If you want to concede defense to kick out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read, you should also explain why the defense takes out the turn

Progressive Arguments

-Theory and Ks: I'm not too familiar with them, especially Ks, but you can run them (sorry if I make the wrong decision though). I don't like friv theory but I won't hack against it

-No CPs/Tricks

Not PF:

-frontline in the speech after responses are made

-warrants please

VBI

I can evaluate everything—I never debated Ks but I find K literature interesting. Prefer substance rounds

Hi everyone! I've done PF for 5 years at Leland High School so I'm pretty comfortable with flowing and technical debate. Add me to the email chain sterlingaxie@gmail.com.

Specific to SVUDL Novice PF:

I'm okay with speed but try to go slower online. On the flow, make sure you collapse by summary and extend in every speech. I won't evaluate anything that isn't extended fully. Weigh by second rebuttal or first summary. Be very clear where you want me to vote and why. Defense isn't sticky (meaning you must extend defense in both summary and final focus). I will vote off the flow unless there's a huge violation (abusive, toxic opponents). I won't flow cross but I'll listen. Tell me it was said in cross if you want to reference it in argumentation.

Comparative weighing (refer below) means you compare the worlds with prerequisite weighing and link-ins, not just "our number is bigger". Magnitude weighing will only be considered if there are no better weighing mechanisms in the round.

If your opponents read new responses in second summary or final focus, you must tell me in your next speech in order for me to cross the response off my flow.

General:

• defense is not sticky—responses must be extended in every speech in order for me to consider it
• comparative weighing in second rebuttal or first summary
• all responses should be well-warranted even if it's just an extension
• all frontlines must be in the immediate next speech
• i can handle speed but send speech docs
• don't be problematic
• i don't flow cross but tell me if there's anything important i should note on my flow
• signpost well and tell me where you are
• speak clearly even if you're going fast so you're comprehensible

Progressive Debate:

• I don't have much experience with progressive arguments so make sure you tell me how to evaluate theory, Ks, etc.

Please signpost your contentions in the debate.

Once you enter the conference call, please turn ON your video and audio.

I am a very, very inexperienced lay judge. I know the structure of PF and that's pretty much it.

- Please speak clearly and slowly.

- Break down your arguments to me as if I'm a granny. Explain why your impacts matter and how they outweigh your opponents in simple terms.

- Signposting would be nice.

- No theory, Ks or progressive arguments. I won't understand them.

- Use good evidence and be ethical. Don't make up stuff. Don't pull shenanigans.

- I may not disclose.

- Last but not least, be respectful and have fun!

Hi! Please add me to any email chains. My email is: angela.anyuan.zhang@gmail.com.

I really value clarity in a debate. I'm okay with speaking fast as long as you speak clearly. Please signpost. Extend and weigh; I will not flow new arguments brought up in final focus. I will listen during cross fire, but please explicitly bring up points in cross fire in your speeches if you wish for me to flow it. Please be respectful and have fun!

I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging. Please speak at slower pace and articulate clearly.

Hello!

I am a parent/lay judge who is new to judging.

If I am judging you don't fret! We are all here to have fun.

A few notes about me:

• Please don't use any jargon
• Don't spread
• Don't assume that I understand the topic (please explain and warrant your arguments)
• Time yourselves (please point out if your opponents were overtime)
• Be respectful to your opponents