I am a parent judge with 5+ years of PF/LD/ Policy experience. Please consider me a Flay Judge.

• Speak as fast as you would like, but I will ask you to slow down if I cannot understand. No spreading please. I am fine with 15 seconds of grace time.
• Please be respectful of your opponents and give them a chance to speak. Do not keep interrupting or be rude or condescending. If not, I will drop your speaker points.
• Please do not read any form of progressive argumentation (theory, kritiks, etc.) as I cannot evaluate them and will not give you credit for them.
• Off-time roadmaps and sign-posting are encouraged. It helps me follow your debate better.
• My decision will be based on your contentions, evidence, rebuttals, impacts, summaries and weighing. I will evaluate all those on both sides to come to a decision.
• I like to see well-researched cases backed by strong and credible evidence. Please include me in the email chain to share cards as I like to review them as well.

Good luck and have fun!

Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 3-4 years.

DECISION:My decision evaluates all scopes of the debate: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence, links, etc. However, telling me why your IMPACTS are important and how you better achieve them than your opponent is key for you to win this debate. I do not care about what kind of impacts you give me, but it would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize with broad ones so I know where you are deriving your impacts from.

FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis, however, I prefer OVERVIEWS (not only in your 2ars or 2nrs) because they clear things up for me and make the ballot easier too.

OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD . If you speak marginally fast or faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY because I will probably not understand it or flow it. By chance if I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate and I will probably just ignore it.

HAVE FUN DEBATING ;)

I am a parent judge who likes clear and concise arguments that help the flow of the round

Lay judge, no spreading. I have judged Congress to oi to policy. I will always write long form notes on in round speeches, but I may not set up my flow like conventional debaters.

sai.ankireddi@gmail.com

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

I focus on the quality of the arguments - how well they are backed up with data. I am fine with vigorous counter arguments and debate but do not appreciate personal attacks or rudeness.

It is my first year judging debate, therefore I will need competitors to define any specialized terms used during the round. Please speak clearly for me to hear and understand you. I will pay close attention to the points being made during every speech, so be clear with what you are saying.

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

In the last 5 years, I've judged 249 rounds. I've voted AFF 115 (46%) vs NEG 134 (54%). I've been on 111 panels and squirreled 11 times (9%).

____

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 under-developed, 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 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 doesn't know the minutiae of theory shells, but is contesting something which is excluding them from the round.

I am a lay judge with very minimal experience judging policy debate. Hence, I appreciate rounds with an emphasis on clear and effective communication of subject matter and arguments.

Looking forward to it. Good luck!

RK

I’ve judged a few tournaments in the last two years, and I would consider myself to be a lay judge. I’m open to listening to any arguments that you want to run as long as they are clear, well warranted, and delivered clearly. I do flow in the round and do my best to vote off of the arguments that remain at the end of the round. I typically give high speaker points as long as you are clear and explain yourself well.

At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be fun and a learning experience, so please try to have fun in the round and be respectful of your opponents in the round.

Parent judge, please try to go slower and err on the side of overexplaining jargon on the topic. Warrant out and impact all of your arguments. Good reasoning and explaining of your side will win you the round.

I am a parent judge, do not spread. Present yourself confidently and be organized. Don't interrupt each other in cross-examination.

I am very new to the world of debate. I would like to see clear argumentation with great delivery. Please don’t speak too fast while debating, as it becomes hard for us parent judges to understand. Extra points for strong rhetoric and good summaries of key arguments at the end. Be persuasive, but be respectful to your opponent. Please speak clearly. Best of luck to everyone!

1. Group your arguments clearly, usually persuaded by large set of well developed & cited arguments.
2. Deliver your arguments slowly and clearly, backed up with evidence (historical/political/data) and adequate reasoning.
3. Evidences should be cited with author and any other relevant info.
4. I'd look for a well structured plan, impact and evidences over pragmatic analysis.
5. Be polite, civil and exhibit eye contact with your fellow debaters as well as with the judges.

Do your best!!!

Hello

I am a flay judge, meaning I look both at the arguments debated as well as the delivery and how you persuade me. You might want to go lay to be safe. Speed is not a problem as long as you talk loud and clearly but this does not mean you should talk extremely fast.

For me it’s extremely important starting summary and in later speeches to frontline, weigh, and have good offense. Very simply I pay close attention to how you refute your opponents arguments and emphasize your own. Although I do listen I will flow beginning speeches roughly but it boils down to the clash later on. You will win my vote if you can do all that while making it very clear, clean why I should vote for you. This means don’t jump back and forth between your case and opponents in summary. In final focus paint me a story on why you should win.

I do not flow cross but I do listen and think it’s important. I will mark you down if you are rude during cross so just be polite. I do not like it if you are looking around the room or playing with your hair instead of paying attention to the round but it doesn’t impact my decision. I am a truth over tech judge but if you can explain well, I can become tech over truth. I don't know anything on theory/K's/framework, so it is not be the best decision to run that in round.

I look forward to seeing you debate, and please be civil and have fun. I hope this helps, and if you have any questions don’t hesitate to ask!

I am a parent judge who has been judging for a couple of years but have a long history of participating and winning speech and debate tournaments.

I value calm cogent coherent arguments over bombastic and aggressive harangue.

Be kind - to yourself and to your opponents.

Be yourself. 

Be the best person you can be.

Be respectful.

Ad hominem arguments are an immediate fail in my book.

I take a dim view of spreading; if I can't understand you, evidently you can't convince me of the soundness of your arguments.

If you are not clear or understandable, I'll call out "Clear!" Please heed it.  I will not be repeating the call more than twice. 

Time: I expect the candidates to time themselves and honor it. But I do keep watch.

If you are using frameworks, define them clearly at the outset.

I appreciate good rebuttals and cross examinations.

Good luck, and most importantly, have fun.

I am a new judge, so please talk at a moderate speed. I flow somewhat and I value your speaking styles. I would like you be kind and nice to opponents.

Please time yourselves and each other.