I am a lay judge/parent.In your debate, make no assumptions of prior knowledge of subject area. Explain your arguments and evidence clearly. More contentions does not mean better contentions, make me understand your definitions, weighing mechanism and why your speeches show you win the debate. It is very important that I understand how your arguments relate to and address the resolution.Be respectful of your opponents especially while rebutting their arguments.Tell me why you have the winning case

Hi everyone!

I am Minu Basu, and I've been teaching AP Biology and Biology at Dougherty Valley High School in San Ramon, California since 2012. Additionally, I serve as the advisor for the Speech and Debate Club.

While I'm relatively new to the world of debate, I'm eager to learn the intricacies of different events. I find this to be a remarkable learning experience, and I'm excited to share it with my students.

As you present, please remember to speak slowly, clearly, and project your voice. I'm eager to hear your voice and witness your creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, and communication skills.

I want to assure you that I'm dedicated to providing fair, unbiased, encouraging, and supportive feedback as I judge your work. Your best efforts are what I'm here to see, and I'll do my utmost to support your growth and success.

Feel free to reach out by email if needed at mbasu@srvusd.net

Good luck and have fun on this educational journey!

Best,

Mrs. Basu (she/her)

mbasu@srvusd.net

I have been judging for nearly 3 years, absolutely love it and I take it seriously. I just ask that you bring out your best. I prefer that students do not speak too fast when debating. Looking forward to judging for all of you!

I frequently judge speech and parliamentary debate, and have done so over the past two years. I prefer students do not speak too quickly because that makes it difficult to track the presentations (do not spread because I will not be able to understand it). While I expect disagreement, I want students to treat each other with respect at all times. I only track the time myself if the rules require it.

E-mail kaareanna74@gmail.com

About me:

• I am a Judge for Peninsula High School. Admittedly, I am more in my element judging IE, but I also thoroughly enjoy judging debate. I may know some basic concepts, but I’m still learning and possibly am unfamiliar with more specific terminology.

• I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.

• Style: Please speak slowly and clearly. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.

• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified sources, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.

• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.

• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact why that outweighs your opponents main points. I will limit my decision to solely arguments extended in the last two speeches. Completely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.

• Have fun, do your thing! Please treat each other with respect. 

Never judged before officially so don't spread and be respectful in the round. The way you speak will have a large impact on your arguments. I wont be flowing traditionally but I will write down your big ideas. Have a good debate!

P.S: my son wrote this for me

I am a lay judge who enjoys a compelling, logically sound argument. That said, I am a former high school English teacher and current school administrator, and I would like to believe this has prepared me a bit more than the typical lay judge.

I respect arguments that are well-organized and thoughtful and, though I can keep up with a quick pace, I absolutely prefer a natural pace and speaking style, and I value speakers who genuinely know and have internalized their content so that they are able to naturally adapt to the flow of the debate, demonstrating the ability to formulate poised, well-articulated responses on the fly.

Please keep policy discussions and counter plans out of LD debates, as I respect the philosophical focus and original intent behind the LD format. Competitors who condescend or who feel the need to be offensive to their opponents will not earn points from me.

Note that I philosophically do not believe in those who "run Ks" or spread.

I have three years experience judging speech, I am a parent judge.
I am also a Middle and High School teacher as well as a Science Olympiad coach.

With that in mind, here are a few things to note:

Please speak clearly and with good pacing

I will be voting primarily off delivery- the most charismatic, articulate speaker will win the round

Information you present must be true and verifiable

Please keep your own time- I will time you as well but I expect you to do this

As always, be respectful of judges and competitors - mind your non-verbals

Hello :) My name is Carter Castillo, he/him. Say your pronouns at the start of the debate if you feel comfortable.

Most important takeaways from this paradigm: Be nice, have fun, be fair, and be accessible. This can be an intimidating activity and we shouldn’t discourage people from participating by being rude, homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. I will not tolerate anything of that sort! While these are my preferences, I don't believe in absolutes so run what you want and make it your job to convince me! Also if you are doing speech you really don't need to read any of this, just be confident, be clear, and be yourself!

Again, I think you should run the arguments you feel most comfortable with regardless of what I think, but judge adaptability is important as well so if you do want to know a little bit about me then here it goes!

Background

Parli in High School, with Newbury Park High School. Currently do Parli, Extemp, and IPDA in College for UCSD (Go Tritons!). I love politics domestically and internationally, and I love to see good comparisons to different countries with regards to different policies (comparative politics major/nerd lol).

General Notes

Tabula Rasa is not real. I am flow and obviously I will try my hardest to isolate myself to just use in round info, but I think it is a disservice if we try and pretend that we can throw all our beliefs, identities, and values out of the door for anything, including debate.

I love to see direct clash in arguments! Please signpost well, organization is key to my ballot.

Speed

If I'm flowing on my computer I can handle a decent amount of speed, including some spreading if I have your speeches, but if I'm on paper I may not catch everything. While I can handle spreading, its honestly not my fav thing to do, especially because I could lose something you say more easily, so do keep that in mind. I do not look kindly at people who spread out their opponents out of the round. I also just think debate is more fun, educational, and fair when spreading is avoided, but I am not automatically opposed to spreading.

Kritiks

Go for it! But also do not assume I have read any of your lit or anything.

Speaker Points

I think speaker points are really hard and they are so subjective, so always take them with a grain of salt (not just from me but any judge haha). That being said, I try and use a consistent scale. 27 is my baseline, anything below a 26 is reserved for misconduct or doing something harmful in the round, 28 is great, 29 is excellent, and 30 is not only a stellar performance but you had great strategy with flawless execution. I do not think a 30 should be impossible, so I am not averse to giving out some 30s, but I do think the bar should be set really high.

Final Send Off

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round about my paradigm. I always welcome questions after the round once my ballot is submitted as well! Just remember that I am also human and am not a divine perfect arbiter of debate. Best of luck!!!

I seek engaging debates that are challenging and backed by solid evidence. Kindly avoid resorting to personal insults as I value respectful discourse. Rapid speaking (such as spreading) that makes it difficult for me to comprehend what's being said will also not be tolerated and I may penalize if necessary. Additionally, I do not like information that is made up.

My Background:

Undergraduate degree in Business Administration (Berkeley Haas).

I'm a program manager for a speech and debate program.

I have little to no experience judging debate.

What I look for:

Be respectful. Confidence without attitude.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear.

I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

Hello!

I was a past debater for about three years, specializing in LD, but I have done both PuFo and Parli as well. I do flow and base a lot of the round on the flow, so please be good with signposting! Treat me kind of like a lay judge, over explain if you want, and tell me where you are on the flow during speeches. As far as pronouns go I use any, feel free to state yours if comfortable.

Not a fan of spreading/super fast talking, I can flow fast if need be but I'd prefer not to as I'll likely miss some arguments. Also not a big fan of kritiks and off-topic arguments. I was always a traditional debater- pen and paper- so adding more policy takes to LD makes it harder on me since I'm not a big fan of the two colliding at all. Traditional > circuit debate.

I put a lot of focus on the value/value criterion debate so please go philosophical and hit me hard with it!! Connect your case and contentions deeply with your framework and impacts. Speaking of impacts, state them clearly, please!!!

If you have questions before the round feel free to ask! All in all, focus on having a respectful debate.

I've been judging for a few years now and, being the parent of a speech and debater, I understand most events. For every event though, I prefer quality over quantity. I understand you have a lot to say but keep it understandable.

Debate: I encourage you to define acronyms, organizations, or things that a person who is unfamiliar with the topic wouldn't understand. I appreciate the effort you have put in, including time and research into your arguments, but if I can't follow the flow, it makes it more difficult to judge. Along the same lines, I do not appreciate spreading. If I can't follow your thought process, I will have a harder time understanding your argument. Additionally, be respectful to your opponents. I value professionalism especially in cross. If I see the same case across multiple teams/same school, I will devalue the argument for plagiarism. I heavily look at the resolution and compare it with your argument, I want to see topicality. I value a clear outline (clear, separated contentions; off-time roadmaps and directing your debate towards your judge). I appreciate evidence if it is used effectively to add to the debate.

Speech/IE: I've judged all speech events, and I'm fairly experienced with all of them. It should be organized and constructed well. I enjoy impactful conclusions; I listen to speeches all day and I want to see something that will stick with me. Please speak clear and concise. Do not force emotions, represent the proper attitude for your topic or speech event. For unprepared speeches, I can identify "canned" speeches and discourage them. I appreciate a speaker embracing the spirit of the event. Also, tell me what topic you chose. Especially for interps, make your characters clearly separated and characterized so I understand where your story is going. Have a clear plot line as well as believable acting.

Good luck!

Hello! I'm a third year parent judge, but I am experienced. When speaking, please speak slow, I judge what I can understand. I am not so clear on debate terms, so either clarify of refrain from complicated terms. A weighing mechanism (in debate) is preferred so I know how to judge the round. That's about it, good luck! :)

Hi! Welcome to my paradigm! Before I get into what I look for when judging, let me tell you a bit about myself:

In high school, I participated in Speech & Debate for all four years, with experience in almost every event. Moreover, I know the rules of the different events, what to look for in each of them, and understand the feeling of being a speaker and debater myself.

Now, onto my judging criteria. There are three main things I’ll be looking for:

1) Content / Strong Arguments

This is based on the strength of your argument, the quality of your cases, and your ability to defend and poke holes in arguments throughout the round. I will be flowing the rounds, so it’s important that you are very CLEAR and THOROUGH.

2) Presentation / Speaker Strength / Eloquence

Public speaking is not easy. I am impressed by good public speaking practices: eye contact, emotional appeal, respectful conduct, understandable rate of speech, and more. A quick note — DO NOT spread! I have much experience in debate, but am of the mind that spreading is a disingenuous approach to this activity. Debate is supposed to foster civic discourse as much as it’s a competitive sport. Please treat this event with the respect it deserves and take things slower; focus on the quality of your arguments and presentation.

3) Respect for the Craft / Ethical Conduct / Educational Value

This is probably my most important criterion because the previous two points do not matter to me if you do not meet it. Be respectful to each other. Seriously. The second you cross that line, the round loses all of its fun and educational value. Ultimately, you are here to strengthen your skills, step outside of your comfort zone, and expand your knowledge. I know that it’s not easy, so I commend you for getting up to the podium in the first place. If I see you really trying to get the most out of the round (besides just a win) that means a lot, and is honestly a baseline expectation I have for every competitor here. Also, don’t break the rules. Please. Don’t bring up new arguments when you’re not supposed to and don’t use the internet during round. It’s not worth it — and if I catch wind of it, it’ll cost you the round.

Alright, that was a lot. The main point is just to have fun and contribute to making this a meaningful, educational, and stimulating experience for everyone involved. I will leave you the best feedback I can so that you leave the round with something learned and gained rather than simply a win or a loss. Please do your best and I’ll do mine!

I have judged for almost four years.

I don’t have any specific preferences for the students I judge other than the following:

• I like professionalism: act respectfully towards your opponent (don’t interrupt them, talk over them, personally attack them, etc.)

• Please have thoroughly developed evidence and impacts (if you don’t impact your arguments they lose a lot of weight in the round for me)

• Articulation is key when reading evidence/convincing me to believe your claims

• I like nice, well thought out presentations of the cases I hear.

• Don’t talk fast or try to spread

Thank you for keeping the aforementioned preferences in mind! I look forward to judging you.

I will judge participants on topicality, significance of harm, inherency, solvency, and advantage over disadvantage. Topicality standards will include precision, debatability, notice and fairness and reasonability. Inherency will be assessed on structural and attitudinal inherency factors. Solvency will be evaluated on impracticality, insufficiency and counterproducivity factors. Finally, command over the sources and effectiveness of the conclusion will be assessed.

I value clear communication and appreciate a regular speaking speed. Please avoid spreading because if I can’t follow your speeches, I’m unable to judge you fairly as well. I also would really appreciate any and all acronyms to be explained clearly, even if it’s something that might be common, just to make sure I’m on the same page as you. Thank you!!!

Hi! I debated in high school for 3 years, I have competed in all events but was most proficient in Parli and Policy. I am familiar with progressive-debate but my league was lay. Currently coaching for BVHS.
My pronouns are He/Him/They/Them; feel free to share yours if comfortable.

I need to be able to understand you verbally to judge you, your doc means nothing to me or my flow.

If any of this paradigm is relevant to the round, please point it out. “Judge your paradigm states that…”

TL;DR - Be nice to each other, winning means having a meaningful debate.

Check the end for thoughts on specific issues/strategies.

---------

I believe everyone in a round is your peer first, competitor second. Do not be overly aggressive, adversary, or otherwise rude to others in the round. It does not make you "dominant" and WILL reflect poorly on your speaker points. When addressing your peers, respect any pronouns they have asked you to use.

I believe judges aspiring for pure Tabula-Rasa undermine the virtue of debate. If the end-goal is just a flow-based formula then this activity becomes pointless beyond some light practice of soft-skills. Every judge is a different person and they should be encouraged to judge differently.

I believe my job as a judge is to passively facilitate a good debate, I will reward those whose argumentation is educational and fair, I will penalize those who try to "win" by being dishonest and uninclusive in the round.

Basically, this means I will: Not weigh an argument if you demonstrably lied about your opponent's position, especially if you do it in the final speech of the round. Value analysis and prima-facie arguments, potentially above a statistic if it lacks analysis. Not allow certain debate-styles if one side states they cannot follow meaningfully. It is your responsibility to adapt to your peers who have barriers of any kind, not the other way around (Yes, this includes spreading).

So long as both sides can meaningfully participate, I can probably catch anything you run, even if you talk fast. That said if I - for literally whatever reason - cannot catch what you are saying it will not be considered, spreaders beware. I will always defend the accessibility of everyone to debate over anything else. I welcome discussions on this.

I will adapt my judging to meet the needs of the debaters in the round. As always, the goal is good debate, not producing a Boolean result based on some arbitrary algorithm.

-----------

Novices can ignore:

Please make your own extensions, I will only extend if both sides fail to extend.

WRITE YOUR OWN CASES. I have been lenient on this because of how hard to is to prove in round that the case being run was not written by the debater speaking. I will no longer be lenient. If I happen to notice you run the same case - near verbatim - as another round I have judged; YOU WILL LOSE. No tolerance. You cannot convince me on this point. Allowing a case to be run by multiple debaters encourages prep to be done in a way that will always inherently disadvantage smaller schools with less coaching resources and will always be harmful to the education of the students involved.

In Parli only: I am much more accommodating for Ks and Kritikal AFFs, I know how hard good topical cases can be with some of the resolutions.

-----------

MISC Preferences:

Here is some admittable bias I have when it comes to some common occurrences. This does not mean you cannot run/do these, just know in close debates these could make the difference.

-Unless you tell me otherwise, I will prioritize: scope > magnitude > probability > reversibility > time frame.

-I like kritiks but find they are rarely used well. This includes a obsession with overly-complicated Ks. If I cannot understand your thesis then I will not vote for it. Be thorough in your explanation.

-I judge alternatives very hard, I value spill-over a lot. No, "Reject the AFF and Vote NEG" is NOT a good alternative.

-I will typically listen to RVIs but will rarely vote on them. This paradigm includes some notable exceptions.

-I like seeing properly fleshed out Theory but will take any theoretical argument said in the round as Theory to the best of my ability.

-Power-Tagging is my biggest pet-peeve in debate, you WILL lose the argument if ANY of it is power-tagged and this is pointed out by your opponent (drop-the-debater Theory is also easy to run on me, so watch out).

-I HATE frivolous extinction impacts. Unless the topic is literally nuclear war, odds are I will think it is frivolous (I could easily vote on an RVI for this).

-I dislike when people run economic impacts without contextualizing to people, GDP means nothing to me unless you prove what it does in this debate.

-I do not care about where you/your opponent get your funding in policy, deficit spending exists. You still need to say "we will pay this with deficit spending" but I am not strict on fund-DAs in general.

-Political-Capital DAs will never be considered. They are infinitely applicable and defeat the entire purpose of CX debate. You will have VERY hard time convincing me otherwise.

-I am VERY easy to convince when it comes to dropping a PIC or Plan-Plus CP (similar strategies like delay also apply). Also could vote on an RVI easily. This includes actor pivots.

-Util means nothing to me in LD, if your opponent read a different VC, I will probably use that instead (can be convinced to use util).

-I dislike conditional CPs, you will likely do better by only running one of your plans and ending the speech early.

-I do not believe disclosure is an expectation or a prerequisite to fairness. This shell will be hard to win on me. Related, disclosing does not allow you to skirt topicality, you are not allowed to harm-offset an unfair interp.

-Your opponents are free to reject flashing/email-chains for whatever reason, this is NOT them waiving their right to understand your case, you MUST communicate to their accessibility level regardless.

-Pointing out a logical fallacy is often enough for me to drop an argument, "Arguing in Ignorance" is VERY common !!!!!!

-Identity Ks are very risky, if run well I will guaranteed vote for it, but I will always be even more strict on the Alt than usual. If you are not of that identity yourself, be careful.

-I like plans in LD, if the tournament allows it, go wild (I will judge it just as a Policy Plan).

-Bigotted arguments will not be weighed at all, your opponent does not have to point this out for me to throw out any bigotry. ACAB. BLM.

-

Feel free to ask me anything else before the round. Have fun!

I am a parent judge who is passionate about speech & debate. I personally feel the ability to address an audience & eloquence is a great skillset for anyone to have in their professional life. So to me material, delivery and logic to support the facts are important. Maintain eye contact with audience, smile even if you disagree, be respectful, speak clearly and dont just state facts (use facts to convey your point). And most importantly - have fun.

It is a pleasure for me to watch you compete today. Please remember to be courteous and respectful. Speak slowly and clearly and do not use jargon that you have not explained. Thank you!

Over a decade's experience of being a parent-judge. Feel free to spread - if the opposing team can track you and debate you, I can follow. I flow - help me by clearly enumerating your arguments. Theory and kritik arguments are ok to an extent - don’t make the entire debate about that.

In the end persuade me.

My paradigm for congressional debate is quite simple:

I would appreciate if competitors do not spread or talk too fast: the goal of this event is to engage in insightful discussion surrounding the legislation but talking too fast often defeats this purpose.

Clash is important, but clash politely! I enjoy when debaters weigh the impacts of the opposing side with their own. However, I take into careful consideration how you carry yourself throughout the round. How you treat the PO, your fellow competitors, judges, and yourself will be a point that I look at when I cast my ballot. Please be respectful and polite because the kindness you treat your opponents with is more important that any award or trophy you can win. Especially in this online setting, you should be attentive during the round. Asking questions and taking notes lets me know that you are active and participating. With that being said, don't ask questions for the sake of raking up points on my ballot. I appreciate questions that genuinely have a purpose and move the debate forward.

Most importantly, I have no tolerance for any sort of racism, homophobia, sexism, or bigotry. I deem that unacceptable and I will not hesitate to dock you on my ballot.

Make sure to have fun and enjoy yourselves!!

Hello Speakers,

I look for the following elements in your speech.

1. Always have a claim, warrant, and impact; make sure to specify them

2. Support your argument with data and empirics

3. Speak clear and confident; do not be too fast and keep a positive debate environment!

My average speaks are around 27. If you speak really well then I will go up from there. If you need to be clear and have more developed arguments, then I will go down from there.

Good luck and have fun!

Progressive arguments--read at your own risk

I have been part of this community since 2016 as a judge. I had judged debates, OO speech, Impromptu, Expos and many others. Among these, expose is my interest where I get to see so many informative and creative expression of thoughts where kids bring their perspective and allow me to learn. Very enjoyable.

To be clear, I'm a speech coach. I am proficient enough in flowing rounds and can effectively keep up with the debate. However, if spreading is utilized, you run the risk of losing me entirely. Additionally, strategies such as running theory or K's are unlikely to lead to a winning outcome in my view. I prefer debates that are grounded in linking arguments back to a value or standard set during the rounds. Please signpost clearly so I can follow the flow more effectively. I don't want to direct the debate in any particular direction; structure it as you see fit, keeping my background and preferences in mind.

I am super lay.

Speak slowly.

Break everything down for me.

The most understandable person wins.

No theory or spreading.

Be polite.

I am good with off time roadmap as long as you don’t make any arguments and keep it short.

Keep jargon to a minimum or explain your terms.

If there are any disagreements, then I will take note of it and consult with the rule book.

15 second grace period for speech and debate.

• "This is the first time that I've judged this event."
• I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging."
• "Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals."

I am a coach of 18 years in Southern California, but don't have a lot of debate judging experience, as my team was more Speech-focused for many years up until the last three or so. This means that I appreciate teams who speak clearly without speaking too quickly, and approach their arguments in an organized and logical manner. I have also taught rhetoric for 15 years, so the structure of logical arguments is central to how I evaluate the strength and efficacy of the argumentation as it is laid out. I also value teams who understand the practical, real-life applications of these events: the goal here would, in theory, be to move a room full of people on issues of policy and living in communities. And from the perspective of someone who can sometimes struggle with auditory processing without having the text in front of me to follow along, it's essentially that you avoid spreading, since I will NOT be able to follow you if I don't have your speech in front of me.

When I am taking notes, I generally make note of your contentions/claims/reasons and identify evidence, but I also write notes to myself about the relative efficacy or feedback I wish to provide, or questions that I will hope you'll answer during the round as it continues. It's essentially a stream of consciousness that I jot down so I don't have to type while you're speaking. It's also why I'll be scribbling and sometimes changing pens while you're speaking; I create a little code for myself to remind myself what feedback to provide, especially if I'm can't get to it until later in the tournament.

I prefer when debates remain productive and maintain a thoughtful, rationally calm(ish) tone. A little sass and a little passion here and there is okay, but when it gets overly shouty, I have a hard time remaining engaged.

Typically when making my decisions, I weigh the strength of the logical architecture of the case along with the depth and specificity of evidence - when evidence is too broad or too generic, it can hurt the ultimate success of a case for me. The other thing that in my experience can affect my decisions is when teams seem to have little knowledge or understanding of historical context of some of the resolutions being discussed, or are overly dismissive of what might potentially be the lived experiences of the judges in the room. I generally do weigh the content and logic over the delivery and style, but if the debate is really balanced and the round is really great, sometimes the only thing that distinguishes one team from the other is their style and speaking ability.

Hello there!

I'm looking forward to the tournament. Here's my paradigm:
- I am a parent judge
- I didn't debate in high school or college, but I have judged high school tournaments—both debate and speeches, but primarily speeches
- I am an Art Director and appreciate concise and cohesive arguments and thought-out links
- Please speak at a reasonable pace—I take notes. Please no spreading; if I don't understand you, I won't vote for you.
- Please avoid debate jargon
- I appreciate signposting or telling me where you are in your argument (e.g. My first contention is ...)
- Be substantively persuasive
- Be respectful—not aggressive
- Have a wonderful time!

Thank you.

I am a parent of a speech/debate student. I began judging in 2021, I have judged both debate and speech events. Be kind, considerate to all. Speak slowly enough so that I can understand and process what you have to say.

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.

I've assistant coached for 13 years mainly as an IE coach.

Debate:

In terms of debate the school I have judged many rounds of Public Forum, Parli, and LD.

I know how to flow, but depending on the round I may not vote solely on flow. As in: An opponent dropping an argument that makes no sense... is still an argument that makes no sense.

I understand most debate jargon, but if you are going to run something really off the wall you may want to take some extra time to explain it.

If you aren't saying anything important I won't flow. If I am lost, I won't flow. If you aren't clear in speaking, I won't flow. I hate spreading with the passion of 1000 burning fiery suns.

I did IEs in high school, so to me the essential part of speech and debate is learning the ability to communicate. So make sure you explain things clearly and concisely. I feel that louder/faster doesn't always equal smarter.

I really like strong (but respectful) clash in crossfire and cross-ex. Really dig into the arguments and show me you know what is going on!

Voters and voting issues in your final speech are key to me inside of whatever framework you have set up. For LD this includes your value and criterion as well as your opponent's.

IEs:

These events are my jam. :)

I am going back to flowing in a traditional way, I now priviledge organization and technical competency alongside content depth. I am sick of the way that the speech doc is ruining the flow. I don't like reading cards after the debate, please put the important spin and quotations of the card "on the flow." Do what you do best.

---PERSONAL INFO---

I did PF + Extemp. I mostly just like flowing stock, but I'll try to accept conversational Theory and Kritiks that I can understand; I prefer clean rhetoric over spread jargon unless you read me an interp that can convince me otherwise.

In my paradigm, a good debater is somebody that can make it abundantly CLEAR why they won. Think about why you started debate and why you have continued to do it; this is a learning experience! Stay respectful and try new things.

--- DEBATE ---

Debaters, I will assume you know what you're doing. Make the structure of your argument clear and meaningful IN your speech. Remember that debate is more than fast talking and dubious leaps in logic. Debate is communication. While on that topic, a note on speed:

CONVERSATIONAL ONLY, PLEASE.

Generally, I don't vote for cases I don't understand. If you want my ballot, practice brevity. Jargon's fine. Contention taglines should be slow enough for me to copy down exactly.

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

Paradigm.

Speaks: Debate in good faith. Attitude, respect, and accuracy count. I give better speaks in better rounds. Unless there is a serious offense committed in round, I won't go below 25. If there is something that I see, I will let you know explicitly. If you see something, I expect you to kritik or address it in round.

Theory: Topicality specifically first, since it's come up the most. On the defense, the topicality of your case should be obvious. Anything on the edge of topicality needs to be preemptively justified in the constructive to convince me that it is actually relevant. On the offense, again, I need an obvious violation and a substantially better interpretation to buy a topicality argument. This applies to all theory: give me the shortest version of your full shell.

Kritikal: ONLY use it if necessary. I will judge you not only on your choice of K, but execution, clarity and structure before considering it as an integral part of the round. I want an obvious link and a full internal link to your impact. Explain the alternative and role clearly and slowly. Please don't spread these, especially the more complex ones; I won't follow.

Counter-plan: Do it only when there is a plan that precedes your counter-plan. Don't run counter-plans against traditional debaters.

Tricks: I appreciate a good trick. Remain respectful of the format.

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

With the technical stuff out of the way, above all I want to make sure everyone enjoys the round thoroughly. Have fun with your cases; I am always interested to hear unorthodox methods! Happy Debating!

I am a parent judge, and I’m in my fourth year of judging Public Forum, Parli, LD, and extemp. While I’m not an expert at judging debate, I have a Master’s in Foreign Service from Georgetown University, and so I do have more than a basic knowledge of US and international politics and current events.

Here’s what I like in a speaker:

Speak clearly, NO SPREADING, and present your arguments and analysis in a respectable manner, as those are important for speaker points.

Present your case in a way that is clearly connected to supporting evidence, and fully explain your analysis.

I expect all of you to time yourselves.

To convince me to vote for your team, present clearly what arguments you are winning on, but make sure you do so with respect and dignity. Do not assume that the judge is incapable of making that decision correctly.

Hello! :D

I did speech and debate my entire time in high school, with a focus on IE and Congress. I've watched a lot of debate rounds over the years, but please treat me like I know absolutely nothing! I like to see well-outlined cases with clear evidence, values, contentions, transitions, etc. I take a lot of notes, and I always refer back to them when I make my decision.

There will always be clashing evidence and, instead of arguing the same point back and forth, please focus on the value/value criterion! It's my favorite part of debate, so state and connect them clearly throughout your entire case. If you feel like you're mentioning it too much, that's just the way I like it :).

Also, it's never impacted my decision, but presentation is important to me! I was a speech kid, after all. Enunciate, have good volume, good posture, etc. Whatever makes you look and feel confident at the podium.

I am a lay judge/parent. Please organize your material well and present a clear conclusion. Try not to repeat ideas and please stay on the topic. Remember the end goal: to prove that your value is superior to your opponent's. Use logic and reason to explain your arguments. Present credible evidence. Ask incisive questions, but also be respectful of each other. Pace your words so that communicate effectively. Since I take notes, your speech delivery is crucial for me to provide you with complete feedback. Breathe deep, have fun, and good luck.

Speech:

Extensive experience competing in HI and DI, and judging in all forms of IE.

Extemp/IMP: Please have a thesis statement. Don't simply answer your question "Yes/No", and then jump to your points. I need to hear WHY you are answering Yes/No in a well-crafted thesis statement.

Oratory/Advocacy/INFO: You're here to teach! Teach me!

Interp: There is a difference between true interpretation and simply making somebody laugh (HI) or cry (DI). Good "Interpers" know the difference.

Debate:

***** PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO ME *****

***** IF YOU TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS WITH DISRESPECT, SPEAKER POINTS (AND PERHAPS RFD) WILL BE IMPACTED SEVERELY *****

***** YOU ARE HERE TO ATTACK ARGUMENTS, NOT PEOPLE *****

I am experienced as a competitor in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas. I am experienced as a judge in Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parliamentary. See below for more info.

General: Debate is about your ability to understand, analyze, weigh, educate, and persuade in a contest of oral communication. Show me that you have developed these skills and abilities. I want to hear well-constructed arguments & reasoning, supported by relevant evidence and analysis. Depth means much more to me than breadth. During refutations, I want to hear true clash and expansion, not simple repetition of previously stated arguments. During final rebuttals, I want to hear a thoughtful bottom line -- the ability to sum up an entire debate is a very important skill. I can still make a decision without any of that, but good debaters will always demonstrate that they have learned the above skills.

PF/Policy/Parli: IF YOU SPREAD, I WILL PUT MY PEN DOWN, AND I WILL NOT RECORD YOUR ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE. Your speaker points will also reflect poorly. "Spread debate" teaches you (and me) nothing more than how fast you can speak and how fast I can write. The "spread" dynamic exists nowhere in the real world, except at debate tournaments. As such, I find spreading to be artificial and unproductive. If you never spoke at all, and simply pasted your cards onto a communal flow sheet with a series of arrows, you would reach the same endpoint as spread debate. So, please don't spread. Give me an outstanding LAY debate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I understand that these are values debates. But I see no utility in "stating your values" at the top of the speech (i.e. "My values for this debate are quality of life and egalitarianism.... now on to my arguments"). These opening statements mean very little, and I never write them down. I want to hear your case first. I want to hear solid background, arguments, and evidence, all of which SHOULD organically convince me of the values you support. You wouldn't make such empty opening statements about values in the real world, so I don't need to hear them in your speech. Show me how your arguments support your values, not the other way around.

Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.

What I like:

- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.

- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.

- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.

- Framework - I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).

- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.

- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.

-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.

What I don't like:

- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic. I am not a fan of spec arguments.

- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, make sure your K somehow links to SOMETHING in the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 2, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 3, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.

- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.

- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.

- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.

- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.

Speech

I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.

Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.

Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.

Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.

Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.

NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (PF, LD, CX, etc.):

Do:

-Include a value/criteria

-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)

-Communicate when you are using prep time

DO NOT:

-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)

-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other team’s case substantively)

I will vote for the team that best upholds their side’s burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.

EMAIL: kristinar@cogitodebate.com

For debate:

I am most familiar with non-circuit Pufo, Congress, and Parli. I understand basic debate jargon, no need to simplify your speech too much for my understanding. I'll judge based on the flow, not necessarily on fluency/delivery. Please no spreading.

I have a hard time following a debate that centers around kritik, topicality, anything meta-debate (debating about how the debate should be debated). I understand sometimes it cannot be helped, but try to avoid it.

For Speech:

For interps, you'll be judged on your overall performance (i.e. use of stage, eye contact, remaining in character, etc). I enjoy seeing how your speech holds significance so I look forward to hearing intros- specifically your argument as to why this piece needs to be heard.

For platform while the performance is important, I weigh the actual content of the speech more (organization, reliable sources, rhetoric, etc.).

In on-the-fly events such as impromptu and extemporaneous, the same follows. I am partial to speeches that don't sound too canned in impromptu. I like to see unique takes on the topics, rather than an outline that sounds cut and paste.

I care about argumentation and analysis more than most all else. I emphasize the flow, and care about the credibility of evidence. I'm not the biggest fan of theory debate for the sake of theory debate. I prefer topic centric debate.

I have about 10 years of experience in the speech and debate world. I primarily exist in speech land, but I have judged a lot of debate and love a strong argument and good links. That being said, I enjoy when a speaker can clearly articulate their arguments, and use delivery based methods of persuasion to help sway the ballot.

I am always hopeful for a debate where there is a lot of clash, and a clear path to the ballot.

I love when debaters give me voters and a clear articulation of why they believe that they have won the ballot.

Please no theory, no Ks, no spreading. I am a lawyer (first 9 years as a litigator), I debated policy in high school, and I’ve been judging speech and debate since 2020. If you debate the topic and speak clearly, I will flow the round and it allows me to make a more thoughtful decision and provide better feedback.

I believe that it is not the judge's job to decipher the round but instead the debater's job to simplify the round to the judge. I vote for teams with simple cases that are clear and easy to follow.

Hello!

My name is Bailey Ungaro and competed through Speech and Debate throughout High School. I have been judging ever since I've graduated and love to see what students come up with! I am familiar with most events, I will judge based on the following:

For debate, I have experience as PO for Congress and have competed in Pufo. I have judged Parli, Pufo, and LD. I am fine with spreading, but I don't feel like it will make you win. I make the final decision based off of how strong the points are, how they connect together, and how you rebuttal the other team/individual. I also factor presentation, but it does not make the final decision. I am also familiar with basic debate jargon so no need to slow things down too much.

For Speech, I have had performance experience in Impromptu, Expository, Oratory, and Duo. I believe I have also judged almost every speech event. I will be judging based on the overall performance (use of stage, eye contact, characters, blocking, etc). I enjoy the speech event so much and want to see you put energy into why you chose that piece and what it means to you.

For platform events I am more interested in the content of the speech. I will be listening for organization and sources mainly. But I take into account the use of stage and blocking as well, but it will not make the final decision.

I am a current college student and love taking the time to come back and watch speeches and see what students are doing now! I'm excited to watch what everyone has to offer!

Hello!

My name is Bailey Ungaro and competed through Speech and Debate throughout High School. I have been judging ever since I've graduated and love to see what students come up with! I am familiar with most events, I will judge based on the following:

For debate, I have experience as PO for Congress and have competed in Pufo. I have judged Parli, Pufo, and LD. I am fine with spreading, but I don't feel like it will make you win. I make the final decision based off of how strong the points are, how they connect together, and how you rebuttal the other team/individual. I also factor presentation, but it does not make the final decision. I am also familiar with basic debate jargon so no need to slow things down too much.

For Speech, I have had performance experience in Impromptu, Expository, Oratory, and Duo. I believe I have also judged almost every speech event. I will be judging based on the overall performance (use of stage, eye contact, characters, blocking, etc). I enjoy the speech event so much and want to see you put energy into why you chose that piece and what it means to you.

For platform events I am more interested in the content of the speech. I will be listening for organization and sources mainly. But I take into account the use of stage and blocking as well, but it will not make the final decision.

I am a current college student and love taking the time to come back and watch speeches and see what students are doing now! I'm excited to watch what everyone has to offer!

I listen for speeches that are well organized and supported by evidence more than presentation skills. It is important that speeches clearly address the topic at hand and not be canned speeches that indirectly relate to the topic. I am not focused on time; I would rather you stop before your time is up than speak super quickly just to make more points. Similarly, I would you rather stop before you time is up then run out of pertinent things to say and ramble and repeat things. Be clear, concise and factual.

Hello!

I'm a mom of four and love seeing everyones preparation and hard work. I'm a novice judge but enjoy persuasive arguments that I can follow. It helps when you let me know which argument you are referring to. Good Luck!

I am an experienced coach and experienced competitor. I have been tournament champions of numerous tournaments (in Originals and Interp) and have been to State every year of competition and qualified to Nationals. My team has always sent a delegation to Nats every year we have been a program. I do my best to leave quality and constructive criticism on ballot.

Debaters:

I sure love it when debaters signpost. That helps me and you stay organized on the flow sheet.

If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. So make sure you are speaking clearly and slowly enough so I can digest what youre saying.

I have a conditional love towards "out of the box" plans and ks but keep them tasteful and thoughtful. Anything facetious or "edgy" is not it for me. But an interesting take and or something whimsical but thoughtful I will appreciate. In the end, is it something you would run in front of your coach? If yes, I'll take it. If you do extinction theory, it's not going to go well. That's not showing me how good of a debater you are. I am much more about the spirit and intention of argumentation, not the letter of the flow.

Speechies:

Please enunciate and project. Again, if I can't hear or understand you, I can't judge you. For originals I am expecting a well organized and analyzed speech. For you Varsity/Open competitors, you should be completely memorized (but a few flubs here and there will NOT make or break your speech). For interpies, please have clean and distinct character pops, and the cut of your piece should follow the elements of story telling and make narrative sense. Also, remember, if I didn't see you emote, did you? Be mindful of facial direction, and focal points. If I can't see you, I can't judge you.

Spontaneous speakers, if I see that you are canning your speeches, your rankings will reflect that. Spon events are testing on your ability to organize and complete a speech spontaneously. If you are using canned examples and just swapping out phrases or words, that is not speaking spontaneously. I will penalize HEAVILY.

What an absolute pleasure to watch, listen and learn from these phenomenal young people. It is such a privilege to participate.

I like to see a lot of clash between arguments. I like it when competitors explain their argument and the impact of their arguments. I weigh heavily on the value criterion and voting issues expressed in the first constructive speeches, extending to the last rebuttal speeches. I do not like fast reading or spreading. I am OK with value debates, policy debate and philosophical debates.