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.

College Debater. Throw whatever you want at me. Tech > Truth. The biggest mistake I see in middle school is a lack of terminalization of your impacts; make sure that you spend a good chunk of time both doing that and weighing.

I am a parent judge. I judged over 100 competitions.

I will rate the competitors based on two main parts:

-Composition:

If the content is effective writing or not.

Does the competitor's speech organize clearly and easy to follow?

Does the speech contain ample solid reasoning and logic

Is the speech too general or does it focus on specifics?

Does the speech make too many generalizations or assumptions about the audience?

Does the speech contain evidence and examples?

Does the speech have good rhetorical choices?

-Delivery:

I would like competitors to use effective oral presentation skills. I will check if the competitor is comfortable with delivery such as having a clear voice, good intonation, or a nice tone.

I will also check if the speaker uses effective body language or not such as hand gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact.

I have been a judge associated with Notre Dame High School since 2018 as my older sister is the director of speech and debate there. Tournaments I have judged include invitationals and state qualifiers. My experience includes debate events such as public forum and Lincoln-Douglas, as well as interpretative, oratory and extemporaneous speech events. My debate judging style focuses on the value criteria of net benefit or maximizing welfare. If I feel the proposal would potentially do more harm than good compared to the status quo, I would vote for the negative. If the proposal seems to be more beneficial compared to the status quo, I would vote for the affirmative.

edit: Please lower your volume to avoid yelling. I'm sitting 5 ft away from y'all I promise I can hear.

tl;dr: I'm a flow Parliamentary judge, good with speed. If you make my job of evaluating easier by collapsing and covering the flow, then you'll get my ballot. Policy background, thus a lover of kritiks. Aff Ks are hot, but so are Framework & Disclosure Theory. I default to K > T > Case.

ALSO i usually give oral feedback after the round, i don’t write RFDs so i recommend taking notes

Quick Bio: Hello! My name is Renée Diop and I'm a high school debate coach, tutor, judge, and former competitor. I finaled the California High School Speech Association State Championship in Parliamentary Debate in 2022, and now pass on my recent knowledge of the game to current high school students. If you’re interested in parli debate tutoring, book an appointment at reneediop.com or email me at dioprenee@gmail.com. LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/renéediop.

CASE:

Both sides: Definitions need to come out of the first 2 constructive speeches, no backtracking and redefining halfway through the round. For the love of Allah (SWT), collapse collapse collapse.

Aff: I want a killer MG; a good PMR won't win me over if the MG was trash. Kill the flow and leave Neg with zero outs and I'll give you a cookie. For the PMR the best you can do for me is reframe the round and contextualize it under your weighing mechanism, but most of the time my mind is already made up before then.

Neg: LOC needs to hard carry right out the gate. Open to PICs and counter-definitions as long as they come from the LOC and nowhere else; LOR should be preempting, wiping the flow clean so I can vote without even having to listen to the PMR.

THEORY:

Overall: Open to friv T, just don't read off 10 standards and be a douche about it. Keep it cute and fun. Collapse on 1 voters/impact, don't be messy and make me do all the work to evaluate several different layers. Anything that makes me do more work is something to avoid doing. Tell me T > Ks and T > case, but give legitimate reasons for why.

Ks Bad T: Not a fan of it. I love a good K, what can I say. Unless you can present me with some new and unique standards, I believe that Ks specifically grant access to minority debaters, and generalizing all Ks as being "bad" by default is a red flag for me. The only other circumstance I would vote for them is if your opponents are being blatantly inaccessible by spreading you out of the round, being ivory tower, etc.

Framework or Disclosure T: Now this is reasonable. I'll vote for this if you're smart about it. If not, my default is to accept Aff Ks so take this opportunity if it arises.

KRITIKS:

Overall: Cool with Aff Ks as long as you disclose during prep. I did gender, queer, necro-capitalism, anti-blackness, settler colonialism, and marx Ks in high school so if your K aligns with any of those then go for it, BUT ALSO IM OPEN TO ALL KS! Be accessible or your K has no impact! This means 1) Don't spread your opponents out of the round. Slow when they ask you to. 2) Give definitions for the hella obscure words your literature references. I'm no parent judge, but I also don't have a PhD in English. I'm cool Ks as long as you can translate it to the common vernacular.

Framework: I should know exactly what your thesis is by the end of the FW. Don't wait until the alternative to clearly explain your ideas. Tell me how to evaluate pre vs. post fiat impacts, tell me K > Case, and give me a role of the ballot.

Links: Quality > quantity. No link means no K, so choose them wisely. I want claim, evidence, reasoning like a sophomore year Honors English class. Don't just say, "Our opps did this so they're linking into the K!" actually explain it and justify it with evidence.

Alternative: Not huge on revolutionary/utopian alts, I find them to be no different than post-fiat arguments in most circumstances. If your K has in-round, debate-space solvency then I'll love and cherish you till the ends of the earth <3.

K vs. K rounds: You're so cool if you do this. Love the inevitably high amounts of clash these rounds produce. Just make sure there are proper re-links and that your alternative solves/is a prerequisite to solving theirs.

Thank you for reading & good luck! Hmu after any round to ask a question, get advice, want me to teach you debate, or literally anything else. Email me at dioprenee@gmail.com.

If email chains needed: forrestfulgenzi [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: Debated policy debate for four years at Damien High School and currently the head coach over at OES. Have been involved in the debate community for 10+ years teaching LD and Policy Debate.

General thoughts:

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards.

Overall, I'm open to any arguments - feel free to run whatever you'd like!

Last update: 8 November, 2023 for NPDI

I have mostly retired from judging but pop back in every once in a while. My familiarity with events is as follows: Parli > PF > Policy > LD > others. With that in mind, please be clear with the framework with which you would like me to evaluate the round. I will hold myself to the evaluative method defined within the context of each round. Absent one, expect that I will make whatever minimum number of assumptions necessary to be able to evaluate the round. If I find that I cannot evaluate the round... well just don't let it get there. Have fun!

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background:

-Coaching history: The Nueva School (2 yrs), Berkeley High School (2 yrs)

-Competition history: Campolindo (4 yrs, 2x TOC)

•TLDR: read what you want and don't be a bad person.

-If you do not understand the terminology contained in this paradigm, I encourage you to ask me before and/or after the round for clarification

-Please read: Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. If you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Deliberately ignoring them / misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people purposefully / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Intentional deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit to resolve these harms. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab. If there is any way that I can help you be more comfortable in this space let me know and I will see what I can do :)

•Case

-Terminalize and weigh impacts

-Uniqueness must be in the right direction

-Most familiar with UQ/L/IL/I structure, but open to other formats as long as its organized and logical

-Read good, specific links

-No impacts, no offense

-Counterplan strats are cool. do CP things, defend the squo, do whatever you want

-Use warrants

•Theory and the such

-Competing interps > reasonability, if you read reasonability it better have a brightline / a way for me to evaluate reasonability

-Friv T, NIB, or presumption triggers: not my preferred strat but if explained and justified, I have and will vote on it

-Read your RVI, justify why you get access to it

-Drop the team, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-Weigh standards, voters

-No preference for articulated vs potential abuse, have that debate and justify

•Kritik

-I won't fill in your blanks, the K must explain itself through its articulation, not its clarification

-Beware of reading identity based arguments that you are not a constituent of

-I'll listen to your K aff, justify not defending the resolution or lmk how your K aff defends the res

-Your alt/advocacy/performance better do something (or not! justify it!)

-Links must be specific, link of omission/generic links <<<<< specific links

•Misc:

-I am not a points fairy.

-if you want me to flow things well, tagline everything and signpost well

-have a strategy, read offense, collapse, justify your impact framing

-Have the condo debate, I don't default

-a thing with explanation and a warrant > a thing with no warrant but an explanation > a thing with no warrant and no explanation

-Default layering is T>=FW>K>Case, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-I can flow your speed (300+ is a bit much for online, but if i can hear it, its fine), "clear" means clear, "slow" means slow

-Speak any way you would like, so long as I can hear your speech you're fine I don't mind what else you do

-I by default track if arguments in rebuttals are new, but if you are unsure if I have flowed it as new, call the POO. When in doubt, call the POO - I will identify whether or not the POO defines an argument that is new.

-Presumption flows neg unless neg reads an advocacy, in which case presumption flows aff, i will vote on presumption but it makes me sad

-tag teaming is fine, but I only flow what the speaker says

-I don't flow POI answers, but they are binding

-if you have texts to pass, do so quickly and within the speech or during flex

-high threshold for intervening in the debate, but I will do so if justified and is the last resort

-i flow speeches, not cross, but again cross is binding

-please time yourselves. i will not time you. if you go egregiously over time I will stop you and tank your speaks

-don't be rude in cross

-i will not call for a card unless the validity of the argument it warrants determines the debate

-don't paraphrase your card or powertag, if you feel like you have to paraphrase, you probably can find a better card

-read offense, I'll only vote on things in the last speech, so if you want me to vote on it, it better be extended through the other speeches explicitly

-put me on the email chain, dgomezsiu [at] berkeley [dot] edu

-if you want extra feedback or have questions, email ^ or facebook messenger is a good place to reach me

-K's are cool, theory is not as cool

-English is my 7th language

-Not a parent judge but please don't start spreading at 250wpm

I’m a parent and volunteer judge, have been judging for just over 6 years. Have judged some speech events but mostly Parliamentary Debate, and some Congress events. I like logical, reasoned and well developed arguments. Dislike aggressive speech style, frequently raised POIs, tag teaming. POIs raised should be concise and well articulated. Granting at least one POI is encouraged. Like quality over quantity with respect to arguments. I mostly use flow to decide the outcome. Given the remote format imposed by Covid-19, would appreciate it if participants look at the camera other than when they are reading from / writing notes.

I am a parent judge. I prefer organized, consistent, clear, and logical explanations.

My approach to judging is holistic. A single blunder won't break your case so don't panic if you lost on a critical issue. I try to look at everything you did - style, content, humor, teamwork etc.

My name is Kaiden Leard and I am an Alumni. I judge based on presentation, logic, and critical thinking skills.

I am a parent judge.

Common sense will be my paradigm as below.

• Be nice to opponents.
• Prepare reasonable back data to enforce your opinion.
• Listen carefully about opponent's opinion and response with respect.
• Make stress on own's opinion. Imperative that key points are summarized.

In addition, based on Parliamentary Debate rule,

I will choose better team through these

- subjective, but I consider quality of argumentation, rhetorical skill, and wit.

- I will not use my own biases to taint your decision.

- I evaluate teams on the quality of the arguments actually made, not on their own personal beliefs.

- I will not make my decision ON ARGUMENTS THAT WERE NOT PRESENTED IN THE ROUND.

- I will not use ANY NEW ARGUMENTS BROUGHT UP DURING THE REBUTTALS.

I enjoy logical argumentation and reasoning. There is no need to impress me with complicated jargon, as they do not add to your argument. I also do not enjoy speed debating and spreading, where some debators try to say things as fast as possible, as that is not reflected in our real world of reasoning.

Hello,

This is my second year judging Parli debates. Below are some guidelines that might be useful:

• Manage your time well. Be respectful to one another.

• Speak slowly and clearly. It is not a contest for cramming the most amount of content

• Fewer arguments well developed > too many undeveloped arguments

Have judged a few rounds, but not much experience. Stay organized and have good impacts.

I am a parent and I have judged several times.

I am a lawyer and a litigator. When I appear before judges, I like to get to the point quickly.

I find sign-posting and early summations to be extremely helpful. Briefly tell me where you are going and how you will get there. Don't assume that I know what something means.

I expect courtesy and respect towards others. Please do not be rude or dismissive towards the other side.

Slow down and have confidence in yourself!

I am a parent judge. I do not have much experience judging debate, but I enjoy logical persuasion and sound rhetoric in rounds. I am not as good with overly technical arguments.

My judging paradigm starts with slow and effective communication. I have heard people present what would probably have been strong arguments but since they used pressured speech to deliver it, it got missed. It would be more important for me to hear the precision of a strong argument than filling up time speeding through a list of weaker points. I prefer topic based arguments over procedural arguments. Breathe. You've got this!

Respect is mandatory while opposing arguments are being made. That means exhibiting self control no matter what your opponents say or do.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a parent judge with just a few tournaments' worth of experience.

I'm also a scientist, very used to following logical arguments and deciding whether they make sense within their own framework when supported by evidence.

Make it clear where you are going and go there. If I don't understand your jargon, I assume you don't either. Make sure I can hear and understand you. Act like you're enjoying the process.

Hi everyone! I'm a first year student at UC Berkeley who competed in High School Parli for 4 years. I am good with whatever technical arguments you choose to run(Kritiks, Theory etc.) but may ask you to slow down a little. If you run an Aff K I think you probably should disclose, I'd rather not have to evaluate disclosure theory. Please weigh for me. With that being said just be respectful and have fun!

This is my third time judging, and I have not debated myself. Please avoid jargon as much as possible.

I am very interested in the substance of public policy, and not as interested in debate tricks. In my judging, I tend to emphasize how compelling the two sides' arguments are. I find it challenging to keep track of all of the series of specific points and rebuttals, and benefit from a reminder if you feel that you've made an important point that the other side has not countered.

I am a parent judge with experience judging PF for the past two years. I have very basic knowledge on this topic. Please be respectful.

Greetings,

I am Amber Houston, and I have had the privilege of serving as a speech and debate judge since November 2022. In my journey, I have found immense joy in connecting with the vibrant speech and debate community. Building on my experience, I want to outline my judging paradigm to provide transparency and guidance for participants.

1. Clear Communication: One of the paramount aspects I value in speakers is clear communication. Articulating ideas effectively, maintaining a logical flow, and ensuring that your arguments are easily comprehensible is crucial. I appreciate speakers who can strike a balance between eloquence and substance, allowing the audience to engage with and understand the presented content.

2. Gracious Professionalism: In the competitive realm of speech and debate, maintaining a spirit of gracious professionalism is essential. I encourage participants to approach each round with respect for their opponents, acknowledging diverse perspectives, and fostering a positive atmosphere. A constructive exchange of ideas not only elevates the quality of the competition but also contributes to the overall growth and camaraderie within the community.

3. Continuous Learning: I view every judging opportunity as a chance for both participants and myself to learn and grow. I appreciate speakers who demonstrate a commitment to improvement, incorporating feedback from previous rounds and adapting their approach accordingly. Embracing the learning process is key to not only enhancing individual performance but also contributing to the collective advancement of the speech and debate community.

4. Independence and Collaboration: I support participants who choose to manage their own time, recognizing the importance of developing independent skills. However, I also appreciate the ability to work effectively within a team. Whether collaborating with fellow debaters or engaging in respectful cross-examination, the capacity to contribute meaningfully to a collective discourse is commendable.

5. Presentation Style: While content is paramount, I also value a compelling presentation style. This includes effective use of voice modulation, appropriate gestures, and a genuine connection with the audience. A speaker's ability to captivate and hold the attention of the audience enhances the overall impact of their arguments.

6. Adapting to the Round: I recognize that each round may present unique challenges and dynamics. Participants who can adapt their strategies, delivery, and arguments to the specific context of the round will undoubtedly stand out. Flexibility and agility in response to unexpected situations are traits I commend in speakers.

In conclusion, I am excited to engage with the diverse talents and perspectives within the speech and debate community. My goal as a judge is to provide constructive feedback, foster a positive environment, and contribute to the collective learning experience. Best of luck to all participants, and I look forward to witnessing your compelling performances.

Sincerely,

Amber Houston

I'm a volunteer and I've done prior judging in one previous debate tournament but still new to judging. So please keep your delivery slow and clear. Make sure all claims/arguments are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing.

Hello! My name is Isa, and I am a current senior at Campolindo. I've been debating since eighth grade, and absolutely love it.

I love fun arguments, and I am 100% against allowing outside bias to decide a round. I firmly believe that whatever is said in the round is the truth unless refuted by an opposing team with a convincing argument. I love great speakers, but I will not decide on a round based on how fast, slow, loud, or quiet you speak. I expect you to respect me and your opponents, as I will extend the same courtesy to you.

Please ask me any questions you may have before the round if it was not covered here!

Happy debating, Isa

World Schools note for Cal -First time judging this - still figuring out the point system & norms so to be as fair as possible here's how I find myself voting so far:

• winning team will be the team who had better argumentation / framing. Don't use this as an excuse to do things that would not be in the norms of world schools tho, like excessive speed / more theoretical stuff / anything exclusionary to teams that aren't prepared for it. Also since no low point wins, a killer reply speech can't save 3 bad constructives. If it's close enough though, the team who I think won on paper will win on tabroom. Surprising myself with who the winner is by just adding up the points speech by speech made me too sad.
• High style points = good sign posting, clear extensions, creative arguments, confident responses to POIs. I don't care as much that a speech is perfectly polished so much as that it is creative and effective and doesn't waste time. To honor the vibes of WSD, if you're confident / funny, your score will be higher. If you're rude / make excessive POIs / read word for word off a paper, your score will be lower. That being said, your performative ability will most likely not be what determines the round for me.
• High content points = I like the stuff you put on the paper. A good mix of defensive and offensive responses (not just cross applications of your own case). Having flushed out substantives (rather than blips that come out in later speeches). Creative arguments that aren't all US-centric. Stats aren't as important in world schools as clear logic, so make sure everything has a claim & reasoning & impact of some sort.
• Strategy points = Good extensions, good framing, good time management, and consistency across each speech on your team.
• IMO, POIs are more for you than for me. Get clarification on their case / get the other side to say something you can use against them / catch them in a double bind to use later. I'm probably not going to flow anything new from a POI unless you bring it up in a speech later and tell me why it matters. Making them probably won't impact your score much unless they're really good or really bad.

TLDR as of Feb '24: Will listen to almost anything, preference for case since I'm much better at judging it (imo), and my ability to comprehend speed is not great these days and I for whatever reason am incapable of flowing on a computer so if you go too fast for me to be able to actually pen to paper write it down I may miss stuff. Wouldn't object to being classified more as flay than flow at this point, but a unique / interesting round is better than a boring / recycled round - take that however you want. And full disclosure idek what a trick is unless it's that grains of sand stuff - that I definitely do not like pls I will have flashbacks to the worst rounds I ever debated lol

- debated in high school parliamentary debate for four years (2015-2019) for Campolindo and Mountain View / Los Altos (won a few things, went to TOC x3, but also it's been a long time and the circuit has def changed)

- coached PF for a few years and a lil bit of parli

For Parli

For the record, I will in fact listen to and vote on anything you read so long as it's done well, below are my preferences but of course they are not hard and fast rules; you do you - it's your round not mine.

- I haven’t competed in years and mostly coached slower events such as PF, so spreading super fast is probably not in your best interest, and in a limited prep event like parli with 8 min for a constructive if you're saying the right things you probably don't need to go egregiously fast anyway.

- I prefer the structure of case debate solely because I'm better at judging it - if you feel like going for critical impacts that is fine but I would much rather hear a well warranted critical advantage or disadvantage than an over rehearsed and framework heavy kritik

- If you do decide to read a K I won't hate you but here's my disclaimer: I did not read Ks except like 4 times ever. I studied philosophy in college so I'm relatively familiar w most stock K theory & I read some satirical stuff / Baudrillard. But also I hate misinterpretations / butchering of philosophy to better suit your case so if you read a K it better be good. And regardless of my knowledge if you read a K still assume I do not understand, and be as clear as possible. While I'll do my best to place it in the context of the round reading a K in general means there is a marginally higher chance I will make what more k-oriented judges would consider the wrong decision. So bear that in mind.

- if reading more complex or identity related kritiks be especially sure you actually understand what you are talking about and the implications behind it. I'll probably hold you to a higher standard of explanation on these

- I don't like frivolous theory so if you're reading it at least make it ridiculous and fun lol. Theory is important when an action a team has taken has changed the course of the round. Theory is less important when the shell itself is what changes the round. But I guess at a certain point it becomes satire and then it loops back to maybe being important again?

- Justify your impact framing. Magnitude is probably overrated. What would make the world actually better is if people thought about probable and structural impacts of their actions. I'll definitely vote on magnitude if given reason to though.

For PF

- I don't really flow cross cause I'm not abt that many columns on my flow but I promise I'll listen :) Bring up any important cross developments in a speech as well and I'll definitely flow it then

- Sticky defense (unless you give me a reason otherwise) so long as you mention it in FF, so you can ignore through summary if conceded

- If you plan on going fast to the point where you go beyond the average person's flowing capabilities, you should email me & your opponents your evidence. But also I'm fine with more speed in PF because a 4 minute constructive just seems so short to the Parli side of me

- not a fan of paraphrasing & if you do make sure citations are clear

- if you are reading norm-setting theoretical arguments or critical identity args look to my parli notes

- My own opinion on the topic will not affect how I judge.

- I enjoy arguments built on fact and logic.

- I enjoy original ideas and enthusiastic performance.

- Feel free to confront, but with grace and respect. 

- Good luck!

I'm a college student who used to compete in parli, World Schools, extemp, and imp with experience judging every speech + debate event except for Congress and policy.

For debate (mostly parli) specifically, I'm very rusty with flow debate and would prefer that you choose a strat that assumes that I'm a lay judge.

I will say that I'm receptive to squirrely case args (e.g. 50 states PIC) if you're doing it because you think it's a genuinely good argument for the context of the round and not just for the sake of doing it. Additionally, I do understand how some topics/in-round situations can justify off-case args, so I'm down to evaluate whatever theory shell or other arg comes up if necessary.

My involvement with debate started in 2011, my daughter joining the urban debate league. I assist with finding the evidence and practiced arguments . Three short years later I started judging. I've participated in both Public Forum and NSDA and policy debate.

The major areas I like to see are:

1) Clarity in facts and evidence

2) Presentation, tone and pitch

3) Professional engagement with opponent during cross

4) Negating or disagreeing with fact

I take very good notes and don't mind sharing feedback.

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

I am a parent judge. This will be my first time judging.

• Please no theory, K's, or debate jargon
• Speak slowly because English is not my first language (no spreading)
• I am tabula rasa, meaning I do not have any background knowledge on the topic
• Please explain (this will help your case)
• I will not disclose rounds
• Good luck!

I am a first time parent judge at this tournament. Thus:

Please avoid spreading, and try to be as clear as possible while speaking (especially given that the tournament is online).

I highly encourage signposting! A solid structure is vital for any good argument: I will look favorably upon teams whose speeches are designed to be straightforward and easy to follow.

I am mostly unfamiliar with higher level debate concepts such as theory shells. This does not mean that you should avoid them entirely, but rather that you should clearly explain your purpose, and avoid jargon.

Always, please be respectful of your opponents, teammates, and judges. I look forward to hearing your thoughts, insights, and ideas.

Remember to have fun!

They/them

Quals: Been doing nat circuit coaching and competing since 2019

Theory: I don't feel strongly about things like condo, dispo, or anything as such. Stonger feelings I do have are event specific and listed at the end of the paradigm. I have a list of defaults but I can def be persuaded otherwise.

• Topicality comes before other forms of theory (like spec!)
• 1NC theory comes before 1AR/2AC theory
• Competing interps > reasonability
• Text > Spirit of the interp
• Drop the debater > Drop the argument
• Meeting the interp is terminal defense
• Theory comes before substance
• Fairness and education are voters
• No RVIs

K Debate: Sure! I was mainly a K debater when I competed. I'm pretty tired of hearing post-structuralist nonsense that amounts to inclusive oppression or do nothing. Cap debates are done wrong in many debates for a lot of the same reasons.

• Reject alts are fine but have a pretty low chance of winning my ballot short of conceding alt solvency.
• I think debates can be won on frame outs paired with a risk of solvency.
• Don't care for role of the ballot debates, however, if done right they can still win rounds if you go for it as a question of whether or not the other team textually meets the role of the ballot. Almost like theory!
• I still don't know what no perms in a methods debate means!
• Critical affs dont need links to the topic if theres substantive framing that justifies the aff.
• Links can be disads to the perm but tell me why!

Case:

• Fiat is durable
• Stock issues are not my favorite path to the ballot
• I don't judge kick counter plans unless told to
• kicking planks in a plan or counter plan is cool unless someone wins a theory violation

LD Specific: A couple of quick notes

• You should disclose. I wont auto vote on disclosure but I'll have a high threshold for responses to it
• Either flash analytics or slow down/clear because I'm not going to get the 2 page long overview at 670 WPM
• I evaluate most tricks like theory interps

Parli Specific: I've had these happen enough times back to back that if you do these things its either an auto L and/or 25 speaks

• Reading a K Aff then going for 2AC theory and impact turns to T at the same time when they have the same impact
• Reading a neg perm gets you 25 speaks. Going for it gets you an L.
• Disclosure theory because theres no speech docs or wiki in parli, how do I even verify it!
• Speed bad theory gets you 25 speaks but an auto L if you're an open circuit debater who spreads and read speed bad
• K's bad theory gets you 25 speaks.

MISC: A couple of ground rules!

• Don't read Afropess/social death claims if you're not black
• Not voting on cap good
• Not voting on heg good
• Not voting on racism good
• Terminal defense is hard to win
• Give me pen time

I'm a lay judge. Please no k's and no theory. English is my second language so don't speak too fast.

I judge based on how skilled the participant is. I do not base my judging off of any religious or political stances as debate is meant to be a side versus the other side. At the end of the day, it only matters if one side is better than the other as this is a competition.

The following is written by my son but he just rephrased my opinions in a more understandable way

This is my 3rd year judging debate so not a lot of experience

State your sources, evidence, impacts, harms, etc in a clear and understandable way

Pretend I do not know anything about any topic, so explain everything!

Go slow and focus on getting your message out in a clear way

No K's or Theory, I do not understand them (sorry)

Be nice and polite, you are here to debate an educational round, not to dog fight with each other

Don't interrupt unless it is a clarification/POI

Overall have fun and enjoy the round!

PF Judging,
I score the speaker points according to the outlines by the tournament and the debater performance.

Most of time, speaker points are between 24 and 30.

Firstly - please do not spread: debate is for education and logic, speaking fast not only doesn't enhance that, but may detriment what education can be produced for both sides. I would prefer you speak slower as that gives both me and the opponents a deeper understanding of what you are truly saying.

In terms of other delivery, use proper articulation, tone, and I take into consideration a large amount of delivery skills such as nonverbal body language and tone (especially in speaker points).

I feel the need to put the disclaimer that I have trouble buying K's, as I was not extremely well-versed in kritikal debate, especially as it is something arguably more recently surfaced.
With this being said, I understand that kritikal arguments are a mechanism for debaters to spread these advocacies, however, I may not understand this post-fiat advocacy enough to have a crystal clear ballot, which makes voting quite hard.

Kritikal arguments are on one spectrum of technical arguments that I may not know well enough about to buy (as once again, K's were never a thing back then, and have become more usable after the pandemic, etc. so I am still learning), and am not likely to buy it under these given circumstances.
Some other tech args that fall along the same lines of the ["please don't run, I will not understand/buy and it will only frustrate you"] radar are things like Friv T, which is very harmful to real education and ends up becoming annoying. In general anything that seems "quirky" and reflects in opposition to more traditional Parliamentary formats will be looked down upon. So once again, please do not run them as I will be very saddened, and refer to using the fundamental debate structure as the AFF/NEG.

I will protect the debate space first and foremost. Do NOT use personal attacks, homophobia, racism, misgendering, transphobia, etc. as there is 0 tolerance for this especially in the debate space where we are here to learn. I won't regulate how you choose to debate as long as debaters handle themselves accordingly with reason to rules, speech time (including grace period within reason), respect, etc. but if blatant violations occur or are brought up, I will step in.

Please adhere to well-delivered, logically sound arguments, clash, and impacts and evidence that are reasonable, warranted, and supported. Arguments are meant to make sense. Don't say a bunch of evidence with no purpose or logic to analyze and tie it back, after all, although numbers may sound good, if there is no real argument, it's much easier for me to rely on analytics that truly are well-explained and link chains that make sense.

I am tabula rasa, meaning that I will not produce exterior knowledge or factor-in outside opinions when making my ballot. At the end of the day, I will flow what you and the opponents tell me, and how you clash, rather than my own opinions (no matter if I agree or disagree).
I evaluate arguments partially on their presentation and how they are delivered, but also the ways they are explained and logically backed upwith evidence and analysis.

Clash is vital, as that is where we can learn and discuss, so please use your ground and weigh clash and impacts. At the end of the day I shouldn't have to guess or gamble who wins the round, you should be using proper impact calculus and weighing of impacts to tell me why/who wins. With that being said, I expect debaters to warrant their evidence and actually explain it in their constructive, or in rebuttal when refuting. In addition, please signpost clearly, it makes flowing and understanding your points much easier.

In terms of framework, there are tight burdens to ensure AFF has set topical, reasonable, and agreed upon framework. If you fail the burden of framework as the AFF, it will make it very difficult to regain feasible ideas of your advocacy, as your side, as well as the entire round, is lacking any real image, weather it be a lack of definitions, clarity, weighing, plan (and plan specifications such as timeframe), etc. Once again, because I try to be tabula rasa, losing framework basically makes me unable to evaluate the following speeches properly or until framework is set.

In terms of counterplans, I find some CPs to be slightly confusing especially depending on the context of the round (or if the round is loaded with more niche topics). With that being said, you can still run a CP, just at your own risk. My largest requirement for a CP is that it has to be very very well explained, given all the framework and elements that I would expect from the AFF, presented in the first NEG speech, and must be shown to pass the test of perm to be both better and competitive.
I am also aware that PIC's are a form of CP's, however, many debaters fail to distinguish to two well, making them more confusing. At the end of the day, if you can explain them well, I will try my best to evaluate them, however, if I am left confused and to guess the perm, then I will be discouraged from voting for it (given that the AFF has substantial points against it). Once again, I don't want to have to "guess" who wins, so the same applies for any CP advocacy.

Finally, if you have any questions about my paradigm, other things that were not explicitly listed under this paradigm, or just questions in general, feel free to ask before the round (in reasonable time)! I will try my best to answer all questions.
Lastly, debate is a very prestigious art and sport, so despite being caught up with all the chains and dedications of it, don't forget to have fun! Good luck all.

I don't appreciate (but will not dock) off-time road maps, kritiks, theory, and jargon.

My students have had a 100% success rate into entering USA Debate (currently occupying 3 of 31 spots). I used to travel around the world debating and winning (back when tournaments were only in-person). I am a coach at AlannahDebates.Com . I have judged finals for multiple tournaments. I would prefer it if you treated me like a lay judge.

WORLD SCHOOLS JUDGING

https://www.debating.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/NZ-Schools-Debating-How-to-Judge-Guide.pdf

PARLIAMENTARY JUDGING

https://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/judging.html

If you are going to go Max Verstappen, I can effectively flow up to 350 WPM.

INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER SCORE

Content (40%): Depends on how many lines of flow I make for your speech. I don't flow any ineffective points.

Style (40%): Besides the linked WSD guide's description, I enjoy non-equity-violation jabs and jokes. Eg. saying your opponent's argument is as clear as your future is okay, saying your opponent's skin is as clear as your future is bad!

Strat (20%): Primarily how well you time/portion yourself. Any strategic actions such as consistent/effective POIs, not contradicting your teammate, strong framework, consideration to burden.