I am a lay judge. Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. I do not always disclose, but I usually will if requested. If you are rude or disrespectful to your opponents, I will drop you.

Speak clearly. If you are talking as fast as possible, I’m not going to understand a word you’re saying and that’s not going to get you any points even if what you are saying is good. I need to be able to understand what you are saying. Speak at an appropriate pace and you’ll be good.

My name is Sanjay.

I am newer to judging LD debate. I will be judging based on logical approach and impacts presented in the round.

I ask that you speak with strong confidence and with clarity. As for speed, I ask you to speak at a conversation pace.

Be respectful during your rounds and act kindly.

Good luck

ONLINE: you must send docs. I am asking that you don’t spread. It’s hard to hear over the computer.

General

Add me to all email chains: colebrown131@gmail.com. My pronouns are he/him or they/them. Please let me know if you need anything or have questions at any time. Tag team CX is fine. You should time yourself and ideally your opponents to ensure fairness.

Spreading and Evidence

I've had a lot of questions about these things so I'm going to split them off into their own paragraph. I don't mind spreading, but I have ADHD which makes writing down from hearing difficult. It's also been four years since I've regularly flowed policy debate. I will not penalize you for going as fast as you want, but I may not be able to flow your analytics or taglines that are being spread (speaking fast is always fine). You are fine spreading through the constructives on shared docs as all I'm listening for is to make sure it matches the doc. Please feel free to ask about this at any point in the round. I prefer quality over quantity and I don't buy blippy/unwarranted extensionsso there's a significant disadvantage to going at a pace that would make it difficult for me to write this down anyways.

I strongly prefer that evidence be shared with me and your opponent(s). NLD and PF are exempted, and if you can't please let me know. For elimination rounds of any kind, this isn't optional.

NO FRIVOLOUS THEORY OR ANYTHING ELSE TO GAME ROUNDS.I love theory and tricks, but I won't be legalistic about voting on them if I don't feel like they're in good faith. Don't be put off by this I'm just tired of having to vote down teams for reading 10+ theory args.

I only listen to CX to hold you accountable and to potentially gain context on something I'm confused about. If you want it to be flowed you need to say it in a speech.

Policy

I have competed in policy for four years so I am okay with you running whatever you want (as long as it is professional/functional). Overviews/underviews and clear signposting are important. All evidence introduced must be on docs shared.

I am very willing to vote on any theory argument, but I will also just ignore theory obviously run as time skews especially, but not only, if the opponent points that out. Ts, FW, and properly created CPs are too rare. DAs, Ks, and K affs are fine. Weighing of impacts directly is absolutely critical to winning rounds. I have nothing against nuclear war impacts, but if you're conceding the probability of an extinction impact while weighing it against your own policy impacts, you've done something wrong (this is just an example).

LD

I haven't competed in LD but I've been judging it this year. I am fine with whatever you run, as long as it is professional and functional. Read the policy section if you are debating progressive. I appreciate a good framework round but I am frustrated when both sides use the same value and fail to notice this. Clash is important. If you don't specifically weigh impacts I'm going to struggle to make decisions especially when the framework debate is moot or not helpful in evaluating the round.

PF

I am a policy debater so I will primarily weigh your arguments as expressed, without reference to the quality of the presentation. Debating on the flow and fully fleshing out your arguments are important to me.

Hi, I’m Frederick and I debated in both Public Forum and Congress for three years. State champ PF, went to nats in Congress.

Email: fchangho@asu.edu

Overall, pretty standard tech.

The easiest way to win my ballot is by having clear warranting throughout the debate. Evidence is great and all, but please have reasoning for WHY that evidence matters in the round. You need to be able to explain the logical progression in your link chains every time you mention your arguments. Don’t say NYT 19 and move on and expect me to go along with it.

Weigh. But make sure your link chain is intact and you’ve made clear extensions through the round.

Signposting is good. Organization is important.

If you get a concession in cross, bring it up in speech.

When possible, frontline in rebuttals.

No prep time for card reading is okay, but don’t take too long to pull up a card for your opponent to read. If there are card issues that you want me to look at, tell me to call for them too in speech. I will choose to view them at my discretion.

NO SPREADING.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponents. If I need to intervene b/c someone’s consistently talking over another in cross, you’ll be on pretty thin ice. Watch your own time. Watch your opponents’ time. Don’t talk during others’ speeches or make any rude gestures.

Off-time roadmaps are okay, but you don’t need to tell me what you’re doing in your first rebuttal for example.

Clash. Address opp’s arguments and explain to me how yours interact with theirs + why yours are better. Simple way to win.

PF-specific

PF’s intent is to be accessible to the average Joe. Don’t do anything that hinders that.

Generally tech>truth, but please don’t pull up with some nuke war argument that vaguely relates or anything else that requires a significantly unlikely chain of events.

I would rather vote for a well-warranted argument without an impact over a poorly-warranted one with a good impact.

Key voters are great for staying organized, but if you choose to do line-by-line just remember to signpost exceptionally well.

I don’t pay attention during cross. Unless something blatantly wrong happens.

LD-specific

Before I ever judged LD, I had only ever seen 3 LD debates. I’ll be able to follow along with your arguments, but progressive will be relatively difficult for me to evaluate in the scope of the round unless your warranting is pristine (which it should be anyway). Disads, CPs make the most sense to me. Topicality shells and K’s, somewhat. High risk, low reward if you run theory.

LD

Paradigms are stupid, please don't be as well,
Many debaters rely on it, without it they sell,
And don't start off with "My case, their case",
because everyone thinks it's a waste.

Progressive is rubbish and dumb,
My ears have heard it all, they're numb.
The worst speak fast,
And yet their arguments are ass bad,

Now when deciding whether sit near,
you should have no fear
If your speech I cannot hear,
I will then yell "Clear!"

If still after three times,
Your speech is still mumbled,
Then because of this rhyme,
Your contentions will be fumbled.

Everyone around asks me,
"Do you flow cross?"
My answer is simple as can be,
Mention it in speech, else it's your loss!

Everyone sets up a doc,
And still no one can seem to block.
Countless cards are cut,
But in the end nothing is rebut.

But lets talk about the arguments,
Because I've heard them all,
Even though LD isn't my department,
Bring up non-topicality and you will fall.

Power tagging is distasteful, that's a fact,
Lying is wasteful, don't try this act,
Countless lies and debater-math,
Don't try anything funny, or face my wrath.

Your words alone can't be trusted,
Please cut cards properly, don't get busted.
Be nice to your opponents, don't abuse,
Honesty or not, what shall you use?

Some egos are too big,
I'm tired of hearing countless digs,
It's Speech and Debate,
Not impeach and hate.

For all intents and purposes,
This paradigm is mostly a joke.
Please don't report these verses,
or complain to your coach.

The real paradigm lies within,
Talent, abilities, and skill to win,
Trophies will line your shelf, in time,
Remember to have fun and unwind.

Policy

No progressive. Speed is fine, but you better be prepared to be clear and vocal, especially with your evidence. If you drop your syllables I will drop you. In all seriousness, if I have to say clear three times, I will stop flowing for that speech. Topicality is a must, refer to my LD paradigm.

I am absolutely and wholly unqualified to be judging policy debate, and yet it seems I get assigned this tournament after tournament. Please take this into account when coming into the round, there is no "bad judge, good judge", but rather any other judges, and me. I will have preconceptions and implicit bias, as we all do, take note. At the end of the day, I value debate skills and strategy over content, if that helps. I wish you the best of luck, you will need it.

Public Forum

The event's called Public Forum,
That's why you maintain decorum.
Follow the rules during debate,
If not then you won't break.

Don't lie to me, should be simple enough as a PF debater right? No inflated impacts, misattributed statistics, exaggerated tagging, etc. Easy!

Congress

I did Congressional debate for all four years of my time in the NSDA. Congress is unique in that competitors are able to discuss and advocate for change regarding issues that directly affect all of us in a debate format that's open and accessible. Whether new to the event or experienced, I look forward to seeing all your speeches out there on the circuit!

Baseline Expectations

Due to the fast paced nature of Congress, the speakers' evidence is often given the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, every competitor's integrity is central to maintaining the trustworthiness of the overall event. This integrity is lost when evidence is fabricated, so it is expected that you've put in a reasonable amount of effort to ensure the credibility of the sources you cite in your speech. No, combining "NYT" with '22 does not make what you say more believable, contrary to popular belief.

How I Judge

I value strategy.

Too often enough in Congress, speeches with previously elaborated arguments are given again by another speaker. Congress is not just an event where one can expect to prepare speeches ahead of time and do well by giving them canned; you and your speeches must be adaptable. If you respond to or build upon others' speeches given before you and introduce new but relevant arguments, then you'll do well. If you completely shut down the other side's case for passing/failing the legislation, I will have no other choice than to rank you high!

You can be the most articulate, clear, well-spoken competitor out there, but if you do not strategically give your speech at the right time and address the right points of contention/speakers, your impact on debate will be minimal. This is why I believe that in Congress, all ought to be judged on how they strategize.

Do Not Under ANY Circumstance Do the Following (I've seen it all)

Not Paying Attention - Going up and saying in your speech saying "here's something NO other representative has brought up"... only to rehash something previously brought up. Shows you aren't paying attention.

Political Stupidity - Say something so politically inept like "Representative, why would China spy on its own citizens?" I wonder, why would an authoritarian government spy on its own citizens? Other things I've heard include: "Why would Putin lie about killing civilians?", "Isn't it the obligation of the US to provide aid to the world?", etc.

Putting Down Others to Be Different- Going up and saying "Rep. X falls flat when they say ____" or rebutting your own speech side for the sake of making yourself seem smarter is simply a waste of time, better spent focusing on yourself.

Refuse to Speak Until a Certain Cycle - Despite popular belief, speaking later in the round does not mean higher ranks. Judges only really care if you're rebutting and referring to the most important arguments in your cycle and if you clash properly. I've seen people go "I can give an X speech" when gauging the chamber's splits, only to refuse to speak and forcing the chamber to break cycle, which hinders everyone's experience. I will point this out to the judges, and they will rank you accordingly.

PO'ing

Our circuit is plagued by a chronic shortage of POs, to the point where you'll see a chamber full of competitors awkwardly staring at each other hoping that someone steps up and takes the gavel. You'll hear things such as "Oh I can PO but I haven't done it in a long time..." or "If someone POs now I can PO later...". Despite the long-held rumor that becoming the PO will ruin your ranking, this is far from the case, especially when I'm judging.

Remember, the Congressional debate national champion has been a PO for more than a few years in a row, how do you think they got there? Pure skill? Wrong. They PO'd.

If you PO and do it impartially, fairly, and efficiently, a high ranking will reflect your high performance.

I am a parent judge. This is my third year judging debate tournaments. Speak clearly, at a conversational pace and don't go off topic.

I am a parent judge. No spreading, speak clearly.

I prefer traditional debate.

Assume that I know nothing about the topic. Your job is to educate me about the topic and share all relevant details etc in order for me to judge properly.

Evidence is big, I try my best to flow.

Don't use too much debate jargon.

When debating, make sure to refer to the impact and key voters to facilitate clear understanding for me, and what I need to evaluate most when deciding my ballot.

Negative strategy-- there needs to be some sort of offense in the round. A defensive strategic approach has rarely won my ballot.

email for email chains - Kathleen.clark1@gmail.com

Hello!

My name is Tom Coffeen (he/him/his). You can reach me at tom.coffeen@gmail.com.

I am aware of implicit bias and will try my best to avoid it.

First and foremost, please be aware of your rate of speech, slow down*, and avoid spreading.

For you to win the round I must be able to effectively follow the argumentation for a reasonable number of specific claims and associated warrants. Consistently numbering your contentions and signposting will help me adjudicate more fairly.

Most importantly, all claims and warrants should be in service to a well-understood and solidly articulated value premise. To put it another way, my sense of your effort to emphasize (and reemphasize) the value premise bolstered by your arguments and evidence will ultimately determine how compelling I find your case.

Finally, have fun, try your best, and please be kind to each other!

* 2019 NSDA Lincoln-Douglas Debate Finals Notice that the rate of speech during both constructives is around 170 words per minute. If your delivery is faster than this, it may not work to your benefit.

I am a relatively experienced judge and have competed in LD. I need to be able to hear and understand your case so please do not spread. I value a strong framework, relevant and well-used evidence, and good blocks.

I am a parent judge. Speak clearly, at a conversational pace and don't go off topic. Strong arguments during cross-examination is important to me.

Hi, I competed in speech for all four years of high school. I've now judged/coached for about 5 years! :) Here's what I have (in terms of my rules) to say about speech and debate:

For everyone: please don't try to shake my hand (it wont affect your score, i get its for being nice and thanking me for judging your round) but idk where your hands have been.

SPEECH: Have fun, don't be nervous, and do you best. I judge fully based off the performance. If you go over the grace period of your performance, cool, but like, know you can't be ranked the 1. I love topics of public health, healthcare, child/maternal health, and health equity.

DEBATE: I am a lay judge, however I've now been judging traditional debate for 3 years (mostly PF and LD, BQ, but I know it's not traditional debate lol). Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. If you want me to disclose, I can. However, I will not disclose during elimination/outrounds!

Please make sure you can take your own times! I will be taking my time from now on to make sure the round runs as fairly and efficiently.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I can understand your sources (Name, Date) plzzz

Have your cards ready and set to go, in case I want to see them!

Checking and reading cards is not a part of prep time, but if you go over like 2 1/2 min or more, I'll start counting it towards your prep time.

Have fun, be cool, make me laugh, you could get extra pts, idk (life is short, yolo). Also, no sexism, racism, or any kind of hatred because it will lead you into an auto-drop. ALSO, yes to the email chain! abhern12@asu.edu

CONGRESS: I love clash! Speak eloquently and loudly please! Answer all of your questions succinctly as you can during CX! If you make me laugh in the round, that could possibly help lol. Please keep the debate as creative and interesting towards the bills you want to pass. Repeating arguments are irrelevant, please always add a new/interesting point during your speeches :) Have fun too! :) (if u talk about public health, delivery of healthcare systems, access/utilization of healthcare, child/maternal health, or health inequity and disparities, maybe you might catch my eye and get ranked idk) ((public health is cool))

I am what you would call "old school". I will entertain a progressive debate, but I much prefer a straight-up classic debate with value and criteria.

Please do not spread, I will ask you to speak clearly a few times and then I will just stop my flow if I can't understand what you are saying.

Signpost clearly so I an follow your argument and if I need to be able to tell where you are in the flow when doing a rebuttal.

General:

- Pronouns: he/him

- I have experience judging/(kinda) coaching in CD, PF, and LD

- If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations please let me know (either via email, chat, or whatever feels most comfortable).

- Be kind and have fun!

- Feel free to ask me any questions for clarification.

Congress:

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't forget to refute! Especially after the first 1-2 cycles!

- If the debate on the legislation starts to repeat or become stale, please move to question.

- I will gladly consider the PO in my ranking. However, the PO must show good knowledge of procedures and handle the chamber well.

PF:

- Keep me in the email chain, please!

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- If your opponent(s) drops something in a speech or concedes in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

LD:

- I prefer a traditional debate

- Keep spreading to a minimum but if you must, it should still be clear.

- Err on the side of caution and overexplain, but if I'm on the email chain, I'll be fine.

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- If your opponent drops something in a speech or concede in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

I am a parent judge

Please talk slowly and no speaking fast as It will be hard for me to understand
Only do traditional debate

Please time yourself

I will pay attention to all arguments

I will try to judge fairly and not based off of speaking

- Explain thoroughly. You know your arguments very well, but they will be new to me so please explain them clearly. Your claims should be logically sound. If you are throwing out a crazy claim or card that seems contrary to logic, you're going to have to explain it very well.

- Try not to spread.

Hi. My name is Bhaskar Kulkarni. I am affiliated with the school Arizona College Prep (ACP HS). I will try my best to provide extensive feedback and areas where you could improve on as well and areas you succeeded in. If you ever have any questions about how you performed in your round, ballots, more feedback, etc., you can reach me at bbkulkarni@gmail.com.

Here are a few basic things to know before your round:

1) Please use a "lay appeal" strategy with me. Focus on slowing down, weighing impacts (this is huge!!), pointing out dropped contentions, and rebuttals. Explain your link chains very clearly, so I can follow along with your case.

2) Clear citations per NSDA rules are very important. If you have statistics or cards, please clearly reference it.

3) Spreading: I understand why debaters spread, but please don't. My preference is for a clear and enunciated speech at a conversational speed. There is no point in speeding through information if I cannot understand and process what you are saying. Remember, if I can't follow what you're staying, I cannot judge you.

4) I prefer logical reasoning than semantic and pathos-based arguments, but a few pathos-based arguments here and there are fine.

5) Speaks: typically, I will not give you low speaker points. Make sure you speak confidently, make it flow, and rebut your opponent's arguments sufficiently with strong explanations.

6) Please warrant all cards. This helps me as a judge: a) understand your case and b) better decide who gets the win.

7) In the end, I will award the win based on the contentions/arguments that you have proven to me to not be refuted by your opponent. I will also be awarding the win based on rebuttal speeches (the 1AR, NR, and the 2AR).

8) If your opponent says something something during cross-examination that you want me to take into account, mention it in the speeches that follow. Otherwise, it will not be taken into account.

9) I am fine with short Rebuttal speeches, but make sure they successfully rebut your opponent's points, and that they are warranted well.

Most importantly, have fun and try your best!

+1 speak if you're funny and make the round interesting

Please do not spread.

If I feel like you are talking too fast, I will ask you to be clear twice. After that, if I can't understand you I will simply put down my pen. I believe that spreading is poison to the debate community. I do not want to be added to your email chain, as I should not have to read your case in order to understand it. If there is an evidence dispute or I feel like there is any other reason I need to see a card, I will ask. I find off-time roadmaps to be a waste of time, and while you are speaking I will always keep time and immediately drop my pen once your time is up.

I value topicality above all else. Debate should be an educational experience focused on the resolution. Regarding Ks, your arguments should not be ones that you could repeat ad-nauseam for any topic and a lot of Ks don't pass that test. A Neg K can be topical and I will evaluate it accordingly if so. However, K Affs by their very nature generally do not meet the burden of defending the resolution and are there is a high probability of me just dropping you if you run one. Regarding Theory, be very careful. I recognize there are things that either side can do which are abusive or frivolous even if the base argument is topical. If you can thread that particular needle when responding, more power to you.

For weighing, I prefer probability over other mechanisms and I am receptive to timeframe as well. I'm fine with reasonable magnitude weighing too. However, we live in a reality in which extinction has not yet occurred despite the countless number of dire warnings given by debaters over the years. I feel like debaters are intelligent enough to understand the distinction of something that could arguably be true vs. an impact that is just included in your case as a magnitude bomb.

Tech is of course important in any debate round, but I also recognize that there are also some things that are objectively true. If you have a card telling me the sky is green, that does not mean I have to accept it as the truth, even if your opponent does not have a specific card refuting that (because why would they?). However, for any reasonable argument that isn't straight-up factually incorrect and flows through, I will absolutely award you the ballot regardless of my personal opinions on a given topic.

The bottom line is that if you're being intellectually honest and recognize that a debate round exists within the confines the real world, that will maximize your chances of picking up my ballot.

1. Don't spread. You can speak slightly faster than average conversation speed. I cannot judge you if I cannot understand you.
2. I will be the official timekeeper. However, I strongly encourage each competitor to keep their own time. I may ask you for your remaining prep time. I will give 10 sec. grace period for any discrepancy in prep. time.
3. I am considered lay judge and does not have LD background. I have judged approximately 35 LD round during 2022-23 school year.

I am a traditional/lay judge - most of this paradigm can be derived from that statement. I will most likely not understand progressive debate, and dislike debate jargon. When forced to judge progressive debate, I will try my best.

Dos:

• Have depth in understanding of the topic.
• Use relevant evidence. Don’t just read a random card as a warrant that, in fact, does not support your tag. Also, please point out your opponent’s misuse of evidence when it occurs.
• Maintain the ability to seek common ground even in a debate situation - your opponent is not necessarily your enemy. Be kind, no ad hominem. I will most likely not flow off the document, so please be coherent in your actual words.
• Good presentation is still quite important to me. I will try to minimize this bias, but in the face of a close round, the better speaker will win.
• Have good, logical warrants. Evidence itself is not a warrant - and evidence is not necessarily concrete. Clear link chains are a must. Explain links, warrants, and impacts very thoroughly.

Don’ts:

• Make bold statements without adequate support. I will try to minimize judge intervention on arguments, but when weighing similar arguments I will go for the one that makes more logical sense. I still appreciate creativity, but they must pass the common sense test first.
• Spread. I can only flow what I can hear. Check speed/clarity with me before you start speaking if necessary.
• Link cause and effect without adequate intermediate transitions. I am not able to "jump", without your adequate help, to the conclusion that your opponent's position will lead to climate change, nuclear war, civil war, etc. I will be skeptical about these kinds of doomsday arguments in general, so if you must make them, you will have an uphill battle.

Misc:

• Truth > Tech
• Argument Quality > Quantity
• Make it easy for me to decide the winner of the round - judge instruction is a must. Signpost and present the voters of the round as clearly as possible.

Hey! I'm Pranav. I debated PF for four years in high school and now I'm a sophomore in college.

email: pranav.mantri@columbia.edu

You can run whatever non-exclusionary arguments that you want. An ideal winning team writes the path to the ballot for me. I'm lazy. I never really hit/ran progressive arguments but if you explain what you are running it should be fine.

Don't go fast. If you really want to, send a speech doc but I'm not gonna spend any time reading it cuz then I'm doing work for you. I'm lazy.

Would appreciate fun cross fires. Back when I was a debater (less than a year ago) I always tried to make jokes or have fun because its one of the chill parts of debate. Dead air is bad. Say something.

Do what u want in first rebuttal but don't "rebuild [y]our case."

Frontline in second rebuttal or responses are conceded.

Defense is sticky and extension in final focus is unnecessary, but if you want to seal the deal I suggest at least reminding me that the dropped response is there.

Offense is not sticky lol. Ideal extensions are short summaries of the arguments you are going for (uniqueness-> warrant-> impact).

Impact numbers are unnecessary, but impacts are necessary. "No impact" defense isn't terminal on impacts that exist but are unquantified. Quantifying is overrated ballparks is where its at. Vagueness can be fun and unfun at the same time. Either way, if there is no weighing and I'm left with one quantified impact and one unquantified impact I will prolly j vote on the "more convincing argument." But don't let it get to this stage.

Rebuttal weighing=good speaks for team.

Winning weighing/framing ≠ winning round. Weighing is a whey for me to way-in your offense. If no offense, weighing don't matter. Probability analysis isn't weighing. If you tell me what it really is i'll give you +0.2 speaks.

Good debate ability = good speaks. Speaking style doesn't necessarily matter. I weigh smarts over delivery, but delivery matters too (i.e. stuttering w big brain debating would yield higher speaks than a soothing voice that is saying empty words).

Ways to get good speaks:

a. Say something funny/ make jokes in speech

b. Give me any food/drink

c. Not being a speechdoc debater cuz flows are cool.

d. Good Eminem reference (+0.5-1 speaks).

L Friv Theory

Nota Bene: As I said in my paradigm above, I have little to no experience with progressive argumentation, but I am willing to hear it. In fact, I'm excited to judge it because I think that that is the best way to vote. Avoid jargon and you should be fine.

This isn't to deter anyone from reading prog arguments. If you do so and you succeed and you educate me well, I'll give you 30 speaks.

If you are reading anything off topic definitely send it to my email.

Speed: 300 wpm MAX and then I lose you. Send a speechdoc to pranav.mantri@columbia.edu if you really are gonna go mega fast (300 wpm<=), but even so I evaluate off my flow and if I forget to write something down from the speechdoc that's your fault not mine.

2 clears then no flowing

Ask Questions before round.

LD

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

PF

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

I am a community lay judge with regard to debate. I ask for no spreading and to speak clearly. I will consider the quality of your argument over the quantity of arguments made in any given round. If I cannot follow your ideas, I will not be able to reward the argument. As for specific arguments, I focus on solid reasoning and logic with support from evidence.

*The aff should make a speechdrop or email chain every round even if debaters aren't spreading - it allows for everyone to see the evidence being cited and leads to better debates - your speaks will probably suffer if you refuse to disclose*

Hey I'm Ethan. I debated for four years, my freshmen year in policy and then three years in LD. My email is nicollethan03@gmail.com and would like to be added to the email chain/speechdrop. Also feel free to shoot me any questions after the round and I would love to help out. 

General Thoughts on Debate:

I am generally cool with basically anything you run because I've either probably run it or seen it before. I am obviously not cool with anything that is blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. I am also not cool with being a douchebag to novices. If your opponent is new or not as experienced do not use this as an opportunity to spread 7 conditional Kritiks with a million different tricks. Besides those caveats I try my best to be an impartial judge with as limited intervention as possible. Since complete lack of bias is impossible I will try my best to give my general thoughts about different styles and arguments below. 

Traditional:

I love a good traditional round. I don't think traditional debaters are lesser in any way since they don't go as fast or run complex arguments stripped from the inner sanctum of the ivory tower. They have a different skill set that emphasizes simplifying complex arguments for lay audiences and trying to be efficient while being understandable. When done well its pretty impressive. 

Policy:

My bread and butter as a debater. I love creative plans/counterplans and well written tight DAs. Good policy debate requires lots of good research and creative problem solving so watching it is a joy. 

Phil:

I ran a bit of phil my junior year so I have a solid understanding of Kant, Social Contract(Hobbes, Locke, etc), and Rawls. Just slow down and explain your framework, metaethic, etc and you should be good.

Tricks:

I'm going to be honest, I really hate tricks. I think they can drive people away from the activity and negates a lot of the wonderful educational benefits this activity provides. Despite that I will vote on them because they are an argument that can be made. Just be warned that the threshold for them to be responded will be really low. 

Theory:

I understand most standard theory arguments but I'm not a big fan of theory baiting. I will vote on it but theory baiting doesn't make me happy but go ahead and do it if its your threat. Just be warned that my threshold for responses will probably be lower. 

Topicality: 

Regarding non FW-T against non-T affs, I understand this and will be able to follow it and actually find a lot of these T debates interesting. 

Kritiks: 

I ran a lot of standard neg Ks like cap and Agamben alongside with some cap affs. Just explain your theory of power well and you should be fine. Also when it comes to Ks, I'm really not a fan of Ks that get up and say "they are a distraction from the real problem so you should vote neg". I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for a K that says that but it will be easier for your opponent to beat it. 

T-FW and Non-T affs:

In these debates I tend to lean towards T-FW but can be pretty easily convinced by Non-T Affs turns on the shells. These debates are probably the most interesting debates that happen because they argue over the power and harm that debate can have. 

i debated at hamilton high and toc qualled senior year

please weigh

while i'm all for dumping responses, i would prefer if y'all actually warrant and implicate your responses

2nd rebuttal doesn't have to frontline defense, but it does have to frontline turns/DA's

if 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline defense, then 1st summary doesn't have to explicitly extend it

i generally give high speaks unless someone was being rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

im open to progressive argumentation, but im fairly new to it so explain it thoroughly

speed doesn't really matter as long as you're clear, but if you're going to spread send a speech doc

if you have any questions feel free to ask before the round

email - pinakpanda@gmail.com

Hello! I am a parent lay judge, please do not spread. I don't super love nuclear extinction arguments unless you have a very very very clear reason why it imminent.

I competed in Lincoln Douglas debate for four years both nationally and state wide, so really I will understand most arguments. 

I prefer traditional debate but if you run anything progressive most likely I will know what it is. Have good and clear argumentation and prove to me you are the better debater.  

I'm a college student and did debate in high school. Nothing is off-limits, but I do ask you guys to be civil and courteous towards one another.

Debates:

Where do I even start? I'm not gonna start with the usual talk about how judges don't want to weigh in on the debate and intervene....but, throughout my judging experience, I'm forced to be an interventionist so... Yes, I will be dropping/weighing arguments if things are unclear. Yes, I will be asking for cards. And no, I will not use my knowledge (tech > truth) to refute your ridiculous contentions but you might get a very angry ballot.

The quality of your argument is BETTER than the quantity of your argument. Don't lazily extend your arguments without explaining WHY IT MATTERS ON THE FLOW. This is very important to remember to obtain higher speaks.

Slow down your speech. Idc if you have 100 sources to read in your 1AC, 2NC, slow down and explain your arguments clearly. Fast is cool but If I don't type, I'm not listening. And don't ask me for a wpm MEANING NO SPREADING. I can understand fast reading and will flow your arguments to the best of my ability, but zero tolerance for spreading.

Run tech stuff (DA/plans/counterplans/theory/Ks) if you think it's genuinely interesting and not a gotcha against your opponents. (I can tell if you really know your things/just doing it to win). For Ks in particular, bonus speaks if you show effort. Pls no spreading.

And uh, no friv and tricks. Zero tolerance.

Do the weighing for me. If your impacts are numbers and statistics, compare them to your opponents'.

If your impact is nuke war/extinction stuff, tell me why it is LESS PROBABLE to happen on your side. NOTE: Nuke war impacts without comparative analysis will get you a very frustrated judge.

You should be combining great rhetoric with great arguments and evidence. Consider me a parent judge. Lead me through your positions and point out why I should vote for you (insert key voters). Just Debate 101. And some miscellaneous things:

Time yourselves.

Do whatever with your cross. I will probably not pay attention.

I'm fine with disclosing after the round.

Prefer speechdrop for evidence sharing (if need to). No emailchains. But don't rely on the evidence-sharing to be lazy in your speeches. I have a very low tolerance for this.

And pls don't run prog in PF, lol.

Hello everyone, I am a parent judge. This is my third year judging Congress and Speech . Please speak clearly and support your arguments with data and facts. Good luck!

I'm a parent who has been judging for a couple of years, but still learning every time I do this. For LD, make it easy for me. Keep your own time and avoid spreading - I want to be able to understand and follow you. Numbering your contentions and sign posting help me greatly - I care a lot about this. Always tell me why you won and why I should vote for you - you may be able to convince me.

Hi! I’m Maddie, I was a competitor all through high school. I have done PF, interp, but mainly info. Although I’ve done debate I’m not really a flow judge, so please make sure your arguments are clear, that is very important to me. If I’m confused on a point because it was not made clear I most likely won’t weigh it. Talk at a normal speed please, that always helps confusion! Thanks for reading and good luck!

Hello! I'm Roberto Serna (he/him/his). I've been judging LD debate for three years, and it's my favorite event. I've also judged BQ for a few tournaments.

How I will judge the round:

• I'm a lay/parent judge, so PLEASE SIGNPOST AND CLASH.
• No jargon or explain the jargon if you do use it
• No spreading (My daughter does policy, so I know how fast you all can speak haha)
• Be nice
• Formal attire is appreciated
• I will flow the round
• I like watching cross examination; it's funny.
• I believe that, in the real world, professional people who are excellent speakers get farther ahead, so I will highly evaluate speaking skills in this round.
• Clarify and spell out why I should vote for you, why you are extending (specifically impact), and explain your key voters
• I will not disclose in round
• I will also write feedback in your ballot
• I will INSTANTLY DROP YOU if you are being sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, racist, transphobic, ableist, etc.

Extra Speaker Points:

• +1 if you mention Batman
• +1 if you mention Superman
• +1 if you mention the New York Yankees

Good luck to everyone!

Hello,

My name is Niti Singhania. I am a lay judge. A couple of things to keep in mind:

- I would appreciate really clear arguments so I can understand what you are saying and in the end can vote for the winner.

- Please speak loud and clear. If you speak too fast, I will stop flowing, raise my hand and let you know.

- No Spreading.

- Be civil and respectful towards your opponents. Please don't be rude or overly aggressive, especially in cross.

Hi! I am a new coach to speech and debate so I am still learning the ropes. The only paradigms I have are to speak loudly and clearly during your round. I can only judge what I can hear!

Hello debaters,

As a judge, I approach each round with a commitment to fairness, clarity, and a thorough evaluation of the arguments presented. As your judge, I value:

1. Clarity:

• Speak clearly at a conversational pace and

• organize your arguments logically.

2. Arguments:

• I value well-reasoned and impactful arguments.

• Be sure to support your contentions with evidence and logical analysis.

3. Cross Ex & Rebuttals:

• Effective cross-examination is an opportunity to clarify and strengthen your case. Use it wisely.

• Analyze and respond thoughtfully to your opponents' thoughts.

4. Framework:

• Establish a clear framework for evaluating the round

• Prioritize and weigh arguments under the framework.

• Explain why your impacts matter more than your opponent's.

Remember that the goal is to engage in a constructive and educational debate. Good luck, and let's have a great debate!

Hello, I am Naveen Thogati. This is my second-year judging novice LD. I prefer quality over quantity in your argument. I would request that you do not spread so it is easier for me to understand your arguments. Thank you.

LD- Good luck! 

Hi,

I have done speeches and debates in my high school in India but a pretty new judge and still learning the nuances of different debates in the US. Appreciate your patience!

One of my basic expectation is that the value, value criterion and contentions all tie together. I do not give much weight to technicalities. The debater with strong logical reasoning and conclusion, wins my vote.

All the best!

I rank competitors based off of substance and presentation. A solid argument without tact is better than an eloquent piece of fluff, but if two competitors are equally matched as far as substance is concerned, their speaking and presentation skills will be the tiebreaker. That being said, etiquette and sportsmanship are equally - if not more - important. You don’t have to be a jerk to be effective, and I will not hesitate to give you a lower rank if your argumentative style revolves around bullying or otherwise disrespecting your opponent. Be mature, be honest, and have a little fun and we’ll all have a good time.

Hello & Hola! I hope you have an enjoyable and educational experience today.

My name is Eva Valencia (she/her/ hers).

Today I will be judging speech for the first time. I look forward to being moved, delighted, and pleasantly surprised by your interpretations, passion, and ideas.

Paradigm for LD below:

I am fairly new to the LD world. My most pressing request is that I ask that you speak at a conversational pace and since I am a novice judge, that you refrain as much as possible from using debate jargon. I want to reiterate that if you speak too quickly, I will not be able to follow your arguments and therefore your score will suffer.

I will be listening for your logically connected ideas and how they prove your larger point. I will also be looking for your explanation as to why your argument is the winning argument–how is it more impactful than your opponent's argument.

Congratulations for your efforts thus far. You are here and for that you should be proud! Let’s honor each other’s humanity by treating each other with kindness, respect, and empathy.

Hello,

I am still a bit of a new judge. I was roped into this by my sister. I do not like talking very fast and I am taking notes on a flow, but I am not a flow judge. Just make arguments clear and explain to me why you should win the round.

I am a parent judge and new to LD.  It is important that debaters speak clearly and in a conversational speed.

I debated PF for 4 years in high school, however have limited experience with LD. I'm not very keen on progressive arguments, and if you still choose to run such a case, I will likely fail to understand and probably drop you. Please stick with traditional debate and speak clearly for my sanity and your opponents'. Even though I have debate experience, please treat me as a lay judge in rounds and explain your args clearly. Pls and ty <3

Lay Judge. Prefer traditional. Please go slower. Looking to hear clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

I am a parent lay judge and like traditional debate. A few things I value in:

Congressional debate:

• clear logic, stats shouldn't overshadow your argument
• be engaged in the round, bring clash, address the most important issues
• signposting helps
• help me understand the bill and don’t expect me to already know what you’re talking about (this applies to all debaters in round, not just early round speakers)

LD debate:

• no spreading- clear and slow works better for me
• I prefer traditional arguments
• make sure your impacts are probable- not all impacts lead to nuclear war or extinction unless it is actually likely to occur

Both:

• be respectful, you can be aggressive without being rude
• if your opponent is twisting your words, make sure I know
• I pay attention to cross, ask questions to further your own argument

Good luck!

I am a new judge, but I watched Videos and studied PPTs for judge training on National Speech & Debate Association and AZ Speech and Debate Coach Association websites. I am prepared to be a good judge. 

My profession is a Certified Public Accountant. So, I would like the debater who has the logical thinking. 

I prefer you use your evidence to support your position in a logical way. Also, in the cross exam, you should challenge your competitor in a reasonable way. 

Moreover, I want you speak from your mind, not just read from the computer or notebook. Don't talk too fast. Don't talk too slow. No spreading is preferred.

Give me more eye contact. Be confident. I will vote you!

I weigh rounds on value and framework. I do not love spreading. If I cannot understand you, I will stop flowing.