My name is Kalyan, I'm a parent judge and this is one of my first few times judging. I don't really have too many preferences right now, just try your best to keep in mind that I'm a parent judge, so slower talking would helpful. Although, I do realize debates can get heated at times so I'll understand if you aren't always able to talk at a slower pace than usual.. Be sure to always be respectful to your opponents and have fun! Good luck!

Please talk slowly, I don't like debate speed speaking. If you're speaking too quick and I miss something, it won't be on my flow. 

Background: I was in speech and debate at East Ridge High School in Minnesota and graduated in 2018. I did info and OO in speech. I mainly did congress while I was in debate, but I also competed in PF decently often, and in World Schools at nationals. I also did IPPF and extemp debate.

I graduated from the University of Minnesota - Carlson School of Management in December 2021 with a degree in finance. I work at Travelers in fixed income investments, i.e. the bond market. I am currently pursuing my CFA designation. With that educational and professional background, I tend to favor economic arguments. These are usually easier for me to keep up with and are very enjoyable for me to listen to! I do love a creative argument though. 

Debate philosophy: I think debate is a great academic activity that teaches critical thinking, research, speaking, and other life skills. I'm a "Truth > tech" judge. In all debates, I would rather a competitor have 2 thorough, nuanced contentions than 4 thin, poorly defended contentions. I enjoy being persuaded, not being told at.

In congress, I like either new arguments, or a rebuttal speech. Please do not recycle arguments, and please do not recycle rebuttals - both don't move the debate forward. I tended to PO a lot in high school, so I have a healthy appreciation for a well run chamber. Feel free to use puns and other methods to improve your speaking stylization!

Here's the best ways to avoid losing a round that I am judging: DON'T read fast. DON'T be rude to your opponents in crossfire. DON'T cite just a name and date without any other information. For example, if you say "Baker 2017 argues ______" what am I supposed to do with that if I don't know who the person is, why they are qualified, who they are writing for and so on? For all I know you could be citing your uncle, but maybe your uncle is qualified to speak on the subject matter. But how would I know without a more complete citation than just a name and a number? If you speak at a reasonable pace, are generally pleasant and have great evidence, you'll sound like a winner to me.

I am a former varsity PF debater for Eastview High School. While I like to take an analytical approach to judging debate, I can follow technical debate and will enjoy it if it's argued well. With that being said, while perfect technical skill can give you a large advantage in my round, perfect warranting wins it.

I generally dislike K cases, but if you warrant and argue it better than your opponents can refute it, I will flow it through in the round.

I don’t accept any theory at all. Any clear attempt at theory will be instantly struck off my flow. I will only judge points that relate to the debate at hand. If you have a serious concern with the actions or words of another debater, please approach me about it privately either after a speech has ended, or after the round.

Speed:
As a judge, if you spread (read super fast), I will be way less likely to understand all the points you are trying to tell me. I can understand if you have a naturally faster speaking speed, but abusing your speaking speed in order to put more evidence onto your flow will not win you the round in my eyes.

Evidence:
Warranting is very important in debate, and will contribute more to my flow. If you can not explain to me WHY your argument is true, I will have no reason to agree with your points. When you extend evidence cards (please do this), explain to me what your evidence says about your argument besides just citing the author.

As well as this, you should be weighing your arguments and impacts throughout the round. Examine the real meaning behind your case. Help me to understand why your arguments and impacts matter more than what your opponents have to offer.

Speaker points:
I will assign speaker points based solely on how you perform in the debate. However, I will not hesitate to subtract points for any form of rude behavior. I understand debates can be intense at times, but please be respectful to your opponents. Good performance in speeches, quality questions, respectful behavior, etc. will increase your point totals in increments.

Misc.

• If you need help with anything during the round, please don’t be afraid to ask, just not during a speech.
• I will keep track of prep time, but I also ask that you keep track of it and correct me if needed.
• If you want me to give you some advice in person after the round, I am perfectly fine with giving you tips. With that being said, I will not give an oral RFD under any circumstances.

And most importantly, have fun!

Hello! My name is Payton Clark and I'm excited to be judging your round. All you need to know about me is that I'm a former PF debate coach and I love this event.

These are my expectations during rounds:

• I do not disclose the results of my rounds.
• Do not spread. In my experience, this often leads to loss of tone and disorganization. Quality over quantity.
• Be respectful to your opponents.
• Be clear about what contention you are addressing and the impact of your evidence. If the structure of your argument is messy and unclear, it will appear weak and hard to provide feedback on.

If you have any further questions, please ask me prior to the beginning of the round. Thank you!

I vote on clear narratives, well warranted contentions, and terminalized impacts. I will do no work for you in terms of extending arguments through the flow, and I have a hard time voting for arguments that do not evolve throughout the round (don't just tell me to extend an argument from case, tell me why your opponents attack on it is mute and justify me extending it). I won't drop teams for being rude but you will make it harder for me to sign my ballot your way. Avoid spreading if you can, I'll flow it but it comes down to a quality vs quantity issue for me, make sure the arguments being made are good not plenty. Most importantly, please, do not lie, I have no tolerance for it.

"There's only one thing I hate more than lying: skim milk. Which is water that's lying about being milk." -Ron Swanson

Parent judge with 4 years of experience.

Please slow the pace of your speech so it is easier to follow.

Treat me as a flay judge. I pay attention to what is going on in the flow but at the same time, I prefer the lay appeal and narrative style of argument.

Weigh, Weigh, Weigh. Make the ballot easy for me to write and weigh your cases and impacts and show me that they are better than your opponents.

As for speed, I can handle speed but at the same time, I'm not gonna be happy to hear full-out policy spreading in a PF round.

I would not suggest running theory on me but if warranted properly and the theory itself is not abusive then I will consider it in a round. If you run disclosure theory, say goodbye to your speaks.

I fully believe in truth over tech.

Background: Current college student, 4 years of Congress. Current forensics competitor.

Paradigms (all categories)

1. Respect. Respect your opponents as people and as debaters. Don’t be rude- speaking over your opponents isn’t cool. Racism, misogyny, transphobia, ableism, classism, and any other kind of oppressive behavior or arguments are completely unacceptable.
2. I love good structure. I want clear links, roadmaps, and clarity.
3. Do not misrepresent your evidence or your opponent’s arguments.
4. Impacts are important. I’ll tend to prioritize reasonable impacts over extinction (unless that’s a likely impact).
5. If you go over time, just finish your sentence and don’t start a new one.
6. When debating, talk like the people you’re talking about are in the room. They very well might be (POC, disabled people, etc.)

You got this! Have fun and ask if you have any other questions about my paradigm.

So here are the few things I think are important in round.

1.) Please use all of or close to all of your speaking time

2.) As Aff in rebuttal I want to hear more attacks against Neg not going over your own case. This doesn't accomplish anything for Aff in rebuttal.

3.) Use all of your cross time and ask good questions

4.) Be respectful to one another. This is the most important don't interrupt one another.

That's all, good luck!

I was told to write something here

Dont be rude and debate well!

LD judge:

On Speed, your welcome to spread your evidence however, I would prefer you slow the rate of speed for the actual articulation of your argument.

-A participant can likely sway me to their persuasion with strong empirical evidence. While more recent generally is stronger, but depending upon the topic, some evidence/data can be older if tied to a relevant argument.

I prefer qualitative supporting contentions that link to your philosophical framework. I prefer traditional LD.

-I prefer debate rounds that are on the actual resolution...you may note when you feel the opponent is abusive and will be considered...but if your entire argument shifts to become non-topical (aka theory or kritiks)...it will be tough for you to win the round.

PF Judge:

All of the above applies.

My favorite type of PF round is when the competitors argue the pros and cons of the policy proposal imbedded in the resolution.

You can reach on your impacts, but the more practical go further with me in most cases.

Hello! I’m an assistant coach in PF at Eagan High School. I debated PF for 4 years in high school.

I use they/them pronouns. Please check your emails from Tabroom for your opponents' pronouns and don't purposefully misgender people.

I prefer fewer, well-explained arguments to ten poorly warranted contentions. Please explain your warrants logically as well as just stating evidence. I won't easily vote for an argument that I don't understand; although I ultimately vote off the flow, the clarity and reasonability of an argument will help you a lot, especially if it's close.

Don’t be rude. I’m not impressed by how loudly you can talk over your opponent in crossfire. Try to have fun (it’s just debate, guys) but failing that, don’t stop your opponent from having fun.

Do not speak or whisper during anyone else's speech. If you want to talk to your partner, write it down or message them, but it's rude to speak or whisper while someone else is talking and I don't know how it became such a norm. Additionally, do not speak to your partner during your own speech. I will dock speaks every single time I see this happen and it will be cumulative.

Please weigh. Weighing means comparing your impact to your opponent's, and specifically telling me why yours is more important. For example, don't just say "We outweigh on magnitude because our impact is 900 million people in poverty." I know that 900 million people in poverty is bad, but so is nuclear war. Tell me that you outweigh on probability because a recession is significantly more likely than a nuclear war. Bonus points if you weigh weighing mechanisms (for example, tell me why I should vote based on probability instead of timeframe).

I’m honestly not that fast at flowing, and I often don’t get authors/sources. I’ll do my best, but if you just say “Remember Feinstein” and move on, I probably don’t remember Feinstein, and I can’t vote off something I don’t remember. Explain stuff to me in every single speech.

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will most likely not vote on any other kind of theory. I don't understand it and even if I did try to evaluate it, my decision would probably not make sense. If the round has an accessibility issue (ex. your opponent is using harmful/discriminatory language), you can point it out to me in a speech and/or respectfully ask your opponent to change their behavior in crossfire, you don't need all the fancy formatting.

When your time is up, finish your sentence (in a reasonably concise way) and be done. If you go 5sec over, I’ll stop flowing. Once you hit 20sec over, I will verbally cut you off. Please don’t make me do that. If your opponents are consistently going 10+ seconds over, I’m probably gonna be more lenient with you on speech times, but don’t take it too far either.

Anyways, don’t stress, don’t be rude, you’ll do great :)

Hi! I am a senior at Lakeville South High School and have competed in congressional debate for two years, judged for one. I've competed in PF a bit as well. I've mainly judged Congress rounds and some PF.

Congress

I rank based on how coherent your argument is, how effective it is, and how you present it. I will take the quality of your argument over the way you present it any day. Congressional debate is, as it says in the name, debate, so flowery words and phrases will never outweigh a strong argument. That being said, presentation is still a factor to keep in mind, speak confidently. If you feel strongly about an issue, I want to see it.

I will rank you higher if you use rebuttals and crystallizations as well as extemporaneous speeches effectively. Showing a deep understanding of a bill will also rank you higher, even if you don't speak on every single piece of legislation. Asking well thought out questions and responding to questions successfully will improve your rank. Clash is needed in congressional debate, don't repeat others ideas; expand on their points, give me some new information. Giving a speech to prevent a break in cycle will also improve your rank, even if its not the best, you tried!

Most important is to treat your fellow debaters with respect, kindness and civility. I don't want to see any form of rudeness from anyone, and if shown, will drop your ranking. Snarky comments/questions will also drop your ranking.

Speaking: I want to see confident, coherent and effective speeches. Not only do I want to see some enthusiasm or emotion, but also show me that you know what you're talking about. Show me your knowledge about the issue and the bill at hand. Authorships/sponsorships should address the status quo, lay out the problems, and outline how the legislation effectively solves them. Negation speeches shouldn’t just list the issues on the bill, explain how you’re going to solve them. Second round speeches should advance the debate- offer new information/evidence, refute, expand or clarify. If you're speaking at the end of the debate I should not hear a first round speech being read, instead, a crystallization would perfectly conclude the debate and if well done, might improve your rank. I love seeing a good intro, signposting, and a summary conclusion, and when appropriate, a joke or pun is always fun to see! Active listening will rank you higher.

Questioning: Ask questions that the speaker can answer in 30 seconds. That’s not a lot of time for you or for them, so try your best to be brief, but not too brief. I love seeing passion, but make sure it doesn’t come off as aggressiveness.

PO: I want to see the chamber run fairly and smoothly, small mistakes are okay and can be fixed quickly. I should barely notice you there, and that means you did your job incredibly! I start POs in the top half of my rankings and adjust according to your performance. Don’t pick your teammates or your friends, I will pick up on it and you’re going to be ranked lower. Encourage those who haven't had a chance to speak!

If you want specific feedback from me, feel free to ask! Have fun :))))

PF

Philosophy: I approach debates as an educational exercise where clarity, logical reasoning, and effective communication are key. I value debaters who engage in a respectful and well-researched manner. While I appreciate strategic moves, I prioritize substance over style.

Framework: I prefer a clear framework that guides the debate and helps me evaluate the clash between competing arguments. Debaters should clearly establish their contentions, impacts, and voting issues. I appreciate debaters who weigh impacts effectively and provide comparative analysis.

Evidence: Quality evidence is crucial. I prefer well-sourced, recent evidence that directly supports debaters' claims. Evidence should be cited clearly, and the relevance and reliability of the sources should be highlighted.

Clash: Effective clash is essential. I want to see debaters engaging with each other's arguments, pointing out logical flaws, and offering solid rebuttals. Clear crossfire questioning and impactful responses are crucial in demonstrating clash.

Crossfire: I value crossfire as an opportunity to directly engage with opponents. Clear and concise questioning, coupled with effective answering, can significantly influence my decision. However, I expect debaters to maintain a respectful and professional tone.

Speaker Points: I assign speaker points based on clarity, organization, strategic thinking, and overall persuasive ability. While speaking style is important, substance will always take precedence.

Role of the Ballot: My decision will be based on the strength of the arguments presented in the round. The team that effectively upholds its burdens, provides strong impacts, and responds to opponents' arguments will likely win my ballot. I do not intervene in the debate and will evaluate the round solely based on what occurs in the round.

Last update: December 2022; a few clarifications, a few additions based on things that have come up recently, removed bullets that were specific to virtual debates (long may they remain unnecessary)

Debate Background and General Info:

I did PF for four years in high school (I graduated in 2014). I consider myself a flow judge, but I will still drop for offensive or inappropriate behavior or rules/ethics violations even if you "win" on the flow. Details on my preferences below, I'm also happy to answer questions before the round.

Details

1. Frontlining: In most rounds you should probably be spending at least a minute on your side of the flow if you are giving the second rebuttal, but I'm willing to be a little more generous in how I flow a "response" given the time constraint (e.g. I would view saying "cross-apply Card XYZ from my response to their C2" without the full level of analysis/impact as a full response, assuming you did actually give a full response to their C2). A good rebuttal that covers the entire flow will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

2. I like to see the round start to condense in Summary, but I understand that in some rounds you need to cover at least part of the flow line-by-line. I leave it up to your strategic discretion how to balance those two approaches; similar to above I will reward you with higher speaker points if you can effectively respond to key points made in the rebuttals but also start to crystallize the round.

3. I like creative arguments, I don't like non-resolutional arguments (and I won't vote for non-topical arguments). If you aren't sure how I would categorize the argument you are planning to run I'm happy to answer questions before the round.

4. If you are giving me "voters" still tell me where you are on the flow.

5. You should be responding to the specific warrants within your opponent's contentions, not just to the taglines.

6. Signpost. Extend arguments fully. Weigh. Impact. Don't be rude.

7. I'll assume CBA if neither side has an alternative framework. Don't introduce a new framework out of nowhere late in the round.

8. I don't flow CX, so you should mention important points in your next speech. I am still paying attention though, so don't lie and say something was said in crossfire that wasn't.

9. I'm really not a fan of offensive overviews in the first rebuttal that don't relate to anything said in the constructives. I'll still flow it, I might even vote on it, but you will probably get lower speaker points if you're doing this.

10. My default speaker point score is 27; I will move up or down from that based on if you impress or disappoint me relative to my expectations for the tournament/pool (i.e. a Novice 29 is not equivalent to a Varsity 29).

11. I don't usually have an issue with speed in PF, so unless you are an outlier you are probably fine. That being said, if your entire speech consists of blippy, one-sentence cards I am probably going to miss some of them if you are going fast.

12. I hate evidence exchanges that take forever. At a minimum you should be able to show them the card immediately because you just read it. I get it might take a minute to pull up the article, but part of your prep should be organizing your evidence in a way that makes it easy to find in round. We shouldn't be sitting around for 5 minutes waiting for you to find something.

13. If you are doing an email chain, I'd like to be on it, BUT I will probably only look at it if there is a question raised in the round as to what a card actually says. I don't view the email chain as a substitute for a clear flow, and I don't want to spend a ton of time reading through your cards if I don't have to.

Personal Pet Peeves: (I won't drop you for doing something on this list. But if you want a 30 these are some things to avoid):

1. I seem to judge a lot of teams that are rolling their eyes or openly scoffing at things their opponents say. Don't do this. Maybe their argument really is bad, but that's my job to decide, not yours. I will dock your speaks if you do this.

2. Spending significant time in all speeches and crossfires on a framework debate and then using an unrelated framework (or no framework at all) to weigh the round in FF.

3. Yelling. I've really never understood why people think this is necessary.

4. Having one mega-contention with a bunch of unrelated subpoints. If your subpoints don't relate to each other they should be separate contentions.

5. Saying "Partner ready?" before you start your speech. If you are stopping prep it's assumed your partner is ready.

6. Talking to or passing notes to your partner during speeches and/or solo crossfires. You have prep time for a reason, you should make sure you are on the same page before you start speaking.

7. Speeches that go over time, especially in Varsity. I will stop flowing once time is up, so trying to squeeze in one more card when you are 10 seconds over isn't going to help you and I will dock speaks for this.

Hello, I'm Mark. I debated in PF and Congress for East Ridge, and have been judging since 2017.

If you read nothing else: be respectful to one another. You will not win if you are not kind.

I judge based on the evidence and arguments presented in the round. That means if your opponents argue that the sky is green, and you don't question them or their evidence, then the sky is green.

It is the job of every competitor in the room to keep the debate evidence-focused. If a team introduces evidence that is found to be outright falsified, the round ends in a loss for that team and a discussion between myself and their coach. It is every competitor's responsibility to ensure your teammates and your opponents are properly using evidence.

Things I like in debate:

- Clear frameworks. This is how I will vote, and usually means defining key parts of the resolution and presenting a weighing mechanism.
- Weighed impacts. How do your impacts stack up against your opponents'? Tell me explicitly, especially in summary and final focus.
- Organized arguments. Signpost. I can better keep track of organized arguments, helping you win.
- Critical thinking. Point out logical inconsistencies, make sure your opponents aren't misrepresenting evidence, etc.
- Unique arguments. As long as your evidence and logic are solid, these can be fun. Make sure they're in the scope of the resolution.

Things I don't like in debate:

- Non-topical arguments. Sometimes called "Kritics," these do not fly with me. You have a resolution, debate it.
- Shot-gunning evidence. One good source is always worth more than a dozen poor sources.
- Argument spreading. As above, one solid argument is always better than many shaky ones.
- Talking too fast. Slow down. There is no need to yell. If I can write down everything you say you'll be better off.
- New arguments after rebuttals. I may consider new evidence if you are asked for it, but brand-new arguments won't be considered.
- Falsifying evidence.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have before or after the round. We are here to grow and learn new skills.

Lastly, good luck and have fun :)

I am a parent-judge. Please speak clearly. I will be more influenced by a few well-stated contentions than a rapid-paced list of thinly supported ones. The more extreme your impacts, the higher your burden to demonstrate the link and that they are reasonable to consider. As an example, if you think I should consider nuclear war, I will need you to show me the connection between it and the proposition, don't just state the conclusion.

Crossfire is important. I am paying attention. It is the best chance you have to expose the weaknesses in your opponents' case.

In summary and final focus, tell me why I should vote for you. This means I want to hear your analysis of the arguments on both sides, how they compare, and why I should give yours more credence and/or weight.

I do not disclose the results of my rounds. Please check my ballot and feedback when it is posted.

Good luck and have fun.

I am open to many styles of debate, but lets be clear, if you speak so fast that I am not able to register your various points or process them together as a cogent argument then I am unable to award points- slow down.

I was a varsity debater for Eagan High School, and I did a public forum. Overall I'm pretty chill with most things.

PUBLIC FORUM GPC TOPIC STUFF:

WE ARE NOT DEBATING TO GET RID OF GPC OR CONTINUE, ITS A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Round stuff:
Collapse towards summary for voters in final focus, makes it easier for me to flow your arguments

I like off-time roadmaps and voters a lot, if you keep my flow clean then I can easily associate winning arguments for you side.

Cross-fire is your time, and I do not write down anything that happened during it. If something round-winning appears in cross, its the job of the debaters to bring it up and use it towards their case. Also if something round winning comes during grand cross it's hard for me to vote on it since it's too late in the round, that is unless it directly ties into an existing argument and it an application of an existing argument already made or clarification of something in the summary speech.

Speed:

I'm fine with faster-paced speech, but doing it abusively (spreading or overwhelming the opponent by providing arguments they will not have time to answer) is not going to win you the round.

Evidence:

Warrant your arguments well with sources. Not carrying sources between speeches means the card will not show up on my flow, so make sure you extend card name/authors. I will prioritize evidence with credible sources versus those based on paraphrasing.

Theory:

I have no experience debating theory, so I wouldn't recommend doing so in your speeches (its PF btw). If you do a well-enough job where you warrant the argument/K/theory/thing properly, then I will allow it.

Speaker points:

You will lose points if you don't properly fill the time in your speeches, act rude/condescending to opponents, or just any form of hate during the round.

Speed is fine (but must be crystal clear for high speaks), jargon is fine. Whatever you put on the flow I will evaluate but prefer evidence to analytics.

I have judged for 10+years on the local Minnesota circuit and competed in LD before that. My knowledge of specific higher level national circuit strategies is limited as I haven't judged many national circuit rounds but I am confident that I can follow as long as you keep the round clear.

Please add me to any email chains: alsmit6512@gmail.com

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Welcome & Thanks for completing. I enjoy polite and respectful debates. As a student parent you will be happy to know I have a year of experience and a lifetime of accrued knowledge. My goal is to be fair and impartial. Let's have an educational and enjoyable debate. Best wishes, Richard.

Please email me your case before the round! Thanks!

keertitumu123@gmail.com

Although I compete in a different debate style, I am very experienced in argumentation and rhetoric of debate.

Things to take note of:

+ Please do not spread in any speeches and cases

+ PLEASE signpost so it is easy for me to follow along with your speeches, tell me exactly where you are on the flow

+ Be firm but be respectful, any disrespectful behavior will impact your speech.

+ Use cross-fire wisely, I will pay attention. Cross is a great opportunity to poke holes in your opponents' cases.

+ WEIGH! Tell me specifically why I should vote for you, don't leave it up to me to weigh all the impacts in the round...you might not like my final decision if you do that

+ I DO NOT disclose in round

And most of all, please remember to have fun! Debate is supposed a learning experience :)

Hello !

This is my second year as a parent Judge. I am a lay judge that will vote for the team presenting me strong arguments supported by accurate, convincing and relevant evidence and outweighing the impacts

1. I would prefer you state a source with more information while reading cards. For example: John Apple reports from the brooking institute in 2022, instead of Apple 22, this way it gives your source credibility and I will know that it is not from some random angry Reddit user’s post.

1. Please speak at a reasonable pace. Remember, this is not a speed reading competition. ABSOLUTELY NO SPREADING. If I get lost in your speech because you're reading too fast, I won't be able to judge your case fairly.

2. Please be mindful of the time limit. If you are 5 seconds over the time limit, I will stop to flow your speech.

PLEASE NO RUNNING THEORY, KRITIKS OR FRAMEWORK I will immediately Vote against you.

Above all else, PLEASE TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS AND JUDGE WITH RESPECT.

I am excited to be your judge and I can’t wait to listen to your debate. Best of luck to both teams!