I am a parent judge, I evaluate argumentative logic first and care about evidence quality and evidence ethics. Speaking presentation and style are for speaker points but do not substantively impact who wins or loses the debate. Please do not paraphrase when you first introduce evidence. Also, please don't speed-read.

Add me to the chain nedabahrani16@gmail.com

Please subject the email "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

About me:

She/her/hers… also good with they/them

Hey I’m Neda Bahrani and I am a current Junior at UC Berkeley. I used to debate Lincoln Douglas/Policy Debate with Dougherty Valley for 5 years. During my time on the team I was Policy Captain for DV and mentor our middle school team. I have competed in both LD and policy style debate through out high school as well as attended camps like CNDI and TDI.

I agree with almost all of Julian Kaffour, Magi Ortiz , Savit Bhat’s Paradigm/Judging philosophy

Tl/dr:

Number your arguments PLEASE

Don’t be offensive. Debate is a game, and supposed to be fun, so don’t take yourself too seriously.

Tech > truth. BUT true arguments are better arguments.

Tricks/Spikes - just no. I won’t flow these.

Friv theory - also a no for me

No RVIs

3 + condo = bad (for LD)

5 + condo = bad (for policy)

You can also refer to my teammate, Savit Bhat’s paradigm if you would like more info than this ^.

Top Level Preferences:

I’m good with anything as long as you do link level analysis and impact out everything. Winning the thesis of your K, your aff, your affirmative, or even your violation is not enough for me to vote for you.

1 - Policy/T

1 - K’s/ K affs

2 - Phil (actual phil, ie nc’s)

3 - Theory

4 - Strike for tricks

K’s

1 - Topic Ks

1 - Security

2 - Set Col

3 - Identity Ks

4 - Anthro/Humanism

5 - Cap

6 - Pomo (Pomo’s are 6 for a reason, don’t pref me just bc “she likes Ks”)

I do enjoy a good K debate. On neg the K winning a turns case, solves case, or some impact ow arg is something I usually like to vote for. I dislike when the alt is intangible and cannot be the intricacies cannot be articulated in cross. You should be able to answer the question “What does the alt look like in the real world?”

Straight Up

This was the style of debate I primarily debated throughout high school. I usually went for “edgy” pics like the asteroids pic, womxn pic, etc. So yeh love those. Honestly at the end of the day it comes down to impact calc and whether you did it and answered the line by line. I like GOOD arguments. My team, throughout highschool, has always produced a really high quality of cards and affirmatives, and that is something I have come to appreciate as I start judging. I hate opening the doc and scrolling through and just being like, “oof this is just a bad aff.” Because those bad arguments are just easily beatable.

If Lay:

If your opponent requests a lay round and it's a ggsa tournament or a "usually" lay tournament you should default lay. However, if your opponent requests a lay round and you are entered in Var TOC at an invitational, I am completely okay with you saying "I won't go fast." That is sufficient for me.

If it is a lay round, I look to who does the most impact weighing.

At the end of the day, be nice and have fun. Debate means more than just your wins and loses.

hi im ahmad, current pf debater for college prep er. for the chain: aelassaad@college-prep.org

quals: did some stuff won some stuff

if ur a novice: speak clearly and at your own speed. line-by-line in first rebuttal, frontline and line-by-line in second rebuttal, collapse and weigh well in summary and and final focus. make sound arguments and make it clear what i should vote on. most importantly have fun!

tech>>>>>>truth. i prefer substance rounds. weigh, warrant, and speak as fast as u want. extend args with warrants, links, and impacts through summary and ff. weigh links and turns and pretty much everything else. i'm willing to vote off of anything (i mean anything) as long as ur winning it, just don't be offensive or discriminatory.

lim as tech→∞ (1/tech) = truth

all the normal stuff, im cool with tag-team cross, flex prep, skipping grand, and pretty much anything as long as both teams agree. i give high speaks so just debate ur debate.

impact defense is lowk underrated and under-used, some of these impact scenarios r getting a little ridicululous.

im fine judging theory, k's, tricks, but ur gonna have to explain ur args pretty well. prolly don't run any phil or high theory on me ill prolly be lost.

good luck and have fun! :)

My views align with Arnav Ratna.

this guy is kinda based

I'm a lay judge and this is my second time judging.

Please speak clearly and talk slower if possible. I appreciate logic and supporting facts in your speech.

Good luck to you all and enjoy!

Hi, I'm Kenzo(He/Him). I'm a high school senior and have been debating pf since freshman year. A couple of things to note. I don't care what speed you go, but if you are talking really fast send a doc, or I might miss something. Also if you are talking fast and have a lot of extra time ie more than 15-20 seconds I will probably knock your speaker points a little bit. If you are not talking super fast though and you have a lot of time left over, don't worry about ending your speech early. I am a tech > truth judge, but if a piece of evidence is hotly contested in the round, and you think you are right, you are welcome to have me take a look and I will resolve it at the end of a round so the debate does not devolve into just arguing for your interpretation of the evidence. I won't vote off crossfire so if they something you think is important bring it up during a speech. Try to signpost, and go down the flow in an organized manner if you can (though I know I forgot to do this a lot in JV/Novice). Try not to flip back and forth between your arguments and their arguments too many times, it makes my flow pretty messy, and I might end up missing something.

Speech by speech:

Constructives are pretty straightforward:

The first rebuttal only needs to talk about your opponent's case, try not to talk too fast and leave a lot of leftover time. There is no need to restate your points, I will have gotten them all down in constructive.

Second rebuttal: please respond to your opponent's responses to your case in addition to responding to your opponent's case.

Summary: I strongly advise that you start to collapse on a couple of arguments as you will not have. Please start weighing.

Final Focus: Please weigh your arguments. Explain to me exactly why I should care more about your impacts than theirs, and explain your explanations to me. Don't just say why your nuclear war has a greater magnitude than their genocide. Explain to me why that size difference is most important.

Remember to respond to turns and if you have any questions or problems with my ruling don't go tell your friends that you got screwed(what I normally do after rounds), ask me about what you don't understand and I will happily explain.

Add me to your email chain (: Khannah@thecollegepreparatoryschool.org

I am a parent judge. I have judged Public Forum and LD high school rounds for 1 year. I will take notes so presenting your points in an organized manner will be particularly helpful. Also, I appreciate if participants can keep a steady pace and not speak too fast so I am able to follow the arguments.

I am a teacher at Mission San Jose High School.

Debate Rounds

First and foremost, our school believes in fairness and transparency in debate. For varsity debaters, this means that you are expected to provide wiki disclosure, which must include all of the arguments and evidence that you plan to use in the round. Second, we believe in the importance of reading direct quotes rather than paraphrasing. Finally, you must use email chains to share evidence prior to the debate.

For my decision I will also consider the organization and flow of the debate, and the extent to which debaters are able to effectively convey their arguments and evidence. Debaters should use clear signposting and transitions to guide the audience through their reasoning. Debaters should also be able to adapt their strategy and arguments in response to the arguments and evidence presented by their opponents. I expect debaters to conduct themselves with professionalism, respect and should refrain from personal attacks or disrespectful behavior.

Theory

I will judge on Theory only on the varsity level.

If a team did not fully disclose on Wiki for any reason (personal, school policy, ect.) they will not win my vote.

Lastly, such an argument on disclosure MUST be made in the opening Constructive Speech of the team.

Speech Rounds

In order of importance:

1) Clear thesis of your presentation

2) Development or growth of character/speaker during the speech

3) Know your lines

4) Use of space

5) Moment to moment objectives

I am a novice in judging.

I would love to see debaters speak clearly and audibly, using eye contact would be great.

Don't forget to make good use of the three methods of persuasion, especially logos. Support team members and make connections with each other's contention and be consistent. 

varsity debater at College Prep, 2 years policy, 2 years pf

quick things

TECH > TRUTH

I flow

add me to the email chain for evidence sharing: rmalik@college-prep.org

me laughing = 30 speaks, but cringe jokes is -0.2 per each one

for policy

tag team cross ok as long as everyone is ok with it

disclosure makes you look good (but theory is the only way I will evaluate whether you do it or not)

for pf

disclosure not necessary (feel free to make it a theory debate)

frontline first rebuttal in second rebuttal

I will call for evidence if you tell me to or it's indicted/sus

how to sway me

read analytics and narrativize your arguments

WEIGH or I vote on offense with least defense

I prefer link weighing over impact weighing

for pf, write my ballot for me in final focus, new arguments in second ff = waste of time

for policy, write my ballot for me in last speech, 2As don't make me wish there was a 3NR

Read relevant, current, and accurate cards that support the tags.

Read cards and make analytics that sufficiently answer the arguments. LINE BY LINE.

Use crossfire to get your opponent to make concessions. Using those correctly later will sway me.

for policy, strategy always impresses me, especially the CP-disad tactic. Winning in more ways than you have to is always a good thing.

for policy, if you are going to be reading a K, then please take the extra time to explain your alt and framing especially if they are obscure. If you are gonna be that person who reads a K and can't answer what the alt is in cx, then you, my friend, have probably lost the K debate.

for policy, only voters are topicality (the more aff specific the better) and condo (ask this in cx). Everything else is a good time skew but ultimately a wash unless they drop theory.

Metaphors that make sense.

How to not sway me:

The consult Jesus CP (I'm a Muslim)

Read obscure K’s that don’t pertain to the debate space.

Profanity. You can have an educated debate without using vulgar words every two seconds. Trust me.

Wasting CX time or using it for prep (I won't allow that; there is speech time and there is prep time).

Old evidence that has been circulating around in camp files since paper debate.

Word PICs.

Bad Stuff (TRYING TO LOSE):

Don't clip cards, you will be disqualified and given a lecture on academic dishonesty.

Don't steal prep or speech time. I am watching and not dumb.

I will not tolerate racism, sexism, discrimination of any kind, overuse of explicit language, etc. I will tell tab, your coach, your parents, your friends, my friends ... not a good situation. Well, except for that last one, my friends love racially motivated humor.

I consider yelling or screaming during a debate as a medical emergency and will call 911 (paramedics + police).

I give good speaker points to those who understand their arguments and use analytics well. You can reference things like: "I can't tell which case is worse: theirs or that of AirPods Max." Remember you can only insult HomePod, the Pro Stand, AirPods Max (case only), and the Mac Pro wheels are a risky move.

Debate is a game, sport, art, science, whatever (that's framework). Having fun is great, but always try to win and entertain me with a good debate.

I also love dark chocolate ;) and flattery will get you anywhere as long as it's genuine.

Debate coach. 3 year state qualifier with a focus in congress/extemp/public forum. I tend to focus on logic and argumentation first and foremost. While I appreciate good delivery, it won't overshadow analysis. I will be flowing the debate, so framework debate and dropped arguments will be noted. Try not to speak too fast, I can't give you what I can't flow.

Please give special attention to your closing speeches. Crystallize/summarize the discussion so that I can make sense of what is on my flow. I will not penalize you for every little dropped argument if they are ultimately extraneous to the debate, so please try to prioritize what is most important in the round.

Win the argument, win the round :)

About me:

I mostly end up judging PuFo, so my paradigm is for that.

Judging style: Team

I like civility in the room. Be respectful and gain respect.

You don't need to change your style of speaking for me, I can follow fast speech, if I miss something, I do ask for cards mentioned.

Don't use too much technical stuff, if you do - explain it in short. Otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I have a daughter who does policy and LD and she has explained me what it is and how to evaluate it. Feel free to run it with me.

I give a lot of weight to impacts and mostly award points based on that.

Do not bring in a controversial topic in the debate unless it is absolutely necessary (eg: terrorism, 9/11, etc)

I do take notes so don't try to pull fast ones, chances are I will catch it (Not all the time though)

I like off time roadmap. Helps me be organized.

Judging style: Individual Speaker:

I award points based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc, you will be marked down to the lowest.

Let your opponent complete their thought in cross before interrupting.

General:

Do not try to shake hands.

If you need any clarity on paradigms, more than welcome to ask me before debate on a 1-1 basis or anyways.

I am a lay judge, no spreading. I prefer to judge Lincoln Douglas debates, but am fine with judging speech as well. In debate I look for clear arguments and strong supporting points. I am fine with controlled spreading but you must be clear. For speech I judge based how you approach character or position, and you must be presentable.

I am currently a sophomore at Emory university. I debated public forum at the quarry lane school for four years.

tech > truth

please add me to the email chain - snellian@student.quarrylane.org. Send speech docs before each speech !

I'm fine with speed, but make sure you're clear. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Any offense you're going for in final focus should be extended completely (uniqueness, links, impacts) in summary. Cross is binding but doesn't matter unless it's in speech. Please collapse !

Start weighing as early as possible and definitely focus on comparative weighing (both link and impact level if possible), when I'm looking at the arguments, I'll start with the one with the strongest weighing.

Always be respectful towards your opponents. I won't evaluate arguments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. Lastly, debate can be stressful but make sure to have fun :)

Regarding prog arguments, I have little to no experience with Ks (I’ve debated a K maybe once or twice). If you want to read a K, I think it’s super interesting but I probably won’t be able to evaluate it well and am not a great judge for that. I’ve debated/read theory before, and have more experience with it than Ks, but I’m not extremely experienced with it either.

Good luck and feel free to email me before or after the round if you have any questions.

Hello!

My name is Jen Plitt. I have been working in public and private health care as a Registered Nurse for the last 26 years in various specialties from Emergency to Maternal-Child Health. I am a lifelong learner, and in 2020 I graduated with Honors, with a Master's Degree in Nursing Education. I have always loved to hear the sharing of ideas.

Best of luck in your discussions, ladies and gentlemen!

I competed in PF for 3 years in high school and am familiar with the event/ debate in general. My threshold for speed is decent, but if you’re going too fast I’ll let you know.

I like when overviews and frameworks are stated outright- I think they keep the round organized and provide a good roadmap for me to evaluate your team’s performance. On this note, I also appreciate signposting in summary and FF. I also need to hear author name/year for all evidence, and may call for cards if necessary. I will drop arguments brought up in FF that weren’t in summary.

I award speaker points based on clarity through all speeches and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are offensive, sexist, racist, etc at any point in round, I will likely vote you down and dock your speaker points.

Good luck!

How I approach judging a debate round is mostly on how well someone delivers their position. It is noticeable when a presenter invested time in research by citing multiple sources and being ready and able to answer their opponent's questions or to counter points. Speaking with clarity and regular speed is helpful to capture all the points.

DEBATE & GENERAL BACKGROUND:

4 years, high school (1987-1991, Congress, LD)

4 years, Boston College (1991 - 1995, NDT/Policy)

Moot court, Villanova Law School

Assistant Coach/Judge, Kings College (1996 - 1997)

Coaching/Judging: ~ 100+ rounds 1996 - present

Assistant Debate Coach, Sacred Heart Cathedral Prep (current)

Attorney (litigation): 25 years (my ‘day job’)

OVERVIEW

Please send all evidence to: cdsdebatejudge@gmail.com

Remember that at its core, debate is a communication activity and the debater’s job is to persuade. Well presented arguments, with strong links and internal links and supported by credible evidence with authoritative sources, are always the most persuasive. I appreciate clash — debaters should not sidestep their opponent’s arguments. Take them head on and address them.

My quirks, issues, and pet peeves:

• Organization and Roadmapping. I debated back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, man discovered fire, and debaters carried 150 pounds of evidence with them in tubs across college campuses. Affirmative cases lived in accordion folders. But back then, people were organized. Electronic debate appears to have warped everyone's ability to number or name their arguments, or even have a remotely organized speech. If you are debating in front of me, name your off case positions (e.g,, "Disadvantage - IRS" or even "Harold the Counterplan," but SOMETHING that distinguishes them) and organize them. "A. Link, B. Uniqueness, C. Internal Link, D. Impact, etc.), tell me where you are on case and number your arguments ("Now go to Contention III, Solvency, I have five arguments, 1. Aff can't solve because . . . ") Take a beat (or at least a breath) between positions so I know there is a transition. I will stop flowing if I am lost or can't follow you. If you choose not to number or organize your arguments, you do so at your peril.
• Speed is fine. Incoherent debate is not. I can generally follow you if you go quickly and enunciate and number your arguments. If you don't, I can't. It's as simple as that. I'm also not beholden to the blocks that go back and forth, even if you email them to me. The evidence has to be introduced orally. Sometimes debaters debate from the evidence that they exchange and not from the evidence that actually gets introduced in the round, Please remember this fact.
• Baseless evidentiary/ethical challenges. Never, ever, ever make these claims lightly. I have seen many debates where these claims have been thrown around haphazardly like it's just another argument in the line by line. But they're not. If you make a serious ethical challenge to evidence (fabricated source, miscited source, cards cut seriously out of context so as to completely change their meaning), I reserve my right to stop the debate and evaluate the challenge immediately. Teams making an ethical challenge must be able to prove it with an original copy of the source material that clearly shows the violation. Teams that allege an ethical violation that they cannot prove will lose the debate and get zero speaker points. On the other hand, teams proven to have committed an ethical violation will lose the debate and get zero speaker points.

SPECIFICS

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY: I’m a policymaker by default but can shift to other paradigms (stock issues, tabula rasa) if persuaded to do so. Regardless of whether I’m judging LD, PuFo, or Policy, I find good, sound policies persuasive.

ORGANIZATION: Organization is everything in policy. See above. This means not only giving an off-time roadmap but keeping yourself organized on the flow itself. If an argument gets dropped, you win it. But if you don't number/organize your arguments, and I can't find it on my flow, I can't extend it and you can't win it. When you move between positions during your speech (DA, case, CP, etc.), make sure you take a beat and TELL me where you are going. And remember to EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE, because if it's not extended, it effectively ceases to exist.

DECISION CALCULUS/WEIGHING: This is something that the best debaters do well. It's essential for the 2NR and 2AR to tell me what the issues are and why they win, and exactly how I should vote and why, but it's important to start developing these analyses starting from the very first speech. Also, analyze impacts. Why do your 5 nuclear wars outweigh your opponent's global extinction? But don't forget to weigh and impact arguments throughout the debate. If your opponent drops an argument, extend it and explain why that dropped argument wins the round.

On specific issues:

Topicality: It’s always a voting issue. Don’t drop it. But voting on T is disfavored. I need to have a really good reason to vote on T. If it’s a close call, I’ll default to the case being topical. Also, if you go for T in the 2NR, you should really go for it. Fair warning - I have not heard many good T arguments on this year’s topic at all.

Affirmative case. This is always the heart of the debate. While stock issues aren't really my paradigm, cases with little impact or poor solvency don’t persuade me and rarely outweigh the impact to a good DA. Make sure your case is logical and has the requisite internal links to get to your stated harms though. Really key to have strong solvency evidence supporting the affirmative plan.

Counterplans: I don't like topical counterplans, and I’m not a huge fan of introducing them in the 2N. Counterplans should be competitive and provide a clear net benefit that they can solve for. I hate conditionality - especially in cases like where the negative gets up and runs three inconsistent conditional counterplans - because I don't think it's fair to create a moving target that can be jettisoned after the negative block and am very open to “conditionality bad” theory arguments in such circumstances. That said, you need to be able to persuade me of some abuse. A single conditional or dispositional counterplan, by itself, is unlikely to push me to vote aff.

DAs: Links are key. Tenuous links to huge impacts far off in the future are far less persuasive than a compelling link to a moderate impact and a strong internal link. I find link turns to be very persuasive and will happily vote on turns. Not a fan of “nuke war good” arguments but, hey, it’s your debate, and if even silly arguments are not properly addressed they can become voting issues.

Kritiks: These were just coming into vogue when I was in college. I will evaluate and vote on them if they are well developed and coherent. However, I am VERY open to theory arguments on Kritiks, and my bias is that they don't belong in policy debate. This is distinct, of course, from a deontological "decision rule" or another impact analysis-type argument.

One last note on speed. Speed isn’t a problem for me, but speed for speed’s sake is unhelpful and if you're going to go fast, you'd better be organized. Speed is also not a substitute for good arguments.

Good luck!

I am a mom of 3 and one of them is in public forum. I like proper understandable speaking. I do ask that you speak a little slower than you are used to so that I can understand. If you bring up complicated topics make sure you explain them to me and I also take some notes. I weigh mainly based off who wins the debate and I award based off skill. I also judge off your confidence. I don't time speeches. 

tech>truth

clarity>speed