Hello, I am only experienced in LD, so this paradigms will be about LD. Though most of this should be applicable to other forms of debate.

I do not like abusive definitions. Do not waste time reading one, I will ignore it. Even if you trick your opponent into agreeing with it in cross.

However, I am fine with abusive values/value criterion, but you must be very convincing as to why we should accept your abusive value/value criterion.

I write slowly, so if you speak too quickly, I may not get down everything you say. I will try my best though. Because of this, I may keep writing for a few seconds after your speech so I can get down as much as possible. Do not start cross or ask if I am ready before I have stopped writing. Although cross is not flowed in LD, I will pay attention to it in case it is brought up in later speeches. Additionally, I may not understand all of your speech so I will pay attention in case your opponent asks a clarifying question I am also wondering.

Finally, I care about how engaging of a speaker you are. I know it is hard to do anything other than just read your constructive because paraphrasing is not allowed in LD, but do try and certainly try to be engaging in your rebuttals. Judges must submit decisions quickly so if your round is close, I may just vote for the better speaker.

Hi I'm Kanishk! I'm currently a junior at Los Altos High School. I'm part of the MVLA debate team and I've been debating Lay LD for 3 years!

I'll try to keep this short as possible

LD:

• Framework debates should only happen if your opponent has a different framework. If you guys have the same framework, justifications are unnecessary.
• Cross Ex: PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL DURING CROSS-EX!! DO NOT SHOW ATTITUDE OR ANY SORT OF DISRESPECT! I know you guys are stressed, since it's a tournament after all, but I will deduct speaks and may even factor into my decision.
• Remember to signpost so I can keep track on my flow!
• Voters would also be nice if possible

Other Events: I haven't really judged any other events besides one PF round. Please signpost as much as possible and include voters!

Technical Debate: I'm not really familiar with tech too much, but I'm fine if you run it. Keep in mind that I have only debated lay, so I might have some internal bias towards more lay args.

what's poppin. I'm a sophomore student judge. Been doing debate (LD) for a little over 2 years now. Please be polite in rounds, keep it light, and don't take it too seriously!

---

debate (LD, PF, Parli):

tech > truth, unless they're flat out illogical. I love aggressive cross as long it's tame, when I say aggressive, I don't mean being rude / cutting off your opponent, but poking holes into their case *use cross strategically. feel free to run whatever args or type of args you want.

weighing: tell me the one weighing mechanism i should use and why you outweigh under that mechanism

framework: i don't really care. have a fw debate if you want to but i would prefer not.

impacts: impact out to extinction (if you can) i love extinction impacts :). has to have some kind of warrant though. ill buy it even if it's a stretch

---

speech:

i honestly don't know what's going on. hopefully judge training will change my mind.

Greetings! I am Rishi Narang, and if you are reading this, I will probably be your judge for the next round. I have been doing Lincoln Douglass since I started speech and debate. Below is a set of judging preferences that would be an excellent outline to have a successful debate

LD:

Framework:

make sure your framework links back to the text. If it does not link back to the case properly I will have a hard time buying it. You should regularly link the framework to the point and show how it solves your framework. I need to be convinced that your framework matters more and that I should view and measure the round through your framework.

Definitions:

All definitions presented should be warranted, otherwise, I will have a hard time trying to buy them. Make sure to consistently link them back to the argument.

Contentions:

Make sure your contentions are warranted. I have trouble buying things without ample evidence and proof. Make sure you have a clear tagline and impact. As stated above, link it back to the value and value criterion. I generally do not tend to buy args like mass extinction, but if you manage to prove it as possible with sufficient evidence, anything wins, and hats off to you. I also respect logic as well and you do not have to feel the need to over-warrant basic information. Quality is better than Quantity. I would vote for the person with two strong arguments over 5 weak ones.

Rebuttals:

Make sure that you are signposting and give an off-time roadmap stating whose case you are going over first. As a relatively flow-based judge, dropped points will have an impact on my overall decision. Reciting cards does not do anything to convince me if you do not provide ample reasoning as to why these cards matter and how it defends your case/attack your opponent's case.

Voter Issues:

I heavily recommend adding voter issues at the end. This is the "cherry on top" for your side since it shows the judge why your argument matters more...and this will influence my decision.

Cross:

I won't flow cross, but it is a good idea to put pressure on the opponent's case and test its breaking point.

Theory and K's:

Generally not the best idea to run it when I am judging because I am not very familiar with it.

General Debate Practices:

Speed and Clarity:

Speak Speaker points are one thing, but more importantly, I want to be able to understand your case. If you have a problem with speech please inform me before the round starts...and I will be significantly more lenient with that. I will always award a 27.5 or higher for speaker points...and while you can get speaker points it does not influence the decision of who wins or loses. Please do not spread. I will say "slow" if you are speaking too fast. I would prefer that you do not speak over 275wpm because I want to make sure I make a fair decision and get all of your points

Must Do's:

This is just based on basic decency. Please do not make any personal phobic remarks (sexist, racist, etc.) This is meant to be a safe environment for people and one needs to respect that. Be nice to each other...it is not that hard :) Don't Accuse your opponents of being racist because of the arguments being targeted at a specific race, ethnicity, etc. While being an aggressive debater is something...it should not be done at the cost of respect. If you debate, then do it honorably. This is something I will not be taking lightly throughout the round.

Disclosure:

I do not disclose, but I will provide verbal RFDs as well as written ones.

Last Points:

Remember that this is not life or death. Regardless of the outcome just remember to have fun and learn as much as possible! Best of luck :D

Hi! I am Aditya, a high school student judge who does LD, and I am very excited to watch your round!

Framework:

Make sure tie your args back to your fw and clearly weigh under it

CX:

I don't flow CX, so bring stuff you want to be considered in rounds into your rebuttal speech. CX affects your speaker points.

Signpost:

Signpost clearly so that I know what you are talking about, otherwise I will drop the argument!

Speed:

I am ok with most speeds, but no spreading.

Args:

I will not be able to evaluate Ks and theory effectively, so do not run them!

Speaker Points:

Do not stress out too much about speaker points, but strive to deliver good speeches (having a ton of amazing arguments doesn't mean much if they are not presented well)!

ALWAYS maintain a respectful environment. Discrimination will not be tolerated at all, you will be dropped.

Good luck guys! I know that this is probably your first debate tournament for those at Keefer, so keep on going no matter how scary it might be at first :)

I am a parent judge. I prefer to give a written comment instead verbal comment at the end of the debate.

Chain: vik.valame@gmail.com

I debated with Jared Shirts at Gunn High School. Went for policy arguments. We have many of the same thoughts on debate.

Now at Northeastern University, affiliated with Harvard.

Please debate how you would like, I would love to judge a debate that genuinely changed how I view certain arguments. The only exception is “suicide good”, which I will evaluate as false.

Topicality:Please explain why your interp solves offense on both sides. If you somehow find empirics or studies for why your interpretation is better for the debate, I will weigh them far more heavily than unwarranted assertions about a hypothetical topic. I tend to view reasonability as a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for voting on procedurals.

Counterplans: Truthfully, I fail to understand why many Counterplans read in Debate actually negate either the resolution or the plan. I will be sympathetic to a negation theory argument if the affirmative team makes it. Of course, there are some good arguments for why neg fiat is necessary…

Disadvantages: 0% risk exists. 100% risk exists. Unless you win that it doesn’t… Please explain the entire story of the disadvantage in either the block or 2NR so I know what I am voting on. “Try-or-die” is an exceptionally persuasive argumentif you make it.If “turns case” isn’t intuitive, a card helps a ton.

Kritiks: I wish I was well versed in literature, but I am not. Please explain your theory or thesis in a way that I can repeat to you all in the RFD. Feel free to go for fiat bad, fiat good only for you, or any other interp. I find arguments based around criticism of durable fiat quite good.

Kaffs: Will vote either way. The affirmative either needs to go for a counter-interp or win impact turns that outweigh the entirety of the negative team’s impacts, unless you win some alternative frame through which I should view procedurals.

You also don’t have to read FW every round!I think that many Kritikal affirmatives are vulnerable to impact turns and presumption arguments because they expect to gain most of their offense by impact turning T.

Case: Presumption exists, impact turns are great. If the entire 2NR is case, I will give you lots of speaker points. Even if you read disadvantages, I find that most policy 1ACs have impacts so tenuous that a counterplan is unnecessary for the disadvantage to outweigh. Just make sure you answer try-or-die!

Notes: Jokes are good in moderation. If you explain why any organization Jared Shirts works at is bad, I will smile upon you. Any team that went for silly but oddly persuasive T-“in the United States” arguments on the water topic will be voted down. Feel free to address me as "Vikram", "you", "Judge", or "Your Honor"

tl;dr: i'm a flay student judge! i flow all speeches – please tell me what arguments matter the most in the round, why they matter the most, why you won them, and how that ties to the framework. just be funny and nice, you got this !

i'm calista, a junior mvla debater. i compete in trad lay ld/CA ld. i flow all speeches, please signpost well!

consider me flay (i evaluate on the flow, but not super familiar with heavy tech, i.e. TOC-ld flow). i'm down for whatever in round, just implicate how it matters (impact weighing, tie to framework, etc.) i'll buy whatever, but i need a clear implication for why the argument matters. i do not flow shadow extensions – extend arguments through the 1ar if you want them in the 2ar. please work through argument clash, i.e. don't just read a study to counter a study, but explain why to buy one over the other. same for any argument. weigh and extend in final speeches.

do your best and i'm sure it'll be a great round! lighten up a little, this will be a fun round :)

other notes:

speed: i'm fairly good with speed (in lay pools). you can go pretty fast, but probably don't spread. do not spread if you have an opp that is not comfortable with that pace.

grace: i don't flow over time, grace period only for finishing a sentence.

tech > truth: will vote on pretty much anything (don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, anything violent, be a good person still)

value/value criterion: i evaluate impacts under the framework of the round. if you have strong links for an impact that doesn't matter under the fw, i'll be sad but won't consider it, please tie to the framework.

cross: only for determining speaks – if you want something to be considered in the round, please bring it up in a rebuttal speech. feel free to cut off your opponents, respectfully.

case: well constructed cases are important! i love case extensions as well; don't run cps if the tournament rules do not allow for it.

theory/k's: limited exposure/basic understanding of theory. little familiarity with k's. run either but take it slow and explain how it implicates my ballot !

speaks: speaks are pretty simple, i'll default to 27.5 but if you're funny or warm, i'll factor that in as a positive :) extra speaks if you add a random duck argument. it has to be logical, but not necessarily topical.

other events:

parli: i've done lay parli before, i know the basics? tech parli is fun i'm down for whatever (check out the notes on speed + theory/k though)

pf: tell me what to value in the round and weigh! extensions + collapsing + impact weighing is probably the most important here

Hello my name is Esther and I am parent judge. I do not know much on this topic so please explain why certain countries will do certain things, historical examples are appreciated. Do not use debater terms I will not know what you mean by “turns” or “dropping”. Explain what you are doing instead.

Please really crystallize the round for me. I do not flow so I want to know what arguments are important and the reason you are winning on them. I want clear framing in your last speeches and preempting if you are on neg.

I appreciate strong speaking skills. Personally, I like professional speaking, but I do not mind other styles. However I will struggle to understand arguments if you spread/circuit arguments and will be less likely to vote for you.

Above all, give me clarity in arguments.

Please send your cases to me before round so I can follow along. You do not have to send cases to your opponent if it is a traditional round. My email is: esthersyoo@gmail.com