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

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

General thoughts:

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

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

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

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

i did pf for four years at leland high school in san jose, california (c/o 2023). lhuang2023@gmail.com

important notes

• conceded cards, even if misconstrued, are true if not called out. i will not reference the email chain unless I am told/have to.
• speed is fine, but clarity matters. I flow what I heard, not what I read.
• new arguments need to be flagged for me to strike them, with the exception of new arguments in the second final focus.
• second rebuttal must collapse. defense is not sticky.
• in a lay setting, i ask you adapt to the most lay judge on the panel. i appreciate when debaters make rounds accessible to everyone involved.
• terminal defense >>> weighing > mitigation >>> "we outweigh on scope."
• i have a low bar for extensions. a 10-second repetition of what affirming does and why that's good/bad is enough in my book.

progressive argumentation

• i will always prefer good explanation over buzzwords. leaving me confused in round = my decision is confusing. in other words, do good judge instruction.
• theory: fine for anything, would prefer not to be in the back of a disclosure round if your opponent does disclose in some form.
• ks: understand these to a very minimal extent, explain your literature well and any links to opposing argumentation.
• k affs: i don't understand these but you can run them if you want to. please err on the side of over-explaining everything if you do.

Hello,

I am parent judge with a small amount of experience in debate.

I prefer well constructed arguments with plenty of signposting, but I understand the need to talk fast if you have time constraints. In other words, just be legible.

Additionally, I usually judge case debate, so If you try running a Theory or K, I will try my best to judge fairly (but no promises).

If you have any questions or statements, please try to make them known before the entire round starts.

Best of luck to all debaters!

sup im rikin im an evhs senior been debating ld for years at evhs

no real preferences but not super familiar with parli but here:

EV INVITATIONAL:

• time yourselves (if ur opponent goes overtime by more than 10 seconds with no signs of concluding their speech then u can interrupt -- dont interrupt as soon as the alarm rings)
• not super familiar with parli / parli format
• i wont know what your topic means before the debate-- make it clear for me
• dont spread -- if i cant understand u i cant vote for u
• dont make faces or gestures during your opponents speeches -- lit my #1 pet peeve

I competed in policy debate for two years in high school (many, many years ago). I enjoy understanding various aspects of different policy issues, but am not likely to fully understand debaters who speak very quickly (English is my first language).

I prefer a few quality arguments (developed with various supporting points) over raw quantity of arguments. I would be sympathetic to a debater that does a good job addressing arguments, but does not address all opposing arguments because there are too many of them, especially if the opposing arguments were not well developed to begin with.

I tend to believe that more extraordinary claims (e.g. enacting a certain policy will lead to global nuclear war) requires more and better evidence to support such claims and might not be convinced by such claims if they are lightly supported (even if the other side does not adequately address the claims). Also, I do not believe that all quotes / pieces of evidence are of equal weight.

If the other side has crafted a meaningful argument by quoting evidence out of context, please let me know.

I will likely look unfavorably upon debaters who seem to be focusing on minor points. Basing your case on a mere technicality might make the case rather precarious.

While certain techniques such as trying to change the resolution through Kritik might seem clever, I tend to view them as unsportsmanlike and I will likely feel free to ignore such attempts (especially trying to change the resolution).

While I think that roadmaps are helpful, I like to start the time when you speak. So, even if you claim an "off-time roadmap," your time might have already started.

I am a parent judge.

-Speak slowly.

-Avoid running Theory or Ks. If you chose to, be as clear as possible or just explain it without the technical terms.

-Make sure to signpost, and both sides should have offense as well as defense (if your case just has defense then I will prefer the opponent's case)

-Explain links clearly and include warrants to back it up!

-I will vote on whichever side provides the best logical arguments.

Lastly... make sure to have fun! (I don't mind a joke or two!)