I am a parent judge, judging for over 3 years. 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 don't spend less time arguing about technicalities, more time debating. Please do not paraphrase when you first introduce evidence. Also, please don't speed-read.

Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 3-4 years.

DECISION:My decision evaluates all scopes of the debate: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence, links, etc. However, telling me why your IMPACTS are important and how you better achieve them than your opponent is key for you to win this debate. I do not care about what kind of impacts you give me, but it would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize with broad ones so I know where you are deriving your impacts from.

FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis, however, I prefer OVERVIEWS (not only in your 2ars or 2nrs) because they clear things up for me and make the ballot easier too.

OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD . If you speak marginally fast or faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY because I will probably not understand it or flow it. By chance if I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate and I will probably just ignore it.

HAVE FUN DEBATING ;)

Hi debaters!

Please speak clearly and if possible, not too fast. Also please explain your arguments in plain terms.

Good luck!

Lay judge, no spreading. I have judged Congress to oi to policy. I will always write long form notes on in round speeches, but I may not set up my flow like conventional debaters.

sai.ankireddi@gmail.com

• talk slow enough to hear clearly
• no shouting, raising voice as that won't really strengthen your case.
• don't interrupt others
• 15-20 second grace period
• parent judge

I am a lay judge, so whenever you talk about anything, please make sure that you explain it thoroughly. I know little to nothing about this topic so just keep that in mind.

How I will vote.

1. The first thing that I will take into consideration is whoever proves more convincing to me, whoever proves that the benefits outweigh the harms or that the harms outweigh the benefits. I would greatly appreciate if you could weigh with your impacts on the three scales, magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

2. Whoever debates better. I would also vote for a team that refutes all of their opponents points compared to a team that drops all of their opponents points. Whoever keeps their case alive at the end, and destroys their opponents or whoever convinces me to vote for them in this way will definitely earn my ballot.

Not as important but I may include some of this in my decision

1. PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES. For example: If you take like a minute of prep extra and YOUR OPPONENTS POINT THIS OUT TO ME, this will affect my decision. Please use your respective amount of time for speeches, there is a 10 second grace period after every speech, and 3 minutes for prep.

2. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL. Although this is competitive, it is still done for fun. There shall be no disrespect shown to anyone else, as this is a formal setting and must be looked upon as.

3. PLEASE NO SPREADING. IF you do so, I may not catch everything which will affect my decision.

Former PF debater with ~6 years of experience, went to TOC & states

Some general things:

• weigh! tell me exactly how and where you want me to vote
• ill be flowing
• dont spread, clarity is key
• logical warranting should be clear
• might ask to see cards if needed/ if a team requests
• signpost and give me an overview in your latter speeches
• no theory
• if something important comes up in cx i wont be flowing so bring it up in a speech

Good luck!

I am a beginner judge of speech and debate tournaments.

For speech tournaments, the guiding principles that I use to judge participants include the following:

1. Was the speech compelling? Was it well delivered with maturity, poise, and a demonstrated understanding of the topic?
2. Was the logic in the speech sound?
3. How well did the speaker present? Did they use effective gestures and facial queues? Did they speak fluently? Were there nervous ticks or unnecessary adds such as the use of "like" or "just" repeatedly throughout the presentation?

For debate tournaments, I look for the following:

1. Is the logic used in the debate sound? Are there inconsistencies or logic leaps that make the argument difficult or impossible to follow?
2. Did the AF team effectively present a plan that I could understand?
3. Did the Neg team present an alternative or effectively refute the plan presented?
4. Was evidence used effectively?
5. Were ideas communicated in a way that was understandable?
6. Which team made the most compelling arguments/which team was able to respond most effectively to key points of the opponent to make or refute a case?

I do my best to remove any bias based on prior knowledge or a topic and/or presenter characteristics.

Hey guys this is Austin, Joel's son here to tell you a little bit about my dad. He is a LAY judge. NO SPREADING. you will lose if you do this. Don't run medium arguments and use jargon like internal link. It will not work well for you. My dad has been working in cyber for 20 years so he knows stuff about cyber but will listen to evidence.

add me to email chain: ellieyxbi@gmail.com

general things:

- signpost, do voters, weigh, clash please

- i will not flow crossfire, so anything important said in cross must be in speech

- i can handle speed but be clear

- be respectful

I'm a parent judge with minimal experience. Clarity in communciation/articulating the info will help me digest the info better.

I competed in policy debate, Lincoln-Douglas, and Congressional debate at the state (CA) and national levels in high school.

For LD, I view this as a value debate not an evidence debate. I look for you to persuade me with both evidence, but also logic and rhetoric. LD is not in my view individual policy debate - the format lends itself to a clash of values - what is right and wrong, rather than the policy choice, so be mindful I will evaluate on clash and how you weigh values as much as I consider technical evidence.

For policy debate,I prioritize truth over technicality, valuing a clear understanding of arguments and the logical reasoning used to explain why evidence and expert sources are relevant. Strong logic and common sense outweigh weak evidence, while solid evidence combined with sound reasoning is the key to winning. I carefully evaluate logical fallacies in impact arguments. While I won’t automatically vote against a team for using slippery slope reasoning or conflating correlation with causation, I will pay close attention to how their opponent responds. This matters because, as you refine your speaking skills—whether for business, law, medicine, science, or politics—your ability to persuade depends on logical consistency. Few things undermine credibility more than extreme claims based on faulty reasoning. Learning to construct well-structured, logically sound arguments supported by evidence will serve you well beyond debate.

Debate is about testing logic and evidence to present a compelling and understandable point of view. I am a critical judge who weighs arguments based on their persuasiveness. I generally assess rounds using stock issues unless a team convinces me to apply a different standard. If I cannot understand an argument, I cannot evaluate it in your favor.

Beyond debate, my perspective on policy is informed by my experience lobbying the federal government for Procter & Gamble and working at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a leading think tank. As a management consultant at Booz Allen & Hamilton, I developed analysis (facts/ trends) to justify strategies for major health systems and corporations. With an undergraduate degree in history and an MBA, I am comfortable analyzing arguments that assess the credibility of expert sources and the strength of evidence. I also encourage using logic and common sense to identify fallacies or challenge evidence that appears unreasonable.

Finally, effective persuasion includes respectful disagreement. Rude, sarcastic, or condescending behavior will significantly weaken the weight I give to your arguments. I encourage spirited discussion and will do my best to follow and fairly evaluate the debate.

Public Forum

Emphasize logic and flow, facts & evidences; value respect and professionalism. Manner, behavior and sincerity matters.

Judged in SCU & North Bay.

Dear Debaters,

I am a parent judge so please speak clearly and so I can understand what you are saying and why.

I will give full speaker points to all debaters who can do this.

I will ultimately vote for the team who can best use logic to support their case.

Good luck!

I participated in policy debate in high school and college. As a judge, I value quality arguments and analysis over speed or quantity. Please weigh the issues for me and tell me why you should win rather than expect that I will connect the dots for you. I do not prefer a theory debate for its own sake, but I will listen and evaluate such a debate if the participants want to engage it. 

I am a judge for the first time. Please keep your delivery to a slower pace and be clear. I would appreciate clear arguments and explanation of your underlying assumptions.

UPDATED for Milpitas 2023: I don't judge frequently anymore nor do I really know what the norms in the circuit are these days, but I'm down for whatever both teams agree on. Overall, please use common sense. I can probably comfortably flow up to around 275 wpm with clarity and signposting.

About Me: Debated PF and Parli for 3 years for Nueva, was ~tech~, I now coach for Potomac.

TLDR: Debate is a game, tech > truth. Debate however you would like as long as you are not being morally reprehensible or exclusionary. Ask before the round if you have specific questions and put me on the email chain even though I probably won't read anything (bncheng@uchicago.edu).

Super Short Version:

1. I am best at judging technical case debate (and probably enjoy it more) but I will adapt to you if you choose to pursue an alternative style. Speed/prog are both fine.

2. I prefer cut cards/direct quotes - you can paraphrase but don't misconstrue evidence. Don't be afraid to call out an opponent for evidence ethics.

3. I prefer that at a minimum you respond to all offensive arguments read in the previous speech. I won't necessarily consider arguments dropped, but I have a much higher threshold for responses if they come later.

Full Prefs:

1. WEIGHING: Probability weighing is not real - the link debate is the probability weighing.

- "cLaRiTY of Link/Impact" weighing is not also real. I will both not evaluate it and also drop your speaks each time you say it. A team does not win because their impact has a number.

- Please don't only drop buzzwords on me. Words like magnitude/scope/timeframe don't mean anything to me without actual comparison done between the arguments. Similarly, if different weighing arguments are unresolved PLEASE METAWEIGH.

2. EVIDENCE: All evidence needs to be cut with citations. Do not send your opponents a link I will give you a 25. I will call for cards if they are relevant and disputed without resolution.

- I will give you an L25 if I notice/your opponent points out misconstruction that is significant. How much I discount a piece of evidence increases linearly with how sketchy it is.

- I'm lazy and I don’t flow authors. So don’t just extend author names, extend warrants too because its good debate.

3. PROGRESSIVE: I have experience with most progressive arguments, but primarily in theory, I haven't really engaged with K debate since graduating so while I can probably still evaluate the debate, you'll want to slow down, simplify things, and do extra warranting (especially if it's anything nuanced i.e. not security or cap).

- I don't have any defaults - you need to read the arguments (yes this means K/Theory = Case if no a priori argument is read). If arguments necessary for the decision are not read I will intervene up to a threshold and then presume if unresolved.

- Please don't read stuff to harvest ballots against novices - use common sense. This also means that my threshold for "we can't engage" responses increases as the "assumed" level of the debate increases (i.e. I'm not going to give you sympathy in quarters at a bid tournament)

- UPDATE FOR THEORY: IMO it's impossible to go for both a shell and case in FF effectively - you just don't have enough time. If you're going to read theory, either collapse on it or extend no RVIs and kick the shell - don't make a half-hearted attempt at going for both.

4. PRESUMPTION (is this still a thing idk): My default ROTB is to vote for the team that did the better debating. I think defaults like “first speaking team has a disadvantage” are intervention, so if no team has offense, neither of you debated better. You can obviously argue that one team should "get" presumption, but absent any such args, I will flip a coin (aff - heads, neg - tails).

5. POSTROUNDING: totally ok as long as you're respectful, I think it's educational and I'm happy to defend my decision. Also happy to discuss after the round through email. I will buy you food or something if you can convince me that I was wrong (unfortunately I can't change the decision sorry).

I have a background in public forum debate and a little bit of impromptu speech from my middle school and high school years. I am out of practice as a judge, as it has been a few years.

I prefer to judge based on the following:

1. Please enunciate to the best of your abilities. I am not the best at flowing by hand. I appreciate it when you speak clearly. Talking too quickly or overutilizing fancy vocabulary while being incomprehensible will not help you win.
2. Do not be rude to your opponents and peers.
3. I prefer empirical evidence over emotional arguments, unless it is well supported and integrated into your overarching case. On the other hand, please support any statistical evidence within your argument, without simply tossing out numbers. I also appreciate good sources.

I have been judging for last 4 years, primarily Public Forum. I have also judged speech, LD and Policy occasionally as needed .

Please speak clearly and at a moderate to fast, but not superfast pace. Doing so will ensure the best understanding of your arguments, ultimately providing you the best chance to secure the winning ballot.

Looking forward to an exciting debate.

Hi! I am Pooja Dimba. I have been an elementary and middle school teacher for five years. This is my first time judging a debate. I will be paying close attention to arguments and responses, and I am anticipating a fair and invigorated debate. My email is dimba.pooja@gmail.com

Hello!

I’m very excited to be judging you today. I competed for 4+ years in a variety of events, but mainly PF, Congress, and speech events like OI, Expos, and Extemp. In college, I competed for 3 years on the collegiate Model UN circuit. As for my judging history, I’ve judged regularly ever since I graduated high school and have had the opportunity to judge most events. Here are a couple things that I look for:

Debaters: I like off-time roadmaps, it helps with signposting and keeps my flow clean. I do flow and keep track of arguments and evidence but that doesn’t mean you can disregard speaking style, eloquence, etc. The winner of a round should be the better speaker AND have the best arguments. Make sure you’re impacting your arguments and carry these impacts throughout the round. It makes my job a lot easier and then I won’t consider them as dropped. If you have a standard or value criterion, make sure to tie back your arguments to it (it should act as a thesis to your arguments). If you do not have a standard/VC and your opponent does, I will be forced to weigh the round on their standard unless you give me promising reasons why I shouldn’t. When I was debating, I used to be able to keep up with full speed spreading. I can no longer do this so please do not spread. You may speak quickly but if I’m not able to keep up on the flow, I’m going to miss your arguments and it will only hurt you. I don’t understand theory shells, Ks, or any other obscure parts of debate. Do not include them in your speeches because I will disregard them. Be kind and respectful during CX. I really hate when people consistently talk over others or end up yelling in rounds. You can have the same debate respectfully and calmly.

Speech: Make sure you’re staying in time and do not overly dramatize parts of your speech. For extempers, try your best to dedicate equal amounts of time to each of your points and be clear with your transitions.

Above all, please just be mature, respectful, and have fun!

Familiar with Parli debate structure; I did Parli back in high school for 4 years, but that was also 4 years ago. Any other type of debate and I probably won't be familiar with the format, I apologize ahead of time.

Progressive argumentation is a bit unclear to me, so I'd advise against running Ks or t-shells or anything on that philosophical level purely for the fact that I just won't be qualified to evaluate it as thoroughly as you'd probably like. Feel free to run counterplans. For PF I don’t flow cross, because to my knowledge you can neither weigh nor impact properly during it. If you think you struck gold with a point you made in cross, reiterate it in the next speech and properly weigh it so I can flow it.

Everyone gets a 15 second grace period after their allotted speech time to wrap up your thoughts. Anything after that and I stop flowing. This grace period also applies to all the crosses.

If you’re Aff and you’re implementing specific policies/definitions, make sure you state your definitions/plantext clearly in the 1AC, using the resolution as a jumping off point. Neg if you wish to contest definitions, make that clear in the 1NC.

I'm generally good with fast speaking, but try to avoid spreading; if you spread I likely will not be able to flow your speech properly. Additionally, try not to compromise clarity for speed; you don't have to ask me if your speaking speed is alright, if I need you to slow down, I'll make it obvious/say "clear." I'd also appreciate clear signposting, just for everyone's ease of understanding.

Show your opponents respect and don't be passive aggressive or condescending. If any accidents/emergencies arise during round, let me know and I'll try to accomodate to the best of my ability-- I've been there and I understand things are ten times as stressful at a debate tournament versus real life (which does not occur at debate tournaments).

Hi, I am a parent judge and here are some of the things about how I judge rounds:

1) Clarity.

Your arguments should be clear (and avoid any ambiguity).

2) Evidences/References/Logic

If you quote any data, back it by an evidence/reference/logic.

3 ) Content.

Be focused and adhere to the topic. You can throw anything, but if your opponent point it out I will take a note!

4) Cross

If you don't contest your opponent's argument, it will stay for me and will get the point.

If someone says sky is orange and you don't contest it; sky is orange for me!

5) Probable Impact

The argument having a larger impact (with greater probability of happening) will get the point.

An earthquake can have larger impact, but if the area is not earthquake prone, I won't buy it.

6) Speed.

You can be fast, but please avoid spreading. If you think you might be too fast - you are.

I am a lay judge but have extensive experience with argumentation. Most importantly, be kind to your competitors and do not go too fast.

I am a parent judge, and this is my first time judging. My children are passionate about debate, and I completely understand your desire for justice. I will vote for the side that convinces me without any personal bias. I will evaluate your round based off of how effectively your argument is communicated and the logical linkchain you present.
Thank you, and remember to have fun!

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain or speechdrop if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com - also I strongly prefer .docx to pdf

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I am fine with speed, but I think you slow down if your opponents ask you to. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should prove you made an effort to get them to slow down and they didn't. Otherwise it can be difficult to prove a violation, but I do think speed bad arguments can be necessary in situations where one team is deliberately weaponizing speed as a tool of exclusion.

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument it may impact your speaks. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I don't believe in the mission of IPDA and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's unless there is an argument made in round that they are bad for accessibility (which I am open to especially for students from teams that don't do other formats). I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

No theories or k's

Only debate substance

Speaker Points:

I will most likely give you a 28-30 if you:

- Speak loudly and clearly, no "spreading" please, the slower you speak the easier it will be for me to comprehend your arguments so please do not speak too fast

- Be polite to your opponent, if you mock/insult/rudely interrupt your opponent, you will lost speaker points. During cross-ex please try to be as polite as possible and do not get too aggressive

- Explain arguments properly, when explaining your arguments to clearly tell me where you are on the flow and explain terms such as "turn" and "non-unique"

Appearance: While it will not influence my decision, please respect the tournaments dress code and wear appropriate clothing.

Decisions: I will most likely vote for the team that best explains and extends their warrants and impacts. Please throughly explain why your impact matters and why we should solve for it as it makes my decision much easier.

Use of evidence: I highly value evidence and believe most of not all of your claims should have evidence to back it up. If you believe your opponents evidence is not credible please throughly explain why.

Debate skill and truthful argument: While a value a truthful argument over debate skill, presentation will impact my decision. If you do not seem confident in your argument it will make me feel the same way.

I am a new judge. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. I will follow the guidelines laid out in the new judge training.

I am listening to understand the logic of your arguments and how you are building your case. I also like to see you use your chance to ask meaningful questions of your opponents. Assume I have no knowledge of the topic how are you elevating my understanding of your point of view.

I am a fourth year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school.

Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu AND collegepreppf@gmail.com to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”

TL;DR

I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.

Email Chains:

I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, as I think it's educational.

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.

Kritiks:

I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks.

I am a parent judge and have judged speech and debate over the last several years across ~15 tournaments. I try to judge tournaments using a balanced approach that focuses on content, delivery, language and quality of research.

I strongly advocate that parents should feel completely at ease when evaluating public forum debates at all levels. It's the responsibility of debaters to adjust and accommodate, rather than the other way around.

I don't encourage spreading, talking extremely fast is not preferred. Have creative arguments. If you are the second speaker, I would prefer if you address the opponents argument during your speech and provide a rebuttal.

Don't use too many technical terms and if you do explain them.

Let your opponent complete their thought in cross before interrupting.

Always be respectful and kind to your opponents.

Lay Judge

* Speak slowly and clearly. Keep things simple and logical. Don't use debate jargon.

* When you read evidence, please say reasons behind it also (don't just say we have _ card and move on).

* I prefer reason over evidence. I like when teams remind me of their final case arguments but don't spend a whole minute on it - just say it in one or two sentences.

* If you collapse, please say clearly that you are collapsing.

* I don't believe improbable arguments like nuclear war and extinction. A piece of advice is to run smaller impacts for me to believe and vote for it.

* Please be respectful to each other

Thx and have fun.

Hello! My name is pronounced Hiwad (HUH-wahd). My background is in Parli Debate, where I competed for 1 year each at the high school/college levels and I now coach.

I weigh Education and Organization heavily. I enjoy when the second constructive speeches add new information to the round.

On Speed, I prefer when debaters are strategic and quickly go through important points and slow down for arguments you want to emphasize for me/your opponents. I do not prefer spreading as it is usually tough to flow; if you do, I welcome the opposing team to call “slow” in chat or aloud if needed.

I reward Theory when it is carefully and thoughtfully run, but not when it amounts to filling time. It is okay to run Theory and not collapse to it in the end, it is just like any other argument and only a priori if you argue that it is.

For kritiks, be prepared to send your opponents the main text upon request: Role of the Ballot and the Alternative. I find round-specific, as opposed to canned, kritiks to be the most compelling, effective, and educational. I have limited exposure to aff kritiks, FYI.

Provide quick off-time roadmaps. Always weigh your impacts. Don’t hesitate to use POIs and POOs. When you collapse to the argument you want me to vote on, please do so clearly and ideally more than once.

Good luck and have fun!

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head of Debate at Lynbrook High School.

+0.2 speaks for starting early when possible

CIRCUIT LD PARADIGM

1. Am very good for 'Phil' – it's my favorite part of LD debate. In my view, LD debate is supposed to be, at least partially, about the criterion.

2. Be clear, slow down on tags, and pause between separate arguments. I don't flow off the speech doc.

3. Am bad for policy v policy. If this is the debate you want to have, you should make the following adjustments:

a. Dedicate a portion of your rebuttal speeches to explaining the story of your advantage/disadvantage in the simplest possible terms.

b. Policy debates most of the time look like assertion wars to me. One side asserts this thing will happen if we pass the resolution, the other side asserts that it won't. Please address this problem by focusing on the warrants of the arguments. It will also behoove you to go more slowly as you're doing this so that things are maximally clear to me.

c. Policy debaters seem to hide behind cards a lot. They read a piece of evidence in the rebuttal and think that this is a substitute for making an argument. If you read a bunch of cards against the case and don't do any analysis or explanation of why your cards provide better warranting than the arguments being answered, the debate looks an awfully lot like a tie to me. In general, the primary job in a debate is to break ties and to explain why I should defer to you.

My view is that right after reading a piece of evidence, a debater should provide some explanation as to why the evidence is particularly good/specific/uses better warrants than the other side's evidence. Then in the next speech, when they extend the evidence, it has more weight, especially if their opponent conceded the analysis. If the first time you do comparison is in the final speech, I might just disagree with what you're saying, plus it's hard as a judge to defer to one side's comparison over another without intervening.

TLDR: don't treat LD like a policy round that gets cut off after the 1AR. If you do that, the debate will inevitably look late-breaking. Read fewer arguments and spend more time in that initial speech doing analysis/comparison.

d. If it hasn't been clear yet from the above, in front of me you should definitely do more judge instruction than you think you have to. Seriously, I have very little background with policy arguments. It isn't instantly obvious to me how things work.

4. I don’t vote on disclosure theory. There wasn't disclosure when I competed, and I thought that was a much better system, for many reasons –

a. It required both sides to actively pay attention during the debate, to flow diligently, to use their brains during prep time to come up with responses

b. Due to a., speeches were generally more responsive. Debaters did more signposting, explained things a lot more clearly, and were better at judge instruction because a rigorous flow was the reference point and not a speech doc.

c. The debates nowadays are super focused on evidence. I'd rather people read less evidence and spend more time explaining their arguments and making responses about what links/steps/warrants are missing in their opponent's case.

d. I have no idea why the aff should have to commit itself to reading a particular case or version of a case 30 minutes before the debate has even started.

e. In a world without disclosure, tournament environments are generally more relaxed. People socialize more and aren't spending 30 minutes freaking out before their round.

5. 1AR theory: if you want to be able to go for it later, you have to invest time developing it and pre-empting the 2NR. I very rarely vote on 1AR theory, not because I'm opposed to it, but because the 2AR almost always sounds new.

6. I almost never read cards after the round. This means 'inserting rehighlightings' is unlikely to be effective in front of me. Instead you should be reading aloud specific lines from their evidence that disagree with their claim.

7. Speaks: I usually give between 28 and 29.

I'm a parent judge.

Crossfire is important to me. I want to see competitors having equal speaking time with interaction between each other. Competitors should provide insightful and relevant questions and be respectful. In cross-fire I also want it to flow as well, i.e. the cross and responses have to be related and not orthogonal. In delivery, I want to see eye contact and deliberate clear speech (no rushing or spreading). Please address the judge clearly and confidently. I want to see flow of thought, not disjoint ideas and talking points strung together. For content, I value well-researched content with clear links and subpoints. Concise is always better. For the effort put in I take and send out detailed notes on all aspects of the debate: content, depth and quality, delivery, and crossfire.

My paradigm as a public forum debate judge is based on the following criteria:

1. Clarity: I value debaters who are able to articulate their arguments in a clear and concise manner. I expect debaters to explain their arguments thoroughly and avoid overly complex language or jargon.

2. Evidence: I value debaters who use relevant and credible evidence to support their arguments. I will evaluate the quality and relevance of evidence presented and consider how well it supports the argument being made.

3. Clash: I value debaters who engage in substantive back-and-forth argumentation with their opponents. I will evaluate the quality and depth of the debaters' responses to the arguments presented by the other team.

4. Persuasiveness: Ultimately, I will decide which team has persuaded me that their arguments are the most compelling. I will evaluate how well debaters have made their case and used evidence to support their position.

5. Rules: I expect debaters to comply with the rules of the debate, including time limits, cross-examination rules, and other procedures. I may deduct points or disqualify a team for violations of the rules.

6. Decorum: I expect debaters to maintain a professional and respectful demeanor throughout the debate. I may deduct points for disrespectful or uncivil behavior.

I will use these criteria to evaluate the arguments presented by each team and make a decision on which team has won the debate. I encourage debaters to ask questions before or after the debate if they have any concerns about my paradigm or the criteria I will be using to judge the debate.

Hello!

I am a Parent judge. My son is in Dougherty Valley High School Speech and Debate club. He participates in Public Forum Debates.

Here are my preferences while judging:

- Speak clearly and loudly. Don’t talk fast.

- Don’t assume I know the topic you are debating. Provide definitions and explain things clearly. Use simple language with examples when possible.

- Quality over quantity. If I don’t understand your argument it will be hard for me to judge.

- Be polite and respectful to each other.

- Provide an off-time roadmap.

- Have fun!

I am a parent judge with some experience judging competitive speech or debate. Please speak at a reasonable pace and enunciate well! Make sure to debate respectively and in a civil manner. Good luck, debaters!

I am a parent judge who has been involved in debate for almost four years now. I am a lay judge, but I do flow. I don’t mind speed, as long as you speak clearly. Try to avoid spreading if possible. Please be respectful to your opponents: I am much less likely to vote for you if you are rude during the round. Good luck!

Please speak at moderate speed and be very clear on contentions and subpoints.

Please be respectful during CX

I am a parent judge, who prefers clear speaking, logical links, elaborate policy explanation, and precise points.

Please don't assume I know everything about your topic, and be mindful of your target audience (formal).

I'm also not really a fan of jargon, so please thoroughly explain it when you use it.

Hello!

My name is Jordan Johnson. I'm a current college student at Las Positas College and I've taken a couple of communication classes. I'm here to learn and also gain more experience in the world of Speech and Debate

hi! i'm sky.

please conflict me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

add both emails to the chain:

spjuinio@gmail.com

nuevadocs@gmail.com

if you would prefer to set up a speechdrop instead of an email chain, that works too! no matter the agreed-upon avenue for exchanging speech docs, it should be set up before the round starts. i do not like wasting time searching for evidence in the middle of a round. do not fear the exchange! there should be nothing for you to hide.

while on the topic of time, please try to have pre-flows done before the round. as you can tell, i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. there are many ways to win my ballot. ordinarily, you should explain and contextualize your arguments. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should have more answers than questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you have won the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do not forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in your round helps me follow your speeches and ensures i get as much information down as possible. generally, judge instructions are helpful for everyone participating in the round. it is for that same reason that i highly encourage signposting. jargon is useful for clarifying the functions of your responses, but you should take some time to elaborate on the actual response you're making for an easier evaluation. without such elaboration and an overreliance on jargon, i might not fully understand or buy into your points. in addition to your storytelling and organization, you should extend evidence properly and ensure that your cards are all cut correctly (please refer to the NSDA evidence rules). otherwise, i strike the evidence from my flows. sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

sometimes, students desire to read arguments that do not involve the usual narrative building in debate (e.g. tricks). these are quite controversial, but i have evaluated and voted on such arguments before. debate is a game, so play strategically. if you can persuade me to vote on it, i'll do it.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. as nueva gc artfully articulated, "feel the rhythm, feel the ride, get ready, it's spreading time!" any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

i always try to time speeches. it is strongly encouraged that you also time yourselves and your opponents. you should aim to finish punctually. if you're mid-sentence after your allocated speech time has ended, you can finish your statement. however, i stop flowing after an additional 15 seconds have passed.

teams who use hateful language automatically lose. i’ll end rounds early if given a compelling reason to (e.g. evidence violations).

want to sit, stand, or do a sick backflip while you speak? do whatever you're comfortable with (maybe skip the backflip).

don't be mean. don't lie. don't shake my hand.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds and feedback so you can improve in your next round or competition. write down or type suggestions that you find useful (this might even help you practice flowing better). feel free to ask me any questions, but do not fight me on my decision. let any decision, win or lose, motivate you to become a better debater. i truly want you to be! i miiiiight not disclose if you're part of the first flight and/or if the next round is expedited to stay on schedule. if you want me to give you feedback and i was unable to, or you'd like further clarification on my comments, know that i accept emails and other online messages. i'll do my best to respond.

now, specifics!

topicality. tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses, so read real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. voters should be terminalized (e.g. if fairness, education, etc is good, what does it look like? how have your opponent(s) killed fairness, education, etc?). tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. please don’t forget your alternative. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your points well and i might vote for you. i just find it difficult to grant offense to an argument with no advocacy). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly (linking the NSDA evidence rules in case). i read every piece of evidence in the back half, so don't be lazy. evidence only counts when extended properly. otherwise, your "evidence" flows as analysis. make sure to identify cards correctly and elaborate on their significance. tell me why your cards are so great. ultimately, your evidence should enhance your narrative coherence. parli debaters need not worry about my typical stance on evidence because parli is a non-evidentiary format.

public forum debaters should practice complementary partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking some prep time before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments mentioned in the final focus need to be brought up in summary for me to evaluate them. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions. none of these will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on arguments you are genuinely winning. additionally, i tend not to evaluate purely analytical arguments in the back half. the exception is when i am specifically told to vote on analysis and given reasons why i should do so. this is a rare occurrence. typically, reading zero evidence leads me to presume neg because i cannot test the truth of your claims. i am not asking that you regurgitate what your cards state verbatim or reread every piece of evidence from constructive, but you should read at least one carded link and impact. i’ll consider any analytics if they logically correspond to your evidence. i look to the link debate to determine whether you access your impacts, so extend your arguments well! winning the link debate means you are winning your impacts. on the impact level, please weigh, meta-weigh, and terminalize! knowing exactly what i am voting for helps me vote for you confidently.

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

Former Policy debator

Frequently judge in both speech and debate events (judging as of 2017).

In events involving cross-x, fine with rapid fire style of questioning so long as it's civil and not rude.

For Debate events, particularly PoFo and Policy, tend to vote based on Topicality. Flow judge, ok with spreading (though can be problematic with virtual tournaments if bandwidth/audio gets choppy).

For I.E. Speech events, determine rankings based on overall cohesiveness of supporting arguments, clear layout and roadmap, body language, facial expressions, pacing of speech, vocal tonal variation, and delivery. For OO/Duo Interp, clear transitions and being able to follow performer(s) interpretation of piece, along with all other criteria listed above for I.E.

Background: 2x North Dakota State Champion (Speech to Entertain, Extemporaneous Speaking)

Assistant Coach -- North Dakota, California

IE/PD/LD Judge -- North Dakota, Minnesota, California

How do I judge Speech?

The round begins before it begins. First impressions last. Be courteous. Conduct yourselves as young adults throughout. Please do not get up in front of the room until you are called. Judges are often still writing on the previous speaker and do not wish to be rushed. When we're ready, we will indicate. It is disrespectful to enter or leave a round while someone else is speaking. If a competitor AND/OR her/his spectators break decorum, this will be reflected in scores/rankings. Understand your selection. How is the character's voice different from your own? Be highly specific. Take risks, but justified. It's never a gesture for a gesture's sake, or atypical movement to be atypical. Incredible things never happen when you play it safe.

How do I judge Debate? Your presentation (PATHOS) must be on par with your arguments (ETHOS, LOGOS). Persuade us. Debate is NOT about overwhelming us with information. Rapid-fire speaking, fact bombs and excessive spreading are exhausting. This is not debate. If I can't understand you, how do you expect me to ascertain the unintelligible? If I don't believe your conviction, how do you expect to convince me? Say less = say more. Choose facts carefully. Flow clearly. Articulate. Always show respect for your opponents. Lack of civility damages credibility.

DEBATERS, PLEASE READ -- Feel free to time yourselves. But if you choose to time your opponents, 1) turn off your alarms, 2) NEVER tell your opponents "time" and 3) respect that the judge's time is the official time.

I'm a lay (parent) judge, so speak slowly, signpost, and don't use too much jargon. Be nice and have fun!

I am a parent judge.

First and foremost please be respectful to one another.

Please time yourselves and your opponent's speeches and prep time.

PLEASE speak at a normal pace, if you speed read then I will dock points from your speaker points. Also, signposting would be very helpful.

The side I will vote on will be the side which has the least contested argument.

Other than that good luck and wish you and your team best of luck! :)

Hey! My name is Jennifer and I have no debate experience, so you can think of me as a parent or lay judge. However, I do have some preferences.

1) No racist, homophobic, or derogatory statements/ or arguments.

2) I can handle some speed, but don't expect me to understand you if you're reading 300 wpm.

3) Organize your speeches clearly so I can keep track of your arguments.

4) Don't expect me to understand any progressive arguments like theory. I will not evaluate it.

5) Please manage your time yourselves.

Otherwise, I will try my best to take good quality notes throughout the entire debate. Have fun!

I am a new judge. This is all new to me. Please talk clearly and slowly. Thank you!

I debated high school policy debate in the Mid 1990's and collegiate parliamentary at community college before transferring to UC . I am currently a speech and debate teacher at Quarry Lane school, Dublin CA . I am focused on Public forum debate. Before that I was the coach of Skyline High school in Oakland, CA and focused on Policy debate (primarily varsity performance) . Before then I coached at El Cerrito High School in Northern CA and coached all events, flex policy as well as lay adapted teams. I have coached teams to TOC, NSDA, and CA state championship. I love the community I coach in. It is the daily conversations, discussions, and socializing that keep us all going. Debate changed my life, it wasn't the only thing that made who I am but it's important and I am grateful to be able to share that gift with students on a daily basis.

Public Forum paradigm.

I am new to coaching public forum but am able to adapt from a historical policy background of 20 years. Speed is fine. But I always emphasis clarity. Technical debate is good. I will flow. Debaters should collapse to key winning arguments in beginning in the rebuttals. New arguments in summary and final focus are discouraged unless responding to an abusive argument by an opponent. I am comfortable with flex, both straightforward policy or Kritiks both post-modern to performance. I'm fairly tabula rasa in the sense that you are responsible for upholding the framework for the debate. Theory is fun and I enjoy a well reasoned theory debate with impacted standards.

In regards to evidence analysis I am looking for you to read warrants and good data and extend it and use it throughout the debate. Offense is key. Think strategically and you will be rewarded. Most of all have fun. Decorum is essential.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, thoughtfully and respectfully to your opponents.

I will vote based on whoever has the better arguments that "stand" at the end of the round.

Any sort of Discriminatory or hateful content will automatically result in a loss for that team. Please be respectful!

Good Luck!

I judge based on the arguments presented, not on my own convictions. Apart from listening to first affirmative and negative constructs carefully, I pay close attention to cross examination, rebuttals, and timings before voting.

I am based out of East Bay, California.

I have been judging for past 8 years (in fact earlier than that).

Hi!

I'm a first time debate judge looking forward to learning more about the process!

Just a few things:

1. Please speak at a reasonable pace. Please no spreading or extremely fast speaking, I won't understand.
2. I'm looking for clear and logically backed arguments. For the sake of organization and flowing, signposting would be greatly appreciated.
3. While delivery is important, I will ultimately be scoring based off of arguments and evidence. I'm mainly looking out for impact weighing!
4. Please be respectful to the other competitors, even during rebuttals and cross examinations!

Thanks and good luck!

Speech:

--> I value emotion, diction, and how well an argument flows

--> I expect Oratory/Interp/Prep speech to have their speech fully memorized

--> I obviously cut slack for limited prep events (Impromptu, Extemp), but still value confidence and flow

Debate:

--> I am relatively new to judging debate

--> Not very comfortable with spreading, but I try my best

--> I value confidence and respect

Email: brianylee2003@yahoo.com.

I have no debate experience, but treat me like a flay judge. If it’s PF, assume I know the topic. I have no strong political leanings—maybe slightly libertarian. My main view on PF debate is that it’s an educational activity, so I’m against anything that discourages real learning.

Evidence & Credibility

• Tech isn’t truth. If you argue "the sky is green," I won't buy it. But I’m open to reasonable interpretations (e.g., a mix of colors) especially if uncontested. In varsity rounds, I am open to extinction impacts, but the warranting has to be solid.

• Credibility matters. Dodge and spin if you must, but don’t outright lie. If you act in bad faith, you will lose.
• Likeability is a huge part of your credibility. Act with dignity and treat each other with civility. Arrogance will not be tolerated. Desperate debaters sometimes resort to bullying, trying to establish the facade of perceptual dominance. It won't work with me.

• Too often, debaters throw out claims with little to no warrant. Don't assume that I will fill in the blanks for you. Also, remember that cards and warrants are not the same. I need explanations.

• A common tactic I see is debaters cramming as many contentions as possible into four minutes, hoping to overwhelm opponents—and maybe even the judge. If you take this approach, your arguments will likely be skeletal, lacking the depth, explanation, and evidence needed to actually persuade me at a prima facie level. Do so at your own risk.

• I reward research. If you back up your case with solid evidence, you’re in good shape. Especially in elims, I may call for cards that impact my decision.

• Paraphrasing is completely valid in PF, and I find the opposition to it elitist and misguided. If you disagree, I’m open to debate.

• If you’re citing a research study, especially in social science, as key evidence for a proposition that is counter-intuitive, you'll need to explain it and defend it in detail. I am skeptical of many social science studies, especially those that are rarely cited, if ever, have major design flaws, and/or used atrocious statistical analyses.

• As a corollary of the above, I've seen too many incidents of debaters misquoting research study, either out of context or quoting what the model predicts rather than what the data shows. I would rather you accurately paraphrase a study in context than piece together a "quote" out of context or outright misrepresent its findings. You'll lose credibility very quickly if you do that.

• Powertag at your own risk.

Spreading & Speaker Scores

• Keep it under 220 WPM. If your 4-minute speech exceeds 880 words, trim it. Unfortunately, debate is the only competitive activity where mumbling to confuse your opponent is often rewarded—but I won’t do it. Spreading is anti-educational and has ZERO value in real life unless you work for an auction house. Don't do it.

• Jargon isn’t a flex. I may understand it, but I don't like it. In my experience, excessive use of jargons is typically a sign of pseudo-intellectualism. PF debate should be about explaining complex ideas in a way that is accessible to the general public. Using jargon over clear explanation will hurt your score.

• Cross: Perceptual dominance is real. Be polite but assertive and stand your ground. I pay attention during cross, so this is an opportunity for you to earn your speaker score. Passivity, speaking over your opponent, or lying about evidence will cost you.

Constructive & Cross-Ex

• I want good, well-supported arguments, not speculations. Too many debaters cite cards that say “something could happen” with no real warrant. That’s not analysis—I won’t weigh it.

• Cross-ex is crucial. Many judges ignore it—I don’t. This is where you clarify, attack, defend, and dominate. If you get a concession, I will take note of it, but also bring it up in speech to make sure I hear it. Strong cross can win speaker points—and even the round.

Rebuttal, Summary & Final Focus

• In rebuttal, quality > quantity. Don't just speed read your block file for 4 minutes, expecting that I understand what it is you’re saying. I probably don’t, and I bet you don't either.

• In summary tell me what are the clashes. Clarity wins rounds. Collapsing is smart. In final focus, tell me: What matters? Why do you win? Why do your impacts outweigh?

• Close calls? I tend to default to NEG, since it represents the status quo.

Weird stuff

• Since I am a parent/flay judge, I don't expect anyone to run theory/K/progressive arguments in front of me. For the daring few that might consider it, don’t do it. To me these tactics are just pseudo-intellectual gimmicks designed to confuse less experienced or less resourced debaters. I find them pretentious, anti-educational and against the spirit of PF debate. Also, it’s funny when obviously privileged debaters read anti-cap K using their expensive laptop that capitalism produces, and generally benefiting from the system they criticize.

Good luck!

Background

I am a parent volunteer and mostly been involved in Public Forum debates. While I may not have extensive experience with debate technicalities, I am committed to listening carefully and providing fair, constructive feedback. My goal is to evaluate debates based on clear communication, logical arguments, and the strength of evidence presented.

Evaluation Criteria
- Clarity: I value clear communication. Please make your points easy to follow and summarize key arguments in each speech.
- Organization: A well-structured debate is easier to judge. Signpost your arguments and explain how they link to the resolution.
- Evidence: Support your claims with credible evidence. I appreciate when debaters explain how their evidence impacts the round.
- Weighing: I may not inherently know which impacts are most important. Be sure to tell me why your arguments matter and how they outweigh your opponents’ points.
- Respect: Courtesy and professionalism matter. I do not tolerate rudeness or inappropriate behavior.

What I May Not Evaluate Well
- I may not follow technical jargon or highly specialized debate theory. Avoid relying on these unless you clearly explain them.
- Speed is difficult for me to process. Please prioritize clarity over speed.

Final Thoughts

At the end of the round, I will vote for the team that best convinces me their side of the resolution is more valid. Make sure your arguments are summarized in your final focus and crystallized clearly. If you want me to focus on something specific, please tell me explicitly.

Hi!

This is my 2nd year as a parent judge. Please tell me which speech you're on (e.g., affirmative constructive, negative summary), and don't use technical debate terms.

Please keep time for yourselves & each other. I'll note timestamps in case there are any disagreements.

Looking forward to a fun & fair debate!

I am a parent judge but have judged for multiple years since 2016. I mostly judged PF but I also judged Congress and Parliamentary.

I am flay, meaning I take notes, but not in a flow style.

I like to focus on direct clashes and rebuttals of your opponent's arguments. Points need to be extended in every speech, and if one team brings up a point that is not extended, I will not consider it. It is also up to the opponent team to bring this to my attention.

I will always weigh impacts. I primarily weigh on the magnitude, but I will also consider timeframe and probability.

Do not spread. I want every speaker to give their speeches in a clear, systematic way and emphasize the main points they want to resonate with me.

This is my fifth time judging public forum. I have a daughter that participates in public forum so I am familiar with the debate process.

Hi all! Think of me as a flow judge but leaning towards flay. A few things to note:

-If you read a turn in rebuttal, tell me what the impact is or else I’ll only count it as defense. If you’re the second speaking team, address both sides of the flow during rebuttal (aka frontline). Also respond to any turns in rebuttal or it's conceded

-An unaddressed argument is essentially conceded, but any concessions made in crossfire must be brought up in a later speech. Explain the implications of the concession (why them agreeing to your point matters in the round)

-I was a 1st speaker when I did PF so I rly value summary speeches

--When extending an argument, u need to explain all 3: claim-warrant-impact (frontlined when necessary) for it to count. A tag or an author's name doesn't mean anything if the evidence or impact is unwarranted. On the flip side, saying your opponents "extended by ink" isn't a valid rebuttal.

--No new offense after the 1st summary, but anything I vote off of in your final focus must be here

-I try to be tech>truth but if I hear a repeated card that sounds too good to be true, I’ll call for evidence at the end of the round. If it’s misconstrued, it won’t affect my decision unless your opponents brought it up during the round. However, your speaks won't do great so please don’t lie :/

-I have 0 experience with progressive arguments (plans, kritiks, theory, etc.)

-I can't handle too much speed. If you're spreading (please try not to), signpost clearly

-Don’t paraphrase evidence

-If your opponents call for cards and they don't receive it within 2 minutes, it may affect your speaker points and I'll allow your opponents to prep

Feel free to ask any questions before the round! You can also add me to any email chain: 22melodyl@alumni.harker.org. Looking forward to a fun round :)

I am a parent judge. Please do not spread too much. I like it when the debate is concluded or summarized at the end. I usually vote based on crossfire.

General

- Speak as fast as you want, but try not to spread. The words should be clear

- Focus on understanding of the topic and the depth at which one understands a topic

- I can time the speeches but prefer you please time yourselves

- Add me to the email chain: vishwas.manral@gmail.com

- Be respectful - don't say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

• Flay/treat me more lay
• Send me your cases

Arguments/ Debate etc.

I am ok with progressive debate at all (I am ok with Tshells, K's, CPs, tricks, etc.). If you do end up going for it - please explain to me clearly why it should be a voting issue at the end of the debate.

Squirrelly arguments are ok but you need to actually explain your link VERY clearly or you can't access your impact.

I love when people signpost; it helps me follow along with what you are saying in your speech.

Please make sure that you can your provide evidence to your opponents. If you fail to do so, the argument is dropped.

I prefer off-time roadmaps but keep them brief.

Dropped args should not be brought back into the flow, but point out when your opponents' arguments are dropped. You know the rest of the rules, so please follow them.

As far as framework goes, I am fine with anything as long as you are following your framework. Debating against framework- if the opposing team provides a better framework that works and proves why the other team's framework is irrelevant or etc. then I will consider that. If you run SV you need to tell me why I should prefer that over any default util FW.

You run the show, so show me why you should win this debate. Impact weighing is greatly valued.

I won't flow cross (unless they contradict themselves), but if something big happens, tell me in your speech.

I am fine with disclosing cases as long as both teams are ok with it. If not, then please do not be forceful. (No disclo/para theory)

Speaks usually from 28+

Good luck, be kind, happy debating!

I am a parent volunteer judge for Dougherty Valley High School. I have some wifi issues so please send documents with all your arguments and evidence. My email is: gangwu@gmail.com

I have no experience with judging and I do not know anything about the different events.

I will award speaker points to the debaters based on how courteous, well-spoken, and confident you are. Do not be rude to your opponents or anyone else in the debate, or else you will definitely lose points. Try to avoid jargon and speak slowly so that I can understand your points.

Try to outline exactly why I should be voting for you. I want to know what your main points are and why they are more important than your opponents.

I will try to note down the important points, but I will not carefully follow every part of the debate.

Try to use as much evidence as you need to get your point across, but I want to hear your reasoning as well. Do not only use evidence.

Make the impacts of your arguments clear. I want to understand how your arguments will affect the world around us.

I prefer aggression in cross-examination, but be polite.

I value the quality of your persuasion over the truth behind your arguments, but that does not mean that you can make anything up. As long as the reasoning is logical enough, then I will consider your argument.

Most importantly, I want to see you have fun in the round.

Debated as a 2A for James Logan High School for 4 years and went exclusively for K’s on the aff and the neg. Currently debating as a 2A for the University of California. I exclusively go for policy arguments now.

Emilio Menotti (he/him)

Conflicts: James Logan, Harker

add me to the email chain.

emiliomenotti@berkeley.edu

A majority of paradigms are unhelpful in the pre-round. Judges are either inflating their qualifications or pretending they are good for certain args. In an ideal world i'd like to think i'm a soulless flow robot thats equally good for every position but i'm not. I have argumentative preferences and skillsets that if adhered to increase the chances of a winning my ballot. However, no preference cannot be overcome with good technical debating. I often find myself voting for arguments I fundamentally disagree with due to technical concessions and persuasive explanation.

I think debate is an awesome activity. Its changed a lot of how I think about the world and I hope it will do the same for you. If any of you have questions about debating in college feel free to reach out!

Paradigm Shortcuts:

1. Policy v Policy, Impact turns, K v Policy.

2. K v K, FW v K.

3. T, Theory.

4. Tricks.

DA's:

- Turns case arguments, aff-specific link's and ev comparison matters a lot.

- Smart DA's and case debating are some of my favorite debates to judge. Im a sucker for a nuanced econ/politics DA.

- Impact calc should start early. Aff outweighs is super convincing when Im puzzled on how the conflict escalates, why it goes existential and what actors are involved.

CP's:
- If you go for process consistently, im not the best judge for you. I haven't been in, thought about, or judged a lot of competition debates. If you choose to ignore this, slow down, line by line, and explain args rather than bombing through blocks. Id much rather judge a clever permutation than a competition debate.

- Im generally aff leaning on certainty/immediacy and dislike counter-plans that compete off it. I think they significantly lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot.

- Smart deficits that have a clear impact are super important.

- I really like smart adv cp's and find myself thinking they beat a majority of affirmatives.

- I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.

T:
- Not much to say here. A majority of the affirmatives ive read were either a K aff or core of the res.

- Indicting evidence quality matters a lot in these debates and I tend to err on the side of reasonability and predictability.

Impact Turns:
- Good for it. Go crazy. These are my favorite debates to judge.

- Absent impact calc, I almost always find myself persuaded that S-risks outweigh X-risks.

- More 2N's should fiat out of aff scenarios.

- Note: Defending a K aff and avoiding an impact turn debate looks bad in front of me. If your 1AC says heg is intrinsically violent, you should be prepared to substantively debate the opposite.

Theory:
- These debates are often the most frustrating to judge. Its either because one side horrifically messed up the answer, or one side is spamming blocks because its the only win condition.

- If this is your thing...sure? If the negative is losing go for it. I find it weird to not vote on the argument when fully conceded or out debated.

- Please slow down. Trying to flow a 400 WPM condo 1AR makes me want to quit the activity.

K v Policy:
- Love it. I think that kritik's are one of the most strategic arguments in debate. I have the greatest familiarity with Cap/Setcol/Death/Afropess K's.

- Specific links to plan action are rewarded, but not required.

- The most strategic version of the K is grounded in framework. If the alt turns into a world peace CP, im unsure why it doesn't lose to perm-double bind. If the affirmative is allowed to weigh the case, I almost always default to extinction outweighs.

- For 2A's, theory is a super viable argument against the alt.

FW v K Aff:
- Good for both sides. These are a majority of my debates in high school so I have a significant amount of experience debating FW. I usually find myself thinking that affirmatives defending a topical governmental action is better for the activity. However, I realize that there is baggage that comes with the implicit assumptions within the resolution that ought to be discussed. Any K 2AC should be coupled with form and content level impact turns to FW.

- You do not need a counter-interp to beat FW. Im yet to see a C/I that isnt contrived, arbitrary, and mitigates the negs offense. If the aff wins that the negs model of debate is unethical, im confused why that doesn't warrant an aff ballot.

- I do not have a preference between fairness and clash. I think fairness is the most intuitive and strategic, but clash attached to an external impact/turns case is a super viable 2NR. While debate is a unique space that undoubtably influences our political subjectivity, Im unsure why clash isn't the internal link to changing how we think about the world.

K v K:
- These debates either make me want to read a book or cry in a corner.

- I think K v K debates structurally favor the affirmative unless grounded in some core lit based controversy. Most contrived applications of K literature in K v K debates seem super susceptible to the perm. Im yet to hear a convincing argument for why affirmatives do not get permutations in method debates.

- I have a special place in my heart for the Cap K. If this is your thing go for it.

LD:

- Im fairly new to judging LD so go easy on me. Almost all of my thoughts about policy still apply.

- I have not seen a lot of phil debates---make sure to explain the arguments thoroughly if this is your thing.

Misc:

- Judge instruction is the name of the game. More of it will not only get you better speaker points but increase your chances of winning. If arguments are dropped, what does that mean for my ballot? Forcing me to sift through a laundry list of dropped args with zero strategic application is saddening.

- Theres a big difference between being a jerk and banter.

- If I make a decision that doesn't reflect my paradigm, please let me know after the round. I want my preferences to be as transparent as possible.

- I will read evidence at the end of the round, but that is not an excuse for lazy debating. Evidence quality matters a lot for me.

Some people who's paradigms are better than mine and have greatly influenced how I think about the activity : Nick Fleming, Nate Fleming, Archan Sen, Taylor Tsan, Rahul Ramesh, Nishad Neelakandan, Riley Reichel, Katie Wimsatt, Michael Wimsatt.

extra .1 speaks for making fun of a current cal debater.

Hello, I am a parent judge. I value quantifiable impacts. Please be respectful and speak clearly.

Parent judge

My preferences:

Keep it short and summarize at the end.

Use simple layman's language with examples if possible.

Speak slowly and clearly.

Be respectful and have fun!

I'm a first-time parent judge.

she/her

No Spreading.

Please be clear and explain your argument and importance in the round. Clarity is more important than responding to all the arguments. I would rather have you explain lesser arguments clearly than skim over all the arguments.

Explain why I have to vote for you.

I would prefer you to share your cases with me so that it is easier for me to follow.

Be respectful towards your opponent and follow the rules.

Please speak slowly. I am a lay judge. Don’t assume I know the topic well. Add me to the email chain yasuhiro.ogawa@gmail.com

Debate:
You can talk fast and time your own rounds. I will not time your rounds.

Treat me as a lay judge that will evaluate more squirrely technical arguments if the warranting is there. Warranting, strong links, and comparitive analysis is the most important items I evaluate on.

No theory, Ks or other progressive arguments. Be stringent on keeping your speech on time along with prep. Do not add me to the email chain. Set one up before round if you want to. Don't ask for an excessive amount of cards.

Speech:

No requirements

Hey everyone,

My name is Shiv Pandya and I’m a recent UC Davis graduate. I did public forum debate throughout High School so feel free to go at whatever pace is comfortable.

Good Luck!

I am a parent judge, with 10 years of experience.

Important:

Please speak clearly, avoid over speed, and explain your points thoroughly.

Online Debate:

For online debates, prefer cameras on and you are fully visible.

Relevant Thoughts:

• Evidence quality is important. Good data and analytics can beat bad cards.
• My experience is policy-heavy, and it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.
• You as the competitor should be clear in your thought while asking questions or answering them.
• In rounds just make sure to tell me where you are going in your speech.
• Speed is fine with me in beginning speeches but make sure your speed doesn't affect the quality of the argument.
• Don't hesitate to ask me any questions.

This is my second year judging. Below are the criteria I use as a guideline for judging.

1) I would like to focus on quality rather than quantity - this is to say, I would much rather you speak clearly in a manner I can follow you rather than you try to complete X words/min, and say something that I don't follow.

2) I grade off of the flow of the argument and weighting. I am not a truth judge.

3) You have to understand your case do not just read the cards you have. Use logical thinking to sway me to vote in your favor.

4) 0.2 per rude or socially inaccurate comment.

5) Bringing up new ideas in the final focus will cost you.

Good luck & Have fun!

background: debated for eden prairie high school in minnesota and glenn high school in texas as a PF competitor on the local and national circuits.

tldr: tech over truth. pls pls pls collapse + weigh. idk much theory, so don't run it. ask questions before round. HAVE FUN. it's the reason we do debate.

general

akhil.perla18@gmail.com for the email chain

i will be timing speeches, but i'd encourage y'all to be timing yourselves. i stop flowing after 10 seconds over.

creative arguments are great! i will evaluate pretty much any well-warranted argument.

i REALLY dislike argument dumps in case. constructives with 4+ unwarranted contentions honestly gets away from the spirit of debate. fewer arguments that are well-warranted and have cleanly explained links will be rewarded far more than contention dumps that force opponents to pick and choose what to respond to.

i am not opposed to speed up to the point that it starts outpacing how fast i can write. if you're going too fast for me to flow, i just won't be able to get the warranting down as well.

i don't flow cross, so if you want something from cross to matter when i'm making my decision, make sure to bring it up in an actual speech.

if there's no offense on either side of the flow, i tend to default to the con team.

this hopefully goes without saying, but at the very least frontline turns in second summary.

evidence

don't paraphrase. if you get called out for it, that piece of evidence gets wiped off the flow for me.

especially egregious evidence/misrepresentation will result in an auto-drop.

weighing

weighing guides my ballot -- win the weighing and I look to evaluate that argument first

the earlier that weighing mechanisms are introduced, the more value i give to them when i make a decision.

extensions

i have a relatively high threshold for extensions. if you want warrants to be flowed through, make sure the argument is well frontlined and fleshed out.

speaks

average is a 28. anything above 29 means that the debater combined exceptional delivery with creative and high-quality argumentation. evidence issues drops you to 25 and anything offensive is an auto-20.

misc

well intentioned feedback from my technical judges was the most helpful advice i got as a debater. also, i think debaters are entitled to know why they won or lost a round. i welcome post-rounding and will stay as long (as reasonably possible) after the round as you'd like to answer questions.

I am a parent judge, I have prior experience in judging speeches and debates. I value good preparation on the topics, clear speaking and confident/clear answers in the Cross Examinations.

Parent judge, please try to go slower and err on the side of overexplaining jargon on the topic. Warrant out and impact all of your arguments. Good reasoning and explaining of your side will win you the round.

I am a parent judge. I look for the data and and evidence supported arguments during the debates. 

I debated for 4 years in policy at Head-Royce as a 1A/2N and went for the K on both the aff and the neg for my last 3 years. I now debate at UC Berkeley and only go for policy args. If you are at all interested in debating at Berkeley, feel free to reach out!

Put me on the email chain: rileyreichel@gmail.com

Please name the chain something reasonable.

For online debates, please try to have your camera on. Speaking into the void feels weird

Do what you do best. This paradigm is short because I will vote for almost any argument so long as it is won in debate. I know everyone says this but I will try my hardest to stick to the flow and judge as objectively as I can. I have also realized I tend to make faces when I like or do not like something.

That being said, it's inevitable I get something wrong. If you think that's the case, feel free to post-round and argue with me. I find it not only fun, but also a good learning tool.

I default to judge kick, conditionality, and generally think inserting rehighlightings is good. Each of these go out the window when someone makes an argument against them in the debate.

Tell me if you want to stake the round on an ethics violation, otherwise debate it out.

Some paradigms to look at to better understand the way I view debate: Larry Dang, Nathan Fleming, Nick Fleming, Michael Wimsatt, Katie Wimsatt, Emilio Menotti, Archan Sen, Taylor Tsan, Molly Urfalian, Buck Arney. Their paradigms are better than mine and they taught me everything I know (except Buck who I taught and take zero responsibility for when he inevitably makes the wrong decision). This is not to say I agree with everything they say, just that these are the people I talk to the most about debate.

extra .1 speaks for references to old/current Cal debaters

Add me to the chain and send docs: ssaharoy@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge and doing this for last 3 years

I'm bad at flowing so pls don't go too fast

For me clarity is more important than speed

Hello! I'm Clare (^_^) I am a current college student and a former, but not very experienced, LD debater. Email: sanchezclaredominque@student.deanza.edu

Debate:

• The max talking speed I can take is about the pace of Nicki Minaj in Superbass (also no technical language pls, I didn't do debate for THAT long)
• Talking after time is up = bad
• Audible timer = good (I can time for you but I prefer using u ur own timer)
• Don't be mean during cross (yelling or talking over your opponent = bad)
• I <3 roadmaps + signposts (make it easier for me to flow pls)
• Standing up > sitting down
• Weigh the arguments and analyze the impacts better than your opponent = win my ballot

Speech:

• I can't give you any useful constructive criticism since I don't have any experience with speech. Like at all. I'm sorry in advance.
• talking during other people's speeches = annoying

Be respectful above all please! Basic etiquette (like don't be rude or straight up bigoted O_O) If you have any other questions feel free to ask d('_')b

I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 5 years.

I will be flowing.

Good luck !

• follow basic debate etiquette

I have a processing disability that makes it hard to understand fast speakers or multiple voices at once, so please talk at a normal pace. I also have both physical and verbal tics; I cannot control when these happen, please be prepared to have me making random noise in the background during the debate.  

Please keep your delivery to a slower pace and be clear. I would appreciate clear arguments and explanation of your underlying assumptions. If possible, please share your cases with me before the start of the debate.

I am a parent judge who has judged for about five years. I won't understand super fast talking of any kind, so I advise you to speak at a normal pace.

I will only vote based off what is said in the round, and will not make any assumptions myself. This means that you should assume that I know nothing about the topic, which is probably true. If you want me to consider an argument, I suggest you bring it up in the final speeches of the debate. This is mainly where I will make my decision, so I think clearly stating your reasons on why you won here is important.

Other than that, have fun.

I am a parent judge.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

I am a parent judge for Public Forum. Despite my lack of judging experience, I would say that I am a lay judge with plenty of real world experience. This means that I vote for teams that are able to clearly persuade me with their evidence and impacts.

WHAT I LOOK FOR:

- I appreciate clear, structured communication.

- I prefer teams that are able to tell me why they are winning on their case and their opponent's case.

- Please weigh correctly: There is a higher probability of me voting for you if you make the explicit comparative between your and your opponent's impacts and evidence. Please flesh out your weighing instead of just using buzzwords.

- Roadmaps/Signposting is very helpful. This means that I appreciate debaters that tell me what they are talking about in their speech and where they are during their speech.

GENERAL INFO:

- I am OK with any speaking speed but prefer teams that have every piece of analysis mean something and contribute to the round than a team that only speaks fast.

- I don't time your speeches, so feel free to time your own and your opponent's speech.

- Please be respectful of your opponents & don't rudely interrupt them. (Otherwise I will dock your speaker points).

All the very best & have fun!

Hi,

I am Arundhati, a Parent Judge. This is a good learning experience for me. More rounds I judge more I learn about PF debate.

Please speak clearly and slowly so that I can follow.

Simple , clear arguments and rebuttal helps me to make a decision.

All the best for your round!

thank you!

Hi debaters,

I am in my second year being a judge in speech and debate events, and I will do my best to focus on your performances and be fair over my opinions.

Please keep your speech, questions, and answers reasonably slow and clear which will help me stay with your pace and grasp what you are addressing.

Please keep in mind of given time limits for your turns, and bring up clear questions for cross examinations against information relevant with what the other side's speech mentioned.

All the best and good luck!

I believe that it is not the judge's job to decipher the round but instead the debater's job to simplify the round to the judge. I vote for teams with simple cases that are clear and easy to follow.

Be Clear + Concise + Kind + Logical. Have Fun.

Hello Competitors!

I’m a parent judge with a few years of experience judging debate rounds.

Here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. Please don't rush or spread. I like to take notes, and if I’m unable to, you're likely speaking too fast.
2. Be clear in your explanations. Assume I have no prior knowledge of the topic.
3. Maintain respect. Avoid any language that is racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

I value well-organized content and clear communication, especially when supported by real-world examples. Engaging the audience with gestures, vocal variety, movement, and expression also helps enhance your delivery.

I prefer a roadmap before the time starts, as it helps both me and the audience navigate the speech, ensuring clear organization and structure.

A typical roadmap might look like this:

• In a constructive speech, the roadmap lays out the order of the main contentions (key arguments) to be presented.
• In a rebuttal or closing speech, it highlights which arguments will be defended, refuted, or extended, and in what order.

I have great respect for each of you. Your hard work and dedication are truly impressive, and I want you to know that I appreciate your efforts.

Here are key metrics I consider judging PF debate:

• Argumentation: Evaluate the strength of each team's arguments and how effectively they support their claims.
• Clash: Pay attention to how well the teams engage with each other's arguments. Do they directly respond to the opposing team's points or just repeat their case?
• Impact Calculus: Assess how well the teams explain the impact of their arguments. Strong debaters explain why their impacts (e.g., economic, social, etc.) outweigh the opponent’s impacts.

• Quality of Evidence: Consider how credible, relevant, and well-explained the evidence is. Are the sources reliable? Do they back up key points?
• Warranting: Does the team clearly explain how their evidence connects to their arguments and conclusions?

• Presentation Style: How clearly and confidently do the debaters present their case? Are their speeches easy to follow, or do they rush or use unclear language?
• Roadmaps: Are roadmaps used effectively to guide the judge and audience through the speech?
• Cross-Examination: During cross-examination, does the questioning team ask sharp, relevant questions that highlight weaknesses? Does the answering team remain composed and give clear responses?

• Framework (if provided): Some teams will present a framework—a lens through which to evaluate the debate (e.g., economic benefits, human rights). Consider how well each team aligns their arguments with this framework.
• Weighing Mechanisms: If both teams provide competing frameworks or ways to weigh impacts, evaluate which one is more convincing and why.

• Defense: Are teams successfully defending their own arguments against attacks?
• Offense: Do they effectively dismantle the opposing team’s case, showing why it’s flawed or less impactful?
• Extensions: Are the teams extending their key arguments throughout the debate, maintaining their importance and relevance?

• Impact Weighing: Good debaters explain why their impacts (e.g., reducing poverty, saving lives, protecting the environment) are more important than their opponents’. They should also compare the magnitude, timeframe, and probability of their impacts.
• Conceded Impacts: If a team concedes an argument or fails to respond, that may be a major point in favor of the opposing team.

• Big Picture: Which team tells a more compelling story overall? This includes how well they package their arguments and how cohesive their overall narrative is.
• Consistency: Were the arguments consistent throughout the debate, or did they contradict themselves or shift their positions?

• Etiquette and Respect: A professional, respectful attitude is important. Teams should engage in civil discourse, not resort to ad hominem attacks or unprofessional behavior.
• Strategy: Consider the strategy used by each team. Did they focus on the most important issues or get bogged down in irrelevant details?

After the final speeches, as a judge, I weigh the arguments, evidence, and impacts presented by both teams. The winning team should be the one that best fulfills the metrics above and presents a stronger overall case within the framework of the debate.

While personal preferences on speaking style or argument structure may vary, staying focused on these objective metrics will help me render a fair and balanced decision.

Best of luck!

(He/Him)

Assistant Coach for Nueva

Add me to email chain: esteinberg01@wesleyan.edu

PF:

Extensions/General Preferences: A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended". However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with shallow extensions. The vast majority of teams seem to have issues mechanizing and thoroughly explaining each step of their link-chains. Going fast and covering the flow is not an excuse to avoid explaining your arguments - collapsing effectively and introducing weighing early will make it easier to flesh them out. If both teams are technically proficient, the team that wins will often be the one that can resolve clashes with more thorough and deeper warranting.

Weighing: I despise when teams read a laundry list of weighing buzzwords like "scope, magnitude, probability" without any nuanced argument comparison. Additionally, if you say "Our probability is 100% because it's happening right now" I will roll my eyes. You derive impacts from the probability of preventing the harm or creating the benefit not from the probability of the harm occurring.

-Speed: Go as fast as you want - I have not needed to clear anyone but I will if necessary.

-Theory: I have voted for theory several times this year but I have yet to see a good round with theory in it. Take that how you will.

-K: I majored in philosophy in college so I will be able to follow the material/literature but slow down/thoroughly explain the implications. I would be more than happy to judge a good K round but I will be very sad if you botch a philosopher I like. Unfortunately, the latter happens more often than the former so I would recommend being cautious about running a K in front of me unless you are dope at it.

-Tricks: Haven't judged it yet but I am mildly fascinated by the prospect.

-Use CX to resolve clash - I'm not flowing but cross can still be incredibly productive if used correctly

Parli:

Competed briefly in HS parli and extensively in college (APDA). Open to all kinds of arguments, but see above regarding my perspective on prog args. I am less familiar with Parli norms so connecting prog arguments to Parli may require more connecting and implicating.

Hi everyone, I'm a lay judge.

Email chain: geraltan@gmail.com
*Please send speech docs if you can so that during your speech I can try to follow through with what you're saying.

Wear whatever you want, speak from wherever you want, doesn't matter, but be smart about it.

Guide
I won't understand any progressive arguments.
Trigger warnings are mandatory on sensitive/graphic content. Don't do anything violent/exclusionary.

Speed
Generally please be slow at around conversational speed, but cases (during the first constructive) can be read a bit faster. Note that if I cannot understand you, I will not work to understand you.

Speaks
Speaks are given based on presentation.

Speeches
Be clear, simple and give warrants whenever you can. Explain why I should vote for you.

I am a first-time parent judge who looks for respectful and civil debates. Consider me a lay judge. Please have arguments that are easy to understand and talk at a good pace. No theory, K's, tricks, or progressive argumentation. Nothing fast for that matter. Be respectful and cordial to your opponents.

Automatic loss for anything disrespectful to your opponent in the round. I want to make sure I can follow your arguments so I'll ask for speech docs before round. Good luck and have fun!

About

American University MA '26 | Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Views on debate are most influenced by E. Shah, V. Kerr, P. Descollonges, K. Griffin, and M. Woodhead. I also share many views with J. Dense, W. White, and generally most folks affiliated with PDB. Feel free to seek out any of their paradigms for additional direction and guidance beyond what is captured here.

2021-2024 | Director of Debate @ Crystal Springs Uplands School; Coached 2024 CHSSA State Parliamentary Debate Quarterfinalists

2021 | National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) Hybrid Dizon & Shah

2019-2021 | Alumni Coach @ Archbishop Mitty High School; Coached 2021 CHSSA State Parliamentary Debate Champions

2015-2019 Parli, PF, Congress, World Schools @ Archbishop Mitty High School

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have any questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

Parli Paradigm (last updated 04.05.25 for NPDL TOC)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round!

Hello my name is Neel Thakkar.

I graduated from San Jose State University did public forum throughout middle school and high school. I have no speaking pace preferences. Please go at a comfortable pace and stay within time limits. I appreciate it. Thank you.

I'm a lay judge

Parent judge with very little judging experience. Please be clear and explain your arguments thoroughly. I look forward to a great round!

I look for thoughtfully reasoned ideas, the logical flow of the arguments, and the augmenting evidence presented to support the team's position. I also think a good use of time (running down the clock to take advantage of the allocated time) demonstrates a higher level of preparedness and comfort in dealing with the topic.

I have been a judging PF from 2018 onwards. I have judged varied tournaments from Novice to Varsity levels.

Present your story clearly.  My preference will be clarity over ambiguity.

I don't mind if you speak fast.

I also weigh based on maturity of the thought, clear communication and metrics relating to your argument

This is his son writing, fully lay judge but he will pay attention to your arguments and note them down. So generally speak slower, don't be disrespectful, make sure nothing is over complicated and fully warrant out your arguments. I'm sure you've done lay debates before.

Yes to the email chain: hannah.wilson@harker.org

It's important to me that judges act like educators (and by that I mean that I understand it's about the debaters and not me + professional boundaries are important). Debate is hard and we're all learning. My goal is to help make the experience as educationally valuable and fun as possible.

My debate experience: I did one year of PF in high school, one year of policy in high school, and three years of policy in college (2 at Weber and 1 at Concordia). I was an assistant coach at Copper Hills High School for 2 years, and a speech/congress coach at The Harker School for 4 years. I am now the head of the middle school program at The Harker School, coaching all the speech and debate events.

Policy & LD:

-I'm a competent person, but don't assume I have deep topic knowledge (especially with LD topics changing so often!). Don't assume I know what an acronym means. Don't assume I already know the link chain for the generic topic args. Don't assume I know about your aff. Even if I already do know about all of the things already, I think good debate requires painting the picture every time instead of just jumping to the end.

-Speed: Slow down and be clear on your analytics!!!!!! It seems like judges are just flowing off of docs, which is incentivizing people to spread theory/t/framework to get through more, but I am not that judge. I haven't judged a debate yet where I felt someone went too fast in the cards for me to keep up and follow. It's the keeping that same speed throughout all your analytics + lack of clarity and emphasis on the things you think are important that becomes the problem.

-I think signposting is so important! I'd much prefer a speech that says things like "on the circumvention debate" "on the link debate" "they say x we say y" than speeches that read as one big essay/overview. I'll still flow it, but the chances I miss a little thing that you decide to blow up later go up when your signposting is poor.

-While I've coached and judged LD, I never did it so some of the quirks are still foreign. I've heard the word tricks, but don't know what that is. The brief explanations I've received have me skeptical, but I'll listen to any arg with warrants and an impact.

-Theory: I have a high threshold for theory. I'm fine with debates about debate, but I don't know if I've ever seen a theory speech that goes in depth enough to do that well. If your theory shell was a full and cohesive argument in the constructive (i.e. the violation was specific and clear + the impact was specific and clear) and it's conceded entirely I'll vote for it. If it's like a one sentence just incase thing in the constructive, I probably don't think it was a full argument so even if they conceded it I might not buy it. Condo will be hard to win. If they are really reading *that* many off case, those arguments are probably very underdeveloped and some could even be answered by a few reasonable analytics. Do not read disclosure theory in front of me if it's the first debate on a new topic. The theory I'm most likely to be persuaded by is perf con.

-Framework: I'll happily vote for framework. Be specific about what ground you've lost and why it matters. Education > Fairness impacts. Affs need to prove their reps are desirable before weighing extinction against Ks.

-Ks: Make sure your link is specific to the aff. Be specific about how and what your alt solves. If it's an epistemology alt that's fine, but I need you to do thorough explanation of why that's the preferable way to debate and a sufficient enough reason to get my ballot. Don't assume I have a background in your specific K.

-Disads: Got a soft spot for a good politics disad. I'd prefer to watch a debate with core topic disads and a strong link than a new disad that might have a weaker link. Will still vote on it if they don't have answers, but I prefer watching a debate with clash. Don't assume I have background on your disads. Explain the story clearly.

Public Forum:

-Y'all should just start sending all of your evidence. It's a waste of my time and yours to wait for evidence to be called to slowly send over things card by card. It will also hold everyone to higher evidence standards if the community starts evidence sharing and debates will get better.

-I know there is some division on this, but I do think the first rebuttal speech should still talk about their case. It's good to start filtering the debate through your impacts right away.

Congress:

Honestly, y'all don't need paradigms. This is a speech event and if you're thinking of it as a debate event you should reorient your strategy. That said, I know people want to read paradigms anyways so... I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students... it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out. Cheesy, but I think of the round in terms of who I would want to be my representative. Not necessarily because they agree with all the things I already think, but because they are actively engaged in questioning, are good at responding to opposing arguments, and have a nice balance between pathos and logos. Greatest speeches might not get my 1 if they are disengaged from every other part of the round.

Very experienced judge and coach for Saint Francis high school. I will consider pretty much any arguments that are not blatantly sexist, racist or crudely discriminatory (blatant is the key word here, much of this stuff is debatable and I will try not to punish you for my general feelings about your arguments).

It is important to me that debaters be respectful and polite to each other, this puts the spotlight on the arguments themselves and I am not a fan of extra drama.

I try hard to be fair and the following things help me do that:

- I rarely call cards. I like to focus the debate on the analysis given by the debaters (of course I will usually give more weight to analysis that is taken from qualified sources). I do not like to decide debates on random parts of a card that neither debater really focused on. I will call cards if I forget what they said, if there is a conflict about what they say and I can not remember, or if I am personally interested in the card.

- I try to judge on the flow in the sense that I evaluate the debate on the arguments presented, explained and extended into the rebuttals. I will occasionally do the work to weigh impacts or decide framing if the debaters are not doing that for me.

- I will not yell "clear", so mumble and slur at your own risk (I don't yell clear because I don't want a team to find that sweet spot where I can understand them but their opponents can not). I will also not evaluate arguments that I can not hear. I do not read speech documents during the debate rounds, sometimes I will look at them after the round (see calling cards stuff above).

Argument preferences:

I am cool with critiques on the aff and neg.

I am cool with framework (I like the debaters to work this out and I am pretty neutral on this question).

I like clarity (both in speech and arguments). I am not impressed by things that are "too complex" for me to understand but I will do my best to try to make sense of it. I am confident enough to not pretend I know your position and I will not fill in the blanks for you.

I am cool with policy arguments.

I have a wide breadth of knowledge but little depth on certain positions, don't assume I know your literature.

Speaks:

I give high speaks for clarity, efficiency, a pace that I can flow, respectfulness and occasionally speaking style.

I feel like the speaker point range I give is pretty close to average (I am not a reliable source of high speaks for everyone, but I will reward excellent debate with high speaks).

Contact info

mail all speech documents to: headofthewood@gmail.com

anything else (if you want me to read the e-mail or respond): thomaswoodhead@sfhs.com

I am a first-time, lay, parent judge.

⁃ Please be respectful in the round

⁃ Talk as slowly and clearly as possible, things that I don’t catch will not count towards the round

⁃ I will give speaker points based on structure, clarity in speeches, confidence and connectivity, and how you defend your argument (PF)

⁃ No tolerance for inappropriate behavior, be professional with others

⁃ Feel free to ask me any questions before/after the round

⁃ Have fun and good luck!

parent judge

Hi, in order to make it easy for me to understand your case more thoroughly, please kindly speak at a reasonable speed since I am a parent judge. Thank you.

recent college grad, no debate experience myself; I got into judging for my cousin.

flay more lay, i try to take notes

probably won't have topic knowledge

please don't spread

no experience with theory/ k

time yourselves & don't be rude!

have fun :)