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

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 ;)

First time judging! Please do not speak too fast. Make sure your arguments are clear and quantified.

Do not spread or try to confuse me because if I am confused and lose track, it will be hurting your side.

Good luck!

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 have done policy debate, LD and Congress, competing at State (CA) and Nationals when I was in high school.

I am truth over technical putting a premium on understanding your argument and on the logic both teams use to explain why the evidence and the expert is relevant to the argument. Bad evidence loses to good logic and common sense. Good evidence plus logic wins. Stated another way, in making your arguments around impacts, I listen carefully for logical fallacies -- while I won't vote against you if I hear a slippery slope, or a correlation/ causation fallacy, I will keenly listen to see how your opponent responds. I share this because as you develop your speaking skills for life (amazing by the way), your goal will be to persuade whether in business, law, medicine, science or politics -- few things undermine one's credibiilty more than arguments that tend to extremes based on unsubstantiated logical or reasoning errors, so it's good to start to learn and practive now how to build structurally and logical sound arguments, relying on evidence, early in your journey.

Debate is about testing logic and evidence to communicate a Point of View that can be understood and is compelling, so expect me to be a critical judge who will weight what each team tells me about the arguments presented; I vote for the argument I find most persuasive. I will look to frame my assessment against the main stock issues, unless you convince me another standard should be used. Also, if I can't understand the argument, I can't very well score it in your favor.

Beyond my debate experience, my perspective on policy is shaped by being involved in lobbying the Federal Government for Procter and Gamble and time at a leading think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). So I feel comfortable listening to arguments that weight and test the quality of the expert as well as the merits of the evidence; I will even accept your use of common sense or logic to call out logical fallacies, and to sanity test or refute a piece of evidence that just doesn’t make sense.

Finally, effective persuasion includes respectful disagreement, so I will notice rude, sarcastic or condesending behavior and that will detract heavily from the weight I attribute to your argument or position. Please enjoy a spirited discussion and I will do my best to flow and follow.

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 9/20/23 (Milpitas): I don't judge frequently anymore so please keep that in mind. I don't really know what the norms in the circuit are these days, but I'm down for whatever both teams agree on, and please use common sense. Regarding speed, idk how fast people go anymore but I can probably 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 go to the University of Chicago and coach for Potomac.

TLDR: Debate is a game. I will try to be as tab as possible, although I realize it is impossible to be a 100% unbiased. Debate however you would like in front of me as long as you are not being morally reprehensible or exclusionary. Ask before the round if you have questions (bncheng@uchicago.edu).

Short Version:

1. I am best at judging very technical case debate (and will enjoy judging it more, probably resulting in higher speaks) - however, I will adapt to you if you choose to pursue an alternative style. Speed is fine as are progressive/nontraditional args.

2. I prefer teams read cut cards/direct quotes - paraphrasing is acceptable, but please paraphrase accurately. If you're opponent calls you out on it and I agree with them, you'll probably have a bad time. Likewise, don't be afraid to call out an opponent for evidence ethics (more below).

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.

Some more in-depth stuff:

1. I'm lazy and I don’t flow authors. So don’t just extend author names, extend warrants, not only because it’s good debate, but also because I won’t know what you’re talking about.

2. "cLaRiTY of Link/Impact" weighing is not 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 and the other team's does not. Contextualize arguments like that in the form of actual comparison. PLEASE DO COMPARISON+METAWEIGH.

3. EVIDENCE: All evidence needs to be cut with citations. I will call for cards 1) if they are relevant and disputed without resolution or 2) if I know with reasonable certainty you are misconstruing something. I default to drop the debater on significant or clearly intentional misconstruction. If someone makes evidence ethics into a voting issue, I will vote on it regardless of magnitude.

4. PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS: I have experience with most progressive arguments, but primarily in theory. However, I'm 3+ years out of doing any K debate so while I can probably still evaluate the debate, you might want to slow down, simplify, and do extra warranting (especially if its anything nuanced/not security or cap). I am sympathetic to disclosure theory.

- Please don't read stuff to harvest ballots against novices. Use common sense.

5. PRESUMPTION (is this still a thing idk): Debate is a game, so 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. Of course, you can argue to convince me that one team should "get" presumption, but absent those, I will flip a coin (aff - heads, neg - tails).

6. Feel free to postround me 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 if you email me. 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.

This is my second year judging debates. So I am still relatively new to judging. It will be very helpful, if you speak clearly and at a slow to moderate 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. 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 don't care about delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com.

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. Slow down a little on analytics not in the doc though. Also, while I am fine with tricks and spikes, I think you should put them in the doc for the sake of accessibility.

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, 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.

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.

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. Also, I love good vagueness shells but I am tired of the generic vagueness shell that cites the rules and doesn't say how specific the aff needs to be - if you run vagueness, give me a brightline.

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 am more used to LARP and policy-style arguments but I have no problem voting on phil. 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

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 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 can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I mostly follow Lila Lavender's position on speed theory, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove objectively that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

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 will even vote on PMR/2AR theory if there is an egregious violation in the MOC/NR that did not happen in the LOC/NC. 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, and I will not intervene against an RVI if you win it on the flow. I do not need reasons why fairness and education matter unless you are comparing them to something else or to one another.

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, and I rarely read the rules of events that I judge. 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. I think that condo is good but I try to be neutral if I evaluate a condo bad shell. I hate dispo and I think all CP's should be either condo or uncondo. 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.

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. Timeframe is more of a tiebreaker to me - unless you show how the timeframe of your impact prevents the other impact from mattering. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I’m fine with kritiks 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.

IDENTITY/PERFORMANCE: I understand why people read these arguments, but at the same time debate is a competitive activity with the burden of rejoinder, so if you set up the debate in such a way that the other team can't negate your argument without negating your identity or lived experience, I will be more willing to vote on theory. The only way I know how to evaluate the debate is the flow of what happens in round, and I have trouble evaluating frameworks that ask me to look at something other than the flow.

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 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 do not mind voting 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.

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 I will take away a speaker point. 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, topicality, and kritiks. I think there are good arguments for why these arguments should not be in PF, but I won't make them for you - you have to say it in round.

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. If you want a theory argument or an argument about the rules being a voting issue, please tell me. Just saying "they are cheating" or "you can't do this in PF" is not enough.

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 personally don't think IPDA should exist 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 and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. 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 new(er) parent judge. I am listening to your arguments while keeping an eye on the clock and will let you finish the sentence but like to keep the proceedings on time.

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 questions of your opponents.

I coach for the College Preparatory School. I debated for two years for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS. In my senior year I won Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.

Add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu AND collegeprepdocs@gmail.com to the email chain. Please label email chains properly. Ex. "TOC R1 F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS."

TL;DR

Tech>truth. Weigh, give me good warranting, and speak as fast as you want. Defense is sticky; first FF may read some new weighing (NOT elaborate weighing… no overviews, prereq analysis, etc.). Extend your arguments with card names, warrants, links, and impacts in the back half. Weigh links and turns, defense, and pretty much everything else. Please read the evidence section of my paradigm and abide by those rules, they will be enforced.

DEBATE IS A GAME, PLAY TO WIN.

Tech>truth. I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as it's warranted well. have experience with traditional and progressive. I will vote on the flow.

How I Judge:

If my paradigm is unclear, my favorite judges were Will Sjostrom, Chad Meadows and Marcus Ellinas; anything PF-specific in their paradigms should give you a fairly good idea of how I hope to evaluate the round.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

This is essential; do it.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Don't be rude. Feel free to skip GCX if everyone agrees—both teams get 1min of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense/DAs as you want, just please implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. Second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, probably some defense too, but blippy NLs from the first rebuttal don't all need to be answered here.

Summary:

First summary only needs to extend turns but should also extend terminal defense if you have time. Defense is sticky, however, I’d prefer for the second summary to extend as much defense as possible. The only new turns or defense I’ll evaluate in summary are as responsive to new implications made by the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, or anything else UNLESS responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down, treat me like a flay judge in these speeches and my decision becomes a lot easier.

———PART II: TECHNICAL STUFF———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round. I can also disclose speaks if you ask.

Evidence:

—Evidence §1—

I will not accept paraphrased evidence. I treat paraphrased cards as equal in link strength to analytics. (You can make a theory argument as to why I shouldn't). If there are two pieces of competing evidence that will determine the round and both teams want me to look at it... I will almost always err on the side of the non-paraphrased evidence. Whether or not you paraphrase, YOU MUST have cut cards, if you don't I will cap your speaks at 27 and you should strike me (27 speaks cap does not apply for MSPF, NPF or JVPF).

—Evidence §2—

When evidence is called for, take less than 1 minutes to pull up the cards or it comes out of your prep.

—Evidence §3—

If you misconstrue evidence—you know who you are—and I find out, I will either drop you or give you the lowest possible speaks, depending on the severity of the misconstruction (I am more than willing to assign an L20 or below). If you catch your opponents misconstruing evidence, call it an independent voting issue (IVI) and I will treat this as a pre-fiat round-ending argument if the evidence is sufficiently misconstrued.

Email Chains:

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. "TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS."

Whether or not the tournament is online I will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; otherwise, sending a doc will not be required.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, 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. I'd like a speech doc if you're going to go over 275 words per minute. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically; don't go for everything. If you spread (300+ wpm) paraphrased cards there is no way you get above 27 speaks. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you it's your fault; 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, I think it's educational. Before you start make sure I've submitted your speaks.

Trigger Warnings:

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

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

I enjoy theory debate; I ran theory frequently. 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. To quote my former partner, "don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments" (saying that is terminal defense against any 'idk how to respond' argument and will result in a 30 for whoever says it).

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. No, I will not hack for either of these shells.

I really like 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 no RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Non-friv theory should be a zero risk issue to check abuse, I will still vote for RVIs if you win them.

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 should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you're speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. However, I am willing to vote off of paraphrasing theory read after rebuttal if your interpretation is that people shouldn't paraphrase in rebuttal. You MUST need to extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in constructive; you must frontline your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this).

Kritiks:

I have run Ks a few times, however, I am not the best judge for these rounds. I'm more familiar with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism than anything else.

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 (conceded theory shell or them reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves) invoke a TKO and you win with 30 speaks (unless you have violated any previous clauses related to speaker points), if they did have a path to the ballot you lose with 21s.

I am a parent judge and have judged speech and debate over the last several years across ~12 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 Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

LD PARADIGM

1. My goal when judging is to be tab.
2. That being said, I am way better at judging phil debates than policy debates.
3. Start your last speech with an overview that tells me as directly as possible why you win. It shouldn't be prewritten. It should go something like: 'I'm winning X argument because Y, and it comes first because Z.'
4. Please compare clashing arguments as soon as possible (i.e. in the NC/1AR). Weighing is more important to my ballot than extra cards.
5. I like theory but NOT when it's extra ridiculous (i.e. shoe theory).

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 two 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.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com.

please have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. don't be late.

tech over truth. i won't do work for you. your arguments should have explicit explanations and contextualization. tell me a thoughtful and thorough story with substance. even if you sound pretty, my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not your presentation. i'm more than happy to evaluate anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

do note that the only exception to this philosophy is if you make blatantly ignorant statements.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you have any questions regarding my feedback, feel free to ask. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interp best facilitates that discussion. if you go for framework, give me clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interps and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; give me real links, real interps, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate.

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

disadvantages. crystallize! your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these, a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and provide an anomalous approach against the aff. judge instructions make my life easier and can win you the debate.

cross. i'll listen, but i won't evaluate arguments made in crossfire unless you restate your points in a speech. use this time wisely.

evidence. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if you tell me to or if it sounds too good to be true. however, this isn't an excuse to be lazy. narrative coherence is very important to me.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. arguments and evidence mentioned in final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

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:

1. 2x North Dakota State Champion (Speech to Entertain, Novice Extemporaneous Speaking)
2. Assistant Coach -- North Dakota, California
3. IE/PD/LD Judge -- North Dakota, Minnesota, California

How do I judge Speech?

1. The round begins before it begins. First impressions last. Be courteous. Conduct yourselves as young adults throughout.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Understand your selection. How is the character's voice different from your own? Be highly specific.
5. 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?

1. Your presentation (PATHOS) must be on par with your arguments (ETHOS, LOGOS). Persuade us.
2. Debate is not about overwhelming us with information. Rapid-fire speaking and fact bombs are exhausting. If we can't understand you, how do you expect us to ascertain the unintelligible? If we don't believe your conviction, how do you expect to convince us? Say less = say more. Choose facts carefully. Flow clearly. Articulate.
3. 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) refrain from telling 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!

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.

PLEASE clarify your arguments, and be clear on who is on which side, since this topic is a bit of a switch. DO NOT run any Kritik's, I won't be able to understand the argument. If you or your team can clarify your argument then that would be extremely helpful.

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

Hey! My name is Jennifer (you can call me jenni) 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

My email is brianylee2003@yahoo.com.

I am a parent judge, but you should assume that I am knowledgeable about the topic.

I am not tech > truth, but am open to reasonable interpretations of evidence, particularly if your opponent fails to contest your interpretation. When it comes to evidence, be honest. Your credibility matters A LOT. It is not uncommon for me, especially during elimination rounds, to request to examine cards that I think are crucial to how I might decide the debate.

Please don't speak at a supersonic speed. My upper limit for comprehension is about 200 words per minute. Even if I can manage to understand your case, speaking too fast is a sure way to get a low speaker score from me.

While I value courteousness, I also encourage an active and assertive approach in debate. Being excessively passive, which leads to missed opportunities, may result in a lower speaker score.

During the constructive phase of the debate, I'm looking for a clean case with clear claims, warrants, and impacts. If, after four minutes, I struggle to connect the dots, it would be challenging for me to lean in your favor.

Cross-examination is important to me. It is when I decide which team has done its homework. I expect lively exchanges involving vigorous attacks and robust defenses. Throughout the cross, I will evaluate which contentions remaining standing for each side. I will also look to see which team can establish perceptual dominance during cross.

If both sides retain valid arguments that survive cross-examination, during summary and rebuttal I will look for all the conventional stuff like collapsing, extension, front-lining and weighing to see how you develop those arguments. In a close debate, my vote will likely go, primarily, to the team that has greater and more probable impacts on weighing and, secondarily, to the team that has established more perceptual dominance and credibility with me.

Good luck!

Volunteering for judging Public Forum debate with limited experience.

I'll be looking for balance, balance between well established arguments and well organized refutes, balance between team members on the contribution and how each would compliment each other over the rounds.

Note: Please email your case + evidence to pakile@gmail.com with your team name in the subject.

Hi! This is my 1st year as a parent judge. I’m excited to meet you and listen to your arguments.

3 decades ago, I competed in policy + extemp. I have much less experience in LD and zilch in PF. As a result, I'd appreciate it if you would provide an off-time roadmap w/ speech duration + which flow you're starting on, and signpost.

Even though Einstein didn't say, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough," he said something similar about something much more complicated. I invite you to reach new heights by explaining your arguments simply enough that *I* can understand it. In other words: Lay parent judge. Lay parent judge. Lay parent judge.

I'll keep time and, if requested, try to provide hand signals for each of the final 3m, then 30s + 10s; and for prep time, call out the last 2m, then 30s + 10s.

I assume you'll do your best to listen to and respond thoughtfully to your opponent’s arguments. Similarly, I'll do my best to listen to and provide thoughtful feedback on your arguments.

Finally, please:
* Do not go over your allotted time.
* Be respectful + courteous.

Thanks for your preparation + hard work, and good luck!

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.

I am a first time judge, but 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 speak slowly and clearly. I like it when the debate is concluded/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 will time the speeches, please time yourselves too

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

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

- I am a flay judge fyi

Arguments/ Debate etc.

I am fine with anything you run- K's, T, Theory, CP, etc. I enjoy seeing strategy and please don't blatantly contradict each other.

Case- I am fine with this too. Welcome to all args and do not prefer one over the other.

I love when people signpost, it helps me follow along with what you are saying in your speech. I also like organized rebuttals. Please make sure that you can your provide evidence to your opponents. If you fail to do so, we can immediately disregard what you are saying. Please also give logic to your args.

Offtime road-maps are also preferred.

Dropped args should not be brought back into the flow. 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.

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

I won't flow cross, but if something big happens, tell me in your speech.

Im fine with disclosing cases as long as both teams are ok with it. If not, then please do not be forceful.

Tech>Truth, just as most judges would say.

Good luck, be kind, happy debate.

-Vishwas Manral

(He/Him)

I am a parent volunteer judge for Dougherty Valley High School.

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.

Prior experience:

Debated as a 2A for James Logan High School for 4 years. Went almost exclusively for K’s on the aff and the neg. Qualified and broke at the TOC and won a handful of circuit tournaments. Currently debating as a 2A for the University of California. I exclusively go for policy arguments now.

Judging:

emiliomenotti@berkeley.edu

Jameslogandebatedocs@gmail.com

A majority of my debates have been one off/K Affs so do with that what you will. Im a sucker for a good Security/Cap/Settler Colonialism Kritik. However, this does not mean I wont vote for a policy argument. I love debate and do not have a predisposition to certain types of arguments. At the end of the day my rfd is a referendum on who debated better. That being said, do not try and over-correct for me. I think debate is a space for you to pursue whatever you want (as long as it’s not overtly violent like racism/sexism/discrimination good).

Don’t bomb through analytics its annoying to flow and you will lose speaks. The less you act like a jerk the better. Theres a time and place for everything.

Rebuttals are often the most frustrating part of debate. This is when people have to get off the blocks and start thinking big picture. I like debaters who write their ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. More judge instruction will not only get you better speaker points but dramatically increase your chances of winning. Im more than likely not going to vote on ticky tacky arguments, but who has a better big picture analysis for why they’ve won the debate and can flush out the benefits to granting them a ballot. In close debates, impact calc goes a long way. I will read evidence at the end of the round, but that is not an excuse for lazy debating.

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

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.

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.

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 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. Put me on the email chain rileyreichel@gmail.comPlease name the chain [tournament name] [round number] [aff team] (aff) vs [neg team] (neg)

update for Long Beach: I haven't been super in depth in the topic so go a bit slower especially on T and aff mechanism stuff

Do what you do best. Don't change your strat just because you think I wanna hear certain arguments. I definitely have some predispositions but all of them can be overcome by good debating. Below are some random thoughts, feel free to email me with questions!

I'll evaluate off the flow. Pretend like I don't have the doc open. I'll evaluate evidential disputes after the round but I would rather them be settled during the debate.

Call me Riley not judge.

Fairness is an impact but I prefer skills/education. I usually find it difficult to weigh models against each other by comparing how fair each one is.

Never heard a convincing arg for why K affs don't get perms. Most reasons are predicated off of winning T.

I like creative arguments. Read arguments you wouldn't normally read in front of a different judge.

Be nice and try to make the debate fun for everyone (including yourself!).

extra .1 speaks for references to old Head-Royce debaters or current cal debaters

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 4 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 to me before the start of the debate.

I am a parent judge who has judged for about two 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.

Email: rqshan18[at]gmail[dot]com

(If applicable to your debate event) If your team is fine with it, I would also prefer if you all send me your evidence that you read in the first constructive speech before the round begins. This is just so that I can easily follow along throughout the debate when author names are brought up here and there, and if needed, I can check a piece of evidence myself if there happens to be a debate over what it says. If I notice that a piece of evidence in constructive or in any speech is heavily misconstrued, it will tank your credibility throughout the round. Analysis to tie your evidence to your argument is encouraged. I won't need your evidence for rebuttal speeches unless I think it plays a very important role in deciding my vote. I would also like to be apart of the evidence sharing emails if both teams are fine with it.

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. I am a lay Parent Judge. This will be probably the first tournament I will be judging.

Please speak clearly and slowly so that I can follow. I may not be able to follow technical aspects so be ready to face a lay judge!

Please be respectful.

thank you!

Hi debaters,

I am new to being a judge in speech and debate events, but 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.

About me:

I am a dad of two kids. My youngest one does Public Forum so I somewhat know the basics. I usually end up judging for Congress though.

Judge style: Team

I want you to be respectful no matter what. Keep it professional.

Please go a little slow, treat me as a flay judge. I will be writing down notes but if you talk too fast, I won't be able to write it down.

In the end, I would say I care about weighing the most. Why is your case more important than your opponents? What will be done if I vote for you? I want you to answer these questions clearly.

Preferably give an off-time roadmap. It makes it more clear on what I need to be listening to.

Make your arguments clear. I don't know much about this topic so I want you to tell me and explain your contention, depending on how you execute it, I will be voting for you.

Judging style: Individual speaker

I care about your case and confidence. Know what you saying and don't be afraid. During cross ask questions and defend your case to the best of your abilities.

Keep cross professional, I don't want any rude sexist, racist, homophobic comments/remarks during cross. I will deduct your speaks greatly if you do. Don't interrupt the opponent when they're talking. I also don't want to spend a whole minute on a question during cross. If you spend too long on something, ask to move on.

General:

Be clear and confident, but also make sure you have fun in what you're doing. Just have a good time and be nice to the opponents.

I'll answer specific questions in-round. I am a flow judge, with 4 years of circuit PF experience and I have competed for Wesleyan Universities' debate team for the past two years.

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:

Archbishop Mitty '19 | Claremont McKenna College '23

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation, I served as an Assistant Debate Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved with the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

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!

PF Paradigm (last updated 9.19.23)

Stephen Stewart Update:

• Feel free to read your cool, funky cases on this topic in front of me—I highly encourage it.

• Every argument requires a warrant for me to evaluate it—it's not enough to say "extend xyz author/statistic" without an accompanying warrant. Please extend warrants in both summary and final focus.

• Weighing is also SUPER IMPORTANT. Start doing this in summary. This also goes beyond just impacts—do link-level weighing and collapse pls.

• I maintain that I won't flow crossfire. However, you may generate offense off of concessions or contradictory answers made in CF ONLY if you explain and strategically utilize the indicted claim to generate meaningful clash.

• First Summary doesn't need to extend defense unless second Rebuttal begins to frontline args. However, it's probably strategic for second Rebuttal to answer first Rebuttal and start frontlining.

• If it's in Final Focus, it has to be in Summary. This does not mean collapsing final focus from a single warrant or sentence in summary without proper analysis.

• Impacts should be terminalized. I prefer numbers to scalar impacts, which should always be contextualized within the evidence.

• Impact framing is also very cool.

• I think theory and kritikal arguments are severely underutilized in PF. Open to hearing any kind of argument on these layers but otherwise agnostic concerning my evaluation of them.

• To minimize intervention, I won't call for the card unless you tell me to.

• However, I do reserve the right to intervene on behavior that I find explicitly oppressive and morally reprehensible; if it's implicit or you're just excessively rude/aggressive in general I will simply tank your speaks.

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

• Speech docs are very appreciated (jtelebrico23@cmc.edu). I will exclusively use these documents in the context of accessibility in the debate round and not for coaching or sharing purposes.

• Signpost clearly.

Parli Paradigm (last updated 09.17.23):

General

• *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*

• The debate space is yours. Run as slow or fast, lay or tech of a round as you want.

• 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 probably doesn't matter that much. Just don't throw out unwarranted claims and expect that to automatically be offense for you.

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

• Collapsing is really important. 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 turns made in the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Probably a lower threshold than most for like phil and tricks 'n stuff.

Framework

• Default to net bens.

• If the 1AC doesn't define stuff but the 1NC does, I find myself pretty skeptical of 2ACs that try to backfill the framework layer.

• Down for all kinds of trichotomy arguments, theory interps are cool (i.e. feel free to run policy rounds on value/fact/metaphor topics if you want to justify it to me).

• Read and pass texts.

Counterplans

• 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.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. I do have a knack for flowery language and compelling one-liners but as a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanation of warrants, collapsing, weighing, etc!

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

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

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. I am receptive to hearing these during a debate and am otherwise agnostic to how I evaluate them compared to other forms of arguments.

• 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 methodologies of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find common analogues (e.g. manslaughter v. murder) 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 deep understanding of their scholarship and provide accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but I don't arbitrate over that in my direct evaluation—it just reflects in how you debate and how interactive these arguments become.
  
  

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.

• In the interest of minimizing interventionism, I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is frivolous as my judging career progresses but at the same time, 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.

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.

For anything not covered here, feel free to reach out and 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!

While I am not new to the Bay Area Speech and Debate scene with CFL, this is my first year judging Public Forum.

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 :)