Like to stay in the current state of affairs and like public forum debates given the relevance. Been judging PF style debates for over a year across several tournaments

Keep it civil, please!

I like to watch stronger topics vs teams attacking eachother.

Stay calm. I like clarity and confidence. I know everyone is nervous, but dont let it get the better of your performace.

Keep me engaged!

Make sure you get everything in before your time is up. <3

Experience:

I am a parent of an avid debater. I have judged debates in the past and I really enjoy when a debater brings their authentic self to the competition. Be authentic, score points.

Content:

I believe debates are won and lost in the curation of your content. When you make a claim, be very clear and to the point to make your case. Be mindful of not getting distracted by related but less important detail. Focus, focus, focus on those metrics that best make your case and be ready to let go of the ones that do not add that much. Rank your content in order of impact.

Style:

Your content can only go as far as your delivery allows. Be clear, don't go so fast that the judge has a hard time following you. Take your time, state your claim clearly and then go on to make the case. Be expressive, show emotions, modulate your voice, and the most important, make eye contact. Making eye contact shows you are confident, paying attention and care that someone is listening.

Fun:

I like when debaters have fun with their topic. Be creative in bringing out the alternate angle, add humor, add and edge to your claims and you will score points.

Looking forward to the event where debaters are making good arguments. Try not to talk at 1,000 miles an hour without having a line by line clash or engagement. Please do not spread, it will result in an automatic L.

As a parent judge, it would be helpful to me if debaters can adhere to the following:

1. Please speak slowly with clarity.

2. No spreading during the tournament.

3. Please do not run Ks.

4. Only run theory if necessary with explanation.

I like clarity over speed. Speak clearly and confidently so I do not miss important details that you are mentioning.

You got this!

hi I'm aimee, I do ld and I've judged ld, pf and some policy before.

• I don't flow cross
• I don't time speeches- if you'd like me to time for you or your opponent, please let me know

I prefer clarity over speed. Clearly and concisely delivering a few effective argument is much better than many vague and ineffective arguments.

Be courtesy to your opponent. During the cross, allow other side to also ask questions. Too many follow-up questions will cost you points.

Stick to the time limit. I generally allow both sides to finish the sentence after the timer stops, but no more than that.

Hi debaters,

I am parent judge, my child competed for the PF, I like watching debate and I am looking for following:

1. Speak clearly (don't spread!)
2. You need to put offense on the other side's argument (Turn)
3. You need to frontline your case
4. Be respectful to each others

Good luck! Enjoy the debates and your day!

Last updated: 2/2/2024 (Evergreen)

General:

I am a tabula rasa judge who will do my best to judge arguments based on the flow. Please do not spread or exceed significantly faster than the conversational pace because I am not the fastest at taking notes... I have judged for 4 years (Public Forum/LD/Parli) and mainly lay debate, however I am down to hearing progressive arguments if explained clearly and well.

Start all speeches with an off-time roadmap: Signpost and tagline extremely clearly. I cannot flow you if I do not know where you are. Please take at least 1-2 POIs per speech as I believe there is a purpose in them existing in the first place.. I will disclose my result at the end given that this does not go against tournament protocol.Finish on time as well.The grace period is illegitimate. You get your minutes and then you are done. Granted, I will not explicitly tell you your time is up -> that is for you and your opponents to enforce in-round.

Case:

This is my favorite type of debate. Simple and easy -> run the status quo or a counterplan if you are Neg and run a plan if you are gov. Be specific but do not spend 50% of your speech on top-of-case. I need lots of weighing and terminalization in the MG/MO and the clean extensions through the LOR/PMR. I barely protect, it is best to call the POO.A good collapse into the key voters and instructing me where to vote and why is the key to winning my ballot. Statistics and empirics are underrated in Parli: But do not lie please. Do not rely on them entirely to the point where you have no logic, but there should be a good balance and mix of logic and evidence.

Theory:

Will never vote on Friv T: I will evaluate actual theory against "real abuse", but explain every single jargonistic-like term in great detail. Err on the side of caution, I have judged very very few progressive rounds. I do not default to anything. If you do not tell me anything I can simply not evaluate it -> I also do not randomly put theory before case, that is up for you guys to argue. Overall, I would recommend just sticking to the case given my wavy evaluation of theory, but if there is actual proven abuse in the debate round then it is best to run it in some form or another.

Kritiks:

Never heard a Kritik before in a round. Best not to run this, I don't understand this concept still to this day. You can try, but explain everything in great detail.

Overall, be respectful to your opponents, it goes a long way for speaker points as well. Best to run a traditional, slower case debate with really solid impacting and statistics. If you collapse into voter issues and effectively rebut the opponent's points, you have a good shot at winning the round.

Good luck to everyone.

I am a parent judge. I listen to the arguments and only judge based on the arguments presented.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

I am a parent judge. I prefer clarity in the arguments presented with relevant fact based evidence in making your point. I would like the debaters to be respectful to each other and conduct themselves in a professional manner.

I am looking for organized clear communication, logical argument content , compelling evidence and refutation. I am expecting confident and persuasive body language .

Stick to the key topic and no excessive spreading please .

Good luck to all participants!

I'm tech (debated VPF). Currently coach/judge for JV LD & JV/V PF.

quality > quantity

analytics > jank ev.

clean link chain & weighing guarantees a win.

Spreading IVIs, & topical Ks are fine (send speech docs & explain theory low).

tag teaming non-grand CX or speeches = lower speaks for the partnership

I prefer off-time roadmaps (but keep them brief).

If you don't signpost it won't make my flow. So do it!

add me to chain pls: 24marianar@alumni.harker.org

100% prefer a SpeechDrop tho!!

Regarding general norms, I look for debaters to be respectful and kind to each other in round.

For debate specifically:

NO SPREADING!!! I am a parent judge and will not tolerate spreading. Argument wise, run anything you want: any K’s, counter plans or topicality arguments are fine with me. Just make sure to explain all of your arguments clearly as you read them. I judge based on the flow - so make sure to respond to all of your opponents arguments and defend all of your own. Furthermore, make sure to extend everything as I will not grant you full access to a contention when voting that is not fully and cleanly extended. Evidence is also important. If you make a claim then I expect you to have sufficient evidence to back it up. Evidence relevancy and recency might become a factor that decides my ballot. I wish all debaters the best of luck!!!

Hi, my name is Mayur, and I am a parent judge. I have been judging debates for 2 years now. I judge fairly in an unbiased way. I like the teams to be respectful of each other.

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as you enunciate, and everyone can understand what you are saying.

POIs: Have no more than 2 POIs per speech otherwise it is disruptive. Please use them correctly and ask them in a form of a question.

I always flow the debate and write what you speak. I judge on clear contentions, evidence that supports them and impacts. I also like clear refutes based on logic and analysis. Clear evidence strengthens your refutes.

I add 10-15 second grace period to your time to allow you to complete your chain of thought. But I will not add or write any new information presented once you pass your time limit.

• 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.  

UPDATED 10/12/2024 Bargain Belt Update

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 18 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning

Make logical arguments that are clear and easy to understand. Please speak slowly - I can't handle speed. Be respectful to your opponents and do your best!

I am a parent judge, and this is my first time judging. Please add me to email chain: yesimt@gmail.com

Please speak slowly and clearly so I can keep up with your arguments

Please explain all your arguments, rebuttals and points clearly. I will do my best to flow, but make sure I know what you’re doing and it is clear. There are a lot of terms I don't know, so it would be advised to explain everything. The main thing I am looking for is that you write my ballot for me in the final speeches so make sure you tell me why your team should win the round and why your arguments outweigh your opponents.

Good luck on your rounds!

I love debating and hearing debates :-)

The primary aspect I judge on is the persuasive capability of the debater/s. So, present your positions in a clear & cogent narrative, speak confidently and showcase your mastery of the topic, especially in Rebuttal and CF rounds.

At the same time, I also pay attention to the flow. It will be difficult to make a comeback from multiple dropped or insufficiently addressed flows.

Keep your focus till... well the Final Focus. I wont decide on the winner till the last word is spoken.

If you are speaking too fast for me, I will call CLEAR. In general, clarity and efficiency trumps over speed & quantity.

I am a Quarry Lane parent and this is my second year at judging. I prefer debaters:

• show respect to their opponents,
• speak at a reasonable pace,
• make a strong impact calculus starting in the summary,
• collapse in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary to one contention each ("collapse")
• only make arguments in the summary/final focus that exist in the prior speech ("no new args"),
• use cross-fire for clarification and resolution (and not brand-new arguments),
• Read direct quotes when first introducing evidence in a debate (i.e., do not paraphrase).

Hi, I'm a parent judge. Please don't spread and signpost in your constructives and rebuttals. Don't run Theory unless absolutely necessary.