As a jury adjudicating the Public Forum Debate, my primary goal is to ensure fairness, clarity, and effective communication. I highly value rational arguments and the use of good quality, relevant evidence to support claims. I'll assess the strength of arguments*, responsiveness to opponents**, and adherence to time limits. Respect and professionalism are essential, and I'll provide constructive feedback to help debaters grow. The goal is not only to win but also to promote critical thinking and skill development. My decisions will be solely based on the merits of the arguments presented in the round, and I'll maintain transparency in my feedback. Good luck to all participants!

(*): A well-structured argument is more persuasive. I will be evaluating the organization of content, including the use of assertions, reasoning, evidence, and conclusions/link-backs to ensure logical flow and coherence. The substance is crucial. I will assess the quality of the arguments presented, their relevance to the resolution, and their logical consistency. Debaters should provide strong evidence and analysis to support their claims.

(**): What I mean by responsiveness is debaters should engage with their opponents' arguments. I will take into account how well each team addresses their opponents' points and refutes them effectively in cross-examination***.

(***)Cross-examination: I value the ability to ask insightful and probing questions during cross-examination and the ability to respond to them effectively. It's an opportunity to clarify and strengthen your position.

(+ For Congress: more or less same with the PF, additionally to the quality of the content (argumentation, organization, evidence, & relevancy) & responsiveness (how you rebutt/respond to rebutt), I'm also taking into account how you deliver your speech given the dynamics of the congress (is your case compelling to the audiences? are you advancing the debate/bring more nuanced angle/evidence? are you listen & address/response the prev. speaker? how proactive in questioning?) and crystallization is expected in the closing appeal speech. Last but not least, always be mindful and respectful to others. Good luck!)

Warm regards,

Yumna Apta

hi, im anahita (she/her) i was only briefly a debater, but i'm really familiar with parli and have done model un for four years! i'm now studying international politics at georgetown university

ill make this more robust asap....but the tldr is that these are just preferences and i want to hear you debate the way you like to debate!! above all, i want this debate to be safe and fun for everyone, and will absolutely intervene against violence of any sort...be kind and good <3

general:

first of all, PLEASE ask me questions before the round starts about anything in this paradigm!

case:

i love case debate!! terminalized impacts are great, and impact calculus + weighing is necessary for me as a judge, so PLEASE tell me why i should vote for you. make sure to read net benefits to the counterplan (independent reasons to vote for the counterplan), and make sure that it's mutually exclusive!

theory:

theory is cool! please have a clear interp and text. please also run theory in good faith—frivolous theory is fun when it's well-constructed, and not just being run to win against inexperienced debaters.

POOs/POIs:

obviously, don't be mean about asking a ton of POIs + interrupting your opponents — i generally think 2-3 POIs is the max in one speech. say questions, not statements in POIs!! please!!! i won't evaluate new args, but call POOs if you're feeling like an argument is new.

accessibility:

don't misgender your opponent. again, a safe debate space is my highest priority, so i'll drop you for any rhetorical violence. be kind!

feel free to ask me questions!!!! good luck have fun :D

Hi! I'm Julia and I did parli for four years throughout high school and currently compete for my college parli team.

I prefer a style that emphasizes logic and thoughtfulness over tech. That said, I can keep up and flow with whichever style you choose, but please keep in mind that if you don't explain something to me I will not flow that to you. I'm not super into arguments that require a degree of judge intervention, rather I'd prefer if you explain and impact your arguments fully yourself.

Above all, please remain respectful towards your opponents, me, and the debate. Prejudiced behavior will not be tolerated.

Hello! I did Parliamentary debate for 2 years and Lincoln-Douglas debate for 4 years in high school. While I can handle technical debate, I've never been a fan of spreading or running technical arguments (theories, Ks) unnecessarily (ex. just to trip up your opponents). I also very much so appreciate a well-done impact calculus and good weighing!

Be respectful of your opponents

Organize your thought before speaking and clearly articulate your arguments in normal speed of speech

Keep your position without deploying your opponents' plan with slight modification

Teams who manage to defend more key contentions will get more points

Updated: 03/12/2024

Add me to the chain:cbpelayo94@gmail.com

I go by 'Ellie' (she/her) now, for those of y'all that knew me by a different name.

Experience

Currently doing hired work and doing grad school at the University of Utah; formerly, coached NPDA at UoUtah; policy at CSU Fullerton; & IEs at Honor Academy. Nowadays I mostly judge rounds, do some assistant coaching for my friends, and watch policy streams because no one really leaves debate (lol).

I've been coaching/judging a breadth of speech/debate events since 2017, but my experience leans heavily towards NPDA parli, LD (cali/toc/nfa), policy, & IEs. Started competing in 2012:

- NFA-LD: 1 year (IVC)

- NPDA Parli: 1.5 years (IVC)

- Policy (NDT-CEDA): 1 year (CSUF)

- Individual Events (AFA-NFA): 4 years (CSULB/IVC/CSUF)

I was a 2A/1N & did exclusively kritikal/performative -- we did a lot of fem IR, academy, decolonial brown fem, futurisms, sci-fi, & cyborgs. But debate is what you make it; all I ask for is clear links, FW, and advocacies. How you choose to run it is totally up to y'all!

Truth > Tech

Kritiks

Love Ks. I am still 'traditional' in wanting some kind of FW, links, advocacy/alt, and impacts. But that doesn't mean that it has to be strictly organized in that way (i.e., performance k's). But at the end of the day, I do want to know what your K does: what the intervention is, what the bad words are, etc. I found it helpful once to consider theK alt like a CP: the moment the alt appears, your neg presumption disappears (pls don't make me listen to condo plssss). I also love in-round links -- I think they're excellent offense in the development of theory throughout the round. Links are uniqueness to the K. Performance is always welcome here. Rap, play guitar, break your timers, I ain't stopping you.

Other things:

- I believe that FW, not T, is used to answer K. Running T against the K is just insulting, and I'm not big on the nonengagement w/ advocacies that approach debate non-normatively. Tomato tomato.

- Providing trigger/content warnings to your K is good (when they're needed).

- Answering a T run against the K with more theory is so, so wonderful. Almost as wonderful as "mini" DAs to oppressive theory. I've noticed the rise of some pretty trash theory as of late, and I wish there was more metacommentary that claps back against that.

- If I hear Fruit theory I swear...pls just don't okay? :') same with tricks, sorry, don't like em.

- Don't like condo. I'll listen to it if I have to, sorry abt my faces.

- In terms of performance, definitely just be on the same page as everyone else. I won't stop a round, but I do reserve rights to respect, say, a point of personal privilege if the round is getting a kind of way.

Case Debate (Plans/CPs/Adv/DAs)

This is prob where all your "who is this judge" paradigm questions will be answered:

- Plans/CPs/Perms: Love em. Do more perms. I also love multiple perms, if you can provide at least some explanation beyond "perm do both...anyway." Solvency burdens shift throughout the debate, and that's good. Theory against plan-plus, plan-minus, etc. are all great.

- PICs/PIKs: I will not do the footwork to determine whether or not the PIC/PIK is unfair. Y'all do this please. Get them "PICs Bad" blocks out.

- Impact Calc: While I vibe with the traditional voters of magnitude, likelihood, timeframe, solvency, I also like voters w/ specific phrasing that conjures up what your world looks like, esp if you're proposing alternative ways of and futures for doing debate. Terminal impacts are big for me both in the traditional magnitude sense of "X impact outweighs X," but also in that I want to hear why a conceded argument/refutation matters in the grand scheme of the round. Ctrl-F impacts alone have no power here. Good round vision is good.

- Refutations: This especially applies to HS/MS debaters, my decisions are very heavily determined by your level of engagement with your opponent's case. Yes, extend & defend your own case, but please cross-apply your subpoints/evidence as answers to your opponent. If you use refutation language that's recognizable (e.g., non-unique, turns, impacts outweighs, solvency take-out, etc.), I will be so happy. Active language and verbs are good. Offense over defense, sure, but terminal defense is underappreciated. This applies to procedural fairness/education & counter-standards too.

- TVAs are just Plans without solvency (sorrynotsorry), but again, I will not do the footwork to say this for you.

- [Parli/CA LD Specific] Contentions: These should be terminally impacted; additionally, I like to see clash on the framework level with regards to your value/value criterion. Hearing how you meet your opponent's criterion better than they do & going so far as to make the meeting of values a voting issue is the easiest way to my heart & my ballot.

Procedurals (FW/T)

Good FW/Topicality debates are great, but I wanna hear clearly articulated in-round abuse (i.e. violations). I've been jaded with the habit of dismissing kritikal arguments under the presumption of topicality, but I still think there's hope for procedurals! I still expect Aff to do more than just make a generic "we meet argument" in response to the interpretation, and at least some engagement with the arguments you label non-topical.

- I respect X-T and FX-T. I find that there is great offensive in doing counter-interpretations, counter-standards, & the aforementioned DAs against T

- RVAs make me so sad :( please no RVIs, they're never as good as you think

- Founders intent is so mid

- [Parli Specific] I love theory sheets, but I love creative uses for T/FW beyond just stacking them & kicking 3/4 of your T shells in the LOR.

- Trichot exists! And I love it. Also monochot <3

Speed

My stance on this has changed over the years & will continue to change as I continue hearing emerging perspectives on the matter. Spreading is only effective if it is equitable; otherwise, spreading can quickly become an exclusionary & ableist practice. The question of whether or not I can comprehend your spread is not the question you should be asking yourself. Instead, you should ask your opponent "are you okay with spreading?"

This position is a general one. Practices of spreading are specific to the format of debate that I am judging:

[Policy/TOC LD] Sure go fast brrrr. Just remember that the debate will immediately shift upon the introduction of a Speed K or ableism arguments that center spreading as a bad practice.

[CA LD/PF] Spreading is generally disallowed on the grounds of maintaining this format equitable for all participants. I intend to abide by these guidelines - don't spread.

[Parli] Spreading in Parli can quickly get messy because a) there are no cards & b) your opponent cannot follow along with your evidence. So, I'd rather not hear an attempt to spread for a half written-out DA with blank IL subpoints where your inner extemper can truly shine. Signpost clearly, be considerate of your opponent's calls to 'clear,' & I'll follow as fast as you speak. There's absolutely a difference between fast speaking & spreading: find it, navigate it.

I am a parent of a debater - judging for the second time.

Since I'm new to judging, it is crucial that you speak slowly to make sure I follow your arguments.

I'm learning to flow and will be doing that; my goal is to track key arguments.

It's good to end with voting issues - tell me why you think you should win.

Have fun!

I very much enjoy speakers that can balance academic thought with good, colloquial fun.

Hi, I'm Atharv. I am a former PF debater. I judge as fairly as possible, and work to set aside any biases I have on the topic.

Also, keep things respectful. Being aggressive toward your opponent will only harm you in my eyes. At the same time, be firm and assertive. Keep interruptions (where applicable) to a minimum.

You (and your partner, if applicable) must show me that your evidence, impacts, and warrants are weighted heavier than the opponents. That's all there is to it. The other team should not "have the burden" of proving or disproving anything you say. Remember to state your sources properly and never misconstrue evidence. Tell me why things matter more than just what they are.

In terms of rebuttals, make sure you are going refuting things on a point-by-point basis, plus an extension.

Also, please speak clearly. I don't need or want light speed speech. Quality over quantity. I can understand somewhat fast andwell-enunciated speech, but don't try to shove in a ton of points expecting that'll win me over. If you have two or three really strong arguments, thats much better than 6 just-okay ones. Also, speak with volume. Project.I cannot take into account what I cannot hear.

I have no personal experience with debate other than learning as I go judging these debates as a parent volunteer. I do my best to be objective to the arguments regardless of my own beliefs.

I like clear arguments on the topic that is assigned. I realize nerves can cause people to speak too fast. If I can't understand you or your argument I will disregard what I don't understand. I am not a fan of the same points being repeated numerous times to fill the allotted speaking time.

@tanishkumar@berkeley.edu

I did circuit LD, parli, and Congress in high school for Mitty and I coach there and at Athens debate now (qualled to states, nats, and was pretty highly ranked in parli), and I graduated Cal doing CS and Business (tanishkumar@berkeley.edu). I can judge any event except like platform speech at a pretty tech level, so just be yourself and have fun!!!!

I'm too lazy to write my argument preferences out, so I'm fine with anything. I'm fine with any argument (phil, Ks, theory, CPs) and any arguments against them. I'm pretty tabula rasa; in calc terms, the limit approaches infinity for how tab I am.

You do you, just don't be rude. Also, be clear and don't go like 300+ WPM, I'm probably tired.

I am a parent judge.

Common sense will be my paradigm as below.

• Be nice to opponents.
• Prepare reasonable back data to enforce your opinion.
• Listen carefully about opponent's opinion and response with respect.
• Make stress on own's opinion. Imperative that key points are summarized.

In addition, based on Parliamentary Debate rule,

I will choose better team through these

- subjective, but I consider quality of argumentation, rhetorical skill, and wit.

- I will not use my own biases to taint your decision.

- I evaluate teams on the quality of the arguments actually made, not on their own personal beliefs.

- I will not make my decision ON ARGUMENTS THAT WERE NOT PRESENTED IN THE ROUND.

- I will not use ANY NEW ARGUMENTS BROUGHT UP DURING THE REBUTTALS.

My judging philosophy centers around No spreading, clear communication, substantive argumentation, and respectful engagement.

1. Speak clearly and at a pace that everyone can follow. Avoid speaking too fast (spreading) as it can make the debate harder to understand.

2. Focus on presenting well-reasoned arguments with evidence and analysis. Depth of analysis is more important than covering many topics superficially.

3. Maintain a respectful attitude towards everyone involved. Avoid personal attacks and create a constructive environment for exchanging ideas.

4. Engage meaningfully with your opponents' arguments and provide clear counterpoints. Constructive engagement enriches the debate.

5. Last but not the least - Stick to your speaking time and let others participate.

Overall, I evaluate debates based on argument quality, communication clarity, and participant engagement. Prioritize substance over speed and foster a respectful dialogue

I am a parent judge. Please do not spread, do theory, run K's or any other technical parts of debate.

My background: I'm primarily a Speech Coach and have been since 2003. I coached Public Forum a long time ago and judged Public Forum and Lincoln/Douglas at the high school level since our school was heavily invested in those forms of debate.

I am "old school" and prefer debaters speak to me as if I were a lay judge. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I know nothing about debate. It's just that I really don't like to hear a lot of debate slang. If you speak too fast for me to understand you, I will stop typing or writing. I don't like abusive arguments, but if you are on the receiving end, you should mention your opponents’ argument is abusive and why it's abusive. And if anyone runs an "everybody dies" or "nuclear war and the world ends" kind of argument, it better tie VERY logically to the topic or I will drop you.

I like rounds where there’s clear framework set in place. Give me a way to weigh the impacts in a round.

Please respect your opponents and all people in the room. I will dock speaker points if debaters are rude or don't let opponents get a word in during crossfires or cross-examinations. On the other hand, I will hand higher speaker points to those who use soaring rhetoric and appropriate humor - did I mention I'm a Speech coach?

flae judge
ask for prefs before round

My judging paradigm starts with slow and effective communication. I have heard people present what would probably have been strong arguments but since they used pressured speech to deliver it, it got missed. It would be more important for me to hear the precision of a strong argument than filling up time speeding through a list of weaker points. I prefer topic based arguments over procedural arguments. Breathe. You've got this!

Respect is mandatory while opposing arguments are being made. That means exhibiting self control no matter what your opponents say or do.

In parliamentary debate, I vote on the magnitude and quality of impacts. Make sure you link your impacts well! I want to hear why I should care about this certain impact. Not having a clear link to how your impact solves the uniqueness makes it difficult to understand why this specific impact is relevant. I do not like K or theory debate, but I do not care whether or not you use it, but using such tactics will not help your case.

I believe in facts triumph all, and will not typically consider speech delivery level, unless I am using it as a tiebreaker or such. I also want to stress that signposting will benefit you, as it will allow me to clearly understand your case and result in no misconceptions. I will follow the ideal of tech over truth, and highly strategic arguments will hold more value over highly intuitive arguments.

I will not be be bringing my own knowledge while flowing and evaluating, unless an argument is made that is blatantly false as strategic argumentation does not include straight up lying. However, if you explanation is extremely good and clearly explains a skeptical claim, I may consider it.

Do not speak too fast or spread, as it may hurt your case. I will consider rebuttal and last speeches as the main speeches to turn this debate in your favor. Please not, I will only consider new arguments that are brought up in the third if your opponent does not point it out. This being said, make appropriate P.O.O's to prevent this from happening. It is your responsibility to catch this, and while discourage it, even if I know it is a new argument, I will still flow it!

Do not use excessive jargon which is not required. Be clear and straight to the point. Use P.O.I's wisely, but do not bring up an argument in the P.O.I. Rather use it as a base to form your argument. Just overall be respectful towards your opponents and best of luck.

In parliamentary debate, I vote on the magnitude and quality of impacts. Make sure you link your impacts well! I want to hear why I should care about this certain impact. Not having a clear link to how your impact solves the uniqueness makes it difficult to understand why this specific impact is relevant. I do not like K or theory debate, but I do not care whether or not you use it, but using such tactics will not help your case

Do not speak too fast or spread, as it may hurt your case. I will consider rebuttal and last speeches as the main speeches to turn this debate in your favor. Please not, I will only consider new arguments that are brought up in the third if your opponent does not point it out. This being said, make appropriate P.O.O's to prevent this from happening. It is your responsibility to catch this, and while discourage it, even if I know it is a new argument, I will still flow it!

Do not use excessive jargon which is not required. Be clear and straight to the point. Use P.O.I's wisely, but do not bring up an argument in the P.O.I. Rather use it as a base to form your argument. Just overall be respectful towards your opponents and best of luck.

TL;DR: Do whatever you would do with any other lay judge

No theory; no kritiks; please speak slowly; have clear warrants and relevant examples

Please signpost

Tagteaming allowed, but please repeat clearly what your partner says

In judging a debate, I weigh the claims by whether it supported by two kinds of reasoning: 1. why the claim is true, and 2. why this claim is important in the debate. "Claims" applies to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes in my flow later. Also, providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily means your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research that can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example important to the debate as a whole.

Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.

What I like:

- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.

- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.

- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.

- Framework - I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).

- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.

- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.

-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.

What I don't like:

- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic. I am not a fan of spec arguments.

- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, make sure your K somehow links to SOMETHING in the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 2, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 3, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.

- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.

- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.

- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.

- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.

Speech

I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.

Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.

Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.

Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.

Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.

NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (PF, LD, CX, etc.):

Do:

-Include a value/criteria

-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)

-Communicate when you are using prep time

DO NOT:

-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)

-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other team’s case substantively)

I will vote for the team that best upholds their side’s burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.

EMAIL: kristinar@cogitodebate.com

This is my third time judging, and I have not debated myself. Please avoid jargon as much as possible.

I am very interested in the substance of public policy, and not as interested in debate tricks. In my judging, I tend to emphasize how compelling the two sides' arguments are. I find it challenging to keep track of all of the series of specific points and rebuttals, and benefit from a reminder if you feel that you've made an important point that the other side has not countered.

I am a parent judge with experience judging PF for the past two years. I have very basic knowledge on this topic. Please be respectful.

Updated for Stanford Invitational, 2024

I mainly competed in Parliamentary Debate, and Congress. I also have some experience in Pufo.

General Preferences:

- I love arguments that are not obvious and not standard. Arguments still need to be logical and defensible, but if you come up with something clever and original I will appreciate it. This is especially true for Public Forum where I will get bored having to listen to the same cases over and over again

- I appreciate definition and framework arguments when they are done well.

- I enjoy more complex arguments, but if you are making a complicated argument, you are responsible for making sure that both your opponents and I understand.

- K's and Theory: I am not going to tell you what to run in your case. That is up to you. If you are going to run something like a K or theory do not assume I know what you are talking about, and, more importantly, do not assume your opponents know what you are talking about.

- Don't tell me what I will or won't do (I.E. don't say "you will vote affirmation" or "This is why you will vote negation"). I get that this is standard for some people, but it just annoys me. It is easy to get the same idea across by telling me what I should do instead, or urging me to do something (I.E. "You should vote negation" or "We urge an affirmative ballot").

- Do not engage in Ad Hominem attacks.

- Be respectful, be polite, don't engage in any hateful or discriminatory rhetoric.

- In general, it is good to be aware of the gravity or sensitivity surrounding certain resolutions and topics. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging this.

Evidence:

- I believe debate (especially parli) should be more logic based than evidence based (you should still have evidence, but that shouldn't be everything you have).

- I will not pay attention to a competitor's source unless their opponents tell me too. That means if your opponents cite a sketchy or outdated card, I will not notice if you don't tell me. In other words, sources get left off my flow unless you bring it up.

Parli Specific Preferences:

- Speed: I do not believe that any team should need to speak fast in Parli. That being said, I can flow up to a moderate speed of talking, but I would strongly urge teams to lean towards good pacing and clear talking.

- If you defer a POI on the basis that you don't have time, and then at the end of your speech you have time, I will expect you to take that POI.

- The negation first speaker should try to rebut the affirmation's case. I don't think this is 100% necessary, and won't hold it against teams who don't have time (this is included because many judges and debaters think it is, but I have never debated under rules indicating such, including for this tournament).

- If you are proposing a policy, it is your responsibility to ensure that I understand what your policy does.

Congress Debate:

- I consider speaking ability and style to be equally important to logic and argumentation

- Speed: Slower is usually better

- Be notable. If I can't differentiate your speaking from somebody else's, I probably won't rank you very high.

- Be polite. I won't reward people who are overly aggressive.

- There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Don't cross it.

- Don't quote Sun Tzu. Just don't

Best of luck, and have fun!

Overall, I appreciate a thorough analysis but most importantly that debaters are learning and having fun.

In rounds, I encourage minimizing jargon and I appreciate signposting. Verbal and courteous POIs.

Please no spreading and let’s have fun!

For all events:

1. Absolutely no spreading.
2. Treat your opponent with respect.
3. Have fun!

I judge based on how skilled the participant is. I do not base my judging off of any religious or political stances as debate is meant to be a side versus the other side. At the end of the day, it only matters if one side is better than the other as this is a competition.

Former college speech competitor. I judged dozens of speech rounds over the last 5 years.

I give scores based on the overall performance of the round, that would include the content, structure, articulation, presentation and potential impact. I try to imagine competitors being leaders in various fields in our society and what kind of speeches and points of debate they may make in the future based on the current performance. Personal qualities and values, efforts in preparation and practice will all be comprehensively evaluated and judged.