I am a lay judge. I have been judging for around 3 - 4 years for parliamentary debate.

Inspired by an unwavering commitment to fairness, equity, and a genuine interest in fostering positive change, I am guided by the belief that every individual deserves equal opportunities and representation. I judge others by their effort to get their point across while being respectful and acknowledging of the other point of view. The arguments should seek to convince based on facts, responsible logic and a clear thought process.

I like arguments that have good flow starting from something that people can easily accept and then dragging us to more specific point contrasting speaker's view against opponent's. I find myself be persuaded well when speakers control the tone and speed of speech. It is completely ok to repeat something important, so everyone understands what you think important. I definitely like to see a speaker who listens to others and is respectful to what opponents say, yet make strong points of his/her own.

For the parliamentary debate, I seek how nuanced the argument is to the motion first where is it going to solve the problem that has been faced by the motion or simply the problem in the motion doesn't exist, I prefer on how well elaborated the argument is and when the argument are easier to follow the probability it will pass might be higher too so please refrain from using jargons, if jargons really needed to be delivered in the debate it would be really great if you able to explain it.

For rebuttals, i credit more to rebuttals that attack directly at opponent assertion, i would advise to not attack examples to prove that opponent argument is wrong.

This is my first year as a parent debate judge. My daughter is a high school freshman.

Speak clearly, do not speed. I want to get your arguments down and understand what you are saying, so please present careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important; eg, is it current up-to-date information, or is it a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded?

I've been a complex litigation attorney for more than 20 years, and I value evidence and sources as well as a thoughtful argument that is logical.

There is plenty of time during the round for teams to present cogent arguments. So don't rush. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

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

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

General thoughts:

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

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

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

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

I am new to debate and this is my first time judging. Please go slow and explain every thing in detail. Thank you! Good Luck!

I am a parent judge, and vote on debate events based on clarity of the argument supported by evidence, examples. Quality wins over quantity. Be respectful to the other speakers. I judge speech events based on good structure identifying the problem and solution with examples and conviction on both. Additionally looking at impact of the speech with poise, vocal variety and strong delivery with effective body movement.

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence. 

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate.  I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

INTERP overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Hi debaters!

This is my first year judging, and I'm excited to see your skills! Being a parent of a high schooler myself, I know how much work goes into debate. Just remember to be respectful to everyone involved, that's most important.

When it comes to judging, I care most about the logic behind your arguments, not how many fancy words you use. Strong evidence and clear facts matter more than just throwing out references. Of course, speak clearly so I can follow your points easily, but I won't be counting how fast you talk or how dramatic your hand gestures are.

Lastly, have fun and enjoy the event.

This is my first year judging for high school. I have judged quite a few tournaments over this past year. Clear, not rushed speech is preferred. Please be civil to your opponents. I do not judge by my personal bias, points are given to team who can better persuade me with their arguments.

I have 0 experience in debate or debate judging.

I will be writing down key points only on paper and based on that will make a final decision.

I will try to go through "https://sites.google.com/view/judge-training/home" before judging but I haven't, yet.

Hello! I'm Peri (she/her) and I debated for Mount Vernon HS in Washington doing LD for 3 years in high school. I am also a part-time, de-facto assistant coach for the Mount Vernon team, and I'm starting my own at the school I currently teach at-- I've never really left the debate community, so I know a bit of the norms and I know what's going on. I have my Bachelor's in International Studies focused on Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa, and my Master's in International Relations (meaning I know more about the Middle East than the average person) Here is my email if you need it... periannakb@gmail.com

Congress:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

Substance > Style

Don't rehash, bring up new points prevalent to the debate. I love to see refutation particularly after the first two speeches. Please, lets move on if we are just going to say the same thing over and over.

Every time you speak in a session, it gives me more reasons to rank you at the end of the round. Fight to give those speeches and use questions! Don't let any of that direct questioning time go to waste!!!

LD:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I did traditional LD in high school. I am a traditional LD judge. You can run some arguments but disguise them as more traditional and focus on that style to keep me a happy judge. Take that into account. Don't spread I won't understand. Explain your arguments clearly and you'll be fine. No Meta-Ethics or trix.

Side note: Please make sure you are educated on the 2024 Jan/Feb LD topic... I don't want to hear arguments that are factually untrue, and I'm excited for well-informed debates that get into the depths of this subject! I've written articles on this topic that you could use as a card-- I know it well.

PF:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I'm judging more and more pufo these days. I like clear, well organized constructives. Don't just read everything one note. I appreciate that public forum is supposed to be different than LD and Policy. Keep it that way.

Random framework arguments about the intent of the topic aren't going to work for me. If things change in the status quo, you need to be prepared to discuss them.

I believe in fostering an environment that promotes critical thinking, effective communication, and a respectful exchange of ideas. My role as a judge is to fairly and objectively evaluate debaters based on the established criteria, while also considering creativity, originality, and the ability to engage the audience.

Just win the round.

I enjoy logical argumentation and reasoning. There is no need to impress me with complicated jargon, as they do not add to your argument. I also do not enjoy speed debating and spreading, where some debators try to say things as fast as possible, as that is not reflected in our real world of reasoning.

I am a parent judge.

I am a parent. When debating make no assumptions of my prior knowledge of the subject area. Explain your arguments, definitions and evidence clearly. State why your speeches show that you won the debate. Be respectful of your opponents -- especially while rebutting their arguments. Please do not speak too quickly or I will have to disregard information that I missed. I take notes so make sure to emphasize what you really want me to hear. Enjoy the process of debate and be sure to have fun.

I am a novice to formal debate but I have a lifetime career studying and helping to design public policies. I'm interested in the ideas, the details of how you argue and propose to improve society, and I love to hear a well-turned phrase! But most of all be yourself.

I am a lay judge. This is my first year judging debate.

Have judged a few rounds, but not much experience. Stay organized and have good impacts.

Ok, I guess it is customary to first tell you at least a bit about myself. When my home needed repairs, I took a class at a community college. I learned to do my own wiring, plumbing and basic building. That wasn't my vocation, that was for fun,

STRUCTURE/ FORMAT: Follow the rules and tenants of the type of debate you are in. You have a topic, do not lose sight of that topic. Each team must have a framework that supports their position all on its own. Remember rules regarding introducing new arguments, cross-ex, ext. specific to your debates. These are not issues I should have to remind you of, but I will deduct points for.

CONTENT: Then, they can also refute the other side's contentions as well, but I don't like seeing a team wasting time pouring over their notes trying to find exact quotes to refute. Use your time wisely, make sure your contentions alone support your statements, then, you can refute your opponent. Make sure and look at the big picture, look back at your topic over and over, don't get tunnel vision on a single idea.

SUMMARY:I judge the totality of the debate, the quality of the issues presented, and who argued their position best.

I am a parent and I have judged several times.

I am a lawyer and a litigator. When I appear before judges, I like to get to the point quickly.

I find sign-posting and early summations to be extremely helpful. Briefly tell me where you are going and how you will get there. Don't assume that I know what something means.

I expect courtesy and respect towards others. Please do not be rude or dismissive towards the other side.

Slow down and have confidence in yourself!

***Last updated 01/22/24*

4 years of Open Parli Experience, competed in NorCal/SoCal regularly. Champed a few big tourneys and octo’d toc 19.

Structuring case in the order of Uniqueness —> Links —> Internal Links —> MPX ensures it gets flowed most accurately.

My hierarchy of evaluation is Theory>Kritik>Case; convince me in-round if it should be otherwise.

Tabula Rasa

Tech>Truth

I'll accept any argument you choose to run. I flow carefully, signpost clearly and tell me what to flow and where. I won't extend drops automatically.

I have a high threshold for try or die arguments from aff, especially if there's a lot of neg offense.

Rebuttals: I don’t consider it in RFD unless it’s said in rebuttal. Extend everything you're going for. I really need terminalized and at least somewhat quantified impacts to buy impact calc.

(In rebuttals I don’t protect the flow, I don’t like shadow extensions or sandbagging but I’ll flow them unless they get POO’D). Defense from the MO is sticky in the LOR, you only need to extend offense.

The PMR has more room to respond to arguments from the block, but needs to establish offense too. Don't go for everything, it makes it harder to weigh as a judge and you're more likely to yield an unfavorable result if you make me do the work for you.

When kicking/collapsing, do it the right way, extend defense after relieving yourself of any turns or just acknowledge you're dropping it.

If you can’t Delink, Non-unique, or Turn it, outweigh it.

I default prob>reversibility>mag>TF; but idk \_['-']_/

I default neg if there's no impact to clearly vote on an aff hasn't met its burden.

Speed: Don't go above 270 wpm, I don't want to have to clear or slow you. I'm fine with anything under that!

Theory: If you're reading theory make sure to articulate violations clearly and make Apriori arguments, I can't do that work for you. I default to competing interps and I'll pull the trigger on T if you win the flow on it. I tend to give more weight to ground and predictability, but won't make the arguments for it if you don't.

Kritik: If you’re running a critical affirmative, you didn't disclose, and they run disclosure theory, that's not a position you want to be in. For Aff and Neg, when running Ks give specific links and show exactly where/how they bite. Alt solvency needs to be strong, and I'm unfamiliar with most philosopher-based Ks so I'll need a clear thesis to buy it.

Speaks: Better strategic choices = better speaks

Remember: Debate is a game, and the better you play it, the more likely you are to get my ballot. : )

I'll give you flex if you want it

I aim for the extremes wether that is an extremely moral argument or one that is based extremely in the objective and what produces the best option no matter the cost. Besides that I solely judge based on the structure of the argument and don't factor the actual argument as to not sway with my opinions of the case.

As a judge, my primary commitment is to uphold fairness, integrity, and professionalism throughout the adjudication process. I believe in creating an environment where all participants feel respected, heard, and empowered to present their arguments or performances to the best of their abilities.

Just win the round.

Hi, I am a brand new parent judge with no experience in parliamentary debate. My preferences include making your contentions clear and concise, rebuttals countering your opponent's contentions, and signposting. If you introduce new arguments in the last speech and your opponent doesn't P.O.O, I will protect those new arguments. No theory or krithik arguments please.

Explain any complex debate terms/rules

Speak at a moderate pace

I value clarity, logic, and evidence-based reasoning. Clear and cogent arguments backed up with facts and a keen focus on the key issues will greatly enhance your chances of winning my vote.

In the event that both sides present compelling cases and no arguments are refuted, I'll default to voting negative. However, I remain open-minded and ready to be persuaded by well-reasoned arguments and compelling evidence.

I submit to you that debate is not only about competition, but also about intellectual engagement and growth. Let's have fun, learn from each other, and appreciate the art of persuasion.

Best of luck to all of you!

Hello. I am a first time judge.

It will be helpful for me if you can speak slowly and clearly in today's debates.

About me - I have a Bachelors and Master's degrees in Business. In college I held several offices in student government. Over the past 25 years I have worked for several technology and finance companies and found that debate skills are extremely useful for a business person.

Good luck today!