I am a first time parent judge. I would appreciate if the participants speak clearly and confidently at a normal pace.

I will be looking for good reasoning and depth of knowledge of the case. If you quote data, back it up with evidence or a reference.

Please remain respectful to all.

My highest commitment as a judge is making this activity accessible and inclusive. I am committed to developing novices and want to make varsity debate a welcoming environment for students who are moving from novice/JV to varsity.

I understand and appreciate critical and policy arguments and am fine with you arguing about whatever you wish to make the debate about. I see my role as an educator, however, and so will not allow anti-trans, antiblack, or bigoted language or attitudes that would deny the humanity of any participant in the activity. With those ground rules in place, I try to center my decisions on the arguments made in the debate and bracket my own predilections as much as I can. This is an aspiration but I also recognize and try to be reflective about the way my identity and history shapes my thought. It is important not to bracket these questions, even as I try to evaluate arguments fairly and not intervene to tip the scales.

With that said, here are my thoughts on procedural arguments.

Games have to be fair and simulate something we love about life, or be connected to life or they are not very fun. But what does it mean for a game to be fair? Is that the only value I should care about?

I love debate, so access to it is a terminal impact. It is an educational game (or it has been for me) so education is also a terminal impact. But it's a game. So fairness matters.

I don't think any of these three procedural impacts are more basic or fundamental than the other. I just abide in the tension and allow debaters to frame the impacts.

I believe debate is about open inquiry, and I want to allow debaters to test all kinds of claims. Admittedly, if you choose to examine philosophical questions, I will enjoy the discussion. Please note that explanation will serve you in debates centered around complicated concepts. Although I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, I would rather be treated as an informed layperson than a specialist.

Hello debaters,

This will be my second time judging a debate. I will be looking for clear and concise speaking and confidence in your tone, minimal stumbling and extended time of silence. However, please speak at a moderate pace because I am a parent judge. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you even if you are providing accurate information.

Please go down the flow so I can keep track of what arguments you are responding in an easier manner.

Please be respectful to your fellow debaters. Be strong with your information and have patience with me as I try to figure out this judging format :)

Thank you for all the understand and look forward to good debates!

I am a parent/lay judge. I expect you to speak at a slower pace so I can keep track of everything you say. However, I judge on clarity. It is your responsibility to make sure I am aware of your framework, contentions, and impact. Signposting is essential in how you present your arguments. Make sure I can follow everything that you want me to hear and vote on. Weigh your contentions so I know what you want me to evaluate and prioritize and why it matters. Be respectful to your opponents, partner, and myself. Finally, the team that will give me the cleanest and most efficient reasons to vote for them with everything considered will get my vote.

I did LD debate and Congress in high school for 3 years. I remember going to State Quals and was alternate for Districts. I noticed the hardware trophies are the same from my time still!

I am judging PF because my daughter is doing PF.

I flow so I follow the arguments there.

Give me my RFD. Tell me why I should vote for you.

Extend, warrant, impact.

I remember competing here at Cal Invitational and walking around campus late at night to go to my next round.

Have fun!

Hi my name is Charlene, but please refer to me as judge during your round.

Background

This is my second time judging a debate (or any Speech and Debate competition at all)

Preferences

-Please do not spread or talk fast during your speeches

-Please keep it respectful no talking over each other or using any hateful language

-Tell me why you win the round (weigh your impacts and extend arguments cleanly)

- I have little familiarity with the topic explain your side eloquently and reasonably

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

1) Speed: I would appreciate if you speak in normal pace (marginal slow or fast is ok) and clearly.

2) Evidences/References: If you quote any data, back it by an evidence/reference.

3) Content: Be focused and adhere to the topic.

4) Please be respectful towards your opponents- no mockery or intimidation.

5) Keep your volume level normal, try not to be too loud.

Updated for UC Berkeley 2024

email-awgray2002@gmail.com

POLICY-

Hi everyone :) A little about me! I debated 3 years policy and 1 year in public forum at CK McClatchy in Sacramento. It's been 4 years since I've debated, so I'm definitely pretty rusty.

Generally, since it's been a while, make sure you impact the debate out and explain the role of the ballot.

Please do send me the speech docs just so I can keep up. Spreading is ok but slow down a little when reading off script. If you'd like any accommodations made let me know through email or in round!

CP/DA- I really dislike it when teams read 10 off with 4 conditional CP's when they don't have clear net benefits and don't have separate solvency from the aff. I love disads but I'm not voting on one because it has 100% probability and if it has more recent evidence.

High theory, really nuanced impact turns- I will evaluate it, but explain it

K-affteams/ performative teams- be careful with your ROJ/ROB and impacts. You’re more likely to get a ballot from me if the k aff/ performance is topic centered/addresses the topic, the debate will be easier for you most likely but I’ll evaluate one that isn’t topical too.

Speaker points & other:I really don't like snarky comments and rudeness during speeches/ CX. I usually give high speaker points so just be respectful and chill. Also, 'm a firm believer in tech over truth. That doesn't mean that truth isn't important! Read whatever you want but remember that it’s your burden to have me understand everything. I'm not a lay judge but I really don't know much beyond the basics of the topic, so just make sure to explain well.

Adding in a section about tech- I'm super sympathetic toward tech issues that happen. We'll work out a solution!

Thanks for letting me judge your round and best of luck :)

***PUBLIC FORUM***

I debated for C.K. McClatchy for 4 years, 3 in policy and 1 in public forum. It's been 4 years since I've debated, with PF being the most recent.

I am a flow judge & please do send me the speech docs just so I can keep up/ I don't have to request cards. If you'd like any accommodations made let me know through email or in round! (email isawgray2002@gmail.com)

Adding in a section about tech- I'm super sympathetic toward tech issues that happen. We'll work out a solution :)

1. CX is binding and I will flow it. Please make sure you'reasking questions in CX and not using the time to just argue offense with no question attached. Speaks will be docked.

2. Speaker points: I really don't like snarky comments and rudeness during speeches/ CX. I'm a point fairy so just be respectful.

3. Debate: My policy background heavily influences my decision making whether I like it or not, so I'm comfortable with spreading, K's, theory, and critical affs. Given this is PF though I will mandate that if you’re doing so you must send a complete speech doc like policy. Your opponents also need to be ok with it.

Here's what I typically evaluate a round on:

Framework: Just don't say that cost benefit analysis is the default framework as your argument.I will dock speaker points for lack of creativity; you need to be able to explain why. It won't lose you the debate, but just explain it beyond that.

Impact Calc: Since it's been a while since I've debated, I think cleanly extended and elaborated impacts will play the largest part in my decision.

Links: I have been in so many rounds where stuff just doesn't link. Please isolate the link and don't drop it

Uniqueness: Make sure to mention how your argument is unique!

Thanks for letting me judge your round and best of luck :)

Email- deepna.abhishek@gmail.com

I am a mother of 3, and for my profession- I sell Enterprise Technology to corporations. I am a dancer and I enjoy traveling. I have a freshman this year who loves Policy Debate, so I decided to help as a judge. I am looking forward to a great debate today, with talented young minds who will show utmost professionalism and collaboration! Here are some of my Judging preferences:

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. Less is more!

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

I look forward to a great Debate and getting to know you!

Hello all!

It's my first time judging public forum, as I am a parent judge. I've seen information on the topic, but I would appreciate it if you really explained your case, warrants, and data thoroughly, or at least until it's clear. The same goes for weighing and impacts. Make sure to really emphasize your points.

Please don't spread, talk super fast, or anything close to that speed. Instead, talk at a pace a small bit faster than normal talking speed. I strongly encourage signposting when you switch topics in your speeches. Please keep your own time.

I vote on case and evidence, as long as you can adequately explain and understand them. I do not flow or vote on cross-ex. No oral RFD or disclosure after the round, so feedback will come out afterwards.

I will do my best to make it a fair round! Thank you for your patience, and have fun!

Qualification: I have about 4 years of Public Forum debate and speech experience from my high school years and have judging experience.

Judge Paradigm:

1. I don't mind the general speed of the debaters but please be clear and coherent while speaking.

2. I would like to see an organized and smoothly flowed debate round.

3. Please support your arguments and refutations with thorough explanation and strong evidence.

4. Please make sure to tell me why you think you won the round by weighing out the arguments and refutations during your summary and final focus. Be sure to connect the dots of the round for me by telling me if any points are dropped or still standing.

5. Please do not be rude.

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.

My background lies more in impromptu styles and public speaking+presentations. I care a lot about style and accessibility of your points, ie. do you have the ability and understanding to make your points understandable to the general public?

Some specific points:

• I will not consider crossfire in flow, so if there is something you wish to use, please mention it in one of your speeches. However, I will consider crossfire for speaker points.
• Please signpost and be explicit. The more clear your links, impacts, and weighing are the better I'll be able to follow and understand your points. I will place less weight on any conclusions I have to infer.
• Do weigh directly - I'd prefer not to have to infer what you're trying to imply. Tell me what impacts/links you're comparing and why exactly you outweigh.
• I value clarity and logical flow - please be sure you're explaining the logic of your points. Make it clear how your point flows from your link to your impact. I will likely not have the same background knowledge so more clarity and flow will help me understand your points.
• Feel free to bring up fun/odd arguments - as long as these points are well-explained and justified (see the above point).
• Please avoid theory arguments. I do not have a full understanding of theory and am not confident I will fairly judge related content.

Best of luck in your rounds!

• Speak Clearly and Loudly
• Talk with passion
• Extend your points
• Weight your impacts
• Tech over truth

First and foremost, let us treat each other with respect and create a fun learning experience for participants and judges alike! I look for your non-monotonous articulation skills, body language and easy to understand speech flow.

She/Her

If you know you know.

2/18/24 Update - Final Update:

Abstractly T-FW is true, but concretely K Affs still have the ability to win these debates because 95% of all topics are reactionary. In other words, I'm a T hack but I'll vote for the K Aff if you beat T.

Background

I debated for Langham Creek Highschool in Houston in policy for 3 years, crossing over to LD my senior year. I primarily went for the K throughout my career, but was very flex and dabbled in every form of debate. I worked as an assistant coach in PF for SpiderSmart Sugarland and now work as an assistant CX and LD coach for Langham Creek Highschool.

Here is my wiki senior if you want to see what arguments I read.

Conflicts: Langham Creek Highschool - Heights Highschool

Separately Conflicted: Cypress Woods AZ

Short Overview

langhamdebatedocs@gmail.com - email chain, please title - - - Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs School Name (Neg).

"Do whatever you want. None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating, but adjusting to my priors could maximize your chances of winning and result in better speaks." - Aden Barton

Spreading is fine.

Read anything you want.

2/23/24 - Central Texas National Qualifiers

I will not care if you read progressive arguments against lay debaters, it is not your fault. I will care however if you take too long, I BEG that you keep speeches as SHORT as possible (i,e going for one line tricks, for 10 seconds and sitting down.) and do not overcover anything, this will be best for everyone in the room.

12/13/23 - STRAKE UPDATE

Too many of y'all are going for unsubstantive hidden tricks in front of me because I evaluate them, and I've downed them every single time. PLEASE, do not split the 2NR/2AR because I guarantee you that you're NOT doing enough work on them and you will NOT be happy with my decision when I decide to not pull the trigger on it because there's been a very SHALLOW extension.

General Thoughts

My views on debate are heavily influenced by my coaches and those who've helped me including, Eric Beane, Isaac Chao, and Sebastian Cho.

Debate is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. I love this activity and hope you can as well. I feel as if lots of judges think it’s your responsibility as a debater to please us as judges, no, it is my responsibility to please you as debaters with a respectable and well thought out decision. I have tremendous respect for the hard work you’ve done to come here and will try to reciprocate that in my decision. I will always be ready to defend my decision. “If you feel unsatisfied with my RFD, I encourage you to post-round me. I will not take any offense or make a determination on your personality on the basis of your reaction to my decision. I was always quick to disagree with judges as a debater and have always considered disagreement the highest forms of respect.” – Vikas Burugu.

I will certainly reward good evidence if you have it. However, your evidence is only as good as you can explain it to me. “Regarding argument resolution, spin outweighs evidence. Spin is debating. Evidence is research. The final rebuttals should be characterized by analytical development rather than purely evidentiary extension.” – Rafael Pierry.

Read what you want and read it well. I do not personally believe the ballot is a referendum of you as a person, especially in highschool. 99% of debaters go through the stage where they read bad, stupid, and not well-thought-out arguments because they find them interesting. I don't think any of those people genuinely believe those positions, but rather are ignorant to how arguments can be harmful. The best thing I think we all derive from debate is reflexivity, if you think people's arguments are bad and violent, say so, beat them on it, the worse their argument is, the easier it is to beat, people will stop reading stuff after they get hit with a L25. Debate is great because people can read what they want and shift the norms, be innovative, be unique, do what you want, I encourage it.

Tech over truth but tech is influenced by truth. Those who read arguments that are naturally grounded in truthfulness naturally appeals to my human biases and would render your argument more persuasive, but technical debaters can ALWAYS beat truthful claims. Truth over tech is an excuse to insert human biases into debate that overrides and demeans good argumentation.

After watching the 2022 NDT Finals, I think the judge has an obligation to minimize as much intervention as possible, obviously our human nature necessitates certain preconceived notion’s influence upon our decisions but the sole method of my adjudication will be my analysis of the way both teams analyze, argue, and implicate their own arguments, I will not do this for you, simply analyze the way in which you do it yourself.

I think debate is a game not in the sense that there are rules we should follow and a structure around what we do, but in the sense that we play to win. That same game can absolutely be a site of beautiful and authentic good, through activism, revolution, argumentation, and more, but even so, no matter how you choose to play the game, winning in front of me means convincing me through a form of persuasion to give you the ballot.

Specifics

1. I will vote on ad-homs / call outs.
2. ivis need dtd warrants when introduced.
3. big overview K debaters are not as good as line by line ones, i prefer you do the latter.
4. i will keep note of cx.
5. things that are particularly harder for me to flow, this does not mean i am not open to these args or that i'm dogmatized against them but that you might want to slow down, "Phil AC/NCs that are 50 pointed with TJFs, Reasons to Prefer, and Pre-empts with enormous philosophical jargony tags that are hardly even delineated." that is all for now.
6. I will try to be as tab as possible thus, "I do not default in any way. if you have not sufficiently justified an argument, I just won't vote on it. this includes things like layering -- theory does not come before substance if you have not told me why it does." - Liam Nyberg, to clarify, this means I WILL vote on extinction outweighing your condo shell on magnitude if you do not layer.

A. More on this, I do not find myself voting on offense that isn't filtered through frameworks because I do not understand how to evaluate that offense in reference to the rest of the debate, this includes things like going for IVIs without weighing it's impacts and offensive tricks like GCB that are not filtered through truth testing (specifically different than presumption permissibility triggers that zero offense on other pages).

B. In debates involving lots of layering, I've found it increasingly hard to weigh between internal links to framework justifications like jurisdictive constraints, I've concluded that this is due to a lack of clash and judge instruction. Before giving your NR/AR, ask yourself, why does my weighing justification to [x impact] sequence their weighing justification to [y impact]? I find too many debaters relying on phrases like a K 2NR telling me to "overcorrect neg for ideological bias" without explaining why that should sequence a 2AR telling me to "hack aff due to time skew".

C. I also seem to be always voting on a risk of offense unless there's an explicit presumption trigger, in debates with low warranting threshold particularly tricks ones, I will not simply just strike off arguments if I don't understand them when both sides are doing a lack of explanation and thus concluding in a presumption ballot, I instead will find a risk of offense on either side given the little explanation I have.

SPEAKS: In general, I find myself most moved and assign the most speaks to people who signpost, are clear, do good evidence analysis, and display a sense of cohesion within their rhetoric and argumentation. I find myself most persuaded by people who are assertive, aggressive, and firm with their rhetoric but do not come off as rude, refer to McDonough JN, Wake Forest RT, Aden Barton and Zion Dixon. People who best exemplify these traits will get the most amount of speaks in front of me.

Specific things that will get you more speaks.

- Sitting down early if you have won, +! Conversely, sitting down early when you have lost, -!

- Referencing other debaters/teams as examples in some of your warrants. Contextualizing stuff to debate history is so cool.

- Being clear. The slower the clearer almost 90% of the time. The louder the clearer almost 90% of the time as well. University RH is a benchmark for how your spreading style should be to optimize speaks in front of me.

- Good argument strategy and tactics i.e going for the right choice in the 2NR, time allocation, and speech construction. You can win different routes but taking the easiest path to victory will garner more speaks.

- CX Dominance, not being lost or seeming evasive in cross, as well as putting your opponent into binds.

- Sending pre-written analytics will help your speaks and probably my flow.

I will not award you for the 30 speaks spike.

Lowpoint dubs only ever go to people who I found rhetorically less persuasive but won a dropped arg.

I'll start at 28 and go up and down from there.

I'll disclose speaks, I think it's a good norm.

I'll yell slow if you're too fast so don't be worried about outspreading me.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – minhle1933@gmail.com

Hello contestants,

I consider myself to be a novice judge for both debate and speech. Nevertheless, I’ve enjoyed observing lively speeches and vivid cross-examinations in past events.

I will be looking for clarity and concise speaking with a confident tone. I prefer structured speech over speed (understandable that you’d like to fit more content to the given time). My background is in STEM and management in career settings; therefore, I do value manner and courtesy to your opponents and audience.

Be strong with your information and bear with me as I try to figure out this judging format :)

Hi, My name is Eric and I am very new to judging PF. I am a parent judge. I would prefer for you to talk slower, especially in first speeches so that I can fully understand your contentions and keep jargon to a minimum. I expect everything to be very clear and flow easily.

I want to see a great debate and some good clash between both teams!

I am a lay judge. This is my first time judging debate. I value good reasoning to help me understand how your evidence relates to your arguments and make sure to stay on topic and not detour. To receive 30 points, you must have strong reasonings, good presentation, and on time. Happy debating!

Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:

https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

Yes chain: onorthcuttwyly@gmail.com

College: University of Southern California

Pronouns: they/them

ALL: Probably don't care what you read. I read Ks in college on the aff and neg. I tend to default to an offense defense paradigm and section off my flow in big picture ideas

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Policy/CX Debate

I ultimately evaluate truth over tech. With that being said if you are substantially ahead in the tech debate I have a significantly lower threshold for your truth claims.

Presumption on these debates is much easier to win and is a smart arg. If the aff wants presumption to flip you need to tell me that - otherwise presumption is always a valid 2NR option separate advocacy or not.

KvK / Method v Method debates - the K needs to be competitive.

Framework - Go for it but debate the impact turns please with that being said I will default to a competitive activity so there has to be some sort of role for the aff and negative in your model of debate.

Theory - Go for it - diversify yours standards for speaker points here. I won more rounds than I should have on ASPEC, so your theory arg is probably fine w/ me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Forum Debate

Editing this based on what I saw at last weeks tournament - internal link chains MUST be in the final focus. If the final focus is JUST impacts there is ZERO chance you will get my ballot.

Fast is fine and can be strategic given the short amount of time allocated to speeches.

Off time roadmaps should only consist of the words 'pro case' 'con case' and 'framing'. I start the time if the roadmap > 10 seconds.

ONLINE DEBATE: I expect both pro and con teams to have their evidence readily available and share with teams and judge before round. This helps minimize the extend internet speed/connectivity has as well as cuts down/eliminates awkward "I didn't hear you" can you re-state moments.

Lay Judge; Talk no faster than conversational and explain your points to me. I will vote for the team that I think has the strongest argument at the end of the round.

Hello,

I'm a flay judge. I have been judging Varsity PF for 3 years now.

I believe evidence and impacts are the most critical while arriving at a final decision.

I enjoy debates where there are limited number of contentions and each team goes more into depth. Depth really shows how well prepared you are and how much you know on the subject matter. I like debaters who can talk confidently like a content expert rather than read from prepared notes and rehearsed lines.

I would like debaters to be civil and very respectful to each other especially during cross.

Although I am new to being a debate judge, I take this role seriously. I know as a parent of a debater how hard you work to prepare for these tournaments.

I value the strength of the evidence, clear and well paced speaking ability, and respect of your opponents. I look at how well you are able to formulate a response and how you react to opposing arguments.

I debated public forum at Mission San Jose HS in California for 4 years (2015-2019).

- I prefer clear citations on your evidence especially upon first introduction. PLEASE start with the cite, then read your tagline. (imo its good practice to do last name + institution + year but you don't need to change your case for me).

- summary--> final focus (if it's not in summary i won't consider it in ff). weigh during final focus and make the decision clear for me.

- tech over truth. With that said, please do not let statements like "the sky is green" go without rebuttal.

- i'm okay with some speed, but not at the expense of clarity.

I'm happy to explain anything before the round begins so just ask me for my preferences!

--

bonus points for tyler and steph curry references. minus points if you say the phrase "we have a card that says..."

Hi! I'm Veer(he/him). I did PF for four years at Durham Academy as part of Durham HP. Now I'm a freshman at NYU Stern and an assistant coach for the Taipei American School.

Put me on the email chain: vp2150@nyu.edu

TLDR: I'll vote on the flow. Read whatever you want, but please make sure it's warranted properly instead of blippy arguments.

General

Debate should be fun. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, and you can make it funny(it makes my job a lot more entertaining), but don't be condescending. Enjoy every round.

To win an argument, it must be fully extended in both summary and final focus, i.e. the uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impact with warrants on each of those levels. If it is not, I will not vote on it.

Signpost — tell me where you are on the flow clearly and efficiently, number responses, clear contention tags, etc.

Please collapse. Slow down in the back half and don't go for your whole case. I'm not voting off of a 5 second extension of a half fleshed-out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than five arguments poorly.

I don't flow cross. A little bit of humor goes a long way in making my judging experience more enjoyable and shouting over each other will go a long way in tanking your speaks.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. Send a doc, don't clip, and remember you're allowed to yell "clear" if your opponents are incomprehensible. If you're going to go fast, slow down for the tags.

If you misconstrue evidence and the other team gives me a reason to drop you, I'll do it. Please do good research and read good evidence.

If you are _ist or discriminatory in any way, you will lose the round.

How I Evaluate

I look at weighing/framing first and then evaluate the best link into said weighing. Make sure your weighing is actually comparing both arguments efficiently, use real weighing mechanisms and do the metaweighing if you need to. I will not evaluate non-comparative weighing.

Defense is not sticky — respond to everything the previous speech said. Everything in the first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal or it will be considered conceded. Similarly, everything in second rebuttal must be responded to in first summary, including weighing.

Prog

Theory: I have read theory, but I think that it is most often used in PF in a way that significantly decreases accessibility for the entire space. I will evaluate theory, but only if your opponents know how to engage with those arguments OR are in the varsity division of a TOC-bidding tournament. Please do not be the team that reads 4 off on novices for the ballot.

Read whatever shells you want to read but interps should be read ASAP in the speech immediately following the violation; counterinterps should come in the speech immediately following the interp.

My threshold will be low on stuff that’s obviously frivolous. If you're going to have a tricks debate or anything that resembles it, it's probably best to make sure everyone's comfortable with that decision beforehand.

I default to competing interps and yes RVIs, you have to read No RVIs and reasonability with warrants if I'm going to vote on it.

Topical Ks: Don't steal it off of some policy or LD wiki page. Do your own research and make the round accessible by explaining implications that you do based on the literature. I want to understand the argument if I'm going to vote on it.

Non-T Ks: I've had experience with these, but it's hard to pull off in PF. I've seen it work and I've seen it not work. Avoid personal attacks and stay respectful. Also, please make my role as the judge and the role of the ballot as explicit as possible.

SOME OF MY FAVORITE JUDGES WHEN I DEBATED: Gabe Rusk, Brian Gao, Bryce Pitrowski

I am a parent judge, and this is my first year judging debate.

Here are some things to keep in mind:

• Do not speak too fast, otherwise I may not be able to fully understand what you are saying.
• Please be respectful to other debaters.
• My knowledge of debate jargon is limited, as well as my judging experience, so please clearly explain your arguments and impacts.

Email: me.shree@gmail.com

Thank you!

I am a parent judge, experienced in MS-PDP but new to HS Public Forum.

In PF Debate, I look for....

(1) a distinct logical flow and constructive articulation of points

(2) analysis and weighing of the impact(s)

And, appreciate clear slow delivery of arguments, and a respectful demeanor.

Radha Ravi

English teacher and former journalist - Analysis & English is my passion

I was a communications and broadcast journalism major, and communications is key for me.

Debate & speech judge for the past 3 years.

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Read carefully! Pay heed!

1.SPEED: No. If I cannot understand you, you automatically get points deducted, which might lead to a loss.

2.EVIDENCE:

a. As a journalist evidence is key for me. Just spouting sentences without evidence is a no-no. You can paraphrase which is preferred and you need clear source credentials. Whichever team gets me the best source credentials gets the points.

b. Honesty in presenting your evidence matters. Fact Vs fiction. Fiction is a no no. The team that is honest and has done the actual research will be rewarded.

3. READ OFF THE PAPER: Read but don't completely read off the paper. Try to make eye contact. Eye contact happens automatically if you know what you are saying and your passion for what you are speaking comes through.

4. CROSS EXAMINATION: Cross ex is something I give importance to. For me, this is the backbone of debate. So I will closely assess how robust your probe is into your opponents' statements; and how you bounce back when your opponent finds a weak spot in your presentation.

5. FINAL SPEECH: Has to clearly state why you would like to be picked as the winner. Make your conclusion strong.

6. LANGUAGE: Language is important duh! :) Correct usage of words, be it simple or at a high level, will be assessed. If you give me too much jargon that goes over my head and puts me to sleep, you automatically get points deducted. Clarity is key.

ALL THE BEST!

Hi!

I debated policy at St. Vincent de Paul for three years. I've judged a couple of times since then, but Cal Invitational '24 will be the first time I'll be judging PF.

A couple of notes:

• I'm not up to date with current debate topics and lingo (abbreviations, technical terms etc.) related to the resolution. So, if you find a certain term key to your argument that I should know, your best bet is to take that extra 5-7 seconds to flesh it out a tiny bit more (unless you think I'd be able to catch on from the context it's being used in, of course).
• As the judge, I'll try to be a clean slate as much as possible. So, feel free to throw in some framework, and other spices into the mix!
• That being said, please debate and speak kindly. I have zero tolerance for discrimination or any sort of dialogue that is disrespectful and unkind.
• If there is going to be an email chain please add me (chisato.v.ruo@berkeley.edu).

I look forward to hearing your teams debate! :)

I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 4 years.

I will be flowing.

Good luck !

Hi everyone,

I'm a parent judge getting acquainted with various debate formats. I try my best to listen to every word you have to say and that would be a lot easier when there is evenly paced speaking. I appreciate a good use of time and adherence to the time limits prescribed for formats. I strongly believe that one can be kind and firm and believe that opposing points of view can be conveyed respectfully and value that the most.

I look forward to hearing various points of view and learning more through this experience.

All the very best!

Chitkala

Look at my good friend Gabe's paradigm. It is pretty much the same as mine and he managed to express it quite eloquently.

Here is a link to it.

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=gabe&search_last=rusk

Debate is an educational activity. Do not gamify it.

Public Forum should be accessible to the public.

Lincoln-Douglas should engage with relevant philosophies and their practical consequences.

Parliamentary should be creative, off-the-cuff argumentation.

Policy should explore policy-making and its impacts on society.

Focus on the basics of persuasion that carry over to real life.

a. Speaking extremely fast is rarely persuasive.

b. Exaggerating impacts is never persuasive.

c. Speak clearly. Stay calm.

First, don't worry about this paradigm, just debate and have fun!

I debated for Sierra Canyon from 2019-2023 in WSD, BP, Parli, and PDP (Public Debate Program).

Most of the events I participated in were heavily focused on style, and I consider speaking skills to be equally as important as strategy and argumentation, so make sure you make an effort to present your case and rebuttals engagingly with strong public speaking.

Most of all, be ethical, clear, and present yourself well. Make sure to weigh.

Ok that's it bye

I do not prefer too much spreading so much so that the participant is having hard time breathing. Please keep the talking speed such that I can follow and take some notes while you are speaking.

This is the first year that I’ve judged. Please keep your delivery slow and clear.

Assistant Coach for Nueva

Add me to email chain: esteinberg01@wesleyan.edu

PF:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parli:

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

All the best to all the contestants. Having been a judge for more than a year I look for good eye contact, clear and concise arguments, respectful behavior and clear speaking. Confidence is the key, not aggression.

Email : subrantap@yahoo.com

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Hello debaters,

My name is Nima and I'm a parent judge. This is my first time judging a tournament and I'm not too familiar with debate, so I'd appreciate it if you could speak at a regular pace and really enunciate your words. It will be hard for me to understand your arguments if you spread them very quickly, so it would be a preference of mine if you could kindly refrain from spreading them too fast so I can judge your arguments fairly. Please be kind and respectful towards each other during the round as I will be taking that into account when putting in your speaker points. All in all, I am so excited to be judging this tournament and I look forward to judging your round!

When sharing evidence, please include me in the email chain: nyamdelger2002@yahoo.com

Thank you

Sincerely,

Nima T.

I am not a lay judge.

I am a pf debater some policy experience, I can evaluate progress args but am not the best at it.

Please send speech docs to kanishk1031@gmail.com

Try not to yell and no spreading. This is my first time and I don't have any experience with debate, so please keep that in mind.

In evaluating debates, I prioritize the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation.

Misrepresenting evidence is unacceptable. Integrity in citing and referencing sources is crucial in debate. I will call for cards if there are concerns about evidence accuracy or misrepresentation.

Extreme speed and/or overuse of jargon could negatively impact your performance. If you can speak quickly while maintaining clarity, that's perfectly fine. However, if your speed compromises the clarity of your arguments, I strongly advise you to slow down.

I do not disclose my decision after the round to keep the tournament's pace and maintain fairness across all debates. The ballot will be the sole determinant of the round's outcome.

I'm a parent judge. Please speak slowly

My name is Margot (she/her) and I debated Public Forum at MSJ from 2015-2019. I haven't really been active on the circuit since, so please bear with me while I adjust to any new norms that might have sprung up in the last few years. If you have any questions, let me know at the beginning of the round or at zhaomargot@gmail.com!

Pretty simple, but a couple things I'm looking for when judging PF:

(1) All arguments (and important cards) used in FF must be in Summary. Collapse on important arguments & frame the round well, don't go for everything on the flow!

(2) Beyond line-by-line defense, I'm looking for clear and insightful weighing that explains how your arguments directly interact with your opponents', ideally starting from rebuttal, but especially in the latter half of the round. From summary onward, tell me how the round should be evaluated and give a concise explanation of your path to the ballot.

(3) I'll judge tabula rasa ("tech over truth") for the most part, meaning that I will vote off the evidence presented in round rather than what I believe to be true. If one team says something inaccurate, it's up to the other to dispute it.

This line of reasoning does not apply to clearly racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise harmful rhetoric or remarks.

(4) If you'd like me to call for your opponent's evidence, please clearly explain your issue with the evidence so I know what I'm looking for!

(5) Please signpost as clearly as you can throughout every speech. If my flow gets messy, it will not be of help to you!

(6) I don't flow cross! If something important happens, bring it up in speech.

I want to give high speaks generally (especially in JV) but will absolutely dock for bad etiquette (ex. how you conduct yourself in cross...)

Any other event:

As a PF debater, my knowledge of LD or CX is limited.

I would prefer to have cards / cases emailed, clear signposting throughout speeches, and please try to thoroughly explain any kind of K / T that you run as I will not be familiar with most. I'll try my best to keep up with speed and let you know if you're going too fast for me to flow. Feel free to email with any clarifications you may need before round.

Good luck to all competitors!