I am a writer, activist, and proud mom of a high school debater in Berkeley, California. I used to be a policy debater back in the 1990s at Londonderry High School in Londonderry, New Hampshire. Thanks to my experiences as a high school debater, I've enjoyed fruitful careers in journalism and now political strategy and community organizing.

My judging preferences:

• No spreading or speed-reading.

• Use all time allotted to carefully build on your arguments and counter all of your opposition's arguments.

• Start all speeches with a roadmap: Definitions, contentions, rebuttals, and framework or weighing mechanisms for the debate.

• All POIs should be verbal and judge encourages debaters to take them at some point during their speech.

• Be cognizant of introducing new arguments at the end of the debate. I'm pretty good at picking up on these and will award extra points to debaters who successfully point them out as well!

• This judge enjoys taking detailed notes--"flowing"--the rounds, and is happy to give oral feedback at the end of the debate. I will not disclose in earlier rounds so as not to demoralize anyone. I want y'all to finish strong.

• High school debaters ROCK--Good luck!

TL;DR - tech>truth, clarity in thoughts and in speech (do not spread), be logical in linkchains and among your arguments, weigh, no theory, K, etc.

Although I am a parent judge, this is my eighth year judging debate tournaments, so I am not new to judging. I will flow arguments and will vote off of the flow (I'll mostly do tech > truth unless the arguement is so obviously false that nearly everyone would agree without googling it). That being said, please do not spread, because I'm bound to miss some of your arguments (if it doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't be able to evaluate your arguement). It is your job to make sure that you communicate your arguements clearly and logically.

Please note:

- clarity, especially clarity of thought and logic, is more important than speed

- I will focus on the weigh, and whether you've proven that your standing argument(s)'s impacts are greater than your opponents. This means that as you go through your arguments (before you weigh), you must tell me what the impacts of your arguments are-- don't assume they are obvious, and I'm not likely to make them up for you. You can be creative about how you weigh, potentially including scope, magnitude, timeframe, probabilty, or a metaweigh, etc.

- I do not like off-topic/theory arguements that try to disqualify the other team. Debate the topic at hand.

- I appreciate roadmaps and signposting. I'm OK if the initial roadmap is off-time, but they really should be part of your speaker time. And be sure to continue to signpost as you address new arguments-- you don't want me to put your arguments on a random part of my flowsheet.

- Gov/aff does have the right to define terms, and I do give leeway for that. Don't abuse it though-- I really don't like having to judge a "definitions" debate, and if the definition doesn't allow a path for opp/neg to win, I'm voting with opp/neg.

- Warrant your arguments. Completely unsubstantiated arguments are hard to vote on, especially if rebutted by the opposing side. If both sides are unwarranted, I'll view it as a wash and it won't survive the round.

- And to quote Ryan Lafferty: Be charitable to your opponents’ arguments! I’d much rather you mitigate the best version of your opponents’ claims than demolish a heavily strawmanned version of them.

For PF specifically:

- I value warrants over cards. Tell me why your argument(s) make sense logically rather than telling me a card said so. I have faith that you can always find someone who will say just about anything (e.g.-- the earth is flat).

- Focus on the weaknesses in your opponents link chains rather than reading from a prepared block file.

- The clash should be obvious by the rebuttal speaches. Second rebuttal can start to frontline in addition to rebutting the prior speech, however they must respond to all offense (including turns) or else I'll assume the argument is conceded.

- I won't be on your email chain and almost always wont look at your evidence. It's up to you to convince me, rather than me determining whether the evidence is worthy. That being said, if someone asks me to look at evidence (e.g., in order to determine whether the evidence was represented correctly), I will.

Speaker scores are ultimately subjective based on impefect judging. For PF, in addition to the above, I'll also be analyzing the quality of the research in determining speaker scores. For Parli, broad background knowledge is a big plus.

Updated 4/24

Hello! I'm a freshman at Yale that competes in ADPA and BP formats. I also did four years of high school debate, competing in PF and LD for two years each. If you want to contact me with questions or if there is an email chain, add me at william.berry@yale.edu

tl;dr: be better than your opponent and don't run bad arguments and I'll give you the W.

General (for all debate events):

1 - I am generally ok with speed, but I do think an important part of this activity is effective communication. As long as there is clarity to your speech, I can deal with it to an extent. If you are intent on actually spreading for some reason, just let me know and give me a speech doc because past a certain point I will not understand you and thus not flow what you are saying.

2 - Make sure you give voters. Your last speech (regardless of event) needs to be a clear summarization on the key points of clash, and you need to tell me why you won them. I won't accept any new evidence or arguments in this speech. If you make my job easier as a judge with some key voting issues, that will be reflected in my evaluation.

3 - WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH! As early as possible! I value engagement more than rebuttals piling on top of each other endlessly. Additionally, it's incredibly annoying to hear "my opponent dropped subpoint c of contention 4 so I win the round." No you haven't. You need to do the weighing and show me how you are winning on the remaining arguments.

4 - I don't flow cross examination. I'll watch but if you want something on the flow and in the RFD make sure you bring it up in a speech. Also if you say a funny and clever one liner in cross (you must make me laugh), then I'll give you one extra speaker point as a treat.

5 - Don't go massively over time. If it's like one conclusion sentence that's like 5 seconds over that's probably fine, but past that I'm not considering anything you're saying in my decision.

6 - If you mis-cut or clip evidence, get ready for this fat L.

7 - Obviously, be respectful of your opponents and conduct yourself with a level of decorum. I won't tolerate bullying or ad-hom attacks in or out of the debate.

Lincoln Douglas:

1 - Style: I only competed on a lay circuit, so while I am familiar with progressive styles of argumentation (Theory, Ks, CPs, etc.), I don't have tons of experience running them myself. I don't think LD should be one person policy, so I don't love most of these types of arguments, but I'll listen to them if you're at a TOC bid tournament or something since it's like a community norm or whatever.

2- Framework: The framework debate is key. I love to hear some good clash on the value and criterion. Definitionally, LD is a moral debate, so values like "morality" strike me as uncreative. Other than that, I'll listen to just about any framework that makes sense. This means your framework needs warrants, just like any other argument. Finally, framework is not a voting issue. It's a lens through which I evaluate voting issues. If you tell me that framework is a voting issue, I will say "womp womp" to you in my RFD.

3 - Case Arguments: When it comes to contentions, I guess I am mildly truth>tech. I'm not going to drop the argument if you are running some nuclear war or other extinction impact, but my threshold for responses will be just a little lower. Contentions that link really well back into the framework will be rewarded.

4 - LARP: If you're not at a TOC bid tournament this doesn't apply to you. Below are my opinions on a few specific types of arguments but beyond those just make sure whatever you run is accessible enough.

a - Theory: Theory is thrown around way to much in LD these days, and often not done great. So if you could not have a bad theory debate, that would be really cool. Don't run three frivolous shells just for the sake of it---my threshold for voting on theory is VERY high. Only use it to check legitimate abuse.

b - CPs: Counterplans are fine, just make sure to spell out the net benefit and how it is competitive. Just don't run a PIC. Those are low IQ. I don't care take the L. Also, "perm do both" is never a real response to a CP. Explain yourself. Basically, assume nothing, don't make blippy arguments, don't have a ridiculous advocacy, and you'll be fine.

c - Ks: Basically, make sure you explain your arguments well. I do like to learn things, so if you're able to make it interesting and not yell some obscure philosophy at me then your likelihood of winning will go up.

d - Tricks: I really don't like tricks. They're a cheap way of trying to win while avoiding substance. Even if you're running some truth-testing off, I'm still not voting on a trick.

Public Forum:

There isn't really all that much PF-specific stuff, as most of it applies to all debate events, but there are a few things.

1 - Don't run prog arguments in PF.

2 - Make sure you extend more than "last name, year." When you reference evidence, refer to it so that I remember what it says and why it is relevant at that point in the debate.

3 - CHOOSE. In Summary and FF you will have to choose. Collapse the (probably) 2-3 voting issues for me well. Also if it's not in summary, don't try to pull it back up in FF.

4 - I don't have a big preference on how you call for cards. I probably won't drop a debater for paraphrasing unless there is some egregious misrepresentation.

Those are all of my major comments on how I judge. I am always happy to answer any questions before the round or via email. Have fun and see you in round!

Background: I have been an active debater for a while now and want to this for a foreseeable future.

1.Run what you want. Make sure that you are able to justify everything you run. Try not to make assertions, give proper reasoning to your arguments.

2.Good speaks will come if you're respectful and you link everything back to some standard or ROB that I can use to evaluate the round.

3.Please be respectful to each other. Good luck and feel free to ask any questions if this isn't clear enough.

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.

This is my first year judging and I have only judged a few online tournaments at this point. As a judge, I appreciate a clear and concise delivery that emphasizes stronger points rather than a multitude of weaker points. I look for debaters who conduct themselves respectfully and clearly throughout the debate. I also keep an eye out for how debaters address points from their opponent too.

1. Clarity of Expression: I highly value clear communication. Please speak clearly and concisely, ensuring that your arguments and ideas are easy to follow and understand. Effective communication is key to making your case persuasive.

2. Trace of Thought Processes: I appreciate when debaters provide a clear trace of their thought processes during their speeches. Please take the time to explain your reasoning and how you arrived at your conclusions. Well-structured speeches that connect your points logically are important to me.

3. Rebuttal Performance: Rebuttal is a crucial aspect of debate. I expect debaters to engage with and respond to their opponent's arguments effectively. Show me your ability to critically analyze your opponent's points and offer strong counterarguments.

4. Listening and Attention: It's important to me that teams are actively listening to each other and paying attention to their opponents' arguments. Demonstrating that you've engaged with your opponents' points shows respect for the debate process and can enhance your own arguments.

5. Respect and Civility: I expect all participants to be respectful to both their teammates and opponents. Debate is an intellectual exercise, and maintaining a respectful and civil tone is essential for productive discourse.

6. About me: As a project manager with many years of experience, my profession involves understanding people and making informed decisions. I bring this experience to my role as a judge, and I value well-reasoned and persuasive arguments. Use your debating skills to convince me of the validity of your position. I take pride in my ability to remain impartial and objective in my judgments. No need to say butI assure you that my decisions will not be influenced by my personal biases or my own opinions. I will base my judgments solely on the quality of the arguments presented during the debate.

In summary, I am looking for clear, well-structured speeches, effective rebuttals, and persuasive arguments. I also emphasize the importance of active listening and respectful behavior toward both teammates and opponents. Your task as a debater is to convince me with your strong arguments, clear communication, and respectful conduct.

Hi. I am Anna Cederstav, a parent who has been judging for three years. I am a scientist by training but mentor and work with attorneys.

Eloquent, logical, well-supported arguments will impress me. Speaking at a sprint and using techy debate tricks will not.

I appreciate debates that address the entire topic, approached from a global perspective. I prefer evidence-based arguments with solid analysis over emotional appeals or exaggerated hypotheses.

Please make debate accessible to me, other judges and your opponents by speaking clearly and concisely. I am unlikely to vote in favor of kritiks.

I hope you will have fun and approach debate as if you are in a real-life situation where something important is at stake, and you are doing your best to convince others to join you.

Note: I am Native, so if you're going to read a set col/Native sovereignty based case, please do it well/respectfully and be aware (especially with respect to graphic impacts) that you are talking about my family.

Update for Yale 2023: I've judged less than 5 times since graduating HS in 2019. I will not be able to follow full speed spreading and I am not up to date on progressive debate norms. I will still sort of know whats going on with your progressive case, but I'm probably the best judge for a strong lay debate at this point.

Email for email chain: Cameron.chacon@yale.edu

#1 issue is being kind in round, especially if your opponent is obvious not as ready for a progressive round as you. Be nice to novices, small schools, etc.

About me- I competed mostly in LD and occasionally policy in Texas from 2015-2019. Now I go to Yale, and am on the parli team here. I competed in TFA, NSDA, and sometimes TOC circuits back in HS, mostly ran Ks.

I'm a newer parent judge. I appreciate clear articulate arguments and prefer conversational speed. Make sure to connect different arguments during there round as well as impact/tell me why they're important. Tell me what argument you're on. Explain any jargon. Treat your opponents kindly and with respect. Make sure your arguments follow logic.

I'm a parent judge with East Coast parliamentary debate judging experience.

I will flow but ultimately make my decisions based on the quality and strength of the debaters' arguments.

Please speak at a reasonable pace and limit debate jargon - I can't give you the credit you deserve if I can't understand you.

Be respectful of everyone involved: teammates, opponents, judges, and any spectator. Have fun!

I debated in college for Swarthmore, and I have judged public forum a couple of times before. Please weigh clearly and signpost excessively.

I'd appreciate clear articulated arguments and conversational speed. I will grade on both argument and delivery.

I have a lot of high school debate experience, although it was done in a different language. )

Personally, I regard listening as just important as speaking during a debate. Please try to keep an open mind, and truly listen and understand your opponents. This will help you provide clear reasoning as to why your argument is better than that of your opponents.

Hi guys, I am a PF debater.

Here's my email for an email chain: roushu.chuang@gmail.com

PF Specific:

-Please don't spread. If I can't understand your argument, I will not vote for you.

-Please don't bring up any new argument in second summary or final focus.

- Weighing is really important! But do comparative analysis aka don't fake weigh, i.e. "we outweigh because of scope and thus we should win". Make sure to carry through with comparative analysis of both sides.

I was on the Speech and Debate team throughout all four years of my high school career. I competed in Public Forum and World Schools Debate, occasionally going to tournaments in Parliamentary Debate as well.

Truth > Tech. That does not mean that I will let abuse of another team, or the rules, slide just because you have truth on your side.

DO NOT SPREAD. As a former debater I can understand very fast paces of speech but there is a difference between speaking quickly and spreading. Just because I can understand you does not mean I want to if you are speaking at an inordinate speed. I also find it to be abusive to your opponents if you are speaking so fast that they are unable to capture all of your arguments or incapable of responding to all of them in their given speech time when speaking at a standard pace.

FOR PF: It Is way more enjoyable when there is some sort of heart story to your case. PF has done very well at preserving the ethos and logos of argument formation but has lost a lot of the pathos which I find to be very important. I'd rather not have to listen to an impact war debate, but, obviously, if it does come down to that I will be judging based on who has convinced me that their impact is more important. Personally, I think you could have a relatively small-scale impact and still win the debate if your link chain is stronger than your opponents and you are capable of pointing that out. While it is not possible to eliminate full bias, I will flow and base my judgments on what was said in round which means that you cannot assume that I will come to conclusions about arguments on my own, even if I do, I won't rule the argument out unless you tell me to do so and why.

FOR WSD: I don't want to hear more than two arguments in your constructive. If you have more than two in your constructive it is either because you are speaking way too fast or because you have not fleshed out your existing arguments enough. I do believe that in WSD less is more. You do not need a ton of sourcing or evidence in your speeches so long as your logic is sound. The pathos in WSD is very important. I am not against bringing in examples of your personal life if you believe that it reinforces the argument(s) you have presented. While hearing a speech that is composed entirely of line after line of pure evidence would upset me, that does not mean that I do not value having sourced evidence and empirics in your cases. At the end of the day, numbers and sources do augment your credibility so long as you do not overrun your case with them (not all of your articles need to be cited). I am a big fan of POIs, I think they are fun and when used strategically can give teams a major advantage over their opponent. And would like to reiterate that POIs do not just have to be questions, they can also be points of information. I will take note if a team does not ask many POIs and if they do not accept them during speeches. I strongly value your protected time. If someone asks a POI during protected time I will not count it against them, but if the behavior becomes repetitive I do consider it abusive to the speakers and may deduct points.

Overall, I like to see that kids are having fun, cracking jokes, enjoying the experience. This is high school debate after all, it is meant to be educational and enjoyable. Keep it light hearted.

I am a debater with experience with multiple parliamentary debate formats as a judge and a speaker. I have also judge other formats such as Turncoat, Conventional Debates and Public Forums.

For Parliamentary Debates:

Speakers should use clear, precise language. They should have a good flow and structure within their speeches.

Furthermore, speakers are heavily encouraged to use tools like sign-posting.

Speakers are also expected to be providing a comparative case to their opposite team. Engagement through Points Of Information is also encouraged.

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.

Parent judge.

Hi, my name is Leo and I’m a senior at Brown University. I did PF for four years in high school and have been doing APDA for 2 years in college.

Weighing is #1, if you don’t weigh (well) it will be hard for you to win the round. However, don’t just say “this argument outweighs on magnitude,” explain why it specifically outweighs your opponent’s ballots.

Warrants are also very important, if there are two conflicting pieces of evidence I will decide based on warrants.

Be nice to each other, if you’re rude you will lose speaker points.

I don’t have much experience with theory but you can still run it, just explain what you are doing clearly.

Wants debaters to speak and read speeches at a moderate speed. Speed reading to achieve spreading is NOT ADVISED!

Debaters should stick to the actual topic of debate supported by facts/research and not resort to using technical tricks to score a win.

Debate ettiquette must always be respectful and professional

Logic and analysis over examples.

Be respectful and have fun debating.

Hello there! I'm a Sophomore at Yale. In high school I debated public forum, and I have some limited experience in Parliamentary, World Schools, and L/D debate.

For Yale Parli: My paradigm is structured for public forum, but I've added brief takeaways in bold for parli people.

I've done a bit of parli, so I am more or less familiar with the format. See below "preferences for the round" for basic stuff I want to see. I'm going to flow your speeches with a lot of detail and consider what arguments you've extended throughout the round as well as responses put on each case, but this is not all determining. Most of the time I will vote off of the flow, but that flow is influenced by the quality of your speeches and whether or not you are making arguments that have basis in reality. Treat me as a reasonable judge who will vote off of what is said in round and how well it is argued, but will not compromise my sanity by voting for an argument that is absolutely not true (as in, VERY clearly false or misleading). Also, please don't do some weird definition framing with parli - keep the scope of the debate reasonable.

Some preferences for the round (what I have listed below is for public forum, but spreading, signposting, outlining your speech, respect, and no theory still apply to parli):

1. You should not be spreading. I am okay with a decent level of speed, but if you need to ask yourself whether or not you are speaking too quickly, you probably are.

2. Before each speech (obviously excluding cases), please tell me what you will be addressing. For novices, this does not mean tell me a story of your life, but rather give me a very concise outline of what you will be doing in your speech (i.e. our case, their case, then weighing)

3. Please signpost (i.e. "now let's go to their second contention/argument on xyz").

4. Please be respectful to your opponents. Intensity is fine, just don't cross the line. Also, please don't start holding up your timer if your opponent goes a little overtime—if it's like more than 15 seconds then you can call it out.

5. No theory please, unless there is a clear and intentional abuse against you.

6. Although I don't like the whole "tech vs truth" scale, this would be my evaluation: I will vote off the flow unless an argument is outrageously false or misleading (Don't worry, I will be very reasonable in how I apply this rule). Furthermore, if you run a really obscure argument, my threshold for the quality of responses will be slightly lower.

What I should see in your speeches (this is for pf, parli people should skip, but your one takeaway should be that I care about the key content of each speech being in the following speech if you want me to vote on it by the end of the round. Also, weigh):

1. Second rebuttal should at least frontline turns, although the more you can respond to the better.

2. Summary and Final Focus speeches should be pretty well coordinated on each team (I should not be hearing completely different narratives between 1st and 2nd speakers). Starting with summary, I would prefer if you collapsed on a single argument (only go for everything if they literally did not respond to an entire contention).

3. WEIGH! In both summary and final focus, you should dedicate a portion of your time to telling me why I should prefer your argument(s). If there is major clash over pieces of evidence in the round, tell me why your evidence is better, or even why the evidence clash may not be relevant (I'll probably only call for evidence if such clash is not resolved, or if I am asked to).

4. In terms of what you should be extending, you don't need to walk me through your entire case. Instead, depending on how well your opponents respond, carry through the relevant warranting/links to your impact(s), and restate the impact(s). In other words, don't just tell me to extend your links on a contention. But again, this assumes that you have sufficiently frontlined or mitigated your opponents response(s).

Ask me in the round if you have any further questions or need to clarify something. Treat me as a reasonable judge who will vote off the flow but still cares about reality.

Good luck!

Hi!

I'm Dhruv, a first-year at Yale. I've debated for five years (both middle and high school) in Public Forum and Parliamentary Debate. Last year, I competed at the NPDL TOC and broke far in other invitationals, so I have a pretty good idea of how Parli works at a high level. Paradigms are boring, so let's keep this short.

My preferences:

1) Logic over evidence. This is Parli. The whole point is that you clearly explain your train of thought without heavy reliance on statistics or evidence. Using them for weighing is fine, but don't throw stats at me without explaining why they are important.

2) Structure is important! I will look at you favorably if you give me defined contentions with subpoints and impacts.

3) Accessibility is crucial. Throwing jargon at your opponents to sound smart won't do you any favors. Also, I dislike kritiks and am unlikely to vote in your favor if you use one.

5) If you want to use a counterplan, please be specific with the verbiage. Don't just say "our counterplan is to perm the opponent's plan," I know you guys can be more creative than that. If that is truly the best option, give me a clear warrant why.

6) Verbal POIs are fine. Please do not turn POIs into a cross-ex, they are not back-and-forths.

7) Do not bring up new responses in the third speech. Anything conceded in the second must stay conceded. It's painfully obvious when people try to sneak arguments in, so don't be that person!

8) BE A GOOD SPEAKER. Debate doesn't mean anything if I can't understand you! Speed is okay, but please enunciate. Do not be condescending to your opponents. You'll get extra speaks if you make me laugh.

I look forward to judging you all!

Wel structured and mechanized arguments and good characterization makes your case and speaker scores stronger.

Solid weighing, and put the words in my mouth assume I don't know how to think anything that isn't basic linking weight and impacting needs to be done for me to put it on my flow.

Every argument is not worth one 'point'. Understand which arguments are most important and have the most weight, and help me as judge to see them. Convince me that your argument valuable, and choose high value examples and arguments such as those that advance humans towards a sane future or promote the highest values of justice, peace and opportunity. Defend the practicalities, but when the details are ambiguous, principles will lead me make a decision. That said, no hyperbole. Debate as though the stakes are high. But do not tell me the issue is a matter of life and death, unless you can convince me that it is.

The principles you are arguing from should presented with complete clarity by the first speaker, defended by the second, and made undeniable by the third. Refutation should be complete, but efficient. To me, good debaters refute the opposing team succinctly by seeing through to the underlying misconceptions. Demonstrate your ability to listen and respond not only to the individuals in the room, but to the wider audience who may be affected by the decision. Therefore, be passionate, insightful, and aware of the stakes.

I'm a high school debater that has participated in parli as both a judge and a debater for over seven years.

I think that the most important things in a debate are reasoning and impact - evidence can help supplement a point but only if you explain it well. In general, while both are important, I tend to focus more on logic and understanding of the motion than on the use of a lot of statistics. Impact is also really valuable, as I have no reason to believe that anything is important unless you tell me it is.

I go into every debate as if I know nothing - if there is a flaw in a case that isn't pointed out, I will accept it. This means that refutation and direct clash is very important.

I really like POIs, but I am also very critical of debaters who use them to distract or disrupt. POIs should help set up or supplement your point, not just take up other speakers' time. Quality over quantity.

Overall, I think the best debaters are the ones who genuinely love debate for the process and have fun doing it, so remember not to take anything too seriously :)

My approach to judging is holistic. A single blunder won't break your case so don't panic if you lost on a critical issue. I try to look at everything you did - style, content, humor, teamwork etc.

As a judge, I highly value innovative ideas presented in a straightforward manner. I appreciate speeches that prioritize logical reasoning over an abundance of facts and are well-structured for clarity and coherence. Please focus on providing detailed explanations to support your claims and showcase your logical thinking skills during the session.

Last updated: 2/2/2024 (Evergreen)

General:

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

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

Case:

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

Theory:

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

Kritiks:

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

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

Good luck to everyone.

Hi! I'm Konrad (he/him), and I debated Parliamentary at Clifton College in the UK. Currently, I debate mostly at European Youth Parliament and MUN conferences in Europe.

Couple of my rules include:

1. Truth over tech - basis of every argument should be in true claims. The validity of argument is extremely important to me, but I also pay much attention to soundness. I'm fundamentally opposed to arguments lacking basis in reality even if they sound coherent.
2. Respect - I won't tolerate interruptions or any sort of lack of regard for the opponents no matter their argument.
3. Conversational style. I prefer arguments expressed in natural language rather than thesaurus-level vocabulary. Such arguments are fundamentally easier to follow and more persuasive. Overusing flowery language tends too often to obstruct the heart of argument.

I am an experienced parent judge (lay style, not circuit style).

I started judging in Jan 2022. Please minimize excessive spreading.

I like well-constructed, linear arguments that bear directly on the debate topic.

I do not generally comprehend "meta-rhetoric" (that is, arguments about the merits or validity of the debate question itself).

My email address for sending evidence and cases is joe_lee@yahoo.com

I'm a coach with experience in public forum debate, parliamentary debate, and extemporaneous debates. Some general notes:

ALL STYLES

- Arguments only matter if they extend across the flow. If you raise a contention in the first speech, then drop it for the bulk of the round, I won't count it.

- I'm generally quite literal with frameworks. You tell me something is important, it will show up on your ballot as part of your reason for decision. An extra speaker point to both debaters on any team who successfully uses frameworks OTHER than utilitarianism or net benefits.

- Impacting your contentions matter, but your links (i.e. how you connect steps of your contention together) matter more. Don't foresake one for the other.

- I'm not impressed by use of hyper-specific debate jargon. Use of jargon that I don't understand OR replacing actual refutation with jargon will result in deduction of speaker points. Assuming I'm a lay judge will serve you well.

- I do not find roadmaps useful. If you need to do it to keep yourself organized, that's fine, but I will probably disregard them.

- Definitional debaters are normally not useful or compelling unless they have a high impact outside of the debate itself. I have almost never awarded a round on the argument that a definition is "tight" or unfair to one side, but have rewarded rounds based on substantial definition debates that have practical or philosophical impacts. (E.g. debates over the nature of justice.)

- I rarely vote in favor of kritiks. I find it's rare that the issues raised in kritiks are impactful enough that they justify derailing the debate as traditionally presented. Their impacts often require judge intervention into the round that is independent of actual arguments being made, which I do not feel comfortable with. If you wish to make a kritik, you should make it with the assumption that you're likely to lose the round and that that is worth it for you.

- There are no silver bullets in debate. These are general guidelines, but following these will not guarantee you a win and should not be treated as such.

FOR PUBLIC FORUM

- Quoting cards will not win you debates; how you explain your cards matters.

- I'm more impressed by speakers who speak using their own words and paraphrasing of evidence rather than quoting from pre-written cases.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

- POIs strongly encouraged. Debaters who refuse to take any POIs (especially if multiple are offered) will find their speaker points severely docked.

- It's hard to win on the OPP block. GOV teams who start weighing arguments in the MG and lay out a clear framework for why they're winning the round are more likely to win. In addition, GOV teams who call dropped args by their opponents will go far.

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE

- BEWARE THE HALF AFF! A lot of CDA teams spend their round encouraging me that they are actually just like their opponents only without the bad stuff. This won't win you rounds with me. The debate has given you a side; stick to it!

Generally, I accept any form of argumentation if presented correctly. I have been involved in this activity for the past 13 years of my life, as both a high school and college competitor, as well as a current middle+high school debate coach. Put simply, you don't need to worry about debate terminology, strategies, or anything else that some judges might not know. If you run it, I'll know about it. That said, please still treat me as a normal person that you're trying to persuade! I know that debate is perceived as a "game," but I think that the "game" is figuring out strategies to make your arguments as persuasive to as many people as possible, which often involves starting at a basic level of understanding and adding additional complexity and nuance as you go.

Beyond that, I tend to align more with "traditional" debate arguments (your classic claim, warrant, evidence, impact) structure with solid clash against your opponent's (hopefully) similarly structured arguments. The worst thing that can happen for me as a judge is a round where the teams are two ships passing in the night, because then it becomes my job to intervene and figure out how those two things actually interact with one another (and I think we can all agree that judge intervention is not good). Finally, while I am OPEN to technical debate (K's, Theory, etc.) the bar is higher for these things since you have essentially infinite time to prep them. You need to do work to explain to me how they clearly link back to THIS specific round and how they outweigh your opponent's SPECIFIC arguments. Please, please don't just treat them as a catch-all.

Otherwise, good luck! You got this!

If you'd like feedback from me regarding a verbal or written RFD I gave you, please feel free to reach out at hmalek@windwardschool.org and I'd be more than happy to help.

Hello, I am a parent (lay) judge.

Some of my preferences are:

1. Do not spread/speed-talk. You can speak at a fast pace as long as it clear, but I prefer a conversational speaking pace.
2. Begin rounds with an off-time roadmap (state your name, aff or neg, explain what argument your are on, what you will do in this argument). Explain any debate jargon/acronyms.
3. I would appreciate minimizing use of tech and theory, unless it is absolutely crucial. If you use it, explain your objective with it and how it relates to the case (again, explain any debate jargon).
4. I prefer clear arguments that have logical connections. Emphasize and weigh your impacts!
5. Aff should begin with a top-of-case explaining the context of the resolution.
6. Please be respectful, calm, and organized.

Good Luck!

I will take and assess argument based on its strength, on the truthfulness of the argument and how well established the process of explanation, also on how important and impactfull is the argument on the debate and to be as comparative as possible. I would also appreciate linear analysis with the spirit of the motions, frameworks and examples given, also clarity of speech delivery for maximum understanding. I would also highly appreciate engagefull debate, with well analyzed, concise and on-point rebuttal, and to not ignore your opposing bench case.

Hi, my name is Jackson.

I am "truth over tech." I want you to debate the topic. Your arguments should be based upon weighable, realistic impacts, not extreme hypotheticals.

Speak conversationally. You can assume I am somewhat familiar with the topic you are debating. However, I prefer you to speak at a conversational speed. If I can't follow your argument, I can't appreciate it.

Treat your opponent with respect. Don't say anything rude or offensive. Don't roll your eyes when your opponents are speaking. Don't interrupt excessively during crossfire. If you interrupt constantly, I will assume that you think they have a strong argument and that you don't want me to hear it.

TL;DR

- I debated PF in high school

- Flow ish judge

- Signpost (tell me what argument you're talking about before you start talking about it)

- Weigh (tell me why your impacts matter than the other ones in the round), and don't just say the buzzwords. Weighing should be in summary at the latest. If one team weighs and the other one doesn't, it makes my vote substantially easier

- Uncarded analysis is fine as long as it makes sense

- Don't lie about evidence when you use it

- I don't care if your evidence is paraphrased as long as it's not misconstrued

- Don't do any of the bad -isms or -phobias

- I'm not a fan of theory, Ks, etc. in PF

- Lefty/critical args are good

- If you have any questions about my paradigm please ask in round, especially if you're a novice. It will not hurt you at all

- Good luck!

I am an Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at Montville Township High School. In high school I competed primarily in Congressional Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking. I've been involved in speech & debate for over ten years as a competitor, judge, and now coach.

My debate paradigm is simple. I ask that you provide me a clear explanation for why your side is winning based upon the resolution. I prefer topical cases. Debate is supposed to be an educational activity and I value the educational experience above all else.

That being said, I will certainly listen to whatever framework, paradigm, or theory you plan to throw at me so as long as it is well articulated, warranted, and explained. Context is critical for me to evaluate your arguments and understand why your side is winning in the round based upon the stated resolution. Assume that I have not researched the resolution at hand.

I prefer clear overviews that explain what you plan to do in the round and how you plan to win. I want this to continue throughout the round. How and why you are winning? Interaction with your opponent is a must. The more clash that exists in a round, the easier it is for me to adjudicate. I'm not interested in inserting myself into the round as the judge. I need weighing mechanisms.

Word economy is a valuable asset. Speed is not. I will not yell clear, even if I cannot understand you. The communication aspect of this activity is not dead. So why take the risk and spread?

Please let me know if you have any questions before a round. Good luck!

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.

Parli: I'm a semi-experienced judge; I've judged at approx 7 tournaments. I'm a research manager in my job which means I frequently develop insights with rationales & evidence. I am most interested in your logic and persuasion. I'm not a "technical judge." Please keep your pace no faster than medium so I can fully comprehend your well constructed arguments. Thanks!

Extemp: I've judged one tournament with extemp rounds. I look for clear structure, elements that make your points relatable for "regular people" like me, evidence that links well to your claims and ability to pace well to get your full structure in during the time given.

Speech:I have more experience with Parli and less with Speech but I lean on my background in theater and improv to guide some of my observations. In interpretation events (e.g. POI, DI), I'm looking for cohesive themes that weave together your sources and ideas into a strong POV. I pay attention to thoughtful, appropriate movement that enhances your scenes. I'm looking for distinct characters with clear personalities conveyed through line delivery, vocal and facial expression, varying intensity. I appreciate the hard work it takes to be vulnerable and genuine. In Extemp, I'm looking for a well organized, logical plan showing your clear POV on how you are approaching the topic. I hope to see who you are shine through your analysis and delivery.

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

I’m primarily parli these days, but the principles would apply to any form of debate I might judge.

I check all the boxes: successful, national circuit high school debater (policy/cross-ex); debate coach for over 25 years; tab director for over 20 years; debate league director for over 15 years; taught at a respected parliamentary debate summer workshop for 10 years. However, my career was in business, not education or the law, which does affect my point of view.

None of that is “actionable”, in that it is of no help to you if I’m sitting in the back of the room with my flow and stopwatch waiting for you to begin. The following may be more useful.

My role as a judge is to sort through the debate you and your opponent choose to have and produce a reasoned, persuasive decision. My “case” (RFD) should accurately reflect what was said and be acceptable to each of the debaters as a valid opinion on what occurred, even if they may take issue with that opinion.

This judge-as-debater approach has certain implications:

· My source material is the debate you choose to have. If you don’t agree on what it should be about, then my decision should be based first on your definitional arguments. If you do agree, then my decision should be based on the relative weight of arguments on the issue. If both teams agree—explicitly or tacitly—to have a particular debate, my opinion as to what the motion or debate should have been about is not relevant.

· The more work you do to lay out a path to a decision, the less work I have to do building my own, and the fewer decisions I have to make as the judge. That generally works in your favor.

· Your arguments should be based both on what you present and, perhaps even more so, on what your opponents present, with a fair comparison and weighing.

My business background has certain implications:

· Debate is intended to be educational. I have less sympathy for arguments that no one would make or consider in the real world. Theory arguments should be clearly explained and shown to have a serious impact on the matter at hand. The more distantly related an argument is to a plain reading of the motion, the greater the need to justify that argument.

· Not all arguments are equal. Judging is not simply counting arguments won, lost, or dropped, but comparing the persuasive weight of each side. I expect both sides will win some arguments and lose some arguments and drop some arguments. If you don’t weigh them, I will.

· Explanations count more than facts (at least explanations broadly consistent with the facts). For any arguable topic there will be examples that favor each side. The fact that some people survive horrendous accidents unscathed is not in itself an argument against safety equipment; that many will refuse to use safety equipment that is inconvenient or uncomfortable is, at least against that particular type.

· I don’t have a problem making decisions. I rarely take long or agonize over them. However, I will do my best to provide a detailed written RFD, time permitting.

Finally, debate is about the spoken word. It is your job to persuade me and in your best interest that I clearly understand what you want to say. It is not my job to be persuaded, nor to intuit what you intended to say beyond a reasonable effort on my part to do so. This has the following implications:

· Speak as fast as you think appropriate. I flow well and can tolerate speed. But if I don’t hear it, don’t hear it as intended, or don’t get it on my flow, it won’t help you. It’s not my job to signal you if you are speaking too fast or drifting off into unintelligibility.

· Why wouldn’t you present more arguments than your opponents can handle in the time allowed? Spread is a natural consequence of time limits on speeches. But 13 weak reasons why an argument is true won’t help you even if your opponent drops 12 of them, but wins the one most important to the issue. And debaters with more than one level of subpoints almost always get lost in their own outline. Quality spreads as surely as quantity and has more impact.

· I understand some debaters provide outlines, cards, briefs, etc. I will listen carefully to what you say, but I will not read anything you give me.

I have published a great deal of material of varying quality on the Connecticut Debate Association website, http://ctdebate.org . You will find transcriptions of my flows, various RFDs, topic analysis and general debate commentary reflecting my opinions over the years.

FAQs

Definitions? Definitions are a legitimate area of argument, but don’t ask me to rule on them mid-round. Gov has the right to a reasonable definition of terms. If Opp does not like them, Opp should challenge in a POC, POI or at the top of the LOC. Don’t wait to challenge definitions late in the round. Gov need not explicitly define terms or present a plan: clear usage in the PMC binds Gov and must be accepted or challenged by Opp. In other words, if it is obvious what Gov is talking about, don't try to re-define the terms out from under them. P.S. No one likes definition debates, so avoid them unless Gov is clearly being abusive.

Points of Clarification? Like them. Think it’s a good tactic for Gov to stop and offer Opp a chance to clear up terms. Should occur at the top of the PMC immediately after presenting definitions/plan/framework, etc.

Pre-speech outline or road map? A common local custom not to my taste. Speeches are timed for a reason, and I see this as an attempt to get a bit more speaking time. But, when in Rome… They should be brief and truly an outline, not substance. I will listen politely but I won't flow them.

New contentions in the Member constructives? Perfectly legitimate, though it was considered old-fashioned even when I debated 50 years ago. It also presents certain tactical and strategic issues debaters should understand and have thought through.

Counterplans? If you know what you are doing and it’s appropriate to the motion and the Gov case, a counterplan can be extremely effective. Most debaters don’t know what they are doing, or use them when there are less risky or more effective options available. Many counterplans are more effective as arguments why the status quo solves or as disadvantages.

Written material? I’m aware in some leagues debaters give judges a written outline of their case, or pass notes to the speaker. I accept all local customs and will not interfere or hold these against you. However, debate is by spoken word, and I will not read anything you give me.

New arguments in rebuttal (Point of Order)? You should call them if you see them. But if you see them every five words it begins to look like an attempt to disrupt the rebuttal speaker. Landing one good PO puts me on watch for the rest of the speech; multiple “maybes” will likely annoy me.

Evidence? Even in heavily researched debate like policy, facts are cherry picked. Even in the real world one rarely has all the facts. Explanations generally outweigh simple facts (though explanations that contradict the facts aren't really explanations). Information cited should be generally known or well-explained; “what’s your source” is rarely a useful question or counter-argument. I am not required to accept something I know to be untrue. If you tell me something I don’t know or am not sure of, I will give it some weight in my decision, and I will look it up after the round. That’s how I learn.

Theory? (See “business background” comments above, and "Definitions".) These are arguments like any other. They must be clearly explained and their impact on the round demonstrated. They are not magic words that simply need to be said to have an effect. Like all arguments, best present them as if your audience has never heard them before.

Weird stuff? Everyone in my family has an engineering degree. We’re used to intelligent arguments among competent adults. We know we aren’t as clever as we think we are, and you probably aren’t either. The further you drift from a straightforward interpretation of the motion, the greater your burden to explain and to justify your arguments.

Rules of debate? There are none, or very few. If your opponent does something you think is out of bounds, raise a POI if you can and explain the impact on the arguments or on the debate in your next speech. Most "rules" debaters cite are more like "guidelines". If you understand the reason for the guideline, you can generally turn a weak "that's against the rules" into a much stronger "here is why this is harmful to their case."

ejr, rev July 2023

Email chain: yads139@gmail.com

I have 4 years of pf debate experience. My pronouns are he/him.

Please send a speech doc (with cut evidence, not just rhetoric) if possible.

General:

in round:

• I'll listen to cross; I don't understand why most tech judges don't; it's part of the activity for a reason. With that being said, I'll listen, but only vote off of what is said if you implicate it in a speech.
• defenseis sticky
• offense is not sticky
• extensions should have at minimum uniqueness, link and impacts; internal link extensions are nice too
• all args that you want me to vote on must be extended properly
• I won't evaluate args that are not extended through every speech (except first rebuttal)
• no new offense past rebuttals
• don't be abusive with new responses
• I understand the desire to do a bunch of prep and be a doc bot, but please interact with your opps case on a ev/warrant basis. It makes the debates more fun, makes weighing easier, and makes it so that I don't have to intervene.

weighing:

• Please don't say "we outweigh on magnitude, scope, probability." you need a comparative warrant for each mechanism.

• Weighing should start latest in summary; first rebuttal should be weighing.
• There should be no new weighing in final focus.
• Do not use probability weighing as a trojan horse to sneak in a new response.
• Prereqs/link-ins are a great way to make a debate fun.

Progressive arguments:

Run at your own risk! I'll vote off of theory/T, and I can understand some k's, but if yours is convoluted and/or spread I cannot guarantee I will. If you have a well constructed (and well-meaning) k or theory shell read it :)

Public Forum specifics:

• First speakers should ideally start weighing out of first rebuttal. Second speakers should weigh in second rebuttal (even if minimally).
• Please collapse on 1-2 args in summary. I have a high threshold for blippy arguments.
• Do not read the claim of a turn in rebuttal and expect to attach a warrant later on. I will only evaluate turns that are warranted, implicated and weighed out of rebuttal.
• You must go for the same arguments in summary/final focus.

LD specifics:

• Do not LD spread. I will not be able to understand what you are saying.
• Please talk slowly and clearly. Quality of arguments matters more than the quantity.
• I understand minimal circuit ld concepts. Be aware that reading a type of argument that is present in LD and PF may not translate to me.

be clear. be grounded. be solid.

Hello,

I'm an parent lay judge ,and I'd like to share my judging preferences:

1. Clarity and Conciseness: - I kindly request that you articulate your arguments clearly and directly. While I'm open to a faster pace of speech, I'd appreciate it if you refrain from spreading. If you do speak faster than conversational, please ensure that you slow down at crucial points you'd like me to follow closely.

2. Robust Argumentation: - I value well-structured arguments that are the focal point of your presentation. Please present your case with clear, concise points, and support them with relevant details and evidence. Summarizing your key points at the end would be greatly appreciated.

In essence, I encourage a respectful and enjoyable debating environment. Let's have a constructive and engaging debate together. Have fun!

Looking forward to the debate.

Hello everyone,

I am a parent judge who has judged a number of tournaments over the last year. Here are a few of my tournament do's and don'ts.

1. Truth> Tech. I value logical linking and clear explanation over technical debate. I find that tech is often used to skew participants out of the round, and as a judge, I find it someone difficult to follow. With that being said, I will take theory into account if there is a legitimate abuse, and if I can understand what is being conveyed (basically, you can make your point surrounding the abuse clear without the overuse of jargon). I will never layer tech first unless there is a very very clear reason why articulated by the side that is running it.
2. I am not a huge fan of excessive jargon. I prefer not to have to decode another language while you're speaking. I am familiar with many of the basic terms, but at a point, it detriments your point and gets lost on me.
3. Weigh, weigh, weigh, and terminalize. When I look to my flow at the end of the round, I tend to look at impacts first, and then logical linking. You have to tell me why your arguments matter, otherwise they are just words that you're saying.
4. Please be kind to each other!

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

For context, I am a Yale collegiate parli debater, former Southern California high school parli debater.

- Signpost signpost signpost

- If I can't keep up with your speed I'll stop flowing

- Analyzing evidence > relying on the quote to get you through

- Frivolous theory and Ks are part of the problem with debate. Don't run these unless there is a legitimate violation, and especially don't run it just to intimidate a less experienced opponent

- This is not a highly-developed paradigm. I have more developed thoughts in my head. If you have specific questions, please ask me

Background: Masters student at University Nebraska Lincoln studying Communication Rhetoric with an emphasis on critical theory and film. Former 2021 NFA-LD National Champion, 2019 Missouri State Policy Champion, 2018 NCFL LD Quarterfinalist.

While I will likely vote for almost anything if you have the proper framework to justify it. I am a former critical anti-blackness debater. I believe debate is more than a game and my experience in the activity has obviously informed my love for critical debate. Critical education is a cornerstone of this activity that I love to explore. However, you can read just about anything in front of me but you should know my strengths and weakness as a judge. Don't think reading critical stuff is a auto-win, far from it, I'll hold you to a somewhat higher standard because I know what good K debate looks like and I understand it.

I'm not super well versed in the intricacies of policy argumentation despite my 10 years in this activity. I just ask you to meet me where I'm at. I love a good policy debate whenever the story of the AC is CLEAR and EXTENDED throughout the entirety of the debate. Your AR's shouldn't just be extension and tech, I need overviews and clear articulations of what the AFF does, what it solves and why it matters. Run your heg/econ/war policy AFF, just do it well. If you do run policy, do it well. However, I draw the line at any death/extinction good arguments. It's weird and privileged asf. If you think your opp can be construed as accelerationist or fascist, call it out as so and you will likely win. I'm tired of hearing "all humans need to die". I won't auto-down vote but if your opp impacts out your genocidal rhetoric, you're cooked tbh.

Policy NC's: In order, I prefer K's, Case Turns, DA's, CP's, Topicality, and Theory. I expect the AFF to cover all negative positions unless AR theory says otherwise. I will vote for topicality on policy AFF's but it will be an uphill battle reading framework against a non-T critical AFF. If it feels exclusionary, and the aff wins that it is, good luck.

Test your critical sauce in front of me, I will vote for K's/Critical AFF's them or give in depth feedback on how to improve them. I have a moderate/deep knowledge of most identity/class based critical literature and surface level understanding of po-mo crit lit. Run your critical/non-T AFF if you can win the topicality/methods debate, run the K if you know the actual links to the AFF. Rebuttal articulation is EVERYTHING.

If you're reading a non-T critical AFF, I would like your evidence to be rooted in the topic through the lens of your critical theory . I will be more sympathetic to well-crafted (rare) framework against non-T AFF's that are filled with backfile cards that have been read ad-nauseam in nearly all debate communities since 2000-2010 or even worse, cards that aren't even about the topic or identity. I'm not asking for you to role play the state, that's whack asf, i'm just asking you to innovate. I don't wanna hear the same afropess, be gay do crime and cap K cards that have been circulating in the community for decades. I want you to apply contemporary critical theory to the specific resolution at hand, you don't have to affirm the resolution but please, have to 1/3 or 1/2 or 2/3 of your AFF cards use same language used in the topic. There are scholars of all identities writing about Nuclear War, find them and amplify their voice. Framework is always an uphill battle in front of me but it's much easier when the AFF is not engaging with critical lit rooted in the topic.

K's: You need to clearly articulate why and how the AFF specifically links, and clearly isolate these links in the rebuttals. Explain why the perm isn't possible. Do not read afropess if you're not black. If you read links of omission, you better hope your opponent does not have a good response to why links of omission aren't real because I find those arguments persuasive. Links should be predicated off AFF action, language, impacts, politics, advantages etc.

Theory: Sure, I guess. I don't know much about condo/dispo/presumption, etc., so just try to explain them a little more than you'd usually have to for judges like me. I am less hesitant to vote for theory if it comes from an affluent or white team running frivolous theory interps against marginalized debaters/small schools. I encourage smaller teams to run disclosure theory against their opponents. If you're in policy, I may not be familiar with certain theory arguments.

Speed: I'm comfortable with speed if you go slow on tags and share docs. I flow on my laptop for most debates. Since I flow on my laptop, flash all docs and if you can, analytics too. Extra speaks for flashing analytics.

How to Get My Ballot: Win thesis-level claims and tell me where to vote and why. Exploit concessions (with warrants).

Feel free to email me at andre.j.swai@gmail.com for additional thoughts after the round and questions about college debate.

I have over a quarter-century of experience in the dynamics of corporate environments, navigating the nuanced terrains of high-stakes boardroom discussions, strategic planning sessions, and vigorous debates with both peers and executives at the highest levels. These experiences have not only underscored the profound influence of adept speech and debate in shaping outcomes but have also instilled a deep appreciation for the art of persuasion, critical thinking, and collaborative problem-solving. Additionally, I’ve been a proud member of SAG-AFTRA for three decades which has enriched this perspective, reinforcing the indispensable value of performance, passion, and precision in communication. This unique mixture of corporate strategy and theatrical expression has profoundly informed my understanding of the transformative power of effective communication—whether it's captivating an audience on stage or influencing decision-making in business.

The model I adopt as a judge in these debates is deeply rooted in the conviction that quality, not quantity, of argumentation reigns supreme. It is a philosophy born out of real-world applications where the power of a well-articulated, passionately delivered argument can pivot the course of discussions, sway opinions, and forge consensus. It is a testament to the belief that the essence of impactful communication lies not in the volume of information conveyed but in the ability to craft arguments that resonate on a deeper, more meaningful level with one's audience.

While it may be tempting to speak rapidly and provide copious amounts of information, I'd like to encourage you to consider the following points that I feel are important:

The Power of Persuasion: In the world of Parliamentary Debate/PF, your ultimate goal is not just to present information but to persuade your audience. Whether you're addressing policy makers, executives, or peers, your ability to convince them of your viewpoint is paramount. Quality arguments, backed by sound reasoning and passion, have a far greater impact with me than a sheer volume of facts and figures.

Effective Communication: Imagine you are addressing a boardroom full of executives or a panel of policy experts. In these real-world scenarios, they are not looking for information overload but for a clear and concise articulation of your ideas. For me, there is only so much information I can consume, digest, and absorb in a given period of time. If you race through arguments you run the risk of diminishing the impact and persuasiveness of your case.

Memorability and Impact: Quality arguments are memorable. They linger in the minds of your audience long after the debate is over. Quantity may overwhelm momentarily, but it often fails to leave a lasting impression. In the real world, your ability to make a lasting impact is a valuable skill.

Real-World Application: Consider that the skills you are developing in Parliamentary Debate/PF are not just for competition; they are for life. In professional settings, you will encounter situations where you need to influence decisions, present ideas, and lead discussions. The ability to make a compelling case while maintaining clarity and coherence is a prized skill.

I want to emphasize that, as a judge, I place a greater emphasis on the qualities that make an argument compelling and persuasive rather than solely focusing on technical details. Craft your speeches with precision, emphasizing persuasive language, tone, and clarity. Remember that your power lies not in overwhelming your audience but in persuading them effectively.

I debated BP/PF in HS and currently debate APDA/BP.

A couple notes:

1. Don't spread, go as slow as you can. If I can't understand you without a speech doc then I won't flow.

2. On progressive args: I don't have experience with them and don't really understand them, so if you do run them please explain them as you would to a small child, and I will try my best to evaluate.

3. 2nd rebuttal must frontline turns, and I'll look very favourably upon your arguments if you frontline defense as well. Similarly, while defense is technically sticky through 1st summary if it isn't responded to, I will look much more favourably upon your defense if it is present in 1st summary in spite of it. In other words, the more direct engagement from speech to speech the better!

4. Warrants are extremely important. If your evidence doesn't have a warrant I won't evaluate it. If you make good warranted responses to your opponents evidence and they don't have warranted frontlines, I will probably evaluate it.

5. Weighing is also extremely important. If you don't weigh then I have to weigh, but I'm not very good at weighing so you'll probably be disappointed. Therefore please weigh. Additionally, please be comparative in your weighing. Don't just tell me why your argument is important, but tell me specifically why your x argument beats your opponents y argument, and why that matters in the overall debate.

6. Although I do debate, I am only a small child. Therefore, assume I do not know anything more about the world than a small child would, and explain arguments as simply as you can.

7. I am tech > truth, but I have a decently high threshold for proof. That is, from your evidence, you must prove all of the link level analysis that leads to your impact in order for me to buy it. An asserted impact that does not have sufficient analysis will not be evaluated, even if the other team does not respond to it. In addition, although I am open to voting on anything, the wackier the impact the higher the burden of proof is. If you are going to impact extinction, make sure that you provide compelling analysis that it could happen.

8. Have fun :) and best of luck!

Montville Highschool 23'

Rutgers University 27'

Hey, im Tanay. I debated for 4 years in PF, Parli and LD, and won the NJ state tournament for parli junior and senior year and qualified to Parli TOCs in my senior year.

Scroll down if your in PF.

Parli:

I think can get really muddled, to you have to make it clear to me as to why you win. I want a clear collapse in the last speech, and please WEIGH. impact comparison will win or lose rounds. Weighing ideally should start in the second speech, last is fine but doing it earlier allows for more contextualization in the back half. Always do meta weighing, just saying we outweigh on probability or something is not enough if your opp is doing contextual meta weighing of why scope outweighs probability. Make it clear to me as to WHY YOU WIN.

Make sure to make clear definitions in the beginning of the round to ensure a clear debate into later speeches. I'll mostly listen to any argument, as long as it isn't abhorrently abusive. Lastly, I enjoy when debaters go top down in their rebuttals and have some sort of signposts to me as to where I should be on the flow.

POIs - I expect a team to take at least 2 POIs per round. Raising your hand is enough to signal your question, competitors should be paying attention to any requests.

POOs - I'll take them into consideration, but if I come to conclusion right away I'll let you know. Otherwise I'll let you know of my decision in my RFD.

For the rest of the conventions, look to the live doc for tournament specific preferences.

PF:

My general judging preferences in PF don't change much from parli but i'll list some stuff that could be important below:

• ALWAYS WEIGH!! - This is not just for between straight impacts but also goes for when deliniating between what impact calc is more important. You should be doing that meta weighing for me throughout the round, e.g, timeframe ows magnitude for xyz reasons.

• Collapsing should ideally start in rebuttal.

• Don't go overkill on LBL especially in the back half of the round, there should be geninue world comparision. This means later speeches should prioritize judge instruction and telling me how to vote instead of just responding to everything they said. If all I have is just a bunch of LBL on my flow and 0 instruction of what I should prioritize or whats the highest layer, do not expect speaks to be high.

• I do not think defense is sticky

• Tech > truth, but if a argument is probably false the brightline for response is much lower compared to a arg that may be more true/more warranted.

• Don't really like progressive arguments in PF. If you're spreading and i cannot understand what you're saying, theres a greater chance things do not go in your favor.

• Speaks will start at 29 and either go up or down depending on what happens in the round. Good weighing, collapsing, and just instruction all go a long way in increasing your speaks.

Email: tanayv05@gmail.com

Hi, this paradigm is written by Liya's daughter, who's been doing parliamentary debate for a year :)

My mom hasn't judged a lot before, but she puts a lot of effort into every round she judges. English isn't her native language, so try not to go too fast; she'll only flow what she can understand. Try to reinforce your points well and provide a clear roadmap, and she really appreciates it when you're able to explain your contentions clearly and fully. Be respectful, and have fun!

Hi! I am a parent judge. Although I am flay, I have judged for many years and has experience to some extent. Here are a few preferences that may win you a round:

1. Please be nice to your opponents. If something rude or offensive is brought in, I will automatically vote for the other side.

2. Please do not spread. You can speak at a fast pace as long as it is clear, although I do prefer a slower and steadier pace.

3. When your opponents ask for cards, please give them in less than 2 minutes. After 2 minutes is up, it will count as your own prep time.

4. I do not flow crossfire. If you want me to flow something brought up in cross, please extend them in later speeches.

5. I have some knowledge over this debate topic, but please do make sure you explain your arguments clearly.

6. I prefer Truth > Tech, but if your truth makes no sense, then I will not buy it.

7. Please weigh impacts and bring up voter issues in the final speeches.

8. I will provide a 10 second mercy rule after you have reached the speech limit. Note that I will not flow anything after that.

9. Have fun! I am looking forward to seeing you all! :D

Public Forum

I have coached debate for about 3 years so I have a bit of knowledge about the style and most likely the topic that is being debated as well. This means that you should not worry too much about speed or giving arguments that are too complex. I will judge the round only based on what was said in the round. Feedback is only provided if asked!

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name because I don't note down author names for cards (e.g. "John 18 or Smith 20") I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Content:

-No theory. I won't vote on it. See link for reasons

-Show me clear impacts and weigh them for me. This is super important in how I adjudicate rounds. Just proving a superior number of contention does not give you the round, proving why your contentions are more important wins you the round. Very rarely will there be a round where one side has no contentions standing at all, so I need some sort of metric to measure. This also means that I value a clear framework from both sides and potentially a debate about framework should that influence how I would adjudicate

-Crossfire is not super important to me unless either you go back to it in one of the speeches or something absolutely killer comes out of the exchange

-I do not care much about flowing everything through in summary and final focus. There are no auto-drops. It should mostly be used to clarify the round for me. If some point is not mentioned again in summary and final focus, then I will judge as that point stands from material in the first half. However, this usually means the weight of the point is up to my discretion

Stylistic:

-Be courteous during cross-fire (ie. do not shout over each other) I will dock points if anyone is particularly rude

Misc:

-Have evidence ready; if the other team asks for it and you cannot give it to them in 1 min, it will be discounted from the round

-I will stop crossfire questions right at 3 minutes but I will allow for you to finish your sentence if the time is up during an answer

-I rarely write out RFD's on Tabroom ballots so my oral feedback after the round is where the majority of my RFD is explained

-I welcome questions or concerns about the round, and if you feel that I judged unfairly, please let me know after. While I cannot change the ballot, I will do my best to explain my RFD.

Parliamentary

I've done various parli-ish styles like BP and Worlds for about half a decade now. I haven't judged much American Parli so there might be some rules I am not familiar with, but I'll catch on quickly.

I mostly judge based on content, with very little focus on style as long as I can understand you. As for theory or whatever, make it simple for me, I'm not a fan but I will always be happy to hear them out.

Please keep time for both yourself and your opponents. If you keep asking POIs during protected times I will deduct points.

Parent judge. Experience with Parli. I try to maintain as detailed a flow as possible. Don’t care for debate jargon.

Speak clearly, at a reasonable pace and volume. I don’t like feeling like you are yelling at me!

Clearly state and weigh your impacts, provide clear logical links, POO any rules violations.

Not experienced with Ks or Theory. Best not to run it with me and if you do, youmustexplain it well and in detail.

A big pet peeve of mine is when team members talk to each other loudly or in a distracting manner (think high-fiving each other, laughing, making faces, etc.) while the other side is presenting their arguments. I understand you need to plan your response, but you must do it quietly to avoid distracting me or the other team.

Be respectful to your opponents and me. I will give you lower points if you are not.

And don’t forget to have fun!