Hello! I am a current sophomore at Columbia University, who did Public Forum debate in high school. In the round, I will largely weigh arguments as you present them to me. I can listen very quickly, so speed is not an issue for me, but you shouldn't try to jam too much into your time as to weigh down your argument. I see LD debate as a communication event, so you should be listening to each other and responding to your opponent's actual arguments. I put strong value on a well-structured and well-supported case. Also important is how well the debater supports and defends their Valueand Value Criteria, as if you give it to me you should stick to it. Give a good philosophical debate and have fun!

Coach for 20 years- judged all events. Important- link of claims back to value structure, moderate speaking pace is very much appreciated. I flow rounds and use the flow to guide my decision but do not drop debaters just for not extending all arguments cleanly. I like to hear logical fallacies called out as much as I like to hear logic employed in a round.

I am generally a flow judge and can follow fast paced debate.

Framework should be established and followed throughout the round. Tell me why your framework is superior and back up your claim with evidence in contentions. If there is no framework debate, the round will rely on weighing evidence in contentions.

Contentions should be clearly stated with supporting evidence and analysis. Your evidence should be fully explained and analyzed as to its impact on the debate. I prefer evidence be referred to by subject/topic throughout the round rather than simply the author's name. Know your evidence well enough defend it in cross-examination.

Your case should be organized, focused and come to a reasonable conclusion that convinces me to vote in your favor. Failure to communicate the importance of evidence, weighing values and impacts, or extending key arguments may result in a loss.

I am a parent judge and have been judging LD/PF debate since 2023.

I will try to take detailed notes to help judge the round.

I do not mind if you speak quickly as long as you can be understood. I do need you to speak up! Please try to make eye contact with me and your opponent on occasion.

Parent judge with 5 years of experience judging PF and some LD, both in-person and online. I'm not quite a tech judge, but am getting closer. For PF debates:

• Clearly lay out your contentions and subpoints upfront, and refer back to them during the round when you're providing additional evidence or warrants. Extend in your final speeches.
• I don't need an off-time roadmap, but feel free to provide one if you think it's helpful. Your speech should be organized well enough that I can tell when you're talking about your case or your opponent's, without an upfront roadmap to guide me there.
• I don't flow crossfire unless something new jumps out that I'm looking for later. In the next speeches, be sure to extend anything from crossfire that you want me to consider. Otherwise, you've made the decision that it's not important for me to hear or consider.
• Weigh, or at least tell me what the impacts are of your argument. Without that, I'm left without much of a "why" upon which to judge the round.
• That said, impacts should be reasonable and realistic. If nuclear war and 7 billion deaths really are a likely impact of your argument, that's fine. But I might give equal weight to an argument that would lead to 100K deaths from a conventional war that is more likely to happen in your future-state or the status quo. Or one that would increase the deficit by 5%, if that's more likely to be the outcome. And I definitely won't give much weight to a nuclear war impact from something like organic farming, or Medicare for All -- again, be realistic.
• If you want to run theory, go for it, but remember you're trying to convince me (not a professor or college debater) that your argument is better than your opponent's. Most theory cases don't do a lot for me, so you have a higher bar to clear if you're going to go that route.
• This goes without saying, but be polite and respectful to each other, and have fun. Even if it gets testy during the round, please congratulate each other at the end and shake hands (or fist-bump). I know the competitive aspect of this is real and can get intense, but remember why you're here.

Greetings!

I am a parent judge and I have judged speech, PF, and LD. I prefer clear speaking, please do not spread. Please thoroughly explain and signpost throughout the round. Please no theories that are not relevant to the resolution.

I expect non-aggressive and friendly cross-examination and class. Be respectful to each other. Debaters should time their own speeches. I will time also and keep track of prep time.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com- This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will most likely not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater, but don't use speed. It ruins any persuasive appeal, and the round boils down to strategic errors instead of any real substantive analysis. I will dock speaker points.

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning, not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event, so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading, but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments, otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech, which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says, and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

29-30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29/below: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28/below: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27/below: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however, analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26/below: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

My name is Tara Harris, and I'm a Myers Park High School parent. I'm a "lay" judge who is new-ish to the world of debate. Most of my judging experience has been in PF with some experience in Speech and Big Questions.

Please plan to:

-speak at a reasonable pace,

-provide enough evidence to properly support your arguments,

-be kind and respectful, and

-be clear and persuasive.

Even if I'm taking notes, I'm still fully engaged in what you're saying.

I'm unlikely to "flow" much of your crossfires and grand crossfires, but I'm very interested in these portions of the debate; of course, if something worthwhile comes out during a crossfire that merits repeating during one of your next speeches, please do so.

If you plan to give me an off-time roadmap, do it as slowly and clearly as you would a "real" speech.

Good luck on engaging in a constructive and interesting debate! And most importantly, have fun!

My email: ashutosh.komali@gmail.com, add me to any speech or card doc.

A bit about me, I am a freshman in college (Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech.) and have competed in many events consistently over 4 years, mainly in Public Forum. Other events I did were Congressional Debate and World Schools Debate (best event) for Ardrey Kell High School/Carolina West District.

Please feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before the round starts.

TLDR; my paradigm is pretentiously long but i dont feel like deleting it. Just debate, you got this. If you truly aren’t sure what to do in the round, my paradigm does tell you what I look for but you are competent enough to figure it out. Ive barely gotten out of high school so im not going to be as formal as a typical judge but I will be professional and expect you to be as well (my crocs aren’t professional attire but complement them for brownie points lol)

^Most important^

Current Tournament: Policy and BQ Carolina West Districts

I honestly don't have any topic knowledge on either topics and I have no experience in policy at all. For policy treat me like a lay judge, I'll do my best judging on the flow, I can't really handle speed for an 8 minute straight speech and won't do any prog and I haven't even checked the policy topic.

I've competed, prepped, and gotten familiar with BQ at some point so I'll be ok judging this more than policy. I know what the topic is but haven't though about it so I'll just judge on the flow and what I can understand (BQ can get convoluted so I'll try my best).

————————————————————————————————————————————

General PF Stuff:

Tech>Truth in almost any circumstance as long as it's not offensive or absolutely absurd (impacting out to 1 trillion humans)

Prog Debate: I am a substance judge and will always prefer a very lay and trad round. I don't really care how you feel about this, but I hate progressive rounds, and though I won't drop you for it, I'm unlikely to prefer the team that reads it, especially if it is being spread. Reading theory against novices is lame. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t read it on teams that are being absurdly exclusionary, but don’t read prog just for giggles.

For specifics on my thoughts on different forms of prog, just ask me.

Speaker Points: I won't go below 27.5, unless you are being excessively aggressive and/or rude or say anything offensive or discriminatory.

Speech docs: I hope this is obvious from what I just said, but don't try to spread, especially if you mess up your speaking a lot, but if you do spread, send speech doc.

I generally will not ask for a speech doc because I am fairly fine with flowing unless you spread very fast, which I considered being 250 or 260+ wpm.

Frameworks: I default cost-benefit analysis/utilitarianism, but you can have your own FW. Provide warranting for why this is the FW of the round tho, or else I will think it is very weak. Second case can always have a counter FW or just respond in rebuttal.

Mavericks: Everything the same except I'll give mav's 5 minutes of prep

Speech Analysis:

Case: Have clear warranting, it can be obscure or unique, but it should make sense. Case comprising of cut cards is recommended for your own usefulness, I am fine with anything paraphrased, but if a card is miscut or paraphrased incorrectly, I will drop it from my flow. Note: this can only happen if opponents call cards and address cards and I follow up with the card.

1st Rebuttal: Pre-emptive frontlines are nice, you should know what your job is, go top down on their case and respond to it to the best of your ability, addressing cross questions can help as well.

2nd Rebuttal: Make sure you frontline here, I won't evaluate it in second summary, feels abusive to me. Respond to their case obviously.

Don't read cards only, make analytical responses, these often have the best warranting throughout the round so they are useful, and when reading any carded response, make implications to why they clash with your opponents claims. Don't say something then not tell me why it it important.

Weighing is always welcome here.

1st Summary: Make sure you frontline your case well, only place for you to frontline. If you want me to evaluate something in my decision, you need to include it here. I advise you to collapse on your case, don't need to if opponents didn't do very well on responding. Make sure you weigh here.

2nd Summary: Again, no new frontlining that wasn't in rebuttal. Should address first summary. Nothing really different from first summary.

NO NEW RESPONSES, I get annoyed by this. This should be obvious, but no new arguments, I won't evaluate them.

If new arguments are made in summary and you respond to them just to be on the safe side then that's fine but I generally won't encourage it as I drop new args(unless its frontlining in first summary) and a time suck.

1st Final Focus: I agree that this is some disadvantage since you don't get the last word, but this is a big reason you should pre-emptively respond to their 2nd FF. Again extend things you want me to evaluate. Weigh.

2nd FF: Take advantage of this, you have the last word in the round. Don't do anything unfair, but if the round went very clash(AKA went to backlining and beyond), new analysis of the arguments are welcome here, this goes for first FF too. Weigh.

Your Final Focus should practically write the RFD for me, even if you are losing hard, don't give up and make a convincing final statement as to why you should win.

WEIGHING: To me, weighing and impact calc is very important, as even if you concede to all of your opponents links, you can still win off of weighing impacts with a clear link into them with your arguments. Magnitude is often the default in rounds, but differentiate your weighing from your opponents by using other weighing mechanisms too. Meta-weighing is often not included in many rounds I watch but it is a great tool, helps me in my decision and is always welcome.

Although it is convenient for the debaters, I don't believe in sticky defense, just don't do it. Extend.

I may call for cards once the round is over for me to clear up any suspicious evidence or cards that are challenged during the round.

Finally and probably most important, please make an implication of any argument that you extend in the back half of the round that has clash on both sides(hopefully a lot of them exist) because without implications I can't easily tell who wins an argument if they don't interact with the other side

Excited to be a first-time parent judge. NO SPREADING PLEASE

Qualifications for Judging:

Highly skilled in persuasive writing and public speaking through work experience.

Completed the NFHS Cultural Competency Judge Training course.

Education:

Brandeis University, Bachelor of Arts in Politics, Class of 1991

Cornell University, Master of Management in Hospitality, Class of 1999

Work Experience:

Over 24 years in hospitality advisory and investment banking

Interests:

Travel, Music, Art, History, Geo-Politics, Outdoor Activities

I am a parent judge with two school years experience as a lay judge.

-Please speak at a conversational pace.

-Speak clearly.

-I will flow all the round except for the cross examinations. So, the better organized your speech, the better I can flow.

-Please obey your time.

-Be respectful and professional at all times.

-I look for clear, organized and logical argumentation and valid, unbiased evidence.

Good luck and have fun.

Hello,

My name is Anjali Mittal and I've judged a couple of debate competitions. I would appreciate it if you can speak slowly, clearly outline your arguments, follow the rules of debate, and respect each other while debating. Good luck!!

I am new to judging Speech and Debate this year. I like speeches that are not overly fast-paced. In the virtual environment, I believe annunciation is very important. Also, presenting with a strong volume without yelling will be preferred.

Organization and clarity are beneficial. It will be hard to keep my attention if the flow is inconsistent.

Any point being made should have evidence to support it. Present evidence that is factual but in a way that keeps my attention.

Presenters should keep their energy up throughout their speech and be respectful.

Enjoy the experience.

I am the parent of a LD debater and I am returning to judging after a 15 year hiatus. I have reaquainted myself with the mechanics of both LD and PF debating but expect you to help me with signposting. I want to hear factual evidence that is logical and well-researched to prove to me why you should win over your opponent. I also expect you to be well organized so I can follow your arguments. Therefore, spreading and speaking too quickly are going to make it difficult for me to stay with you.

Always be professional and respectful to each other.

Speaker Points:

I generally stick to a range of 25-29, with 25 being average or slightly below, 26 being decent, 27 being good, 28 being very good, and 29 being exceptional. I'll reserve 30 for a speaker who knocks it out of the park. If you are being unnecessarily rude, condescending to your opponent, or use racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. language, then I will rank you lower than this range.

This is my first year as a debate judge. I am looking forward to this.

Dear Debaters,

As a judge, my primary goal is to foster a fair, constructive, and intellectually stimulating debate environment. Here is my paradigm to provide you with insight into my expectations and criteria for evaluating your performances:

1. Clarity and Organization:

   • I appreciate clear and well-organized presentations. Don't speak too fast. More importantly, ensure that your arguments are structured logically, making it easy to follow your line of reasoning.

2. Content and Substance:

   • Substance is key. Research your main points well. I like supported assertions. Depth of analysis and a comprehensive understanding of the topic will be crucial in my evaluation.

3. Engagement and Responsiveness:

   • Actively engage with your opponents' arguments. This is where most debates are won or lost. Be alert. Address counterarguments effectively, and be responsive to questions during crossfire. Demonstrating adaptability and responsiveness will positively impact your overall assessment.

4. Delivery and Style:

   • A compelling delivery enhances the impact of your arguments. Stand or sit up straight. Maintain a clear and audible voice, use hand gestures to emphasize your points, and make good eye contact with the judge and opponents.

5. Professionalism:

   • Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate. This includes respecting time limits, avoiding distractions, and presenting your arguments with a focus on substance rather than theatrics. Civil, respectful discourse is key for me.

6. Collaborative Teamwork:

   • For team debates, I value collaborative teamwork. 1-1=0... 1+1=2. Teams work best. Each team member should actively contribute, and an effective division of responsibilities can enhance the overall coherence of your arguments.

7. Critical Thinking:

   • Showcase your critical thinking skills. Analyze the implications of your arguments and demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the topic. Quality over quantity is important, and thoughtful, well-supported points will be rewarded.

8. Respectful Environment:

   • Foster a respectful and inclusive debate environment. Disagreement is expected, but it should be expressed with courtesy and professionalism. Create an atmosphere that encourages intellectual exchange.

Remember, my goal is to provide constructive feedback that will help you grow as debaters. Regardless of the outcome, each debate is an opportunity for improvement. I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging debate.

Best regards,

Sarah Patten

Parent lay judge-- speak slowly and be compelling!

Good luck.

I am a fairly new judge with little experience judging PF or LD events. I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread. I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge its merits.

I debated PF for four years at Delbarton. I currently coach for Charlotte Latin.

my emails for the chain are alexsun6804@gmail.com

charlottelatindebate@gmail.com

General Notes:

-Tech over truth

-Go as fast as you want, but if there isn't clarity then none of the content within the speech will matter. If you're spreading, send a doc in the chain if you feel like half of the speech isn't going to be super coherent.

-You should weigh and collapse on whatever arguments you think are the most important within the round.

-Tell me where you are on the flow (signpost) for speeches after constructive, otherwise I'm going to be really confused.

For Rebuttal:

-Provide warrants (reasoning and explanation) and implications to your responses
-First rebuttal should address your opponent's case and you can do weighing if you want

-Second rebuttal should respond to your opponent's case and you should frontline your own case.

For Summary:

-Collapse on the most important arguments in the round

-This is the latest you can start weighing, if you start weighing for the first time in final focus I'm not going to evaluate that.

-Rebuttal responses are not sticky so extend them if they are conceded

-General structure for summary can be your case, weighing, their case, but you can do whatever you want in terms of the structure as long as it makes sense

-Always extend or explain your case in summary

For Final Focus:

-Should be very similar to summary with the exception to front lining and comparative weighing

Other Stuff:

-Have cut cards ready if something is called

-Extend offense in the back half, otherwise, I'll be forced to intervene or presume

-I've done some stuff with theory and Ks, but don't be really trigger-happy with either. In general, disclosure and paraphrasing theory are examples of shells that I will be happy to evaluate. No frivolous theory, there needs to be quality warranting for drop the debater or drop the argument that could potentially make the interpretation a norm after the round. For Ks, I'm familiar with identity K's, securitization, set col, but feel free to run other Ks if you think it's important. I've judged rounds that involve tricks, and usually, it gets crazy, so go for them only if you feel like it's necessary to win the round. I'll do my best to evaluate progressive arguments if it goes down in the round.

-Don't be rude or say something problematic in round. It could cost you the round.

Good luck in round

I am a parent judge.

I give more weight to contents than to style of delivery.

I highly value clarities in your understanding of the topic, in the contentions you are making, and in the logical connections between your supporting materials and conclusions. Simply citing a researcher or a publication to "prove" X leads to Y without you telling me how that is supposed to work won't help you a lot. This means that you have to do some serious thinking by yourself during your preparation.

As of style of delivery, I appreciate clarity and confidence in your speech. So you really don't want to rush it under the pressure of squeezing in more contents.

Of course, rudeness and sarcasm to your opponent are game losers.

I'll not mind if anybody does not pronounce my name correctly and I may not be good at pronouncing yours either. I believe tolerance means we should demand less from others, not more.

My email to be used in your email chain: daoshan.sun@gmail.com

Hi,

This is the second time for me as a parent judge.

1. Please speak clearly & slowly.
2. Please make sure your speech is organized and structured.
3. Appreciate if your statements either "for" or "against" are supported by examples, reasoning, logic etc.
4. Please be respectful.
5. Please try to stick to the permissible time limits.

Good luck and have fun...

I am a parent judge relatively new to debate.

Please, do not speak too quickly or without enunciation. If I can't track what you are saying, I won't be able to effectively judge you on your merits and arguments.

Even when I am not looking at you while taking notes, etc., I will be very engaged, Please make it clear what's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. please don't run any arguments about the event itself.

By your closing, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. In keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded.

I will keep time and encourage you to do the same.

I do not disclose winners unless specified to do so by the tournament.

I very much enjoy the competition of debate and look forward to judging your round. Good luck and have fun!

I have judged PF debates since 2020. I use computer to take notes of key points delivered. I value the logic in arguments more than style. Balanced defense and offense win debate. I expect each team to show respect to the opponent. Argue with facts and logic instead of rhetoric.

Hello Everyone! It is my pleasure to meet all of you! I am a PARENT judge. Here is a brief introduction of my judging style. I value effective delivery of arguments. I appreciate if you can speak clearly and maintain a good pace because English is my SECOND language. Use credible sources and relevant evidence to support your claims. I appreciate when debaters explain the significance of their evidence and provide context. I value direct clash. Debaters should address each other’s arguments and rebut them effectively. Good luck debaters!

Hey, I'm Joy (she/her/hers)! Former policy/pf debater, current collegiate speechie. Ask me for my email before the round starts if there's an email chain. Also, please try to keep your volume at a reasonable level - no shouting please! Thank you for accommodating me.

On that note, check with your opponents for any accessibility requests before the round starts. And don't be a jerk! You can be an excellent communicator without getting aggressive or using demeaning language.

Make my path to the ballot easy. Explicit voters/weighing, resolution of clash, and consistency on the link level will garner you a win. I'm going to call for evidence if you highlight/dispute it. While I'm not a fan of blippy extensions, it's still better than nothing to make sure you don't get lost in the LBL. Content/form/style deviations from the norm aren't an issue for me as long as you do it well - debate is socially constructed to an extent. Buy into the choices you make and make sure your opponents are okay with it too.

Procedurals: Tend to default to C/I unless the reasonability claim is actually fleshed out. Outline immediate consequences for abuse claims and how my ballot plays into that.

Ks: I'm probably not familiar with your literature. Fully articulate the world of the alternative and how the perm can't access it. Usually can be persuaded one way or the other on axiomatic good claims but only if they come early enough in the round.

I am a parent judge relatively new to debate.

Please speak clearly and slowly. If I can’t track what you're saying, I won’t be able to effectively judge you. Make sure you are organized in your speeches. Be respectful and professional, especially during cross.

I will try to take a lot of notes. Please make it clear what's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's.

Do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded.

I will keep time and encourage you to do the same.

I very much enjoy the competition of debate and look forward to judging your round. Good luck and have fun!

I'm a parent judge with about 2 years of judging experiences, mostly in PF and some in LD.

Never done Policy before so please don't spread. If I can not catch what your arguments are, I can't vote for them.

If may be helpful if you want to share your case doc with me: zhusufeng@hotmail.com.

Be confident, respectful and have fun.