I am a parent judge. I judge off of the flow. No Spreading and don't use a lot of jargon. Weighing and framework is important for me. I will give higher speaker points for debaters that maintain professionalism and are calm and respectful.

Hello,
I am a first year parent judge.
I am looking for clarity and eye contact.
Speech/case organization is important, and should be relatively easy to follow.
I write my feedback simultaneously as I listen to the speech. Avoid spreading so I can follow the argumentation.
Be respectful and cordial to your opponent.
Good luck!

Lay parent 3rd year judge

Speak relatively slow, explain and weigh, no theory/Ks

Hello Speech and Debate enthusiasts -

I am a parent judge and have been judging Speech (primarily) and Debate events for the past 4+ years.

Summary:: When judging any event, my philosophy for ranking students high or low is subject to the rules / guidelines that are relevant to that event. Aside from that I am listening to your flow, observing your body language and most importantly your attitude towards fellow competitors, judge and audience.

Debate:

• Throughout the debate, you should aim for pinpointing weak arguments. Make it easy for me to flow arguments and be specific. Refer to the flow when covering your opponent's case in rebuttals.
• During rebuttal speeches, do not bring the earlier points, bring something fresh to the debate.
• I prefer to listen to the debate framework and evaluate your warrants and evidence.
• I am not too big on “spreading” (fast speaking), it is hard enough to process your arguments so make sure to slow down and enunciate. I will stop if I fail to understand you.
• A key element of judging debate for me is how you differentiate yourself from the opponent.
• Providing a roadmap will help as well.
• It helps if you tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for.

My judging experience is mostly within speech and when judging debate, my preference is quality over quantity.

Speech:

For Speech, I am looking and hearing you as a Speaker not only as a judge but also as a member of the audience. As an audience member, you do not connect to me, then your speech lacked a certain element - this could vary. So in order to connect, you need to have Clarity, Pace, Organization and Engagement.

Delivery--I am evaluating you on content, delivery, speed of delivery, diction, and speed of delivery. As a speaker, I want to evaluate if you demonstrate poise and effective body language that fits well with your speech. It helps if you are able to relate to the mood and the emotions of the topic, character.

Overall, I want you to have fun and know that you will rank higher if you follow rules, are able to keep me engaged through your delivery and are respectful of everyone.

I am inclined towards a debate style that emphasizes clear and well-structured arguments. I am ok with competitors pushing the boundaries of what is expected, while staying within the rules of engagement.

Clarity Over Quantity: Articulate your arguments clearly and concisely. I prefer substance over quantity, so focus on the quality of your points rather than overwhelming me with sheer volume.

Respectful Engagement: I hope to see competitors display a respectful and civil tone throughout the debate.

Adherence to Time Limits: Stay within the allocated time limits for your speeches and cross-examinations.

Clarity and Coherence: The clarity of your arguments and their connection to the resolution will play a significant role in my evaluation.

Speech doc + make fun of me for using yahoo + postrounding virtually: abaner@berkeley.edu

I did LD back in high school (couple of state wins + T20 NSDA + T20 NCFL). I do NPDA at Cal now (won NPTE Nationals 2023 [carried by partner moment]). I coached James Logan LD last year.

TLDR

• Fine with any speed but if you're above 350 wpm please send a speech doc. Will shout clear/slow/loud if I need it.
• Willing to watch any debate y'all want to have. Idc what you run if you run it well.
• Powertagging is bad. Paraphrasing (cough cough pf) is nonideal. Evidence ethics is legit. I will do the whole autoloss + 20 speaker points thing if you stake the round on it.
• Speaks are probably sexist, classist, and or rascist. Read 30 speaks theory and I'll give both teams 30s.
• If the word ends with -ist and is bad, you shouldn't be it. Please. I will drop you and report you to tab. Also, please don't run afro-pess if you are nonblack. Zion, Joshua, and Quin do a wonderful job explaining why: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/#:~:text=In%20the%20words%20of%20Rashad,reduce%20Blackness%20to%20ontological%20nothingness.
• Weighing is nonnegotiable. Please. I have watched too many rounds withoutgood weighing. Please say one of the magic weighing words and then tell me why your mechanism is more important than your opponents/why you win under your mechansim. I default to SOL, then magnitude. But please please please weigh and metaweigh. Please.
• PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE COLLAPSE I BEG YOU
• Parli: I protect but just call the POO (obviously doesn't apply to other events). I barely know the high school norms are for POIs but ask away I guess.

Other TLDR things that I've collected over the years that are just preferences and don't change how I'll vote, but change my happiness in the round.

• Not a big fan of Nebel T :( I'll vote on it if you win it on the flow but like generally I'd much rather hear a debate about the substance of the aff plan vs you saying bare plurals + "this event being LD" means that the aff doesn't get the plan. Ideally, most sucessful debaters I've seen have read both and collapsed to whatever is cleaner

• I'd rather vote on substance than blips which means that if you have a choice to collapse to a 10 second line vs a 2 minute card out of your 1AR (or MG, or whatever the correct thing is for you're event), be strategic and go for what's the easiest out, but it'd make me happier if you went for the substance.

• The more I coach and read postmodernism, the less I think I understand it. Maybe I'm getting dumber, but I swear it made more sense when I ran it in high school.
• Stop saying gut check. I don't know what gut check means in the context of a flow round. If something is improbable, give me a warrant about why it's improbable.
• My favorite rounds to watch/judge K vs Case, Case v Case and K v K. This season Holden and I have changed our neg strat to be T + K + Disad, but prior to this year most of my rounds in college are a mixture of K v Theory or K v Case. This means nothing about what you should do, and everything about what I find interesting. Do what you feel comfortable with, and I will vibe.
• Saying try or die <<< doing smarter collapsing to something else

Case:

Is super cool!

• I like new + fun arguements. Read some crazy DA, go for the impact turn, make a hyper specific aff. Case is one of the places I feel like creativity shines through the most, and I love hearing cool case arguements.
• Link you impacts back to framework pls (for LD only)
• Linear disads are annoying! If you are going to run one you need to explain the link differential a lot more clearly.
• Chill with counterplans (pls stop saying "NSDA rules mean no counterplans" and respond fr). Condo (/dispo) is probably good but willing to listen to theory.
• Will listen to any CP (cheaty CPs, PICs, etc.) unless explicitly told they are bad by a theory sheet.
• I believe that the aff burden is to prove a) why the plan is desirable and b) is better than the cp. I will judge kick -- I don't thinking collapsing to a turn on the counterplan means that you prove the plan is desirable, especially if the neg is allowed multiple conditional counterplans (given the aff doesn't read T).
• Perms are tests of competitions please stop saying you added an advocacy lol
• Weighing is super important in case v case rounds. The sooner you pick a framing and tell me why you win, the easier evaluating the round is.

Kritiks:

I've run Buddhism, Althusser, Foucault, and MLM (not as much MLM as other cal teams) mainly. I mostly run Buddhism. I've coached Set Col and Deleuze.

• Down for anything but the longer the average word length of the author you're reading is, the slower you need to go if you want me to understand.
• If you're alt starts with "I/We already ruptured the debate space so vote for us for fun" pls stop making the author of your lit base turn in their grave (if they have passed) or contribute to their sadness (if they are alive)
• I think K-affs need to win (a?) topic harm(s?) to justify why they are k-ing out, and on the neg you need to win a link to the aff.
• Specific links >>>>> generic links.
• Frameouts are legit and underutilized.

THEORY TO K BRIDGE! In a K vs FW T round, don't just say 'a prori' or repeat your apriori tag as a reason for your arg to be layered first. I've had too many rounds where I have no clue who is apriori because the clash was just both debaters saying "we are a prorir"

Theory:

As a top note, chill on the friv T! I'd rather not have to vote on shoe specc or tropicality again :(

• Defaults: competing interps > reasonability, text > spirit, acc abuse > potential abuse, drop the arg > drop the debater. As with all defaults, feel free to win the arguement on the flow and my mind changes.
• In a vacuum, I like RVIs. I think if you do them and win why you get RVIs (assuming the other team says you shouldn't), I will happilly vote on them.
• Check your interps before you read them -- I've been in far too many rounds where people have read "text > spirit" and then have accidently used the wrong wiki name (it changed!) or had something else wrong with their text
• Big fan of bidirectional T that's set up well in flex!
• (Parli:) MG theory is chill. Anything after that probably not. I heard PMR theory was cracked tho.

Phil:

I read all type of phil in high school. I've read all the common LD authors before (Kant, Habermas, Rawles, Virtue Ethics, Land Ethics, etc...) and some niche ones like Levinas.

• If it took you 2+ reads to understand your card because of the writing style, I will not get it on first listen. Either a) send me your case (should already be disclosed) and b) slow down and c) add explinations in your own words frequently
• Phil frameouts are insane and a huge part of what makes phil LD tick. When you're weighing, go the extra step don't just tell me why you're arguements link -- tell me why your opponents don't.
• Don't be shifty in cross when explaining your author

That was long. Ask me questions preround if you need to or send me an email. Feel free to postround too.

ty Ozan for this poem:

"weigh

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur"

I am a lay judge, so whenever you talk about anything, please make sure that you explain it thoroughly. I know little to nothing about this topic so just keep that in mind.

How I will vote.

1. The first thing that I will take into consideration is whoever proves more convincing to me, whoever proves that the benefits outweigh the harms or that the harms outweigh the benefits. I would greatly appreciate if you could weigh with your impacts on the three scales, magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

2. Whoever debates better. I would also vote for a team that refutes all of their opponents points compared to a team that drops all of their opponents points. Whoever keeps their case alive at the end, and destroys their opponents or whoever convinces me to vote for them in this way will definitely earn my ballot.

Not as important but I may include some of this in my decision

1. PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES. For example: If you take like a minute of prep extra and YOUR OPPONENTS POINT THIS OUT TO ME, this will affect my decision. Please use your respective amount of time for speeches, there is a 10 second grace period after every speech, and 3 minutes for prep.

2. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL. Although this is competitive, it is still done for fun. There shall be no disrespect shown to anyone else, as this is a formal setting and must be looked upon as.

3. PLEASE NO SPREADING. IF you do so, I may not catch everything which will affect my decision.

I will be listening to the speakers carefully and looking for flow, consistency, evidence and sources of evidence. Will be noting down all the key points and assess based on content presented and will go by the data for final out come. I have judged in Berkley and other tournaments around Bay area before.

Mira Loma HS '22 | UC Berkeley '26

Email: holden.carrillo@berkeley.edu

In high school I competed in PF for 3 years, mostly on the national circuit, and had an average career. I've competed in NPDA in college for 2 years, winning NPTE and a few other tournaments. I coached LD at James Logan and parli at Campolindo last year.

Public Forum

TL;DR: I'm a few years removed from the circuit so be aware that I may be unaware of newer norms. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and good weighing are musts. Respond to everything in 2nd rebuttal. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round, and I'll do my best to adapt to you.

Front-Half:

• Speed: Add me to the email chain. I'd like docs sent in the first four speeches, even if you're going slow. If you send a doc, any speed is fine. If you don't, don't go faster than 300 wpm, anything under shouldn't be an issue.
• Evidence: While I paraphrased in HS, I'm not super proud of it. While I'm not a huge stickler for paraphrasing/reading cards, paraphrasing is a bad norm and I'm down to vote for paraphrasing theory if it's run correctly and won.
• Cross: I'll probably be half listening to cross, so I'll never vote off of anything here unless it's said in speech. However, cross is binding, just make sure someone mentions it in a speech. If both teams agree, we can skip any crossfire and have 1 minute of prep as a substitute.
• Rebuttal: 2nd rebuttal must frontline everything, not just turns. Advantages/disads are fine, 4 minutes is 4 minutes, but my threshold for responses will increase if you implicate them to their case. Blippy responses are tolerable but gross, I'd like it if you weighed your turns and your evidence when you introduce it.

Back-Half:

• Extensions: My threshold for extensions are very very very low. I think that extensions are a silly concept and uneducational (especially in PF). As long as you talk about the argument, it's considered extended. However, this doesn't mean that you can be blippy in the front half, and this doesn't mean that defense is sticky. Unless your opponents completely dropped their argument, dropped defense still needs to be mentioned at least briefly in summary.
• Weighing: Be as creative as you want, I hate judges that don't evaluate certain weighing mechanisms like probability and SOL. If 2 weighing mechanisms are brought up and both are equally responded to without any metaweighing, I'll default to whoever weighs first. If nobody weighs then I'll default to SOL (please don't make me do this).
• Final Focus: I know this is cliche, but the best way to win my ballot is by writing it for me. You're best off specifically explaining why your path to the ballot is cleaner than theirs rather than focusing on minuscule parts of the flow.

Progressive Debate:

• Theory: I'm probably a bit better at evaluating theory debates than LARP ones. I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team. For accessibility reasons, if no paradigm issues are read, I'll default to DTA (when applicable), reasonability, and RVIs.
• Kritiks: Anything should be fine, but while I had a few K rounds in PF, most of my K experience comes from parli (i.e. I still don't know if proper alts outside of "vote neg" are allowed in PF, a lot of rules around K's are cloudy for me). There's a lot of literature I'm not familiar with, so please take CX to explain this stuff especially if it's pomo.
• Tricks: I'm a fan of them, don't know why there's so much stigma around them. With that being said, if you're hitting an unexperienced team, my threshold for responses are low, but feel free to run tricks.

Also, uplayer your prefiat offense. Please. Not enough teams do this in PF and it makes my ballot hard.

Other:

• I presume the team that lost the coin flip unless given a warrant otherwise. If there's no flip I'll presume the 1st speaking team
• Big fan of TKO's
• Big fan of content warnings
• Big fan of tag-teaming
• Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped. On this note, please do not run afropess if you are nonblack.

Speaker Points:

Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:

• + 1 for disclosing on the wiki (show proof before the round)
• + 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
• + 0.5 for a Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
• + 0.1 for every CX skipped
• + 0.1 for every swear word
• - 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
• Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, CC good, wipeout, or any other fun impact turn
• Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
• Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without any prep time
• Instant 30's if you weigh/respond to their case for at least 30 seconds in 2nd constructive

If I'm missing anything specific, feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

Parliamentary

TL;DR: Most of my parli experience is on the college level, so I might be unaware of specific norms in HS Parli. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and weighing will take you a long way. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round.

Case:

• Love it, I'm a case debater primarily.
• Please please please please please terminalize your impacts. For some reason some HS parli teams struggle with this. Tell me why your impact matters, go the extra step during prep.
• I'm a sucker for squirrelly arguments and impact turns.
• Please weigh, I mean it. The earlier you weigh, the higher my threshold for responses are. If 2 weighing mechanisms are equally competing with no metaweighing, I'll default to the first one read.
• I love lots of warranting.
• Go for turns.
• Skim through my PF paradigm to see detailed opinions on case, but to put it briefly I'm pretty simple and am cool with anything.

Theory:

• Good with theory, probably the most comfortable with my decisions here.
• MG theory is good, but will listen to warrants otherwise. I probably won't vote for theory out of the block/PMR unless it's a super violent violation.
• I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team.
• I really don't understand the norm of no RVI's in parli. If a team runs theory on you, go for RVI's!!! I'm not an RVI hack but my PF background makes me want to see more RVI debates.
• Defaults: CI's > reasonability, DTA > DTD, text > spirit, potential abuse > actual abuse (but as with all defaults, win an argument on the flow and my mind changes)

Kritiks:

• While I'm totally cool with K's, I'malso not familiar with a lot of lit, esp some of the weird pomo authors, but at the same time I'll 100% vote for something I don't understand if you win it. When competing, I usually run Buddhism, Althusser, or some variation of cap, that's what I'm the most comfortable with. Any common K with a clear topical link should be fine though.
• Don't take the easy way out, write some non-generic links! This isn't necessary, but I feel more comfortable voting for a K with unique links to the topic.
• I feel a lot more comfortable judging K's vs. case/T-FW/dumps than K v K debates (while I really don't care what you run, that's where I'll feel most confident with my decision)

Other:

• Speed is cool (top speed like 250-275 depending on how clear you are), but if I say slow and you don't slow then I'll stop flowing.
• Extensions are silly. While I do have a threshold for extending, that threshold is very low so the only time it would be a good idea to call out your opponents on their extending is if it's literally nonexistent.
• I'll evaluate any cheaty CP unless someone runs a shell telling me it's bad.
• If you're gonna perm something, respond to the perm spikes!!! Perms are a test of competition, not advocacy.
• Tricks are good, but my threshold for responses are low, especially if you're hitting a less experienced team.
• Condo's good, but you can convince me that condo's bad.
• Presume neg until I'm told otherwise
• Big fan of content warnings
• Big fan of tag-teaming
• Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped. On this note, please do not run afropess if you are nonblack.
• Collapse. Please.
• Flex is binding but needs to be brought up during speech for me to evaluate it.
• Repeat your texts or say them slowly please!

Speaker Points:

Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:

• + 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
• + 0.5 for each Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
• + 0.1 for every swear word
• - 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
• Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, or any other fun impact turn
• Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
• Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without flex (if applicable)

As I'm writing this, I feel like I'm missing something, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

For LD/Policy:

I have literally zero policy experience and limited LD experience. I know enough to be a decent enough judge, but may be unaware with specific norms on the circuit. Check my parli paradigm for my general thoughts on things!

Quick Prefs:

1 - LARP

1 - Theory

3 - Tricks

3 - K v. Case/T-FW

4 - K v. K

5 (Strike) - Phil

I participated in policy debate in high school and college. As a judge, I value quality arguments and analysis over speed or quantity. Please weigh the issues for me and tell me why you should win rather than expect that I will connect the dots for you. I do not prefer a theory debate for its own sake, but I will listen and evaluate such a debate if the participants want to engage it. 

FOR STANFORD 2021 REFER TO: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=65515

ignore below for Stanford 2021

I have judged for 5 years at HS level. I will be providing detail feedback including who won verbally right after the debate is over.

I care less for speaking style, but focus more on the content and logic. You can use debate jargon as well.

about me:

• first year out
• did pf for six years/competed under St Francis BC
• I now do APDA at Stanford, but I'm very much a beginner at parli so please bear with me if I'm your judge for it.

email chain: alexchas@stanford.edu

**General**

Tech > Truth, but my barrier for overlooking your evidence that says that the moon is made of cheese is low if you don’t support it with well substantiated warranting when faced with a response or evidence challenge.

My view of a good strategy/performance is simple:

1. Warranting is your friend: whether you’re reading a turn, weighing, extending, or reading framework, warrant warrant warrant. Teams that read concise, well intentioned, and well substantiated warranting have never in my eyes been hurt by it.

But Alex if I warrant that aggressively I can’t read my blippy contentions, turns, and weighing anymore :(

Haha so true bestie, that’s the point

1. Towards the back half of the round, I want to see both teams collapse and weigh to make it clear to me what your narrative is, why I should vote for your case/link/turn specifically, and how it interacts with the round as a whole.

2. #1 also implies that speeches between partners will share a common vision and strategy, which definitely ain’t happening if your FF doesn’t mirror your Summary.

3. This is a preference but I prefer cohesive and nuanced cases over spamming multiple contentions with subpoints, because in my experience, #1 and #2 of my views of a good strategy don’t often happen with the latter.

4. This doesn’t happen in all rounds, but doing things like kicking case for turns (when done well) are quite impressive for me and fall under what I would deem “good performance”

5. If you plan on reading a framework, actually understand the literature behind each of your framework’s warrants and use that to your advantage to weigh against other arguments.

What I mean by good weighing:

Good weighing is not me voting for you because your number is bigger than theirs. It’s giving me an understanding why I should turn to your arguments first. That also implies that you will be comparing weighing mechanisms as well. Because telling me you win on one metric while the other team wins on another brings me back to square one, where I’m back to being forced to pick and choose based on what I personally think.

I’ll always look at weighing first, then any offense connected to that weighing, then all other offense (if there is no other weighing, which would make me sad)

Speed:

1. Speed is fine with me, and I’ll yell clear if I need to. But, note that as the months go by I’ll be less in tune with high school forensics, so it might be to your advantage to not go too crazy. (Crazy means speech doc levels)
   
   

2. Slow down for tags
   
   

3. I don’t like flowing off docs
   
   

Tiny rant about extinction framing:

This is not an excuse to avoid any meaningful weighing by simply reading your 100 trillion deaths card over and over again. Still weigh. Also actually read the lit behind your links because some cards I’ve seen have been so outrageous and not in the good way.

**Random Things**

Cross is binding. I won’t be flowing, but I’ll be paying attention so don’t pull anything morally ambiguous.

If you want me to read evidence, tell me to call for it. With that said, if it's irrelevant to the bigger picture of the debate, I won’t be reading it, and I’ll explain why in relation to the round in my rfd.

Postrounding is ok, I make mistakes. But note that my decision was also impacted by what has happened in the round, so ideally we could avoid this situation. If there was a game changing piece of weighing or delink that should’ve given you the win, you should’ve been making it clear in the backhalf.

**Prog**

Theory: I’ve run and debated against theory a decent number of times, and I’ve got to say it isn’t my favorite. Most rounds turn into the same thing over and over again with similar-ish standards that just end up going in favor of the team that has the most experience with theory to begin with. It’s also frankly quite clear that a majority of teams that run theory don’t do it for the sake of “spreading norms” or “prioritizing education,” rather they see it as a way to pick up rounds, so forgive me if my eyes roll to the back of my skull.

In addition, the notion that theory checks back against ad hominem, in-round abuse is absurd. If someone says something problematic and offensive about me in a round, the last thing I’m thinking about is how to format their violation into a shell and taking prep time to prepare an off for my next speech.

With that said, if you feel uncomfortable in the round, don’t hesitate to email me with my email above, and I will stop the round.

No Friv theory

Kritiks: I only ran two kritiks (neo-colonialism/intersectional queer futurity) in my time debating, and although they were quite fun to learn about and read, I will be the first to acknowledge that I barely knew what I was doing. I know about kritiks in concept and understand their function and format, but in practice, the lines become blurred for me. With that said, I find that critical literature raises a lot of interesting questions, especially if they discuss a cause you are particularly passionate about, so be my guest if you want to run it, I’d love to engage with you on the subject matter, just note that I might not evaluate the round as formally as someone proficient on the matter.

I am a parent judge. I have previously judged PF debates in a few tournaments.

• Please speak clearly, not too fast and do not spread.
• I prefer civil and respectful debates and be courteous to your opponents and partners.
• I like clearly articulated arguments with well documented evidence.
• I value consistent arguments.
• Refute the logic aside from quantitative data.
• Signpost at the beginning of your speech.
• Arguments brought up last minute will not win you that round.
• Speakers should keep their own time.

I do not disclose unless required by tournament rules.

Good luck and most importantly have fun!

I am a parent judge who has been judging for 2 years now. I am not great at flowing. I focus on the evidence, arguments and rebuttals. I believe in quality over quantity and so don't try to rush through a lot of content in your initial speeches. Speak clearly without speeding.

I have no preferences outside of being respectful and curteous to your peers.

UPDATED for Milpitas 2023: I don't judge frequently anymore nor do I really know what the norms in the circuit are these days, but I'm down for whatever both teams agree on. Overall, please use common sense. I can probably comfortably flow up to around 275 wpm with clarity and signposting.

About Me: Debated PF and Parli for 3 years for Nueva, was ~tech~, I now coach for Potomac.

TLDR: Debate is a game, tech > truth. Debate however you would like as long as you are not being morally reprehensible or exclusionary. Ask before the round if you have specific questions and put me on the email chain even though I probably won't read anything (bncheng@uchicago.edu).

Super Short Version:

1. I am best at judging technical case debate (and probably enjoy it more) but I will adapt to you if you choose to pursue an alternative style. Speed/prog are both fine.

2. I prefer cut cards/direct quotes - you can paraphrase but don't misconstrue evidence. Don't be afraid to call out an opponent for evidence ethics.

3. I prefer that at a minimum you respond to all offensive arguments read in the previous speech. I won't necessarily consider arguments dropped, but I have a much higher threshold for responses if they come later.

Full Prefs:

1. WEIGHING: Probability weighing is not real - the link debate is the probability weighing.

- "cLaRiTY of Link/Impact" weighing is not also real. I will both not evaluate it and also drop your speaks each time you say it. A team does not win because their impact has a number.

- Please don't only drop buzzwords on me. Words like magnitude/scope/timeframe don't mean anything to me without actual comparison done between the arguments. Similarly, if different weighing arguments are unresolved PLEASE METAWEIGH.

2. EVIDENCE: All evidence needs to be cut with citations. Do not send your opponents a link I will give you a 25. I will call for cards if they are relevant and disputed without resolution.

- I will give you an L25 if I notice/your opponent points out misconstruction that is significant. How much I discount a piece of evidence increases linearly with how sketchy it is.

- I'm lazy and I don’t flow authors. So don’t just extend author names, extend warrants too because its good debate.

3. PROGRESSIVE: I have experience with most progressive arguments, but primarily in theory, I haven't really engaged with K debate since graduating so while I can probably still evaluate the debate, you'll want to slow down, simplify things, and do extra warranting (especially if it's anything nuanced i.e. not security or cap).

- I don't have any defaults - you need to read the arguments (yes this means K/Theory = Case if no a priori argument is read). If arguments necessary for the decision are not read I will intervene up to a threshold and then presume if unresolved.

- Please don't read stuff to harvest ballots against novices - use common sense. This also means that my threshold for "we can't engage" responses increases as the "assumed" level of the debate increases (i.e. I'm not going to give you sympathy in quarters at a bid tournament)

- UPDATE FOR THEORY: IMO it's impossible to go for both a shell and case in FF effectively - you just don't have enough time. If you're going to read theory, either collapse on it or extend no RVIs and kick the shell - don't make a half-hearted attempt at going for both.

4. PRESUMPTION (is this still a thing idk): My default ROTB is to vote for the team that did the better debating. I think defaults like “first speaking team has a disadvantage” are intervention, so if no team has offense, neither of you debated better. You can obviously argue that one team should "get" presumption, but absent any such args, I will flip a coin (aff - heads, neg - tails).

5. POSTROUNDING: totally ok as long as you're respectful, I think it's educational and I'm happy to defend my decision. Also happy to discuss after the round through email. I will buy you food or something if you can convince me that I was wrong (unfortunately I can't change the decision sorry).

I am a first time parent judge. Please speak clearly and make well-rounded arguments with evidence. I want to clearly know why I should vote for you. Please be respectful too.

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

I have been judging for last 3 years, primarily Public Forum. I have also judged speech, LD and Policy occasionally as needed .

Please speak clearly and at a moderate to fast, but not superfast pace.Doing so will ensure the best understanding of your arguments, ultimately providing you the best chance to secure the winning ballot.

Looking forward to an exciting debate.

I am a lay parent judge and I judge tech/truth. I prefer not to have too many regulations on debaters and I consider myself a flexible judge. As for evidence sharing, please have all your evidence ready to go before the debate so we don't waste time and please include me in the email chain. Signpost so I can have a clear flow. For high speaks make sure to be clear and order your speeches. Finally, if you are going to spread or speak remotely fast, please email me a speech doc or put a link in chat, @desai.darshan@gmail.com.

I am looking for clear communication, professionalism and mutual respect in the debate. I also expect the debaters to maintain time.

I will also look for how each debater responds to questions and answers. Debate should be vigorous, but debaters should show decorum and respect when countering.

Comparing and contrasting in your arguments is very important. Do strong weighing between the two arguments (Affirmative/Negative) and explain why yours is better than theirs and why I should vote for you. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear.

I look favorably on the debater that can make their point, and at the appropriate time move on to another strong point of their argument rather than one who stays on the same point for too long.

I don’t prefer intervening and expect teams to call out bad behavior such as spreading, new arguments in final focus etc. Competitors do not have to reply every argument in case a team is using spreading tactic.
Competitors are encouraged to focus on main issues pertaining to the topic rather than “minor” or “obscure” arguments.

Good Luck at the Tournament!

Parent judge from DVHS

Hello, this is Shen.

I prefer to see that the debaters back their opinions/arguments with evidence and civility. Speaking clearly to the point is more important than speaking fast.

Have fun.

My paradigm is as follows:

1. I vote based off of what happens in the round, or more accurately, what happens according to my flow. If you want me to vote on an argument, it has to make it to my flow, and for an argument to do so, stay organized, sign post, and tag. It’s your job to be clear on what your specific response is, not my job to decipher what your tag line is or what you’re responding to.

2. While I am an alumni debater with a Policy, LD, and Parli background, I am very much AGAINST speed talking. You don’t need speed to spread, you just need to be an efficient and effective communicator.

POI: if I put my pen down during your speech, it’s an indication that your either are not communicating effectively (ie. not clear, organized, signposting, or tagging) or you are over time.

3. I suspend my own personal beliefs and simply follow the arguments for the duration of a round. You only need to make strong arguments and impact well to convince me. Don’t assume I agree with you and then cut your argument short (link, warrant, and/or impact) as a result.

4. I love structure in debate (arguments, cases, format, strategy, etc.) and have enjoyed framework debates in the past. As long as you make it clear why your argument matters both to your side and the resolution, I’ll vote on it. If you and your opponents fail to do so, the argument will not affect the RFD or I will have to insert my own opinion into the round to vote on it.

5. A consistent lack of impacting arguments to the resolution, turns the round into a “two ships passing in the night” experience rather than a high contrast debate round. When this happens, I am forced to insert my own opinion to choose a winner - which I very much don’t like doing.

6. Be professional and respectful. A lack of either of these makes your credibility drop significantly.

I am a lay judge but have extensive experience with argumentation. Most importantly, be kind to your competitors and do not go too fast.

1. I am speech couch that's been debate adjacent
2. I vote on the cleanest argument that makes sense, has evidence, links reasonably to an impact
3. If nothing makes any sense or proven true, I default to negative

My judging style is based on facts, composure, attitude and how you are able to think on your feet. I enjoy seeing a fair debate with amicable factual exchange of banter and strong counter arguments.

I am a parent judge with no experience in this event. Assume I have no background knowledge about the topic you are discussing.

Speak slow and explain your arguments clearly.

Good luck and have fun!

I am new(er) parent judge. I am listening to your arguments while keeping an eye on the clock and will let you finish the sentence but like to keep the proceedings on time.

I am listening to understand the logic of your arguments and how you are building your case. I also like to see you use your chance to ask questions of your opponents.

Hi! I consider myself a Novice judge . Thus, please tailor to my level of experience .

Please articulate clearly and with good volume. I wear a hearing aide.

If you have the option, I prefer normal rate of speech vs rapid fire.

I value politeness.

Thank you.

1. I am new to judging, so I would appreciate if you speak in normal pace (marginal slow or fast is ok) and clearly.

2. I am a big believer in fact, so please be correct in your facts.

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

im veda.

email: vedagott@berkeley.edu add me to the email chain.

I did forensics for 7 years. PF for about 5, interp for all 7.

tldr: dont make me think for you. extend links and warranting. dont be disrespectful.

the basics:

• i do not tolerate any form of disrespect or discrimination. i will report such behaviour and will not hesitate to drop speaks or the ballot.
• please do not pre or post round. whatever you say before or after the debate starts will not be taken into account in my ballot.
• time yourself. i trust you all to time yourself. I will not time.
• i will usually give verbal rfd's unless the tournament tells me otherwise
• have pre flows done, i dont want to sit there watch you all preflow
• if you need me to intervene in the round email me.
• speed: PLEASE PLEASE HAVE A SPEECH DOC IRREGARDLESS IF YOU ARE GOING FAST OR SLOW. it makes both of our lives easier. it doesnt have to be fully flushed out, just anything for me to refer to will be nice. :) i will yell clear. if i dont understand it i wont flow it and i will tank your speaks.

do this to win

tech > truth

• to an extent. i dont buy sexism good or climate change not real. use your brain.
• whatever is said in round is what will be evaluated
• I will not flow for you. you all need to tell me what to extend, what to drop, and what to write. I will not flow what you don't say.
• extend your evidence
• make your links clear, I should not to make the links for you
• tell me why you should win

warranting: a card is nothing without its warrant. you can't extend evidence without telling me the purpose it serves in round.

cross:

• dont be disrespectful
• i will take off speaks if you are disrespectful during cross.
• that is the only reason cross matters, other than that i will not evaluate it or flow it
• you are welcome to bring it up in your speeches

evidence: I really dont want to read evidence and most probably i wont. unless i feel one of you is lying or faking evidence i wont call for it. false evidence will result in your arg or you being dropped. i am very against false representation of evidence and dont care if you extending that argument, i will not vote for you if you falsified evidence in any shape of form. that being said, it is your responsibility to call out your opponents evidence and if you tell me to read it i will.

summary

• summarys are the most impt speech in my opinion
• first summary should briefly respond to 2nd rebuttal, after that no more new responses will be evaluated.
• 2nd summary should not be responding to 1st summary,
• both summaries should be telling me what to extend into the final
• narrow the round into the main voter issues so that the final can weigh

final

• weigh weigh weigh!
• please weigh the issues your partner brought up in summary
• tell me why you win
• make the round and your ballot straight forward for me

partner coordination: I find good partner chemistry very important to a successful round. good partner coordination means good speaks

speaks: i usually give high speaks unless you do something absolutely atrocious causing me to tank them. pretty straight forward.

I love hearing new argumentation styles. that being said...

theory

I love theory in pf. but in order to win on theory you need to make it clear how to evaluate it in the context of the round. frame the round for me in a way that makes the theory more important than substance. I want an in depth analysis on the theorys implication on current pf norms, and how voting for it will have more of an impact than voting off substance. that being said, when against a theory i want you to tell me why the round will be educationally beneficial if i vote of substance instead of the theory. it will become very obvious if you are using theory just to win, dont be dumb.

cp

You need to tell me how it works in the pf structure. write the ballot for me. be detailed on the plan text. when against a cp, tell me why your args are better, dont just say "cps are not allowed in pf"

kritiques

I love the educational discourse that happens when the K is engaged with properly. similar the theory, tell me how your K is crucial to change in pf norms. convince me that a ballot for the K will benefit the community. i also want to see follow through with your K. what are you doing to actualize your message and literature? show me genuine interest with your K.

any other new stuff

at the end of the day, this is your space. you are allowed to read what you want. but it is your responsibility to tell me why I, as the judge, should vote for it above substance.

have fun and remember this is an educational space, dont make it hostile or unsafe. reach out if you have any questions. good luck!

I am a parent judge and have judged speech and debate over the last several years across ~12 tournaments. I try to judge tournaments using a balanced approach that focuses on content, delivery, language and quality of research.

I am old. I have been coaching and judging for over 35 years. This means that much/most of my experience predates the existence of Public Forum. I competed primarily in Policy, Lincoln Douglas (in its first year of existence), and Extemp. I have coached Policy (in the Dark Ages), Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, and assorted speech events.

Speed does not offend me. That said, I am OLD and have carpal tunnel syndrome, so my flow is sloooooow. I will not punish you with points if you are fast and clear, but there is a risk I may not get everything you want on my flow.

I do not like surprises, not even good surprises. I always peeked at my presents as a child. Arguments should be extended in the summary speech if you want to win on them in the final focus. I favor line by line until the final focus, which should crystalize the debate and provide clear impact calc.

I think topic wording is important and that it determines burdens. I like it when teams are explicit about what the topic wording demands. A kritik is just an argument. If you can explain how it affirms or negates the res, it's all good.

Plans and counterplans are not allowed. Don't blame me. I didn't make the rules. You chose this event, despite the rules. That said, I think it is fair (and even a good idea) to talk about how the resolution would be implemented (assuming it calls for action and is not simply a question of fact/value). One can do this by looking at real world, typical proposals for resolutional action. I also don't think that the affirmative should be stuck advocating the worst possible way to implement the resolutional policy.

Evidence is important. Cheating is bad. Read author and date cites. I will grudgingly allow paraphrased evidence, but the full text must be available and easily evaluable. By this I mean that it is not okay to paraphrase evidence and then, when asked to provide it, hand over a ten page document with no highlighting/underlining of the bits that you claim to be paraphrasing. If you cannot say, "this paraphrases these three lines of text in the original document," or something like that, I'm going to disregard this "evidence." Neither I nor your opponents should have to read through the entire document to assess whether your paraphrasing is accurate.

I hate crossfire, especially the Grand Cluster F*!k. Please don't yell or speak over each other. I recognize that this aspect of PF is conducive to chaos, and that you are not responsible for this design flaw. That said, I will punish you with speaker points if you make the crossfire worse than it has to be.

Argument > Style. This is debate. Style is reflected in speaker points.

I'm a parent judge.

i did pf for four years at leland high school in san jose, california (c/o 2023). lhuang2023@gmail.com

important notes

• conceded cards, even if misconstrued, are true if not called out. i will not reference the email chain unless I am told/have to.
• speed is fine, but clarity matters. I flow what I heard, not what I read.
• new arguments need to be flagged for me to strike them, with the exception of new arguments in the second final focus.
• second rebuttal must collapse. defense is not sticky.
• in a lay setting, i ask you adapt to the most lay judge on the panel. i appreciate when debaters make rounds accessible to everyone involved.
• terminal defense >>> weighing > mitigation >>> "we outweigh on scope."
• i have a low bar for extensions. a 10-second repetition of what affirming does and why that's good/bad is enough in my book.

progressive argumentation

• i will always prefer good explanation over buzzwords. leaving me confused in round = my decision is confusing. in other words, do good judge instruction.
• theory: fine for anything, would prefer not to be in the back of a disclosure round if your opponent does disclose in some form.
• ks: understand these to a very minimal extent, explain your literature well and any links to opposing argumentation.
• k affs: i don't understand these but you can run them if you want to. please err on the side of over-explaining everything if you do.

Hi I am a lay judge and English is my second language, so please speak a little bit slowly and please speak in plain English.

Hi everyone,

I'm a college junior from the Bay Area and debated for 5 years throughout middle and high school. I primarily competed in Varsity Public Forum (3 years) but participated in Varsity Lincoln Douglas as well (2 years).

I judge on logic supported heavily by credible evidence. Please do not spread. I will flow speeches but will not cut you off. Respect your opponents; do not raise your voice. I enjoy a good cross-examination. I'm comfortable with framework debates and am open to hearing counterplans in LD only. Weighing is critical, especially in summary and final focus.

Please share with me a document where cards for each of your speeches can be found. Please also share a copy of your case so I can follow along as you read.

I will award speaker points as I see fit based on your rhetoric and eloquence and will not discriminate on the basis of accents/speaking disabilities.

Good luck and see you in round.

Paradigm for UKSO:

I’m a parent judge. Please identify yourselves (Speaker 1, 2) before the round starts.

Please be professional and respectful of everyone in the room. I have docked points for behavior to the contrary. I will judge a topic based on your power of persuasion alone.

For PF: Speed has not been an issue in the past but for this tournament I make an exception -- be clear and logical in your reasoning and arguments (ideally <200 wpm). State evidence to connect your arguments, do not fake your evidence.

Signpost, please! I try to flow the round, and will disregard any new arguments in your summaries or final focus. If something is conceded in cross, it must be brought up again in a speech for it to affect the ballot.

Please clearly weigh to make my judging easier. I would like to see good team balance. For speaker points, I start at 27.5 and go up or down a tenth of a point based on your round.

If you plan to spread, I would like to have a copy of the speech (in rhetoric) so I can follow along more easily, I will clear you if you go too fast.

Please manage the length of your speech, I will allow a maximum of 10 second grace period before it starts to detrimentally impact your points. I’d prefer it if you keep track of yours and your opponent’s speech and prep time.

Most importantly, I am excited for you and in case nobody said this to you today, YOU ARE AWESOME!

I am a judge in PF for Dougherty Valley High School.

Basic Preferences:

- Please do not speak fast, and try to be as clear as possible when you speak.

- You should be telling me how I should be weighing the round.

- Be polite to your opponent and be respectful.

Good luck!

Hi there -

Follow these guidelines and you will be successful with me as a judge.

1. The Most Obvious - Be Nice!

Be nice to your opponents in the round. If you are rude in crossfire or speeches, I will drop your speaker points.

2. Provide full cards.

When giving cards, please send the link to the website, the authors name and date, and the paragraph from the website.

3. Weigh it.

Make sure to weigh your impacts to show why you are winning the round and tell me what you are weighing off of.

4. Make sure to time yourself.

5. Don’t spread.

Happy debating!

- I'm a parent judge, new to speech and debate judging.

- I take notes, but I don't flow.

- While it won't affect my decision, I prefer debaters not speaking too fast.

I'm a parent judge, and I have been judging PF, LD, and INTERP for more than 2 years.

I lived in United States since late 1990s, so you can consider me as a native English speaker.

I usually judge the debates based on 3 aspects, the content and logic, the presentation skill, and the techniques during the cross.

I'm a parent judge as my daughter participates in debate.

kindly please send me your case before the round starts.

jysjin@yahoo.com

Don't Speak too fast but clearly. Definitely no mumbling. If I can't get your arguments down and fully understand what you're saying, then you have lost the round.

Be specific with your contention, warrants and impacts as I'll vote my ballot based on those.

I will not flow everything, but take notes.

Be polite, respectful and patient to the other.

Alrighty folks let’s do this!

Hi, I'm a former competitor, competing in and later teaching a variety of different styles of both speech and debate. I competed league level for four years, at California States twice, and at invitationals for three years. In speech I'm generally knowledgeable in all events, and in debate I've competed in PF, LD, and Parli. I’m currently attending school at UC Berkeley, and am very excited to be judging you guys! My ranking criteria is fairly standard, but laid out below.

Debate

I love debate, and I hope since you’re here you do as well. Here’s your permission to have some fun with it!

And on that note, do NOT let it dissolve into a screaming match. Been there, done that, not productive.

Aggression is good, expected, and respected by yours truly but please make sure to respect your opponents. The line between aggressive debate and losing your courtesy card can be thin at times, but pretty please try to walk it for all our sakes.

And for the sake of my sanity please do not spread. If my brain cannot follow, my pencil cannot follow, and there will be no flows to look back on. This goes double for resolutions that the public is not generally knowledgeable about.

I love seeing a good bit of familiarity and connection between partners. In PF, grand cross is a great place to exemplify this. Be in sync with your partner and both pull equal weight.

Crosses are what will get you that A+. Cross is where you show confidence and familiarity with the resolution, your contentions, and your partner. Again, be aggressive, but do not lose your courtesy card.

Effective use of time, quantitative arguments, impacting them impacts, etc.

Lastly, I’m not going to disclose at the end of round. Sorry to torture you with the waiting game, but I’m not gonna.

That’s all I can think of… have fun! I love debate and I’m excited to be here!

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email. spjuinio@gmail.com and nuevadocs@gmail.com. add both emails to the chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly (refer to the NSDA evidence rules). i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if you ask me to, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

My name Sarah Karimi it is my second time being a judge I am not super experienced

• Please speak clearly and loud
• Speed is fine but also long as you annunciate
• I value truth over logic
• No evidence is better than falsified evidence

Have a great/fun round !

For PF James Logan:
I'm a freshman in college and I did parliamentary debate in high school for four years. I was pretty bad at PF so please articulate your arguments and please don't spread. If you run a K it should be justified and well articulated, but to be honest, I'm pretty skeptical of them unless there is a really blatant and justified reason for running them (ie obviously skewed topic).

Here's a generic paradigm that I agree with:

Traditional Approach: I am inclined towards a traditional debate style that emphasizes clear and well-structured arguments without relying on experimental or circuit-style techniques. This means I am not a fan of speed (spread debate) or Kritiks (Ks) (unless its clearly necessary as a means to have a fair debate). Instead, I value a clear and comprehensible presentation of ideas.

Clarity Over Quantity: Articulate your arguments clearly and concisely. I prefer substance over quantity, so focus on the quality of your points rather than overwhelming me with sheer volume.

Etiquette and Conduct:

Respectful Engagement: Maintain a respectful and civil tone throughout the debate. Personal attacks or disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated.

Judgment Criteria:

Clarity and Coherence: The clarity of your arguments and their connection to the resolution will play a significant role in my evaluation.

I am a new judge. This is all new to me. Please talk clearly and slowly. Thank you!

I am a first time parent judge

speak slow and make it easy for me to understand

no form of discrimination will be tolerated; be respectful!

I am a parent judge.

Be respectful, talk slowly.

I am a lay parent judge who has judged PF, LD, and various speech events in the past two years. Please do not spread or speak at very fast speeds, speak clearly and slowly so I can catch everything. I can't evaluate any advanced argumentation/theory/Ks, so please avoid it.

Be respectful and have fun!

Add me to the email chain: mails.narendra@gmail.com

I'm a lay judge, here are my preferences:

• Contentions: I prefer clarity above all else. Explicitly reason out your argument. Run reasonable things, don't link random things to extinction.
• Crossfire: Always be respectful. Give the opposing team a chance to speak; speaks will be docked if this isn't followed.
• Speak clearly, do not spread.
• Having credible evidence is always best, this has weightage in my ballot.
• Time yourselves and let me know if your opponents go over time.

Volunteering for judging Public Forum debate with limited experience.

I'll be looking for balance, balance between well established arguments and well organized refutes, balance between team members on the contribution and how each would compliment each other over the rounds.

A grad of James Logan HS, I competed in various platform speaking events, Impromptu, along with LD and Congressional debates.

Events judged:

Expos/Informative, OO, OA, Extemp, Imp, (interps:) OPP, DI, HI, OI, DUO

LD, Parli, Congress, Pu Fo

(Policy the least)

I am unfamiliar with theory...weigh impacts.

Judge History:

GGSA IEs, Debate, MLK, Palm Classic, Stanford

Add me to the chain: jabarileonil @ gmail

Hello world! Please call me Jabari

My experience: I mainly competed in speech/interpretation during high school but have some experience in limited prep.

I'll be judging for the first time ever today!

As a lay judge with no particular preferences (yet), I will now yap about what I believe speech is about to me. We live in a world where everyone is unique, and no two stories are told the same. If you gave the same pair of lines to Micheal B Jordan and Denzel Washington, even though they are both excellent actors, the way they'd deliver the speech is unique to how they interpret the words on the page and who is going to hear them. The text given to them is filtered through something as complex as a human and then repeated to be comprehended by another.

SPEECH????????????:

TL;DR: I competed in speech! Please present well!

1. Your social message is the most important thing I am looking forward to hearing. Bonus points if you can talk about a general topic but find that unique twist to set you apart.
2. Facial expressions and hand gestures are tantamount to your speech. I will point out what you did good & bad as the presentation of your speech is what can make or break you.
3. Manners. Don’t ego. I hate when competitors stonewall or don’t clap. Have empathy; we're all here for the same reasons.

DEBATE????:

TL;DR: I am a lay judge, please make this easy for both of us!

I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

• Please eventually crystallize/give me a big picture. Line by line makes my life easy, but following it pedantically only serves to muddy the debate for me.

• I plead that you write my ballot by summary & from what you’ve collapsed(and do collapse), reiterate what you find most valuable in FF.

• I will not keep time; I expect the debaters to do that. I’m usually chill on this, but I’ll drop an auto-loss for any clear abuse.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE (debate)

I was too lazy to make my own, so I stole this from a friend who stole this from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

My vote belongs to the speaker who builds a bridge of logic and reasoning, leading me across it to their point of view. Show me the data, paint a vivid picture, and leave me convinced that your vision is the one worth pursuing.

I am lay judge, my vote goes to the speaker who can melt my defenses like butter on a hot pan. But if you're spitting out words like popcorn kernels in a microwave, I'll be reaching for the extinguisher, not the ballot:)

Please add me in the email chain: R40135@Gmail.com

I am a parent-judge for an MVLA student, and a software engineer. This is my first year judging.

I am Parent lay judge. English is not my first language so please speak at a slower pace. Make sure to have good logic and reasoning with lots of data and evidence.

Hello Everyone,

I have judged several formats like Congress but newer to Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas. I will be on the learning curve as well as some of the students here today.

Please be nice to one another! I'm looking for kids who demonstrate knowledge of the topic and confidence in their delivery. Please try not to use technical jargon! Please try to cater to me being a novice judge. Rapid fire is not what I am used to. As a parent judge, I also judge on respect to one another.

I am looking forward to hearing from students!

I'm a parent judge. I'm an engineer with science background.

I like clear and articulate speeches. I like arguments supported by evidences. I don't have any pre-existing stance with pro or con. I make my final decisions primarily based on how well and strongly the teams support their contentions with evidences and convincing reasoning. Also I count how well the teams ask and answer all kinds of challenging questions for attacking and defensing purposes.

Show respect and be nice to each other. I will automatically vote for the other team if your team do the following,

1. show obvious disrespect for your opponent;

2. consistently interrupt your opponent when they are speaking.

Hello Debaters,

I have been judging Public Forum debate tournaments since fall of 2020.

I look for clarity, consistency and quality of delivery. Please try not to speak too fast so it is easier to follow. It is important to be respectful to your opponents. Also, please explain your arguments in plain terms.

Please ensure your data and stats are factual and supported by credible sources.

Finally, don't forget to have fun!

Thank you and good luck!

Affiliations: Head-Royce School

I was a policy debater on the high school national circuit for four years. I was serious about debate during that time—it included a quarters appearance at the ToC—but I did not debate in college, and have been away from the activity for most of the last decade.

Argumentatively, do what you feel most comfortable with. I'm familiar with the types of arguments debaters make, but I'm not up to date with what's popular these days, and certainly not familiar with the topical literature. I read the K a lot as a debater but I'm happy to listen to a more traditional round, and I'll vote on framework if I have to. If you have a strong view of how I should approach evaluating the debate, put it in a speech.

I'm fine with speed, I'm going to flow by hand, I don't want to be on your email thread, I'll ask for evidence if it becomes relevant to my decision. If you have other questions, feel free to ask before the round starts.

If I'm judging you in an activity that isn't policy, you should assume I'm less familiar with the specific conventions and jargon of your format.

Judge Experience: two years of speech, one year of debate.

Philosophy: no against any philosophical view

Speak: clear and fluent, not just speed. Prefer to have some rhythm.

Argument: no bias, have patience to listen all argument evidences, opinions in crossfire, prefer to the message delivered by line-to-line.

Over all, I am a flexible judge to take notes on key points at each section. The winner will be based on the weights of all section performance.

hi debaters!

As a judge, my primary goal is to fairly evaluate the round based on the arguments presented. I did some public forum in high school, but my experience is pretty limited, Here are some things to keep in mind during round:

• I value clear, organized, and logical presentation of arguments. I judge based on substance over style and quality over quantity– do not spread. I will be flowing, so ensure that you signpost and clearly extend your arguments (esp turns and terminal defense) throughout the round or I will miss something. I will not evaluate off args that are not extended in summary.
• Prioritize weighing!! Comparative weighing tells me as a judge why your impact matters most in the round.
• I am not a very tech-y judge. I will listen to theory and ks, but go slow and take more time to explain these arguments and be aware that I may not make the right decision in these rounds or even judge off that.
• I ofc do not flow cross, but I do not want any over-aggressiveness or I will drop speaks
• Make sure that evidence is accurate, even if you paraphrase make sure you have the cut cards for it. Evidence ethics is important, cards should not be misconstrued or false. I will look at cards you tell me too.
• Preflow before round– I would like to get started asap
• Most importantly, please be respectful! I have zero tolerance for any rude or exclusionary behavior. At the end of the day, debate should be a fun and safe space for everyone involved.

I appreciate your hard work and dedication to engaging in a thoughtful and respectful debate!

I am a lay judge but I do flow all speeches.

If you wish to share your evidence cards, add me to the email chain: jagadish594@gmail.com

Just some specifics (for PF):

Constructive: Present the arguments clearly. Be specific on the links and impact. Provide valid evidence to support the argument. I don't prefer spreading. However, if you must read a case which is 1200+ words - please create a speech doc and share it with me (and the other team)

Cross: Clarify the arguments clearly. Be respectful while questioning the opponents and keep the interruptions to a minimum.

Summary & Final Focus: Please weigh and provide framing. It should be extremely clear why I should vote for your side.

-----

If this is a league tournament - I will NOT give RFDs.

Good Luck!

I have no preferences other than the following: be respectful of your peers and speak clearly.

Hi everyone,

My name is Namrata Nanda. I’m a lay judge and I’ve been judging both speech and debate for a year or so for DVHS. I’m familiar with the format of PF and its rules. I have also judged speech and Parliamentary Debate, and I have a daughter who does Public Forum. Here’s the basics of what I want to see during a round:

Speaks:

Please do not spread! I cannot stress this enough. I’m taking off speaks for anyone who spreads. Like I said, I’m a lay judge, so the clearer you are, the better ????

Ethics:

Just be respectful to one another. If someone is being racist or sexist, it’s an automatic win for the other team and I’ll will be forced to report.

How to win:

Tech>truth

As mentioned above, be respectful and talk clearly so I can understand. Cover both sides well. I tend to vote off weighing, so make sure it is explained well! If your opponents drop a point or a response, say that in your speech so I can make note of it.

Timing:

I’ll be timing your speeches, but you should also be timing yourselves. I allow for a 15-second grace period, and if you go over that I won’t hesitate to interrupt and cut you off. If your opponent goes over the 15 seconds, you can cut them off as well, I won’t take off speaks.

CX:

I don’t mind if you’re talking over each other, but don’t say anything inappropriate. I don’t flow cross or pay close attention to it, but do what you need to get your point across (I won’t judge based on cross).

Debate terminology:

Again, I’m a lay judge, so I’m not too familiar with debate terminology. If there’s anything you think I won’t understand, feel free to call it out and explain it to me.

FF2:

If we’re in the second final focus and your opponent brings up new evidence, just tell me right after the round and I’ll take it into consideration when I’m writing my RFD.

RFD:

I’m not going to give my RFD immediately after the round ends, I will need time to decide and give feedback.

Lastly, have fun guys! I’m looking forward to judging everyone. Good luck!

About myself and my judging style.

• Judged in speech and debate events for two years.

• Value content over presentation style.

• Value Quality over Quantity. If I don’t understand the content, I can not give you credit for it. Please slow down if you are looking for better scores.

• Expect teams to respect the time limit, play nice and be polite and respectful.

Hi everyone,

I am a lay judge and I am excited to be part of the tournament.

1) Please do not speak too quickly as it takes me time to process information.

2) Please do not use debate jargon.

3) Please be respectful to each other.

4) Have fun & good luck!

Email: vnguyen@headroyce.org

Experience:

-MS S & D coaching sporadically since 2000, HS S & D coaching since 2018. I have no direct debate experience but do have a fairly substantive understanding of argumentation and speech and debate as a secondary English educator for three decades.

-Most experienced with MSPDP and HS Parli. Have a working knowledge of Congress, Novice Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, IEs like Impromptu, Extemp, Informative, Interpretations, and Original Oratory.

-My main interest in various debate spaces is to collaborate with others, especially in leadership positions, to improve critical thinking and make the debate space less transactional and more accessible and transformational. I believe debate is just a fun and challenging HOW. For us to get something of lasting value from this educational activity, we need to be clear about our WHY to this HOW. My contributions to the debate community has focused primarily on event-specific curriculum and judging training/feedback.

-Have judged at tournaments as need be. NPDI JV Semis. GGSA Semis for Varsity Student Congress, JV & Varsity Parli and Lincoln-Douglas Prelims. ASU Novice Policy Semis. I have also judged many mock rounds for Head-Royce and some scrimmages between my school and others. However, I usually prefer not to judge at competitions because I am often busy helping to run Parli tournaments or coaching my teams.

Philosophy/Pedagogy:

-Paramount for me as a longstanding English literature teacher/debate and former volleyball coach since 1999 years are sportsmanship and discourse that deepen understanding of debate and connect general school knowledge to current issues of the day. My hope is that we (kids and adults alike) can become more informed critical thinkers and contribute to our representative republic, to our overall humanity. If all that sounds very kumbaya uptopian, it is and worth pushing for.

-I am more of a truth over tech judge, but do value tech. I flow extensively by case and by speech on one or multiple sheets as appropriate to levels and events like Parli, PF and traditional LD. My main interest is to be attentive and not interventionist and to capture as best as I can, the balance between the trees and forest of the clash as teams make their cases and collapse toward 1-2 convincing voters.

-You will most likely earn my ballot if you are courteous, organized, and nuanced. Signpost consistently; focus on depth over breadth; prioritize arguments; make explicit your syllogistic logic chain; impact out using PMT(CR)S (probability, magnitude, time frame, cyclicality,reversibility, scope) calculus; clearly tie it all arguments back to the weighing mechanism; and ultimately tell a compelling story with a thematic thread featuring your 1-2 voters.

It might be helpful for you to know that I can handle speed but only to a certain extent, I am frankly averse to spreading—speed at the cost of cogency and clash is simply neither strategic nor compelling for non-policy events.

Lastly, please focus on topic content. I do believe, however, that debate is a game (akin to chess), and I enjoy clever use of theory, especially in the form of double binds. I am also open to K args., notably if they are resolutional. Don't run a K, esp. a K Aff in Parli, unless you really can explain it well and ideally link it to the round topic.

I am a lay judge and I have judged a couple tournaments in the past.

-the more confident you sound, the more convincing you will be

-Please speak in a pace I can understand, you can go fast but make sure you make sense

-I will be flowing, so it would be good to be clear with your words

I'm Dante Pardin and I am a new lay judge. I do not have any preferences for any debate styles. I want to create a positive and constructive environment for everyone involved and I look forward to the exchange of meaningful ideas.

Hello, I am Sameena. For judging purposes I'm best considered a Flay Judge. Add me to the email chain using sameena_yp@yahoo.com.

Preferences:

1. Please do not speak too fast as it can be difficult to understand and I cannot understand any spreading. You should always be clear over being fast. Finish your speeches on time with a 7 second grace period.
2. You should be providing signposting and off-time roadmaps so I can pay close attention to the debate and to help me flow easily.
3. Make sure you send me the speech docs before the round using my email (sameena_yp@yahoo.com) as I tend to be hard of hearing.
4. I cannot assess progressive justification and forms of argumentation (T, Theory, Kritiks, etc.), so I kindly request you do not read it as I won't assess it.
5. I have not done much research on this topic so please do not assume I have prior knowledge.
6. Let me and your opponents know when you are taking prep time.
7. You should not interrupt, cut off, or be disrespectful to any of your opponents whether in a speech or during crossfire. Speaker points will be docked in any case for this behavior and anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

Make sure to have fun, relax, and do your best!

I place a lot emphasis on eye contact and facial expression. Use your hand motions to express your self! Please talk to your audience, not to the computer screen or to your notes. Please don’t hold a computer in your hands- Instead, keep your hands free so that you can use them to express yourself. Please don’t keep looking at your computer screen and read straight off the screen with a monotone voice. You should know your facts well enough that you can make eye contact and only look once in a while at your notes. Please be courteous and kind to your opponent, and show good manners. Be honest in your facts and your sources. Present a well organized and convincing argument. Most of all, enjoy the debate !!!! I look forward to judging! Good work!!!

I'm a parent judge who has mostly judged debate rounds for the past year.

Before the round starts, please share your cases with me through email. (powercorp011@gmail.com)

I look for the following qualities in speakers:

• Confidence (both in body language and speech)
• Eye contact while speaking
• Respectful demeanor toward opponents
• Abidance to NSDA rules

Specifically for debate (PF), I expect the following criteria from speakers:

• Refutes that attack logic, not just quantitative data
• Signposting at the beginning of each speech
• Weighing (especially in summary and final focus)
• Speakers keep their own time

I prefer speakers to speak at a medium pace, making it easier for both the opponents as well as myself to understand the content of their speeches.

I look forward to judging you and good luck!

I'm a new judge, please go slowly. My student is in PF so I might have some knowledge about that event, otherwise assume I know nothing.

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 300 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE!I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED.The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct.

3. As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em.

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

4. Cross-examination: I know some judges don't pay too much attention to this. I REALLY do. To me cross is the essence of debate . During cross, I am looking for you to probe the weaknesses of your opponent's contentions to set up your rebuttals and to defend your own positions. I expect lively exchanges involving vigorous attacks and robust defenses. I will also look to see which team can establish perceptual dominance. Your performance in cross is often a key factor in how I decide speaker scores and possibly the round.

Hello, I am a parent judge. I have two years of judging experience. I am looking for clear and organized presentations as well as a strong knowledge on the topic and your case. I expect you are professional and you respect your opponent. Best of luck!

I am looking for organized clear communication, logical argument content , compelling evidence and refutation. I am expecting confident and persuasive body language .

Stick to the key topic and no excessive spreading please .

Good luck to all participants!

Hello!

I am currently an assistant coach for Flintridge Preparatory, The Westridge, and Speech and Debate institute (SDI). I am also a former Public Forum Debater as well as Speaker in Dec, HI, DI, and Impromptu where I competed for 5 years.

PF

I believe in keeping Public forum debate in a format that is, as initially intended, in a format that is accessible to the public. That being said, rounds can still be techy and competitive as long as they are done with clarity and respectfully. I am not a huge fan of speed in PF but if your style had moderate speech that is fine, within reason (do not spread), as long as you maintain understandability and enunciate you are golden. I wouldn’t consider myself a tech judge but definitely not a lay judge either. I will be flowing and comprehensively listening, therefore make sure to your contentions and rebuttals flow through otherwise they will be dropped. Remember, state your arguments clearly (have clear claims and links) and DON’T FORGET TO WEIGH.

*Speaks: BE RESPECTFUL, this is an educational learning environment therefore it is not a space for yelling (passionate speaking is different), being rude to opponents, or underhanded comments. If I am distracted away from listening to content because of overly aggressive debating it may cost you the round. (Don’t Spread)

K’s

I am open to hearing these arguments as long as they can be justified and can clearly link in. I would highly suggest you only run K’s you are passionate about. (I will only mark you down if you are using these arguments in an abusive manner)

I am a parent judge. 

I appreciate slower/ clearer speaking with structured arguments. Repeat your main arguments in final focus.  

As a parent judge, I will judge debate based on the following:

1. Content of presentation:

a. Is the presentation of the case well-structured and organized, and does it show a reasonably deep knowledge and understanding of the matter?

b. Are the arguments presented well-reasoned and logical, and supported by evidence? Arguments merely appealing to emotions, and unsupported by evidence will be considered less effective.

c. Are refutations and rebuttals to opposing arguments pointed and effective? I like to see clash.

2. Style of delivery:

a. Is the delivery passionate and persuasive – does the speaker make use of eye contact, gesturing, voice inflexion, pacing, etc. to grab and keep the attention of the audience?

lay judge, dont go fast and be respectful.

I am a waitress. I'm kinda new to judging debate. Please speak slowly &clearly. Get your key points across! Expecting a great debate amongst you all!!

I am an engineer by profession and non-native English speaker. I would prefer arguments that are clear and logical. I want to see quality over quantity. Your body language and speech delivery speed and style will make a difference. Good Luck!

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

NOTICE FOR SEPTOBER PF: DO NOT QUOTE ANY SOURCE LISTED BY THE SPLC AS A HATE GROUP!! (Know your sources)

*TLDR FOR NSDA NATS*

35 years of LD competition, coaching and judging

TRADITIONAL LD, WHOLE REZ, If someone proves the aff side true, I vote aff. Follow NSDA RULES.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

debated pf for ~4 yrs, coached for ab ~1 year, parli in college!

haven’t thought a lot ab pf in a while so

tldr:

• tech>truth
• enunciate when you speak
• theory: explain it well, prove a clear violation and a necessity for it
• Ks: go for it i love hearing them and when engaged w properly, provides a lot of great discourse. explain why it is relevant and necessary to change norms/ why it should be prioritized over substance
• warranting- can't stress this enough; do the extra analysis to engage w arguments constructively so that there is clash and you're not just making directly opposing claims
• good logic > bad evidence
• i also despise pulling cards at the end of a round so preferably don't make me do that
• power tagging evidence sucks don't be a shady debater it will result in lower speaks
• dropped voters in summary that u extend in final focus are probably not gg to be evaluated
• appropriate/tasteful jokes and or taglines are always a plus
• theres a fine line between being aggressive and rude i also hate yelling esp during cross

other than that pls be respectful at all times (goes without saying) and happy debating!! my email is always open for feedback requests/any concerns u have regarding the round.

m.l.sekar@wustl.edu

I am a parent judge with plenty of experience judging different debate events. Please try your best not to spread. The winner in my eyes is the one that does the better debating.

I am a parent PF judge.

I will try to flow. Don't speak too fast and speak clearly if you want me to follow your contentions. Don't be rude.

Judging Types: Public Forum

Judging Style:

I am familiar with current world news

Being a parent judge please do not spread/talk extremely fast or use debate terms

Enunciation and clear voice are important

Set organized and well-constructed framework

Clear communication of points and be prepared to make highly articulated arguments

Provide Relevant support of claims

Restate and summarize thoughts at conclusion

Treat opponents with respect

Be passionate and speak with confidence.

Hi

I have started participating in debate tournaments as judge since 2021. I have judged LD and Parli in CFLs. I like debate participants finding weak point in their opponents argument and exploiting that to prove their point. I get to learn a lot through debate and topics getting discussed. I enjoy the seriousness of time keeping and structured format. Looking forward to judging more.

Competitive Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - Extemp, OA, PuFo, LD

Collegiate - NFA - Policy/CX

Coaching Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - Assistant (Alumni) Coach; Head Coach/Program Coordinator

Judging Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - All events

Collegiate - NFA - Policy/CX

Background

I have been involved in speech & debate in some capacity since high school and competed at the collegiate level. My emphasis has namely been geared towards extemporaneous speaking and debate (namely PuFo, LD, and Policy/CX). Though I'm new to coaching, I've been in this community of wall takers for over 10 years and love every minute of it!

In terms of my general judging philosophy I'd say two phrases should be considered, those being "tabula rasa" (clean slate) and "sell me!". My perspective is that it's the competitors burden to prove to the judge or show why their performance is equipped to pick up the ballot. Certainly I can make the connection and piece together the narrative/story, but the more you ask me to intervene the more I have to implement my biases into the round. Long-story short it's disheartening to see competitors lose rounds because they leave ambiguity to be pieced together, and as a former competitor who has lost more than one round to this - I don't want to do the same to other speakers/debaters.

In general, from a technique standpoint if you act as though your judges are lay judges it's easier to ramp up than it is to tone back.

Debate Cues

1) Procedures - Card quals, roadmapping, and signposting

These make for a smooth round and much more efficient! Do your judge a favor and get things moving the longer the day, the less quality the adjudication- we get tired too haha

2) Arguments - Impact Calculus, Topicality, and Solvency

I generally am pretty open to what is brought forth, hence my "tabula rasa" spiel, but need to see a clear end result from either team in the debate. Whoever has the more believable and impact narrative will pick up the ballot.

3) Evidence - Needs to be there, this is debate...

No matter the style of debate, if you make an argument it needs to be proven in some way. If not then you ask me to be an "activist judge" where bias takes precedence over argumentation, in my view this is unfair to the competitors and bad for debate.

4) Sportsmanship - We all want to learn from this experience

Compete with honest intent and assertion, but not to cause harm. Too many a time debates get ugly and personal, that's not why we're here. This is a learning opportunity and academically stimulating. Let's keep it civil and competitive.

Speech Cues

1) Structure - Clear and concise

My coach taught me this rule and it's what I teach unto others: a) Tell them what you're gonna tell them; b) Tell them; c) Tell them what you told them. There should be a logical pattern in your speech.

2) Impact - Make it personable

Cultural competency is a really big aspect of public speaking that goes unsung. Find someway to connect with your audience and give us something tangible to take away from the speech, once completed.

3) Creativity - Bring it to life

I have a really special place for Interps and OPP because it brings forth the creative energy and so too can other speeches. Make this speech an experience for us to enjoy!

4) Authentic - You are the centerpiece

With speaking you are the epicenter, give the audience a reason to divert their attention to you! Also, bring some creativity to the forefront this makes for a more compelling speech.

I am a lay judge.

I will be listening to your debate and taking notes.

Being clear and logical wins you the round.

Be good debaters!

I am a LAY judge.

Speak at a normal pace and explain everything and try to be as clear as possible.Be polite to your opponent and be respectful.

The more I understand your arguments, the more likely I will vote for you. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

Please send me your case at erdeepika2@gmail.com before we start our round .

Hi,

I am Arundhati, a Parent Judge. This is a good learning experience for me. More rounds I judge more I learn about PF debate.

Please speak clearly and slowly so that I can follow.

Simple , clear arguments and rebuttal helps me to make a decision.

All the best for your round!

thank you!

Be Clear + Concise + Kind + Logical. Have Fun.

1. I am new to judging, so it would help if you speak in normal pace (marginal slow or fast is ok) and clearly.
2. Please be respectful towards your competitor teams.
3. Please stick to the prescribed time durations for each team.

Assistant Coach for Nueva

Add me to email chain: esteinberg01@wesleyan.edu

PF:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parli:

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

For Policy, I am largely a policy and stock issues judge. While I am not an absolutist (meaning if you're not 100% on these I reject your case) I do largely want your case to fulfill the burdens of the topic within a reasonable plausibility or ability. This means I want clear eloquent presentations and do not like arguments that are NOT related to the actual topic. I have learned that in this topic I am a "truth" over "tech" judge. This means that you can use theory but it had better have standing.

I then focus on the policy itself looking at the advantages and disadvantages of a case and the impact of these. This means that if you like to throw in "game theories" those will be entertained if they accept and help argue the topic and the team can prove that "blowing up the moon" will have a net positive impact on the case. This also means that I am not a fan of "K"s as the students that have come to the tournament have learned, prepared for and are ready to argue the case not some attempt to "not compete". If you don't want to argue the topic, go to LD. If you are going to use a K it should be topical.

If you are going to spread, then you should email be a copy of your case so that I can look for the issues you are arguing.

I truly try hard to ensure that I only flow and weigh what the competitors have brought to the round and not my own knowledge or understanding. Having said that, a good policy team clearly drives what they want their judge to see.

Lay judge. Did not debate in HS, some APDA experience in college.

email: ssulzinsky@wesleyan.edu

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

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

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

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

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

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

I do not have any experience participating in debate tournaments or coaching the students. I have been judging the tournaments for the past one year as a parent volunteer. I have a masters degree, work for a technology company and living in USA for past 20 years. I regularly track various topics such as politics, business, international relations etc., so I have high level idea about the vast majority of debate topics. I have gone through judge training videos, so I have decent understanding on the judging criteria. I try to keep track of the 'flow' of the debate to understand arguments in perspective. I also pay attention to the rules like not bringing in new arguments in the closing/final speeches. Clear, audible, well modulated arguments help me understand and judge better, than trying to pack too much information in the given time. I would encourage the debate arguments to be done in a respectful and polite manner. I pay attention to the level of preparation, depth of the arguments and methodical way presentation. I judge solely based on the material presented in the debate and do not bring in any bias from my personal side. I look at team contribution as a whole than individual performances.

Be kind and respectful as you convey your points.

Speed does not make the argument stronger.

Speak clearly - enunciate clearly and project your voice.

And most of all, have fun.

As a second-year forensics coach, I am still very much a lay judge. I have judged all forms of debate at the local level as well as Congress at Nationals.

I am looking for solid argumentation, clear impacts, and effective clash.

Please no theory or spreading.

hey i’m roma! i did pf for five years, speech (platform + lim prep) for seven for james logan hs.

please add me to the email chain (roma.tivare@columbia.edu), feel free to email me after rounds if y’all want clarification about anything.

tldr: happy judge happy life. extend args, tell me why you win, extend logical analysis

basics:

• i literally have zero topic knowledge! the only thing i know about the topic will be anything i heard in previous debate rounds.
• i am completely intolerant of any discrimination of any kind. i don’t find discrimination jokes funny (they will NOT improve your speaks) and in-round abuse will be reported as such. expect a dropped ballot and tanked speaks.
• debate’s not serious at all, so feel free to be lighthearted and talk casually, this is supposed to just be an educational experience for y’all so i don’t expect crazy formality
• i really hate thinking so the less thinking i have to do, the better for you (= tell me how/why you win the ballot with clear evidence and warranting)
• i’m alright with speed but i’m flowing on paper and lowkey i’m not sure i can write as fast as i used to, so slow down (will yell clear, if i have to yell clear three times i’ll dock speaks) and SEND A SPEECH DOC! it does not have to be in depth but something i can follow along with
• come to round prepared with pre flows because the sooner we get the round started, the faster we can leave which makes me happy
• if you need judge intervention because of in round abuse, send me an email privately and i’ll handle it

debate preferences:

• tech > truth, within reason. i’m not going to buy racism good.
• i <3 warrants, because the logical analysis of the warrant is what actually makes me understand your card. extend your evidence AND warrants for cohesive argumentation (ie don’t just say “remember abc ‘23” in final and expect me to suddenly evaluate your whole turn)
• please extend. i only flow what you say, so if you drop an arg first rebuttal and bring it up in final, i’m just going to put a big question mark and sad face on the flow because idk where that arg came from
• final should mirror summary. use the same voter issues or world comparisons in both, and use the same weighing mechanisms
• on that note PLEASE WEIGH. and please also metaweigh because once again, this means i think less (= better for you!)
• crystallize in the late round please. i don’t want to hear you defend your three arguments and refute your opponent’s three in two minutes in final focus. break it down so that your analysis can be in depth.
• if you want to go wild and kick case for turns or something, go for it, just make sure you generate enough offense to win
• i don’t care about cross, will not flow it. don’t be harmful/discriminatory and you’re chilling. concessions made during cross need to be brought up speech for me to evaluate it, but don’t put words in your opponent’s mouth
• i’m not gonna call for evidence, if you want me to look at something tell me to call for it. i hate falsified evidence, and depending on the severity of falsification, i will bare minimum drop the argument, and maximum drop you.
• don’t post round, i promise that i do kinda know how debate works and if you genuinely need me to clarify a result please shoot an email.

thoughts on prog args:

• i stopped competing in pf right before progressive args started to really pick up on the circuit. that being said, my partner and i had run a few modified k’s and shells at past tournaments. however, i am not the most experienced with technical prog args, but love to see them, so your best bet is to go slow and overexplain your lit. also, be accessible to teams who are inexperienced with progressive argumentation, otherwise that defeats the education aspect of debate and will not be evaluated well.

• k’s: love them! prove to me why i should prefer k discourse over substance and how voting for the k has substantial impact either on discourse or norms. while responding, engage with the actual material of the k while also disproving the link (if needed)
• theory: prove a clear violation and a necessity for the theory. again, prove why i should prefer the shell’s discourse over substance.
• cp: i think it’s dumb cp’s aren’t allowed in pf (unless this changed???) but if you run one, prove why i need to prefer it over the aff through multiple aspects. also be clear with the plan text (give me actors, funding, etc). while responding to a cp, give me actual responses (these can be analytical!), don’t just say they aren’t allowed

speaks:

• i give high speaks. auto 30 for a joke that legitimately makes me laugh out loud or for a TASTEFUL my little pony reference (this is at my discretion).

anything else:

• feel free to ask/email. good luck everyone!

I am a lay judge, so whenever you talk about anything, please make sure that you explain it thoroughly. I know little to nothing about this topic so just keep that in mind.

How I will vote.

1. The first thing that I will take into consideration is whoever proves more convincing to me, whoever proves that the benefits outweigh the harms or that the harms outweigh the benefits.

2. Whoever debates better. I would also vote for a team that refutes all of their opponents points compared to a team that drops all of their opponents points. Whoever keeps their case alive at the end, and destroys their opponents or whoever convinces me to vote for them in this way will definitely earn my ballot.

Not as important but I may include some of this in my decision

1. PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES. For example: If you take like a minute of prep extra and YOUR OPPONENTS POINT THIS OUT TO ME, this will affect my decision. Please use your respective amount of time for speeches, there is a 10 second grace period after every speech, and 3 minutes for prep.

2. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL. Although this is competitive, it is still done for fun. There shall be no disrespect shown to anyone else, as this is a formal setting and must be looked upon as.

3. PLEASE NO SPREADING. IF you do so, I may not catch everything which will affect my decision.

I am a PF lay judge. Few notes:

-State your points clearly and concisely with researched backup arguments, avoid jargon

-Make sure to cite your evidence

-Please be respectful of your opponents

-Make sure to time yourself

-Will provide written feedback after the round, no verbal feedback

All the best!

Hello all,

This is my criteria for judging.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round.

2. I like empirical evidence - you will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument.

3. I like a well-thought-out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. Do not be rude. Screaming, belittling opponents, eye-rolling, head shaking, and showing general contempt is not acceptable.

While I am not new to the Bay Area Speech and Debate scene with CFL, this is my second year judging Public Forum.

I look for thoughtfully reasoned ideas, the logical flow of the arguments, and the augmenting evidence presented to support the team's position. I also think a good use of time (running down the clock to take advantage of the allocated time) demonstrates a higher level of preparedness and comfort in dealing with the topic.

Here are some things you should do in your debate

• Please speak slowly and clearly and clearly and explain any debate terminology used
• make sure to time yourselves and let me know if your opponents go over time
• please let me know when you take prep
• please be kind to each other

I have been a judging PF from 2018 onwards. I have judged varied tournaments from Novice to Varsity levels.

Present your story clearly.  My preference will be clarity over ambiguity.

I don't mind if you speak fast.

I also weigh based on maturity of the thought, clear communication and metrics relating to your argument

I am a new judge, so please talk at a moderate speed. I flow somewhat and I value your speaking styles. I would like you be kind and nice to opponents.

Please time yourselves and each other.

I'm a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Please don't spread.

Time yourself and your opponents.

I have served as a judge for debate for four years and I prefer slower speech with proper short pauses.

For congressional debate, I would love to see new arguments that really advance the debate.

For speech, I prefer the structured approach with emphasis and rigor logic.

Zita Wang

I am a parent judge. I judged speech and debate in different tournments in the past three years.

Take your pace, provide framework, and love to hear your summary about why you should win.

Be confident, run your flow, respect your competitors, and have fun!

I focus on clarity, organization, confidence and how persuasive they are. Ill look at how well debaters articulate their points, structure their arguments, and engage with the audience. I consider the use of evidence, logical reasoning, and effective arguments equally... keeping an eye on adherence to rules, respect for the topic at hand, and overall communication skills. Ultimately, weighing the persuasiveness of their positions and the ability to effectively convey their message.

I am layperson, but experienced judging PF. I am somewhat hard of hearing, so please try to speak clearly and sufficiently loud to be heard.

I am a parent of a second year debater and speaker.

I judge on poise, logical arguments, and respectful rebuttals. Usually the debate gets repetitive towards the end. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully constructed argument.

PF coach for Los Altos & Mountain View. Competed in congress & PF when I was a student.

Brief off-time roadmaps are fine when needed. Be sure to signpost and let me know which arguments you're addressing. Please don't spread– you will do better if I'm actually able to flow everything you say. When addressing a case line by line (such as in rebuttal), try not to jump around. Go down the flow from top to bottom.

By summary and final focus, you should collapse on the arguments you feel are the most important. Tell me what your key voter issues are and why you believe you're winning those issues.

If you and your opponent have evidence that say opposite things, extending your evidence has to be more than just re-stating it. Why should I prefer your evidence? Why does it still stand even with the evidence your opponents presented?

Weighing needs to be comparative. It's not enough to say your impacts are big– the important thing is they're bigger than your opponents'.

Speaker points are awarded based on confidence, appropriate volume & pace, sportsmanship, and overall demeanor.

Not a big fan of theory or Ks.

Good luck and don't be afraid to ask any questions you have before the round!

Please send your cases and cards to yandebate@gmail.com

Hi, I am a new parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly. No spreading!

In PF, I expect you explain your opinion and argument in a way an average person could understand and be convinced.

If you do progressive argument, I have no idea how it work. If you run theory, unless it’s very strong case and extremely necessary, you will lose my vote. I don't understand 'K" neither.

Be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

lay judge

speak slowly and clearly

presentation is very important

TELL ME WHY YOU WIN CLEARLY

Hello, since I am a parent judge please speak at a clear and reasonable pace in oder to make it easy for me to follow along.

Thank you.

Hi, in order to make it easy for me to understand your case more thoroughly, please kindly speak at a reasonable speed since I am a parent judge. Thank you.

Last Updated: 01/11/2024

I have volunteer judged at several local SF Bay Area and online speech/debate tournaments (Stephen Stewart, UOP, etc.) for 5+ years. However, I personally have zero competitive speech/debate experience myself-- treat me as a "lay" judge.

I am currently studying computer science and coding. Sound reasoning and logical arguments win the day. Quality over quantity! Listing a bunch of arguments doesn't impress me, the same way broken code doesn't impress me.

I like voting for debaters that actually demonstrate that they themselves fully understand what they're talking about and how their arguments actually work. Prove to me you've done the research. And be able to tell that to me in your own words. Anyone can read a dozen articles out loud. Few can demonstrate true critical thinking.

EVIDENCE: No need to include me on email/electronic evidence chains or show me articles during/after the debate! I should be judging the round based on the things you and your opponents said in the round- not my own reading comprehension.

SPEED: Do NOT speak over 200 words per minute! Good communication is about sending AND receiving messages. If I can't understand you, I can't buy your arguments, and you will lose.

END OF DEBATE: Give me 2-3 clear voting issues! Last speeches of any debate: stop debating. Tell me why you win! Impact/Weigh the debate for me! Explain to me explicitly (slowly and clearly) why your team makes the world a better place. Tell me what I should put down for the "RFD" on my ballot.

Please speak at a moderate speed.