I am a parent judge with 5+ years of PF/LD/ Policy experience. Please consider me a Flay Judge.

• Speak as fast as you would like, but I will ask you to slow down if I cannot understand. No spreading please. I am fine with 15 seconds of grace time.
• Please be respectful of your opponents and give them a chance to speak. Do not keep interrupting or be rude or condescending. If not, I will drop your speaker points.
• Please do not read any form of progressive argumentation (theory, kritiks, etc.) as I cannot evaluate them and will not give you credit for them.
• Off-time roadmaps and sign-posting are encouraged. It helps me follow your debate better.
• My decision will be based on your contentions, evidence, rebuttals, impacts, summaries and weighing. I will evaluate all those on both sides to come to a decision.
• I like to see well-researched cases backed by strong and credible evidence. Please include me in the email chain to share cards as I like to review them as well.

Good luck and have fun!

My name is Pari Ambatkar. I am a new judge and hence I would request you to speak at a normal pace and clearly. It would be great if you could stick to the timings prescribed by the tournament. Please ensure you track the time.

I have been judging LD debates for over four years, with occasional experience in Parli and PF formats. I prioritize clarity, substance, and respect in rounds. If any technical terms are used, please provide clear definitions. I value substantive contentions and points over intimidation or mockery. I flow during the round to track the arguments.

While I remain open-minded and impartial, I expect debaters to uphold the principles of sportsmanship and respect throughout the round. Mockery and intimidation have no place in constructive debate.

Impact calculus is highly appreciated as it helps in evaluating the significance of arguments.

Please include me (karthikakrishnna@gmail.com) in any email chains for reference. Best of luck to all debaters!"

If you need any further adjustments or clarifications, feel free to let me know!

This is my first time participating as a parent judge. I will try my best to keep my feedback fair and inclusive. I will look for honest, logical, supported and strong arguments. I will focus on careful listening during the events and look for proper validity of the arguments.

Parent Judge, for about 2 years

K's/ Theory

• Not too familiar with either, but if you run them be very clear

No Spreading, If I can't understand you, I cannot judge you

I judge with a blank slate, explain and develop all points

Signpost Please

Be respectful and have fun :)

As a debate judge, my evaluation centers on the logical coherence of debaters' arguments, emphasizing the clarity and strength of claims supported by relevant evidence and sound reasoning. I closely observe their communication skills, considering articulation, persuasion, and non-verbal cues. Critical thinking is paramount, as I assess how effectively debaters engage with opposing viewpoints, showcasing intellectual agility and a nuanced understanding of the topic. The depth of research, demonstrated by well-supported arguments grounded in credible sources, adds weight to my evaluation. Additionally, I recognize the importance of time management, appreciating debaters who balance substantive content with adherence to time constraints. My approach prioritizes objectivity, devoid of personal biases, with a commitment to providing constructive feedback that fosters growth in the art of debate.

(she/her)

Please add me to the email chain 317aryabhat@gmail.com (Subject: TOURNAMENT --- ROUND --- AFF VS NEG)

I currently attend UC Berkeley studying Cognitive Science and Data Science. I debated primarily in LD in both trad and on the circuit for 4 years in high school. I have limited experience with policy and PF, but please let me know what speech you are on if I'm judging you for an event that is not LD.

Pref Shortcuts

1 - policy args, soft left affs

2 - K's/ K aff's

3 - trad

4 - phil

5/S - tricks, friv theory, wipeout

My Thoughts on Debate

In high school, I competed in trad LD and circuit LD, so I'm well-versed in both. I ran identity K's and LARP the most on the circuit and leaned away from theory, phil, friv theory, and tricks/wipeout. I'm also very well versed in trad, so if you want a trad round that is cool too. Unless we are at a circuit tourney, don't spread progressive args against trad debaters. If both debaters want a progressive round, then I'm okay with that. I'm okay with debaters running phil IF you can explain it well. In general, it's your job to know and understand what you are running rather than just reading backfiles of arguments you may already have. Theory is alright if there is actual abuse in the round, not when you want to spread your opponent thin. Overall, run arguments and positions you know well and are passionate about. I believe that makes debate rounds more interesting to watch and judge because I can tell you care about what you're saying.

The aff's burden is to show the plan is worth being implemented and reaps benefits, i.e. SOLVENCY. YOU NEED SOLVENCY FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS!! Otherwise, why are we even debating this resolution in the first place?? The neg's burden is to meaningfully engage with the aff, and plant enough seeds of doubt for me to recognize the potential harms outweigh the aff's benefits/ solvency. On either side, use quality evidence where your tags match what the actual evidence is saying. Don't power tag, use evidence that is super old for empirics, use biased sources etc. (all basic stuff you hopefully already know). Make sure you WEIGH your arguments against your opponents. Final speeches should paint a picture for the judge on why they should vote for you. If your opponent drops an argument, make sure you say that. If they don't address one of your warrants, say that. Make it easy for me, and I'll vote for you.

Random

- tech > truth within reason

- I dislike when debaters use nuclear war impacts as a way to 'outweigh' any other impact/ issue. I find it exploitative and quite frankly just tone deaf.

- make debate an inviting and engaging space, don't be rude to your opponent or bigoted in any way.

- be on time, start your speeches on time, send the doc on time

- give me a quick off-time roadmap so I can follow what you are about to say

Speaker Points

30: Flawless argumentation, solid delivery, and I learned something from the debater

29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery

29-29.4: Same as above but needs work on delivery

28.5-28.9: Good debate skills and decent delivery; shows promise

27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills

<27: You did something morally repugnant or concerning.

My paradigm is heavily influenced by Blake Ziegler's, so if you want a more in-depth paradigm check his out (I mostly agree).

I am a parent judge.

If I don't understand the words, I will not be able to judge your claim.

Emphasize your important points. For example, before getting into a contention, say something like " My 2nd contention is....". Pausing at appropriate places to make sure I've absorbed the gist of what you're sharing would get you extra credit for effective communication.

Use your knowledge and reasoning skills.

I do NOT prefer spreading. Speak with clarity and at a normal cadence/speed.

I will listen with an open mind and I will not impose my personal beliefs, and/or knowledge about the debate topic.

Good luck

TL;DR mostly trad flow judge. Can judge circuit stuff, rankings go phil (NOT TRICKS PHIL)>LARP=K’s>theory>tricks, i did some PF in HS u can trust me for that as well

I do college debate (BP) which has increased my appreciation for reasonable debate (still tabula rasa tho).

I DO NOT KNOW THE TOPIC LITERATURE OR ANYTHING PLEASE DO NOT TREAT ME LIKE I DO

I don’t want to HAVE to flow off of the doc but put me on the email chain. It is emblem@stanford.edu

I have adhd and thus some auditory processing problems so if you are a fast spreader go about 80% of full speed especially if it isn’t on the doc. If you’re a clear spreader a lot of problems go away lol.

Hey! I go by she/her pronouns. I’m an FYO who did pretty well at traditional debate and qualified to the TOC my senior year. Not gonna make my paradigm a list of accomplishments because that is lame, just know that I know how debate works.

General stuff (pls read at least this before you have me as a judge):

• Round safety is a first priority for me. I had a really traumatizing situation in a final round because of the lack of trigger warnings. If it's a very egregious violation I don’t care if your opponent runs theory or not, your speaks are getting tanked and I may stop the round. This is stolen from my past debate coach’s paradigm (Eva Lamberson), who many of my debate opinions are stolen from, “If you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.”

• I like snarky and relaxed debate. If you make me laugh, that's a win. People need to be less afraid to add some spice to the round. Just don’t be mean. This includes being aware of societal imbalances in debate rounds, the level of snarkiness can feel very different based on different power dynamics.

• I don’t care what type of argument you run as long as it isn’t offensive.

• I try my best to be tabula rasa and tech>truth. Let me be tech by explaining why you win. To do the whole tech thing I want to do I need to know what the warrant is how it functions and why I care.

• One more stolen thing from Eva here because I am too lazy to type my own version “Rounds should be accessible to your opponent. This means that you should, of course, use inclusionary language, correct pronouns, content warnings if necessary, etc. but also means that you should not spread complex Ks or tricks or anything otherwise unnecessarily high level against novices, lay debaters, etc. If you do this I will be supremely annoyed and you will be very unhappy with your speaks. What is the point of winning a debate round if your opponent never has a chance to compete?”

Circuit stuff:

Tricks - They annoy me and I probably won’t catch them

Policy/LARP - Go ahead I understand it and like it. Please just do it well. Give me evidence AND give me warrants. If there isn’t analysis or reasoning and you spit cards at me I won’t be happy. I have no strong opinions on condo when it’s small amounts of cp’s but once it gets to like 5 I start thinking it’s defintely bad.

Kritiks - I actually quite enjoy K’s. BUT, I am not super well versed in them. I probably won’t know the nuances of your literature. I will happily vote off of basically any K if you explain it well. I still need the same things as for every argument, warrants and why I care. Performance and non-t stuff is on the table just be very clear about how it functions in the round. Don’t use non-t stuff as an excuse to not have warrants, use it as an excuse to be even clearer.

Phil - I ran some heavier frameworks in high school and feel pretty comfortable with a range of philosophy. Just don’t run it wrong, it will annoy me. Even though I will know a fair amount of philosophies, please still explain clearly to me how I’m supposed to use it to weigh the round. People apply things differently, if you just say your philosophy without explaining you can’t be mad when I don’t use it to weigh exactly how you want me to. So just tell me.

Theory/T - Use sparingly and be very clear. I have very minimal experience with theory and will get confused very easily. I will mess up judging complicated theory. I am not a good judge for you if this is your strat. I know and understand TW and disclosure theory well so those you can definitely feel comfortable running in front of me. If you are running any theory (it most often is disclosure…) as a time suck I will be very very very unhappy. This does not mean I won’t vote off of theory besides those two I listed. I just am not the best judge for evaluating the nuances of those types of rounds.

Traditional

• I find myself to be as flow as it gets for traditional rounds. I care about the warrants and interactions on individual arguments but make sure you tell me why I care at the end. Give me the claim warrant impact and why that impact matters the most under the framework of the round. If you give me those things you are on track for a win as so many traditional debaters are missing one of those things.

• On framework, you can run any traditional framework in front of me. Call it like it is though. Don’t give some fake name to util that makes it sound like a completely different framework. Also don’t forget that framework is a lens to view the arguments in the round through, link your arguments back to framework please. I’m always extra happy to watch a traditional debater run an interesting framework in a smart and strategic manner!

C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu

Worth noting right off the bat for LD competitors - I primarily judge CA-circuit policy debate, but much of the below should apply. I'm not primed for any category of LD arguments over another, and don't have an inherent preference for circuit arguments and styles, but I'm very open to them.

I currently coach LD and CX for James Logan.

Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.

Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.

I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.

Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.

My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.

Hi, I’m a parent judge

Please send email chain out to amlischan@hotmail.com before starting.
I prefer clarity over speed, spreading is not recommended.
I prefer policy arguments rather than K-debates
Fine with tag team cross x

Former competitor in LD

Don't like spreading, don't bring in policy or PF techniques into LD.

Vote on values debating

I like logical arguments and don’t like debaters who are over technical.

Please be polite and respectful to your opponent

I believe that the purpose of debate is to learn how to think critically and to communicate effectively. I value evidence, logic, and persuasion. I expect debaters to be prepared and to present their arguments in a clear and concise manner. I will evaluate the arguments in a debate round based on their strength, clarity, and persuasiveness. I will also consider the debaters' research, preparation, and presentation. I will give an equal chance for both Affirmative and Negative to win, and I will focus on creating an educational experience for all debaters.

I am a lay judge, although I understand LD and the rules and expectations. I value truth over tech and I expect solid cases, and logical refs. I don't place too much emphasis on value clash. I don't want to see overly aggressive debate, be a good sport. I will not flow if you spread, I will not evaluate progressive argumentation. Weighing, impacts, and signposting with good evidence and solid refs will win you my ballot.

I am a parent judge and have been judging since September 2019. I have primarily judged LD but in the last 2 years I have judged PF, Parli Policy and Congress too. I do flow and take copious notes. I am not comfortable with spreading, so please speak at moderate speed so that I can understand your arguments. Please make sure you are polite to your opponent. Please provide sufficient evidence to substantiate your contentions and be able to provide evidence when asked by your opponent. Do not introduce new evidence in your final speeches or lie that arguments were dropped when they weren't. It will definitely count against you as I do flow. Overall enjoy the debate and have fun!

Hi, I am a parent judge, starting 2023-2024 year.
My decision will be primarily based on

• Clearly presented arguments
• Evidence supporting the arguments
• Clearly differentiating their position during clash
• Well addressed rebuttals
• Being courteous to others
• Keeping time

Hello,

My name is Paul Choi, and I am a parent judge. I am an engineering manager in the tech industry.

I appreciate clearly laid-out arguments. Ideally, the contentions should flow together to create an overarching case for your argument. Each contention should be well-supported by evidence. There is no need to speak fast, or overwhelm the opponent or judges with the volume of evidence - oftentimes I find that the best debaters are able to clearly present their side of the argument with couple of well-chosen contentions and a few supporting evidences.

I have been in awe of many of the debates I've been privileged to witness so far. I am excited to hear more. Good luck and have a great round!

I am parent judge participating in judging for the first year. I appreciate reasonably paced speaking, using diverse sources, eye contact and being natural.

Do not be rude, be assertive but not aggressive, respect your opponents. I value clear and concise arguments backed with strong evidence.

2022

Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

Stanford 2020 and 2021

Here are some preferences:

I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.

It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2019

Please put me on the email chain: hcorkery@eduhsd.k12.ca.us

English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!

Here are some preferences:

Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2018

Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.

I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."

For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).

Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.

For debate events, I tend to value logic, evidence, and delivery over theory. That said, here is some guidance to win my ballot.

Tag your arguments so that I can follow them easily. Fully support your them with well-sourced evidence, and give me an impact for why it matters to your case, or why it is a reason itself to vote for you. A framework/criterion/value is not necessary in every debate format (within reason). I can use net benefits if you give me a reason to prefer it over the other team's proposed weighing mechanism. Any A Priori issues like definitions or criterion/framework/value should be backed up with a reason to prefer yours over the other side's.

Respond to all of your opponent's arguments even if it's not the best response. Dropped arguments matter even if they are sub-par arguments.

Give me voting issues in your final speech. Organize and tag them. If the other team gives me the voting issue of whoever is wearing purple, while you gave me no voting issue at all but gave better arguments, I will vote for the team wearing purple. Tell me what to think, how to think, and why to think. The judge is always right, but the judge is also an idiot.

I do not appreciate speed, though I can follow it. If both teams engage in spreading, I will evaluate accordingly, but I will reward teams who emphasize rhetoric.

I like speakers that are loud, and clear in their presentation. I appreciate a good steady pace that's easy to follow. Would be great to see passionate speakers, whose feelings for or against come through in their debate. I like to hear clearly structured arguments with evidence, reasoning, stats to support the argument. Arguments that appeal to my emotions make a big impact on me.

Format and Style:

1. 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), Kritiks (Ks), Theory arguments, or plans and counter plans in LD and PF. Instead, I value a clear and comprehensible presentation of ideas.

2. 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.

Content Focus:

1. Morality-Centric Arguments: I am particularly interested in arguments that delve into the moral aspects of the resolution. Make sure to clearly establish the ethical implications of your case and how it aligns with broader moral principles.

2. Impactful Values and Criterion:Clearly define your value and criterion, explaining how they connect to the broader moral framework of the resolution. I appreciate well-developed value structures that guide your arguments and tie them together cohesively.

Etiquette and Conduct:

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

2. Adherence to Time Limits: Stay within the allocated time limits for your speeches and cross-examinations. Time management is crucial, and exceeding the time limits may negatively impact your performance in my evaluation.

Judgment Criteria:

1. Moral Soundness:I will prioritize arguments that are morally sound and align with the resolution's ethical implications.

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

3. Effective Rebuttal:Address your opponent's arguments effectively, focusing on the core moral issues at hand.

I do my best to let the arguments unfold in the round and not let my bias intervene. I don't mind any theoretical positions. All theoretical positions need to be won and fleshed out in round. In terms of speed, if you fly, I may need to ask you to slow a bit, and if your opponent needs you to slow and asks, I expect you too.

Hello, my name is Melanie and it's very nice to meet you!

I am a 1st time parent judge, so please be patient with me.

Speaking:

When it comes to speaking style I do not have a preference, I can follow along at any pace, I don't mind fast paced speaking but please be clear and articulate.

I am a new judge. Please speak deliberately and clearly. It would be great if you can stick to the timings prescribed in the tournament.

As a parent judge, it would be very helpful to pay attention on the following points:

1. speak slowly and clearly
2. emphasize key points

I am a lay parent judge.

Please speak slowly and enunciate your words.

I have been a parent judge for 3+ years and have mainly judged LD. Important notes for debaters:

1. Speak clearly and at normal pace
2. Tag your contentions
3. Be respectful

Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Presentation High School and Public Admin phd student. I debated policy, traditional ld and pfd in high school (4 years) and in college at KU (5 years). Since 2015 I've been assistant coaching debate at KU. Before and during that time I've also been coaching high school (policy primarily) at local and nationally competitive programs.

Familiar with wide variety of critical literature and philosophy and public policy and political theory. Coached a swath of debaters centering critical argumentation and policy research. Judge a reasonable amount of debates in college/hs and usually worked at some camp/begun research on both topics in the summer. That said please don't assume I know your specific thing. Explain acronyms, nuance and important distinctions for your AFF and NEG arguments.

The flow matters. Tech and Truth matter. I obvi will read cards but your spin is way more important.

I think that affs should be topical. What "TOPICAL" means is determined by the debate. I think it's important for people to innovate and find new and creative ways to interpret the topic. I think that the topic is an important stasis that aff's should engage. I default to competing interpretations - meaning that you are better off reading some kind of counter interpretation (of terms, debate, whatever) than not.

I think Aff's should advocate doing something - like a plan or advocacy text is nice but not necessary - but I am of the mind that affirmative's should depart from the status quo.

Framework is fine. Please impact out your links though and please don't leave me to wade through the offense both teams are winning in that world.

I will vote on theory. I think severance is prolly bad. I typically think conditionality is good for the negative. K's are not cheating (hope noone says that anymore). PICS are good but also maybe not all kinds of PICS so that could be a thing.

I think competition is good. Plan plus debate sucks. I default that comparing two things of which is better depends on an opportunity cost. I am open to teams forwarding an alternative model of competition.

Disads are dope. Link spin can often be more important than the link cards. But
you need a link. I feel like that's agreed upon but you know I'm gone say it anyway.

Just a Kansas girl who loves a good case debate. but seriously, offensive and defensive case args can go a long way with me and generally boosters other parts of the off case strategy.

When extending the K please apply the links to the aff. State links are basic but for some reason really poorly answered a lot of the time so I mean I get it. Links to the mechanism and advantages are spicier. I think that if you're reading a K with an alternative that it should be clear what that alternative does or does not do, solves or turns by the end of the block. I'm sympathetic to predictable 1ar cross applications in a world of a poorly explained alternatives. External offense is nice, please have some.

I acknowledge debate is a public event. I also acknowledge the concerns and material implications of some folks in some spaces as well. I will not be enforcing any recording standards or policing teams to debate "x" way. I want debaters at in all divisions, of all argument proclivities to debate to their best ability, forward their best strategy and answers and do what you do.

Card clipping and cheating is not okay so please don't do it.
NEW YEAR NEW POINT SYSTEM (college) - 28.6-28.9 good, 28.9-29.4 really good, 29.4+ bestest.

This trend of paraphrasing cards in PFD as if you read the whole card = not okay and educationally suspect imo.

Middle/High Schoolers: You smart. You loyal. I appreciate you. And I appreciate you being reasonable to one another in the debate.

I wanna be on the chain: jyleesahampton@gmail.com

I'm a lay parent judge but some things I value are:
1. A deep body of knowledge

2. Not cheating

3. Clear speaking and signposting

Hello! I am a parent judge with a few years of experience judging debate. I appreciate good logic chains and respectful manners in round, and English is my second language so please speak clearly and at a conversational speed, I may have trouble keeping up with fast or technical rounds. Most importantly, have fun!

I’m a parent/lay judge.

The debate isn’t about right or wrong, or even about your belief in the merits of the resolution. It’s about convincing a third party that your side should win. Give them a roadmap to your side. To do that, make clear points and sign posts. Keep this roadmap simple, fewer but better arguments. Tell the judge the direction not to go with good rebuttals.

When giving these roadmap directions, remember the main point of communication- the other person needs to understand you. Keep your speech at an understandable moderate pace.

Enjoy your time here.

I am a second-year parent judge.

Looking for clear arguments with good refutals and defense.

Please no spreading, I will not understand what you are saying.

I admire a good Cross X (asking + answering).

Tech > truth, if you prove your argument I'll believe it.

I won't understand circuit arguments (theory, Ks, etc), however you can win the round if you explain them well and are obviously winning on it.

I will flow your arguments but I am not judging based on the flow, prove to me why it matters and why you win.

Good luck!

Hi, this is Ayesha Iqbal. I'm a parent judge and am excited and looking forward to being a judge. I have a little experience in judging, as I have been at multiple different tournaments over the past few years. I will be looking for kids who are persuasive with their content and delivery. And not rushing or speaking too fast, as it will help me to understand and judge better.

Sophomore at UC Berkeley

anish.iyyavoo@berkeley.edu

phone number: 408-913-3189

Cambrian Academy'22 - reached PF Gold TOC/round robin level, should be able to keep up w most pf rounds, and LD Policy(just send docs if you are going >250 wpm)

Feel free to ask me questions before round

Big Takeaway in all formats of debate: WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE, I NEED WARRANTING TO VOTE

Public Forum Paradigm:

Novice/Flay Paradigm(if you consider yourself a non-technical debater, read below) <-- Lay Rounds

in second rebuttal respond to the responses made on your case, address first rebuttal in second rebuttal

the arguments in final focus must be in summary

READ WEIGHING, tell me why YOUR arguments are more important than your opponents, don't just restate your argument!

Varsity/Tech Paradigm(If you consider yourself a flow or technical debater, read below) <-- Tech Rounds

tech > truth

Read TWs, avoid gendered language, No misgendering.

TLDR: Weigh everything, metaweigh, lots of signposting

everything in 1st rebuttal/summary is conceded if not responded too in 2nd rebuttal/summary - nothing is sticky, i want everything in final to be in summary - if you dont frontline properly in second rebuttal i will be very very unhappy

Second rebuttal has to respond to first rebuttal

Rebuttal has to be responsive to case, no new contentions, if ur reading generic DAs weigh them

Note: if you claim things are sticky/conceded but they are responded too - i wont be happy

You'll get good speaks(30s ish), just don't prep steal

Postrounding is cool

Full extensions required(every warrant, link) has to be extended

Send speech docs, I can probably flow around 275 wpm but send docs

TKOs are cool, Hidden links are fine, DAs/OV's cool, no framing past summary, I presume loser of the coin flip / first

Impact turns are fine

Weigh every turn/response - I like comparative analysis

I buy link level probability weighing(with warrants that aren't just asking for intervention i.e. historical precedent, actor analysis) ~ i'd be careful here though DONT READ CLARITY WEIGHING, also i love pre-reqs/link-ins w weighing

Metaweigh!! if you dont - Strength of Link > Magnitude > Timeframe > Link Level Probability ig

Prog:

Go for it - Trix are cool, Im not too familiar with a lot of high theory K literature but go for it, im pretty comfortable with theory - read it whenever, read phil if you want

I think disclosure and paraphrasing are probably good, but i can be persuaded either way

You can win turns/offensive CI's without winning RVIs, i think RVI debates are dumb

I default to competing interps, no rvi's, drop the argument

Hello, I am a parent judge with about 1.5 years of experience judging High School LD debates. I have been actively judging LD during this time and have judged 10+ tournaments and hold NSDA certifications in judging LD.

I am ok with any (slow/fast) rate of delivery and take notes on key arguments during the speeches. I like when voter issues are clearly defined and when debaters reference the other side's specific arguments when countering them where possible. I expect respectful and kind behavior from all debaters. I believe in open-mindedness and impartiality and listen to all arguments with this in mind. Thanks!

I am Zixia Jiang, a parent judge.

• I will try to avoid personal biases or pre-existing knowledge to influence my decisions.
• Please use signposting to state your points.
• Please speak slowly and clearly. Avoid rapid speech (spreading) and minimize the use of debate jargon. Explain any specific terms in plain English.
• I will be taking notes during each speech to keep track of the key arguments and rebuttals.
• In your final speeches, provide a concise summary of the main points you want me to consider when making my decision.
• Be courteous and respectful to each other. Remember, you're here to help each other improve.

Bio: I am a graduate of and debated 4 yrs of NPDA for Point Loma Nazarene University and served as Assistant Director of Debate at Grand Canyon University. I currently serve as Head Coach at iLearn Academy and still judge around the NPDA circuit.

Updated LD Philosophy: I enjoy and can keep up with spreading. But this quick whisper-mumbling stuff is nonsense. If you think a. that's really spreading b. what you're saying is intelligible, you're kidding yourself. You can go fast but you gotta up the clarity. Forcing me to read all of your cards instead of listening to the speech to understand is asking me to do way too much work and I must infer any analysis being given. It also makes it significantly harder for me to understand the nuances of how the arguments interact and I would prefer not to miss something important.

TL;DR: I strongly believe that I don't have any strong beliefs when it comes to debate rounds, I ran all types of arguments and faced all types of arguments. I see every round as an individual game and don't try to leverage my preferences into my decisions. Go for what you will. I won't complain.

Speed: Speed is usually fine depending on your clarity. I have more comments about it in the LD section. Online, depending on how fast you are maybe 80% is better in case you want me to get everything.

Theory/Framework: These are fine. I include this to say, that I don't mind your squirrely or K aff, but I'm more than willing to listen to the other side and you should be prepared to respond to framework or theory.

K's: K's are great. K's have a place in debate. I enjoy K's because I believe I can learn from them. The only issue is I am not great at being strong on critical literature bases. I believe that people who resent that type of debate altogether are stuck in an ultimately noneducational way of thinking. That being said, I'm not afraid to vote on "this doesn't make any sense". Just because it's a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible.

I will say if I had to choose between the 2 I'd rather have a straight-up policy round.

CP: Just do it right if you're gonna do it? idk the goal is not to get permed right?

Condo: I don't see condo as an issue. I won't forbid myself from voting for condo bad if it's argued for well enough or the strategy really is being that abusive. Some people have ideologies, but I think that's more of a meme at this point.

I am not a big fan of RVI's at all. I will only look to vote for one if it was unresponded to or within a unique context. But my least favorite and seemingly most common is spending X amount of minutes on a frivolous T, then saying you deserve the win for wasting your own time. If it is truly frivolous then either they won't go for it or they'll lose on it if they do. I will not reward it and I find it surprising at the number of judges who don't think twice about it.

Speaker points: I'm not a fan of speaker points so I plan on being a bit of a point fairy

Background: 2x North Dakota State Champion (Speech to Entertain, Extemporaneous Speaking)

Assistant Coach -- North Dakota, California

IE/PD/LD Judge -- North Dakota, Minnesota, California

How do I judge Speech?

The round begins before it begins. First impressions last. Be courteous. Conduct yourselves as young adults throughout. Please do not get up in front of the room until you are called. Judges are often still writing on the previous speaker and do not wish to be rushed. When we're ready, we will indicate. It is disrespectful to enter or leave a round while someone else is speaking. If a competitor AND/OR her/his spectators break decorum, this will be reflected in scores/rankings. Understand your selection. How is the character's voice different from your own? Be highly specific. Take risks, but justified. It's never a gesture for a gesture's sake, or atypical movement to be atypical. Incredible things never happen when you play it safe.

How do I judge Debate? Your presentation (PATHOS) must be on par with your arguments (ETHOS, LOGOS). Persuade us. Debate is NOT about overwhelming us with information. Rapid-fire speaking, fact bombs and excessive spreading are exhausting. This is not debate. If I can't understand you, how do you expect me to ascertain the unintelligible? If I don't believe your conviction, how do you expect to convince me? Say less = say more. Choose facts carefully. Flow clearly. Articulate. Always show respect for your opponents. Lack of civility damages credibility.

DEBATERS, PLEASE READ -- Feel free to time yourselves. But if you choose to time your opponents, 1) turn off your alarms, 2) NEVER tell your opponents "time" and 3) respect that the judge's time is the official time.

I am a parent/lay judge and heavily value creativity and strong points raised between teams in debate. No kritiks and no spreading. Looking forward to a great debate!

I am a new parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. I am not familiar with most debate jargon, so if you do use it explain what it means. Lastly, be respectful towards your opponents

I am a first time judge for LD so please be clear and elaborate on your points. I also don't have much prior knowledge on the resolution so explain your evidence and refutations to the best of your ability.

Enjoy debates that are fact based, with evidence where possible. Please be professional and respectful at all times. I also listen to the counters during CX carefully. Strong evidence will earn you points (over eloquence)

I am Yasamine Karimi and this is my first time judging. I value truth over logic. I do not like being disrespectful to the other teams. Speaking fast is fine. Proper reasoning is appreciated.

Good luck !

I am a lay judge, I do not flow, but I do take notes

no spreading, please talk slow

I am not familiar with theory and kritiks. I will do my best judging the round, but I may not be able to follow if you run theory or kritiks.

I judge based on the arguments presented, not on my own convictions. Apart from listening to first affirmative and negative constructs carefully, I pay close attention to cross examination, rebuttals, and timings before voting.

I am based out of East Bay, California.

I have been judging for past 8 years (in fact earlier than that).

I am a parent judge. I listen to the arguments and only judge based on the arguments presented.

I appreciate good sign posting, as it's a proxy for a clearly thought-out argument. I'd like to be able to walk away and remember the 2 or 3 major points on which you constructed your argument. In your final round, I'd appreciate a clear statement of why you should win.

I appreciate off-time roadmaps.

Please try to avoid debate jargon and technical debating...I am a humble parent judge. Here's what I know about:

Circuit: V=IR

Spreading: jam on toast!

K: Atomic number 19, atomic mass 39.098

Shell: oil company

I will do my best to give substantive, constructive feedback to help you in your future rounds.

Have fun!

-------

A few tips for Novice debaters debating before parent judges:

1. State your contentions as full sentences with a subject and a predicate, not just a subject. Instead of saying "Veto power," state a full sentence that tells the judge what to think about Veto power. Think of it as a thesis sentence where you give an overview of the contention. This will help parent judges keep track of your arguments. For example, "Permanent membership on the UN SC preserves veto power which leads to atrocities and nuclear war." Or, even just "Veto power leads to atrocities and nuclear war." Seriously, sometimes parent judges lose track of which side is aff and which side is neg! Help us out by being crystal clear when you state your contention, so we know what you want us to think / believe.
2. Try to avoid using abbreviations unless you first explain them. The parent judge might not be familiar with the topic, and won't be able to follow your arguments as well. For example: P5, SC
3. When reading from cards, some debaters just read whatever they have bolded or highlighted on the card, stringing together highlighted phrases. However, those phrases, strung together, often don't flow out as coherent sentences. This makes it very hard for parent judges to follow the argument. If you're reading highlighted sections from cards, make sure you add in any verbs or nouns or prepositions that are needed to make the phrases flow together smoothly as coherent sentences.
4. Speak more slowly than you might speak before experienced judges :)

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

I am a parent judge.

I hope you guys enjoy your debate and have fun always.

I believe this is a good learning and a good community to support each other.

please respect each other and support one another.

Thank you for your a lot of effort.

I am looking forward to seeing you soon.

Regards,

Jung

I am a parent judge.

Debate:

Please speak slowly and do not spread. Something that is obvious to a more professional judge might not be obvious to me, so please explain your arguments clearly.

I am a parent judge. Please be clear with your arguments. Read them in a manner that is comprehensible. If you read them too fast I won't be able to flow properly. Try not use to use extremely technical terms. If you do please explain them. Finally, be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

I appreciate contentions that are explained clearly and in an organized manner. Prefer fewer meaningful arguments over many less impactful ones. Take a few sentences to explain more important arguments, otherwise I might miss them. When referring back to cards made in earlier speeches, it's helpful to mention the essense of the studies rather than just the name of the author. Strongly prefer reasonable analysis over taking arguments to the extreme ending up in nuclear war.

I want to see more relevant facts from debaters. Please make sure your facts are valid.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

Hi,

I'm a parent judge.

Please do not spread or I will not be able to understand you.

Hello Participants,

This is Ramesh and I am a Parent Judge with limited experience and I wish you all the best.

My paradigms,

1) Clear and fluent speech supported by solid evidences and references

2) You don't have to be too emotional on the subject you are talking

3) Make sure you look at the audiences at regular intervals while speaking

4) I love students who asks right questions to the speaker and also provide prompt answers when questioned

5) Stay cool, friendly and respectful irrespective of the outcome

I'm a parent judge. My idea of a good debate is a healthy exchange of ideas presented professionally. Your arguments must not be argumentative; you win by the soundness--not loudness--of your argument. I do not penalize (or reward) debaters merely on technicalities. I enjoy listening to debaters who display a mastery of the topic and make their case with conviction. I can handle speed; you do not have to slow down for me.

I prefer moderate speed. I vote for clear speaking and convincing arguments.

Email:

andresmdebate@gmail.com

Cal Debate

For the most part I decide the debate through tech over truth. The baseline for speaker points is 28.5. Please don’t say anything racism, sexist, homophobic, ect…

Kaffs: I tend to think that having a strong link to the topic is better and more persuasive. If you want to run a kaff that doesn’t have a link then it would be best to give me reason for why that is important. Especially for the theory of power it is important to me that you explain the warrants behind the claims that you make.

Framework: You should definitely run it and I tend to think that whoever has a better articulation of their impacts tends to win the framework debate. Giving examples when it comes to debating limits and grounds is especially key for me and for my evaluation if the aff does explode limits. You should spend time and flush out your arguments beyond light extensions of the 1nc.

T: I tend to default to which interpretation creates better resolutional debates however can be convinced otherwise. An important note here is that a lot of teams should spend more time comparing impacts and giving me reasons why their model of debate is better than only focusing on standards.

DA/CP: Having great evidence is cool but you should spend more time impacting out why it matters. Oftentimes I think that there should be more work done on the internal links of your scenarios or explaining the process of the CP.

LD: I don't really know much about tricks, Phil,and other stuff

Have fun and do what you do best! :)

Here's my approach to judging. First and foremost I assess each debater on the merit of their core arguments as well as their use of supportive evidence. I also look for how the debater rebuts their opponent arguments. Finally I am looking for each debater's overall organization, clarity and presentations style. I suggest to keep the arguments simple so they can be explained without involving too much theory like spreading.

Debate: I am a lay judge, please speak at an appropriate pace and explain why your side is more important for me to vote on. Define any terms that you don't think a non-debater will know. For clashing arguments, try to tell me why your side of the argument is more clear and probable. Please explain how your arguments work and also explain your evidence rather than just saying the name of the author. Please time yourselves and your opponents, as I will not keep track of time. Be respectful and enjoy the debate!

For speech: I value your presentation skills like body language, eye contact, and clarity. For interpretations, I like to clearly see many different characters and connection with the audience through your expressions and theme of the piece. In oratory, I enjoy good humor and stories that make your speech seem more personable.

For impromptu/extemp: using your full time to the best of your ability is one of my top judging mechanisms. I will look to see how much you can develop your content and not be repetitive.

One thing I've noticed having judged semi/final rounds at the TOC in Kentucky, the best speakers have a great connection with the audience, whether that's humor in extemp/info/impromptu, incredible expressions and gestures in interp, and personal stories in oratory, they really make an effort to make their speech be memorable.

I am a "parent judge" so please don't go crazy on the spreading. Don't run K negs on aff. Have your arguments be reasonable and explain them well enough to where I don't need to have background information to understand what you're saying. Speak clearly and avoid mumbling, give your competitor a chance to speak, and be respectful.

Good Luck

I will judge debates based on the following:

• How well the debater develops a case in response to the resolution.
• 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.
• Organization of the constructive and rebuttal speeches.
• How well the debater refutes the opposing side and rebuilds their own case.
• The evidence presented and how it should be used to support all arguments.
• Stay within the allocated time limits for your speeches and cross-examinations.
• Finally, and most importantly, I value respect in a debate, which should always be present.

Hi, my name is Neelima Namburi.

I am a flow parent judge, so please avoid spreading and make sure you weigh a lot in your final speeches. It would be nice if you could send your speech docs before you speak.

Email: namburin2020@gmail.com

In my judging, I prioritize three things.

1. Speaking Clearly. Make sure you speak clearly and slow down for taglines so I understand your case. If you want to go a little faster, make sure you send your cases and speech documents to my email.
2. Arguments. Have well fleshed out arguments where you explain the warrants and have a logical link chain.
3. Final speeches. Always weigh. Ensure that you always talk about what argument your are going to refute in your rebuttals. Move cleanly from 1 contention to another and try not to jump around on the flow. Do not bring up new arguments in your final speech.

Debate is supposed to be a safe space. Don't bully anybody. Have fun debating!

Hello Competitors!

I am a parent judge with limited experience judging a debate round.

Please keep in mind the following:
1. Please please do NOT spread or rush . I like to write down points, if iam not then you are speaking too quickly.
2. Explain what you are saying clearly. Pretend as though I have no topic knowledge whatsoever.
3. Be respectful- don't say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

4. If possible please add me to your email chain- narrapradeep@gmail.com

LASTLY GOOD LUCK & LETS ALL HAVE FUN

(He/Him)

Please do not say anything inappropriate, racist, homophobic, or anything offensive to your opponent. Please be kind & respectful to your opponent, and do not interrupt your opponent during cross-examination. No offensive terms or personal attacks

I consider evidence, and argument interaction very important. Evidence must be quantitive with clear and credible references. Supporting evidence is critical. I also pay attention whether opponents questions and contentions are addressed or not.

Please speak clearly. Also please define any acronyms you will be using throughout at the beginning. Make sure your key points and values are clear.

I am a first time judge. I will vote based on the quality of reasoning, clarity of thought, and clear diction.

I really value the amount of creativity, preparation and effort that goes into the activity of debate and speech competitions, and am always looking forward to seeing the new perspectives that students from diverse backgrounds have to contribute to the ongoing discussion.

Although most of my experience comes from judging Congress events, the elements I look for and highly value in speeches remain constant across the board.

- first and foremost, an environment of mutual respect in which competitors maintain a professional demeanor is of utmost importance

- ensure that you clearly articulate your arguments (any generic argumentation that does not contribute to the overall point or "beats around the bush" should be avoided)

- strong public speaking skills, including, but not limited to varying tones, hand gestures, confident delivery, and eye contact have huge value

- a normal rate of speaking is greatly preferred, as it allows me to concurrently take notes

- out-of-the-box, eccentric, and creative ideas catch my attention!

Please keep your delivery slow and clear.

I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

I am a parent judge with experience in a few tournaments. I am looking forward to respectful debate rounds where you clearly and comprehensively explain your arguments with creditable evidence/sources so I can flow the information properly to fairly evaluate the rounds. I might ask for your evidence cards after the rounds to check on the sources. I would prefer you debate with a reasonable pace, not too fast, so I can catch all your points accurately. Avoid running circuit arguments or spreading as I will most likely not be able to comprehend your points to judge.

I'm a lay, parent judge. This is my third year judging Lincoln Douglas Debate. I have judged both Novice and Varsity: however, I do not understand spreading or progressive arguments. I prefer the typical conversational speed. The rate of delivery doesn't weigh heavily on my decision as long as I'm able to understand. Some tips that you might want to take into consideration are:

1. Being assertive is good, but please don't be offensive or overly aggressive.

2. I like a great Cross-Examination.

3. Having good evidence comparison is an added bonus, don't just take into account that evidence is right on face

4. Framework debate is good, but I don't understand complex philosophies, so you will have to explain it very well

5. Please talk clearly and slowly.

While judging for LD, I prefer the presenters to speak clearly and not in a fast pace so that the content can be understood clearly by everyone. Also the contestants should be respectful of each other no matter how the other is doing.

Although I pay very close attention to CX, I will not value it as much as the real case and rebuttals. It can be a starting point and will need to be followed on into the rebuttals for me to give it credibility.

A parent judge with six months of experience in judging.

I prefer well-laid-out contentions and point-by-point rebuttals. I generally flow and will take note of significant drops. Also, ensure that you are weighing impacts at the end of your speeches. Please be courteous to your opponent and clear in your presentation.

Hello Debaters!

My name is Nia Sanders, and my pronouns are she/her.

I competed in and taught LD for three years, and absolutely love this debate style. First and foremost, please make sure you have both a value and a criterion--an LD resolution cannot be properly addressed if you do not first define morality for me (your value), and then argue the best way to reach it (criterion). I will vote for the debater who has best substantiated their argument in the context of both their value, and any opposing values brought up in the debate. If I have to look back at my flows to recall the value and criterion I should be judging under, we may have a problem. Evidence is also considered in my decision, so please make sure we're not just reading theory arguments. Other than that, please have fun and be respectful!

Other judges preferences:

Speed - Please no spreading! I can flow a fairly speedy argument, but if we start to diverge into spreading, I will cue you by putting my pencil down until we return to a more reasonable speed.

Kritiks - Depending on the kritik, I may consider your argument, but generally the safest bet for my vote would be a more literal interpretation of the resolution. However, with that said, please do not be discouraged from more creative arguments as I cannot wait to hear what you all come up with!

Theory - I am not a huge fan of theory, and (as I have stated prior) would rather arguments reference the resolution rather than the theory of debate itself. But the same applies in that different arguments may be more compelling in different situations, however your best bet may be to strike me as a judge if you frequently run theory.

Any other questions, please feel free to ask prior to the round. Best of luck!!

I don't particularly have extensive experience in debate, however, I have judged a few tournaments, mostly PF and LD. Please absolutely do not spread. Also in events with cross-x, I prefer less rapid fire style questioning. I really value signposting and clear voter issues. Please be respectful to your opponents. I'm willing to believe any argument in the round as long as it's properly backed up and defended.

I am a parent judge and judge based on the arguments presented, not on my own convictions.Apart from listening to first affirmative and negative constructs carefully, I pay close attention to cross examination, rebuttals, and timings before voting.

Good luck and have fun!

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!

This is my second year as a speech and debate judge (2024-2025). I have a background in medicine and business. I prefer a moderate rate of delivery and am comfortable with technical language. I prefer clarity and structure in analyzing an argument. I appreciate brevity, creativity, and humor. I favor the strength and depth of argument over stylistic elements.

I am a parent judge judging for the last 3 years. I have been mainly judging LD but have occasionally done other forms as well. I take a lot of notes so please do speak at moderate speeds and explain your arguments logically. I like powerful speakers but please be courteous to other contestants and provide appropriate evidence to substantiate your contentions. Please do not stretch the truth since that could count against you. Have lots of fun!

I'm a parent judge looking for clear, articulate reasoning and evidence to back up rationale.

Don't assume I can draw the conclusion you want me to draw. Lead me to the cause and effect through explanation, data, reason or sound judgement.

If you are referencing events in history, or specific data points, please explain the source and the event briefly so it is clear why the example or reference is appropriate.

Normal speed, especially when there is dense content or facts.

I tend to side with data/facts, but am open to believable hypotheses.

I value logical reasoning over random cards. If you read a piece of evidence, you must explain a reason for what was stated in the evidence happened.

Show me you're prepared, comfortable with the content, and poised in delivery and structure of the material. Don't read off scripts or pre-prepared agendas. React to your opponent's arguments and points.

Most importantly, show me you're passionate about the topic and you're having fun!

How I approach judging a debate round is mostly on how well someone delivers their position. It is noticeable when a presenter invested time in research by citing multiple sources and being ready and able to answer their opponent's questions or to counter points. Speaking with clarity and regular speed is helpful to capture all the points.

I am a parent judge who has not judged LD at all.

Please do not talk fast or spread, and please do not use philosophy, tricks, or any references to things like non unique (explain if you do use it).

I am a parent judge with zero experience in PF and very minimal experience in LD.

I mostly look for cohesion and confidence when it comes to you addressing the topic. I will time you, however I will not cut you off if you are over time.

I am a lay judge, please be slow and speak clearly! I come from a background of tech, so I do have some knowledge on that area, but that's as far as it goes when it comes to topics in debate. Also, remember to be respectful to your opponents! I value kindness and clarity.

Dear Participants,

Welcome to the debate round. I am looking forward to knowing your thoughts by conscientiously listening to your viewpoints on the topic under discussion. I have a fair experience in judging debate rounds and am a parent judge as well.

Please, try to talk at a voice level respecting the audience and allotted time. Also, stay relaxed and calm which will help you be more productive in the rounds. I am confident you will do your best.

Good Luck,

Taruna

I'm a parent who used to debate in college many many years ago. I've been judging in high school tournaments for the past 3 years. I prefer plain language, good logics, appropriate speed, so I can follow your arguments. I do take notes at high level. I value argument over style. I use criteria specific to the event. I find logical arguments with sound evidence most persuasive. I also value debaters' professionalism.

I am a parent judge.

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 6th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast-paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college-educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

P.S. If you are someone who is thinking about going to law school after college, don't hesitate to ask for advice!! Always willing to chat about that, it really helped me when folks did that for me when I was in your shoes and I'd love to pay it forward.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole 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

Hello, I am a second-year LD/Policy judge. Please be respectful and courteous to your fellow participants. Keep track of time. Be confident, clear, and consistent with your arguments throughout the debate. And have fun!

All the best.

1. Delivery Style
1. Slower pace with clear articulation
2. Focus on the key points and reinforce them
3. Avoid spreading, your talk must contain meaningful information
2. Evidence
1. Must be quantitative with clear and credible references
2. Wider range of sources is a plus point
3. Argument
1. No offensive terms, no personal attacks
2. Must be sensitive to opponent’s stance/beliefs
3. Do not break logical fallacies, be sure to point out if your opponent violates one
4. Make sure you signpost and point out which of your opponent points you are responding to
4. Cross Examination
1. Be respectful and do not interrupt
2. Answers should address the question
5. Personal Preferences
1. Explain all abbreviations / acronyms / jargon
2. Summarize your key points clearly at the end

Vamsi Velidandla Paradigm

1. Delivery Style
1. Slower pace with clear articulation
2. Focus on the key points and reinforce them
3. Avoid spreading, your talk must contain meaningful information
2. Evidence
1. Must be quantitative with clear and credible references
2. Wider range of sources is a plus point, not just
3. Argument
1. No offensive terms, no personal attacks
2. Must be sensitive to opponent’s stance/beliefs
3. Do not break logical fallacies, be sure to point out if your opponent violates one
4. Make sure you signpost and point out which of your opponent points you are responding to
4. Cross Examination
1. Be respectful and do not interrupt
2. Answers should address the question
5. Personal Preferences
1. Explain all abbreviations / acronyms / jargon
2. Summarize your key points clearly at the end

I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my sixth year judging and ninth year in the debate-space.

Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:

1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).

ADDENDUM: THESE DAYS I REALLY PREFER SPEECHDROP.NET. PLEASE USE THAT IF YOU CAN.

2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.

Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.

I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.

I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.

Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).

Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.

Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.

Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.

Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.

Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.

I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.

Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )

If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.

In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).

It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.

I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.

+ speaks for Lebron.

I graduated from Palo Alto High School after debating LD there for four years. My LD circuit exposure is fairly limited and wouldn't encourage you to run anything you wouldn't for a typical parent judge. While you can add me to your email chain, I won't flow what's too fast to hear/understand. It's your job to tell me what's important in the debate and why I should be voting on it.

My favorite debaters run assertive (but not overly aggressive) CXs and not watered-down 5 card extinction link chains.

I’m a parent judge, I’ve judged a couple tournaments. Please speak at measured speed. I have a wide array of topic knowledge.

About Me

Zoie Wong (she/her)

Please add me to the email chain zoieywong@gmail.com (Subject: TOURNAMENT --- ROUND --- AFF VS NEG)

I am currently a student at UC Berkeley studying sociology and data science. I've debated in circuit and traditional LD for four years throughout my high school, and currently coach speech and debate.

Note for DTA

If you decide to run circuit arguments please assume I have not read any literature on the living wages topic, so explain everything. Or else, it will be very hard for me to vote for you.

General Thoughts on Debate

I got really into Ks and identity arguments in my junior and senior year of high school, but I enjoy a good LARP round anytime! With that being said, I have been coaching primarily trad LD, so if you plan to spread or run any circuit arguments PLEASE explain any jargon you use and slow down during your rebuttals. I will say clear if I think you are going too fast.

I believe it is crucial the aff provides solvency; I will not vote for the aff if i think there is a solvency deficit. For the neg, please have some offense, or else it will be very hard to convince me to vote for you. When extending arguments, please extend all parts of the arguments and IMPACT WEIGH!! This makes my life easier, and yours :). Explain all link chains and warrants throughout the debate, if something is dropped do not try to bring it up again because I will not consider it.

Argument Specifics

1 - policy args, plans, CPs, DAs

make sure all arguments have a inherency/uniqueness, link chain, and impacts. I love clash and impact weighing in a good LARP round! I'm really open to any arguments as long as it's not some sort of bigotry. Also, big extinction and war impacts are lowkey hard for be to buy/boring ngl, but I will still consider it. Not a big fan of war impacts that use war as a be all end all impact because I think the rhetoric around it fear mongers and is xenophobic. Be mindful when you are the neg about whether or not your positions are condo/uncondo, I often think the neg abuses their power in these scenarios.

2 - Ks, K-affs/topicality

I always enjoy a solid and unique K, but please make sure your links to the topic and alternative are explained CLEARLY! AND EMPHASIS ON THE ROTB! I will preface that I haven't been keeping up with new K literature in the debate space, so do explain everything you are reading as if I have no background knowledge about K literature (which is why i have preffed it at 2).

3. Theory/Topicality/disclosure

I BELIEVE IN THE USE OF THEORY ONLY IN DIRE SITUATIONS. If you plan to run 5 theory shells in your archives just because you have extra time and can spread, I will vote you down. I don't like how debate has just turned into a theory shell debate instead of debating with actual clash. I will accept theory arguments when I think there is abuse happening in round, and I will buy a simple argument calling out friv/tricks. I think topicality is valid, but just make sure if you're running topicality you are ready to defend it and not just give me one line extensions.

4. Trad

I've competed in trad and currently teach trad. I think it's great when done right i.e. not boring. But please feel free to run trad arguments if you are just breaking into circuit, or are adapting the debate to your opponent.

5. Phil

This is not my favorite at all because I find it convoluted and debaters usually cannot explain their concepts well enough. BUT, if you think you really know your philosopher, go for it. ALSO, don't try running kant. I won't buy your kant arguments.

6. tricks, friv theory, misc.

I will not think twice to give you the L if you are going to run tricks, friv theory, or purposely run circuit arguments after your opponent asked you before round to run trad. Although I think debate is a game, the space should be accessible to everyone.

Misc and speaker points

tech > truth within reason

no flex prep. if you're taking more than a minute to send the doc, I will be running prep.

use roadmaps and overviews

i take timing very seriously, so don't try to push your way into adding another argument when time is over.

I'm pretty liberal with my speaker points, just don't say anything offensive or rude.

I’m a new parent judge, first year, please be on normal conversational pace.

I will vote on clarity, logical arguments and understandable explaining.

Help my decision by emphasizing your key arguments and applying comparative weighting in your summary.

Enjoy debating!

Hello my name is Esther and I am parent judge. For this topic, please explain why your studies/examples are more representative than your opponents. Do not use debater terms I will not know what you mean by “turns” or “dropping”. Explain what you are doing instead. I am a pretty logical judge, but I struggle to keep up with debater terminology.

Please really crystallize the round for me. I flow but I want to know what arguments are important and the reason you are winning on them. I want clear framing in your last speeches and preempting if you are on neg.

I appreciate strong speaking skills. Personally, I like professional speaking, but I do not mind other styles. However I will struggle to understand arguments if you spread. Do not spread during rebuttals, I cannot flow effectively if you do.

Above all, give me clarity in arguments.

My email is:esthersyoo@gmail.com

Email for email chains: luqmanzaceria [at] gmail [dot] com

Background: I bring a diverse debating background, having competed in parliamentary debate, public forum, and Lincoln-Douglas debate at James Logan High School (CA). My experiences have shaped my perspective on what constitutes effective debating, which I apply in my judging.

Judging Criteria:

1. Case Construction: I appreciate well-structured arguments with clear contentions, logical reasoning, and strong evidence. Clarity is key – if I can't understand your argument, I can't evaluate it.

2. Cross-Examination: Respect and clarity during cross-ex are crucial. I value debaters who use this time effectively to clarify, challenge, and advance their positions.

3. Evidence and Empirics: While philosophical and theoretical arguments are important in LD, I also value empirical evidence. Your argument should balance philosophical depth with real-world applicability.

4. Clash and Engagement: Direct engagement with your opponent's case is essential. I look for debaters who can effectively refute opposing arguments while reinforcing their own case.

5. Speaking Style: You can spread but clear and persuasive speaking is important. Be articulate and ensure that your arguments are digestible.

6. Framework: Your framework should be clearly defined and central to your case. I look for a strong link between your arguments and your value framework.

Preferences:

• Progressive vs. Traditional LD: I am comfortable with both progressive and traditional styles. However, if you choose a progressive style (kritiks, theory, etc.), ensure that your arguments are accessible and well-explained.
• Speed: Again, spreading is acceptable, but clarity shouldn't be sacrificed for speed. If you are unclear, I will say “clear” as a warning.

Flowing: Make sure to signpost clearly to help me keep track of your arguments.

Decision Making: My decision will be based on who best defends their value and criterion, the strength and clash of arguments, and overall effectiveness in communication.

Final Notes:

• Be respectful to your opponent and the debate process.
• I am open to any questions or clarifications before the round begins.
• Have fun! :)

2024- 2/4/2024

I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old.

General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.

World Crafting:

Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.

Argument Framing:

Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.

The K:

I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afropress, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.

Theory:

Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory most of the time, but it is your round, so do you.

Tech vs. Truth:

Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.

Rudeness is a No-Go:

Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. For real

Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:

Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.

Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:

Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.

Voting Issues:

Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal

TL;DR

Be clear

Weigh

Impact calculus

liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com

>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions

• Quality over Quantity - focus on weight of impact, explain it clearly
• Clear evidence with weight of evidence - source, reputation etc. (one highly reputable source better than five random sources)
• Stay away from technicals unless absolutely necessary
• Be respectful, clear, and concise in disagreements

Please speak clearly and deliver in a pace that a lay judge can comprehend. I prefer you provide me with a roadmap before the speech so I can follow each of your arguments and their supporting evidence. Good luck and have fun!

Make your best argument, and I will vote for you!

I’m a volunteer lay LD judge so please be careful in your rounds. I don’t know too much about this topic so please make sure that you are concise and coherent. Speak clearly and make sure I can understand. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals. Please do not spread or run theory in your rounds. I am not a progressive judge. I will not accept any cases sent to me.

As a judge, I prefer arguments with credible evidence. Please be respectful to both me and your opponent.

About Me

(he/him)

Associate Director, The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men

10 years in debate, 6 coaching

Background in political science (democratic legitimacy/decline, religion and politics, antisemitism) and philosophy (Rawls, Kant, virtue ethics, teaching philosophy)

Conflicts: Former Head LD Coach @James Logan HS, competed for Holy Cross

Email Chain: dta.lddocs@gmail.com (Subject: TOURNAMENT---ROUND---AFF vs NEG)

Questions: blakeziegler.debate@gmail.com

Disclaimer

Before anything else, I’m an educator and mandatory reporter. I view my ballot as an endorsement of whatever strategy I vote for. If I find your strategy morally repugnant, problematic, or not conducive to educational debate, I’ll vote it down without hesitation. In addition to bigotry, this includes arguments in the 5/S category below. Additionally, if I find or am told that any behavior threatens someone’s physical or mental safety, I’ll end the round and report it appropriately.

Email chain/pre-round stuff should be done before the start time. The 1AC should begin at the start time.

Stop Entering Unqualified Judges

I'm increasingly frustrated by the lack of quality judging that some programs provide to cover their obligation. Debaters work hard for high-level competition and that effort becomes futile when the judge pool lacks quality judging. If you're a progressive debater or your team regularly competes on the national circuit, but your judges are not of that level, expect me to give less in terms of my investment in judging you. If you want quality judging, you should provide quality judging. Yes, some programs cannot provide these judges for a variety of legitimate reasons, but the lack of training or preparing the judges you do provide irks me. If you are providing judges for a national tournament that have little experience in debate, especially circuit debate, and it is clear they are not properly trained, this note applies to you. I will invest in judging you as much as you invested providing quality judging for the tournament.

A non-comprehensive list of judges like this include (from Colton Gilbert):

- parent judges

- lay judges

- judges who refuse to listen to certain arguments because they don’t like them (excluding tricks)

- judges who would prefer high school kids capitulate to what THEY want and not what the kids want to discuss

Pref Shortcuts

1 - Ks, K-affs/topicality

2 - policy args, soft left affs

3 - phil* (read below), theory

4 - trad (I can judge this, just rather not)

5/S - tricks, friv theory, wipeout/spark

General Thoughts on Debate

I competed in and am primarily coaching LD. I’ve either run, coached, or encountered every type of argument. Lately, my coaching consists more of Ks, which I enjoy the most, but I’m also excited by policy arguments (especially politics). So, run whatever you’re comfortable with and please don’t feel the need to overadapt. I like good arguments and below are what I consider to be qualities of good arguments.

The aff’s burden is to resolve some harm through a change in the status quo that matters under some framing mechanism. The neg’s burden is to meaningfully engage the aff and show that it’s a bad idea.

Every argument should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact. If the evidence, link chain, or impact calc isn’t clear, I won’t vote on it. The larger the impact, the higher the threshold for the evidence. I think it’s a missed opportunity when debaters don’t address their opponents on the warrant (e.g., no warrant) or structural levels (e.g., missing internal link). If you don't weigh, you won't like my weighing. Debaters also don't do enough weighing in general or linking back to framework, which makes my job more difficult.

For the K, I should have a strong understanding of your theory of power and how the aff links to it in the 1NC. You should make the links as specific as possible (rehighlights, specific behavior, etc.). I'm not persuaded by general links unless your explanation is really good. I’d rather you do this with your own explanation, rather than buzzwords/backfiles. Most K 2NRs can be given off paper. I tend to evaluate K debate in terms of an ethical question. If the K's theory of power is true, the debate becomes whether the aff/topic links to the theory of power, and if the answer is yes, then I vote for the K. I don't think perm doublebind is true and the neg doesn't have to win the alt solves.

*I like phil, but I severely dislike mainstream approaches to phil debate. Most phil debaters misrepresent their literature base while reading from backfiles with buzzwords they don't fully understand. I struggle to buy a lot of phil positions because, especially for non-modern philosophers, it's difficult to explicitly tie their work to the topic. Debaters aren't honest about that and tend to not resolve that well. That frustrates me and is why I put phil at a 3. If you feel this doesn't apply to you, I'm likely a 1 or 2 for you, but this is usually people who have actually read their literature. I typically view phil debate similar as K debate - it's a question of whether the framework affirms/negates the resolution. I think author indicts on phil are viable if the debater can demonstrate how those views are embedded in the moral theory itself (e.g., Kant says you have to be rational to be moral, but he only thought Europeans were rational).

Theory is only for legitimate abuse. I will buy a “gut check” argument on friv theory. I also tend to think a lot of shells are resolved by pre-round conversation, and if that's the case, I have a low threshold for responses. If theory debate is about endorsing good norms and behavior in the debate space, that implies you're running theory from a place of good intentions. If that appears to be untrue, I'm skeptical of your fairness and education impacts.

Topicality is different. I think stock T positions are viable and useful ways to test the aff. I generally don't find T-FWK as a viable route to test a non-topical aff unless it's an "option of last resort" (Smith, 2021). If this is your strategy, you need a robust defense as to why you're not engaging the literature of the aff. With that said, if you're running a non-topical aff, these are the questions that frame my understanding of the case: Why should we abandon the topic? Why do I reject the TVA? How do I weigh impacts under your framing? How does the ballot resolve your harm?

Don’t run tricks - auto loss and 20 speaks. This includes formatting your doc in such a way that it makes it extremely difficult for your opponent to decipher it. This also includes spikes. "Gut check" is a sufficient answer to these arguments.

You should disclose previously read positions. New affs don’t need to be disclosed.

Spreading is fine, but please start slow and build up. I’ll say “clear” twice before I stop trying to flow.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

tech > truth within reason

If you’re still sending the doc after 30 seconds, I’m running prep, docking speaks, or both

no flex prep (if this happens, I’ll dock speaks for whoever asks a question)

performance of the argument matters just as much as the argument

brief and clear off-time roadmaps please

going over time = dock speaks (finish your thought, but don’t push it)

Speaker Points

30: Flawless argumentation, solid delivery, and I learned something from the debater

29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery

29-29.4: Same as above but needs work on delivery

28.5-28.9: Good debate skills and decent delivery; shows promise

27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills

<27: You did something morally repugnant or concerning.

People who’ve significantly influenced my views on debate/largely agree with their paradigms: Byron Arthur (especially), Aaron Timmons (especially), Jonathan Alston (especially), Chris Randall, Elijah Smith, Chris Vincent, Ed Williams, Anna Myers, Temitope Ogundare, Colton Gilbert, Chetan Hertzig, Bennett Eckert, Hannah Stafford