I am a parent/lay judge, I am not familiar with all the debate jargon and rules.

I will judge based on a few factors:

Constructive:

1. Evidence and logic is important, you must have both. Please also bring up your impact(s) with a clear link. I will not evaluate the impact if I do not understand how it connects to the topic.
2. Please control your speed, speak clearly, and emphasize the impact parts to me. Some definitions and background information would be largely appreciated, as I have limited understanding of this topic.
3. You are welcome to disclose, but are not required to.

Rebuttal:

1. Please outline what you are going to say in your speech, and signpost as well. Use signal words like "First, second, etc." so I can easily follow along
2. You must attack your opponents arguments thoroughly to gain my vote, if your opponents point out that you dropped something, and you did, I will give them that argument.
3. Second rebuttal: Please address your opponent's response during first rebuttal.

Summary:

1. Collapsing is fine, but please make it clear.
2. Extend you arguments, but limit new evidence.
3. Do not bring up new arguments past summary, unless mentioned in constructive/rebuttal.
4. Defending your arguments is fine, adding new ones is not.
5. If your opponents bring up new arguments, please mention that in your speech. You can respond if you want, that doesn't really make a difference to me.
6. I would like weighing, but please explain well, again, I am not familiar with debate jargon.

Final Focus:

1. Extend and defend your arguments.
2. Weigh, explain well
3. Summarize you responses against your opponent's case
4. Your speech does not have to follow this exact format, just please be clear

Note: Really make it extremely clear to me, what is most important in this round. I may not be able to flow every single thing you say, but if you continue to repeat the most important things, I will note it down

I am judging debate from last few years. Please be sure to speak slowly and clearly so that I am able to take appropriate notes. Clarity over speed. If you use debate jargon, you will need to explain it to me.

I hope to see good use of evidence and delivery. Evidence should be timely, relevant, and trustworthy. Debaters should call for evidence and refute it when possible. Delivery is critical. Debaters should be clear and
concise. I want to see that you are defending your arguments well, not just negating your opponents points.

If you can keep track of speech times, that would be helpful.

It's important that debaters be courteous to each other during the round.

Have a great debate!

As a jury adjudicating the Public Forum Debate, my primary goal is to ensure fairness, clarity, and effective communication. I highly value rational arguments and the use of good quality, relevant evidence to support claims. I'll assess the strength of arguments*, responsiveness to opponents**, and adherence to time limits. Respect and professionalism are essential, and I'll provide constructive feedback to help debaters grow. The goal is not only to win but also to promote critical thinking and skill development. My decisions will be solely based on the merits of the arguments presented in the round, and I'll maintain transparency in my feedback. Good luck to all participants!

(*): A well-structured argument is more persuasive. I will be evaluating the organization of content, including the use of assertions, reasoning, evidence, and conclusions/link-backs to ensure logical flow and coherence. The substance is crucial. I will assess the quality of the arguments presented, their relevance to the resolution, and their logical consistency. Debaters should provide strong evidence and analysis to support their claims.

(**): What I mean by responsiveness is debaters should engage with their opponents' arguments. I will take into account how well each team addresses their opponents' points and refutes them effectively in cross-examination***.

(***)Cross-examination: I value the ability to ask insightful and probing questions during cross-examination and the ability to respond to them effectively. It's an opportunity to clarify and strengthen your position.

(+ For Congress: more or less same with the PF, additionally to the quality of the content (argumentation, organization, evidence, & relevancy) & responsiveness (how you rebutt/respond to rebutt), I'm also taking into account how you deliver your speech given the dynamics of the congress (is your case compelling to the audiences? are you advancing the debate/bring more nuanced angle/evidence? are you listen & address/response the prev. speaker? how proactive in questioning?) and crystallization is expected in the closing appeal speech. Last but not least, always be mindful and respectful to others. Good luck!)

Warm regards,

Yumna Apta

Debate Philosophy:

I approach debates with a focus on flowing arguments and evaluating them based on the flow. While I prioritize technical arguments over truth, I do expect clear and logical communication from debaters. Clarity of thought and logic is paramount, and I value well-warranted arguments over-reliance on evidence alone.

I weigh the claims by whether they are supported by two kinds of reasoning:

11. Truth: Why the claim is true.

22. Impact: Why this claim is important in the debate.

"Claims" apply to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes on my flow later. Providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily mean your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example is important to the debate as a whole.

Weighing Arguments:

Debaters should focus on weighing their arguments and demonstrating why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents. This includes considering scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability, or employing metaweighing techniques. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the round to aid in organization.

Topic Relevance:

I prefer debates to stay on topic and avoid off-topic or theoretical arguments aimed at disqualifying the other team. Definitions by the government/affirmative team are allowed, but abuse of this privilege will be penalized.

Argument Evaluation:

Warranted arguments are crucial for winning my ballot. Unsubstantiated claims are difficult to vote on, especially when effectively rebutted by the opposing side. It's essential to be charitable to opponents' arguments and engage with the best version of their claims rather than strawmanning them.

Public Forum-Specific:

In Public Forum debates, I prioritize logical reasoning over reliance on evidence cards. Debaters should focus on identifying weaknesses in their opponents' link chains rather than reading from prepared blocks. Clash should be evident by the rebuttal speeches, and second rebuttals should address all offense or risk concessions.

Evidence and Email Chains:

I do not typically review evidence or participate in email chains. Debaters must convince me of their arguments without relying on my review of evidence. However, if requested, I may assess evidence for accuracy.

3rd year of PF at Theodore Roosevelt High School. Competed on the national circuit a lot of times so I hopefully know what I’m talking about lol

Email chain plssss sree.baruri@gmail.com - or if you have any questions before/after the round too

TLDR: way to my ballot is to collapse, warrant, and weighhhhh plsss!!

I'm a tech > truth judge - unless the argument is racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. then I’ll give you 20s and drop the debaters (and will report it to tab)

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT:

1. Collapsing - if it's strategically going to be an advantage for you, collapse!! It makes the debate much easier to follow (and I won’t secretly hate you)
2. Warranting/Frontlining- interacting and directly responding to your opponent’s arguments go a looooooooong way (less judge intervention - which I will never intentionally do)
3. Signposting - highkey if you don’t tell me where to flow it then i’m not gonna know and it’s not gonna be on the flow and I wont evaluate it (your choice lol)
4. WEIGH!! - pls weigh your impacts WITH WARRANTING (not listing off 10 mechanisms) and respond to your opponents weighing too and make it comparative so I know why I should vote for you!!!

Big Things:

a. Speeches

• Rebuttal: 1st - plz dont like extend ur own case and elaborate - I know abt it alr
  2nd - plsfrontline!!
• Summary: 1st - ik its a lot (experience) but make sure to get to ur opponent's side and weigh too
  2nd - weigh!!
• Final Focus: nooooo new infooo! extend info from summary tell me why you won (weigh, make it comparative)

b. Round Semantics

• Speed: I don't really care - but send a speech doc if you're spreading
• Time: Had a lot of problems with this - but pleeeeasseee make sure you dont go too much over time! I will give you a 10-15 second grace period to wrap up your speech but will not flow anything after that.
• Cross: be nice pls no yelling
• Turns: if you want to win off them implicate and weigh them
• Theory: <3
• K's: dont really know, but tis ok
• Post-Rounding: (idrc lol - unless you start insulting/being a sore loser) it can be very educational and I submitted my ballot sooooooooo gl

Other/Misc:

• if you have a "sand" contention - speaks will go up by 1
• defense isn't sticky

Speeeaaaakkssss:
29-30: Phenomenal like omg
28-29: great job!!
27-28: pretty good ngl
26-27: you’re getting there! keep up the effort
25-26: you grinded my gears
below 25: you offended me/opponents

thanks for taking the time to read it’s only gonna help you

Debate is one of the few platforms where people can air their opinions freely based on the side of the motion they stand for. So it's the corporate responsibility of everyone to reduce toxicity to it's minimum in the circuit. One way to achieve this is by respecting the opinions of others while we are also free to reject those we may not agree to, as politely as possible.

Use of derogatory speeches on others, offensive words, and intention to hurt and lower other speakers' esteem should be avoided.

Beyond assertions, analysis of why a point should be noted is also very important.

The clarity of a speaker while speaking is very important to enable the judge and the opponent to understand one's case too.

Don't go too fast. Be clear and concise.

Be respectful to your opponents. It goes a long way! I do not tolerate homophobic, racist, or sexist comments.

Email Chain: traviscornett16@gmail.com

Remember to have fun!

Hi, my name is Adarsh and I am a 10th grader who has been debating PF for 2 years now.

I prefer a slower pace so I can understand your points best, and clarity is important.

Other than that, please weigh and provide supported arguments

try to throw some humour here and there

have a good debate!

Hello! I am Renee Ding. I am a traditional LD Judge. I like slow speaking, clear warrants, and weighing. I do not know about progressive debate so please do not run any Kritiks, Theory, or anything else. If you have to spread, please send the document to my email. I will try my best to keep up.

Be nice to your opponent and have fun!

Email for chain: reneeding320@gmail.com

Hello! My name is Tim (Sim Low's league partner), and you can call me by my name.

Everyone should understand that although debate is a competitive activity, it should still be one that is enjoyable. Winning is great, but please relax and enjoy your round.

Background:

I competed mainly in Public Forum as the second speaker and in Lincoln-Douglas as well as in some Forensic events (Impromptu and Original Oratory) during high school. My high school team competed mainly on the VHSL district level, where I won speaker and team awards. I graduated from Johns Hopkins University, where I participated in American Parliamentary, broke, and received speaker awards.

General:

For the email chain, please use my gmail: littletimmy10004@gmail.com.

For other inquiries such as questions about your round, how to improve, etc., you can reach me at hdo11@jhu.edu.

The most important thing in any debate round is asking "why." Every debater should always ask why their argument is being said and why it is even important in the round. Please do not give me bare statements that are simple reiterations of what your research says. Remember to always warrant, mechanize, and impact/weigh your arguments.

I can, and will, follow speed; that does not mean, however, that you should speak at an incomprehensible pace. I will say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ up to three times - if you fail to adapt, I will flow what I can and whatever I cannot will be missed. I realized that there are some of you guys who speak at >500 wpm; this is absolutely insane for me, so please slow down or you risk me not catching and flowing what you say, which will be reflected in the RFD.

I am very strict on debate being inclusive and equitable. If you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted towards your opponents, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible. Trust me, I have done this in the past and will continue to do so as it makes my job easier. Likewise, please do not be rude to each other during the debate, particularly during the cross-examinations/rebuttals. I understand that aggressive debates exist; however, if I find that you are being excessively, and persistently, disrespectful, I will dock your speaks. Lastly, please disclose on time. I hate voting on disclosure because I want to hear what you guys have prepared. However, if your cases are not disclosed on time and there is a disclosure argument that has substantive warranting and weighing, I will end up voting for it at the very top.

I will happily answer questions after the round, but I will not tolerate being yelled at by you or your coaches. As much as I love feedback from you guys, please do not post-round me in bad faith. If you decide to post-round me, trust me that my decision will not change. My RFD will be comprehensive enough that when I explain it to tab or whoever I must explain it to, they will also agree with my RFD and stick with my decision.

Public Forum:

I believe that the two most important skills in Public Forum are 1) comparative analysis and 2) weighing. What this looks like is comparing the two worlds and showing me why your world is better or showing me why your arguments are the most important for x, y, z reasons. Please also look at the internal links! If you fail to do so, then I will adjudicate based on what argument I believe to be winning, and I can promise you that it will not work in your favor.

I likewise believe that having cards with proper citations is extremely important. If you assume that I will not catch you, I promise you that I will. When I enter a round, I expect all debaters to not cheat. If you do not have proper citations or if you even attempt to misrepresent research, I will drop you with the lowest speaks possible. With this in mind, please send me all your cases and any evidence you intend to read prior to starting your speeches. Yes, I mean all. If you opt out of this, I will assume that you have made up every single card that you are reading and drop you on the spot. In the extreme case that both teams do not send me their cases, have improper citations, or misrepresent research, I will ask Siri to assign the win. I take this very seriously, and I hope you all do too.

If you are inefficient in sending cases, cards, or any forms of evidence when requested, I will start your prep time; if it becomes excessive, I will deduct speaker points. I understand that internet issues exist, but this should not be taking you anything more than a couple minutes at most. I have had too many rounds where the round went past the tournament time by 15-20 minutes, and this not only takes away my time, but also delays the tournament. It really is not hard to have everything prepared before each round starts, so please spend a couple minutes after pairings drop to ensure that you have everything ready.

I have two new pet peeves in this format. The first is when you guys tell me that "you are going to collapse on x argument because it was dropped" and then subsequently do nothing. Just because there is an argument that is dropped and you say "you are going to collapse on it" does not mean I will auto-vote on it. You still need to show me why you are collapsing on that argument, why it is important, and why it outweighs any other arguments that your opponents bring up. The second is when you guys tell me that "this is frontline" or that you guys are going to "extend this." If you do not tell me why you are doing these things or why these things matter in the round, then I will not care.

Over time, some of you guys have been trying to include arguments from other formats into Public Forum. Look, if you want to engage in K debates, then go switch your format to Policy. I am unsure as to why you want to include such arguments in a format that traditionally does not include them; I promise you that you are not doing something unique by bringing in these arguments. Theory is permissible and has always been okay in this format, and that is theory when it pertains to violating basic rules, misrepresenting research, improperly cutting cards, and so on.

At the end of the day, please do not make me do extra work. If you are going to make a claim, warrant, mechanize, and impact it out. If you are going to go for any argument, delineate everything to me. What this looks like is going from step one of an argument and showing me all the steps in between to reach step five of the argument. You should never give me one step and then jump to the conclusion without delineating to me how you got there. If you fail to do so, I will not be upset, but sad... very sad.

Policy:

I will be very honest; Policy is a relatively new format for me. Although I believe that I have become a more experienced Policy judge, especially in the K debate, I am nowhere near as good as the top judges that you have seen on the circuit. I will change this once I know that I can be a proper judge for you all.

I know that many judges include in their paradigm specific preferences for how certain arguments should play out; for example, a judge may describe their preferences regarding CPs, DAs, theory, topicality, and so on. For me, I genuinely do not care about which arguments you run, as long as they are all properly explained. What this looks like is running Cap K and telling me your arguments, why you link, and why it matters in the round that you are in. Just treat me as a lay judge and explain everything to me.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Lincoln-Douglas has changed a great deal since I have participated in this event. I still know, to a great extent, the many philosophers that Lincoln-Douglas debaters cite and use in their arguments. However, I do not know much about truth-testing, tricks, combo shells, and paradoxes. If you have me as your judge, you need to either 1) include cards about the basics behind these arguments and why you are using them in your round or 2) avoid them. Take the time to explain them to me and I will be more than happy to go back and understand them so that you can still use such arguments. Otherwise, you can treat the round like any other Lincoln-Douglas round.

Speaks:

When I judge, speaks always start at 28.0. Depending on how the round goes, I move up or down. I do not see the need to explain what constitutes a high score versus a low score, but here is a short description on what your speaker scores should mean to you when I judge you. If you get a 29.5-30.0, I am clearing you and expect you to break. If you get a 29.0-29.4, you did well and I believe you can break if you are in a bubble. If you get a 27-28.9, you performed as expected. If you get anything below a 27, you did something terrible and I had no qualms docking you. Please do not be the first debater that I have given below a 27 to. Most importantly, I do not, and will not, entertain any speaks theory.

If you have made it to the end of my paradigm, congratulations are in order. You can make a joke during any of your speeches and I will bump up your speaks by 0.1 and possibly 0.2. Please enjoy your round and have fun!

I am an assistant director to Ivy Bridge Academy, and I started out as a novice Debate Coach. I understand the structure of the debate and terms, but you should explain the case to me as a Lay Judge.

I do not tolerate personal attacks, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or bullying.Please be respectful of your opponents and me as a judge. If you have an issue you should contact your coach.

For your cases, I value impacts and weighing, as well as clarity. Enunciate your words and speak in a moderate speed as to be heard clearly.

I will keep track of time and flow on my own, but you should be timing yourselves and reaching the time limit.

Speaker Points

26-26.9-You fell short of the time, you were unclear or I could not understand your case at all.

27-28-I couldn't understand the concepts in your case fully, you did not work well with your partner.

28.1-29-You did a good job and were understood, with clear concepts. You could develop your case further or be more persuasive.

29.1-30-I couldn't give anymore feedback, and your case was either near, or absolutely flawless.

I will give personalized feedback as necessary, verbally and over tabroom.

a. cogent logic first and then data

b. clear speech first and then speech speed

c. prove your case and make the comparison

Good luck!

I'm open to most types of debate as long as you clearly explain your arguments and weigh them in some capacity against the existing offense of the opposing side.

I'm a current HS LD captain and debater focused on the tech side of LD, but do have a thorough understanding of norms at the PF level. I am open to prog arguments, but do NOT spread at the middle school division.

In MS PF:

General advice: make sure to engage with your opponents arguments, justify your arguments with evidence (preferably carded) and make sure to have a uniqueness, links, and at least one impact for every argument.

1. Truth > Tech
2. Kritik-ey arguments = Generic advs and disads. There should NOT be any topicality, theory or tricks at MSPF
3. I will vote on anything as long as it is well justified enough within the round and does not violate any tournament invitational or NSDA Public Forum rules.

hey everyone, my name is Grace Gu and i do varsity congress on local/natcirc (@ millburn high school). other than my main event, i know a bit about other types of debate (ld, pf) and speech.

for PF and LD, BE POLITE to each other. if you guys are being toxic you will be dropped. *consider me an avg flay judge.*

PF:

TLDR:

• the best debaters are people who will appeal and make their argument understood by anyone. so that means it doesn’t matter if im literally a judge that has no understanding on the topic, or a tech judge that has a bunch of experience. make your arguments clear, make links simple, terminalize impacts and have some sense of fluency. keep that in mind!**

General:

• please signpost clearly. I can flow but it can be hard to keep up with arguments and i will get confused if your args all over the place. That means outlining your contentions and impacts so i exactly know what you’re talking about.

• going fast is ok, just don't spread. make sure ur understandable so I can flow

• impact weighing = good & necessary. I can’t emphasize how important this is. Impacts will ultimately determine my ballot

• I don't really like Ks or theory in pf. if u do use it, just don't exploit the other team lol

• good fluency = good speaks.

• i appreciate humor bc debate is boring

• meaningful questions over clash in cx

• refrain from just dumping debate jargon if ur not acc gonna explain

• email chain:gracegu570@gmail.com or feel free to ask about anything and everything.

Congress:

• humor is good!! rounds are long and I get bored very easily (make me entertained)

• quality > quantity arguments. if you bs your way through your speeches it will not look as good to me. explain links, make it clear. I'd rather have one argument than 3 that make no sense to me.

• humanize impacts

have fun, debate is debate. everyone has something to learn from each other so just be nice and have a good time.

Maintain debate decorum at all times. Focus on weighing and impacts of your case. Please speak clearly and try to keep in mind the timings of all speeches. Focus on cross fires because that sets the tone for the entire debate. Asking strategic questions key. All your impacts and claims should be backed by evidence (try not to paraphrase).

All the best !!

Speed

Rapid conversational

I prefer quality arguments over quantity of arguments. Debate is educational; if your strategy is to spread the other team in the rebuttal, that doesn't seem like you are trying to promote education. Being able to talk faster does not equate to being a better debater. That being said, I am not unreasonable; if you have to speak faster in the summaries to cover everything the other team put out, that is acceptable. If you are going to use speed as part of a strategy, I would rather you use the extra time you save to go more in-depth on fewer arguments rather than creating more, not as well-fleshed-out arguments.

Theory/Kritik

I am a teacher, and debate is for education. I am predisposed to believe that debating issues that are intentionally (not just a loose link to the resolution or a bad interpretation of a definition) outside of the resolution can harm the fairness of the debate and the opponent's education. That said, I welcome you to use your speech time to advocate for any issues you believe in and educate the people in the round; I am just not likely to give you the ballot.

Framework

If two competing frameworks offer substantially different views of the round, I will evaluate it based on whichever team persuades me to use their framing. So, yes, I will vote on a framework and mentally adopt that framing to evaluate the impacts of the round. Strategically, it would be best to tell me how you win under both frameworks if you are unsure which framework is more persuasive to me. If the framing is fairly similar, I would hope the debaters would recognize that sooner rather than later and mutually agree so there is more time to focus on the core issues of the topic.

Tips

(I don't expect you to follow this strictly. You debate how you feel best. These are just the styles I am more likely to understand, appreciate, and ultimately vote for because it is how I teach my students. You utilize this information however you like.)

I like to flow as much as I possibly can. So, if I am not writing anything down during your speeches, you are either not being clear in your argumentation or have spent too much time covering the point; it is best to move on. Because I like to keep a detailed flow, I also appreciate a debater who is well organized in their signposting. Also, I have found debaters more successful when they can cross-apply evidence or arguments from their own contentions to attack the opponent's case. It seems to make things more organized because less evidence is being brought in, and thus, the debate becomes more focused on the quality of the argumentation.

When I am thinking, I often make a very grumpy-looking face. Don’t think I disagree with what you are saying because of this.

In public forum, I believe that most summary speeches drop excessive amounts of arguments against their case. If you can defend your case and respond to what the other team said in the previous speeches, you are much more likely to win. I want a line-by-line of both cases in the summary speech if you can. On the same note, if the other team does drop critical arguments on the case, these are easy wins in my book; please bring them up.

You should select two or three main voting issues for the final focus. The speech's last 15-20 seconds should be spent giving me impact calc and telling me what the Pro world vs. the Con world looks like. I also don't mind an overview at the top if that suits you.

Roadmaps are off the clock for me.

I will evaluate the evidence if you ask me to call for the evidence. But, if the evidence does not change my decision, I may not call for it.

Please don't try to avoid giving the other team evidence by saying your partner will do it after the cross. Evidence transparency is a huge part of the debate. Try to be as upfront as possible.

I can tell the difference between someone who is confident and standing their ground and someone who uses rudeness to make it look like they know more than they do. If being rude is part of your pathos as a debater, I don't think you're doing it right.

As a general observation, conceding a few arguments that might legitimately be untrue puts you in a better position to win than trying to defend every aspect and piece of evidence of your case. The energy it takes to defend legitimately untrue arguments is not worth the time you potentially lose to develop other, more substantial arguments. Just pick and choose wisely.

Policy-I- I have debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Policymaker.

LD- I have not debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Good luck.

My name is Opeyemi Faith Gideon (she/they). I am a student at the University of Ilorin. I have much speaking and judging experience and am an accomplished debater. I have a lot of experience presiding over many debate competitions such as British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF) and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I value positive, fair, equitable, and appropriate interactions with others during discussions and cross-engagements. I value debaters who fulfill their roles, deal with debate burdens, disputes, and conflicts in an efficient manner, as well as deal with contentions in an equitable and effective manner. It is crucial that you understand that even if you disagree with the contexts and frames offered by the opposing team, I advise that you still discuss their argument while offering your counterfactual if needed. Your summary speeches should concentrate on emphasizing the arguments, justifications, and logical implications that help you win the dispute. The only points that should be included in your final emphasis are those that have already been discussed in the debate.

To make sure you're keeping track of the time spent on various parts of your speech, I ask all debaters to monitor time as I do as well. It would be lovely to hear you finish your speech naturally and on time.
I also advise debating participants to always have their cameras on. However, I am open to making exceptions, so if there is ever a time when you are unable to turn on your video camera, please let us know and we'll be sure to excuse you and make an exception.

*debater writing this for her mom

Hi!

She's lay but takes notes -- don't spread, your args should be clear/well-organized. Run your lay cases; she's less likely to buy wild extinction scenarios.

Big picture/voters in the back half is appreciated. Do your best to resolve clash and make it clear why you win -- she's more likely to intervene/vote off cross if it's a really messy debate. Basically just a lot of judge instruction.

She listens to cross, know your args and be able to explain/answer questions well.

Don't be too aggressive or loud, all the regular parent judge stuff.

Good luck!

I am a parent Judge.

Hi - my paradigm is a work in progress.

Speech clarity is very important, use signposting, some/medium speed is okay. Please state your claims clearly, provide evidence and highlight the impact(s). Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I will be looking for cohesive reasoning. I prefer expanding on a few ideas over many ideas delivered quickly.

Lastly please be respectful to your competitors and everyone else in the room.

Good luck !

tech > truth

be funny, run whatever

I am a veteran teacher that loves vigorous debate and discussions. I prefer students to engage the topic with insightful and meaningful arguments. Be kind in the debate to the other students and make sure to respond to arguments made by your opponents.

Don't spread - I prefer conversation speed. If you go faster than that then you do so at your own risks.

Be firm and aggressive but not rude - I enjoy a heated debate but not mean and rude comments or disrespectfulness during speeches.

I wouldn't consider myself to be a specialized debate judge so if you use a bunch of debate jargon that may not work out well for you.

If you have questions feel free to ask. Good luck!

Rather than appealing to emotional words, I would definitely prefer arguments with evidence.

Contentions and their validity are important; however, I put more importance on how you can address rebuttal posed by opponents.

I prefer to hear concise and well-summarized arguments instead of attempting to cover many points with fast-paced speech.

Background : I have experience in debating and judging since school.

Advice for speakers:

1. I appreciate Off time road maps and good structure

2. Debating should be done in the politest manner. I am strict against Stereotypes, rude comments, Ableism, mockery, racism, homophobia and abusive tone.

3. I appreciate good and valid evidence and clear statements from them.

General Contention Advise:

1. Innovative arguments are welcomed with good analysis.

2. Clear flagging of main argumentation is necessary.

3. Good rebuttals and good responses with comparatives are always good.

4. Try not to knife your partner.

5. Summary speeches should have great focus on clashes.

Marking scheme:

1. Analysis and comparative engagement would enhance marks.

2.Quality of speeches even if you win or lose

3. Bad and unsolicited behavior would tank your scores and even make you lose.

tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.

--

Below is my detailed paradigm:

• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.

• I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.

• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.

• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison. Tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. The clearer, the better and the more likely I am to vote for you.

• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments. I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision should I evaluate them.

• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument. You must have an alternate case if they aren't. I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space.

hi! im cynthia and currently a sophmore in hs. ive done a few years of pf debate in ms and during my freshmen year, but i am new to judging!!

pf debaters:

• the first thing above all to remember is to be respectful!!! like dont interrupt other people or talk over others, that's just not cool
• PLEASE do not spread. if i cant understand what ur saying bc ur speaking wayyy too fast i probably wont flow it so
• IMPACT WEIGH!! like clearly tell me ur impacts and why they are better than ur opponents'
• extend ur arguments all the way thru, esp in summary
• bonus points for structured and easy-to-follow speeches
• i will not flow cross x (sadly) BUT if u want to bring up things that happened during cross-x, mention in ur speech
• also PLEASE NO THEORIES. unless its like an actual issue! but i just can't
• last but not least just have fun and be engaged

I have some judging experience, however consider me a lay judge while making arguments.

I am here to evaluate the arguments presented by both teams and determine which team has done the better job of persuading me. I am not an expert in debate, so I will not be able to follow complex arguments or jargon. I am looking for debaters who are clear, concise, and persuasive. I will also be considering your delivery and demeanor when making my decision

some specific things I will be looking for:

• Clarity:Can you explain your arguments in a way that I can understand?
• Conciseness:Can you get to the point without using too many words?
• Persuasiveness:Do you use evidence and logic to support your arguments?
• Delivery:Do you speak clearly and confidently?
• Demeanor:Are you respectful of your opponent and the judge?

some things that I will not be swayed by:

• Speed:Speaking quickly does not make you more persuasive.
• Volume:Yelling does not make your arguments more valid.
• Jargon:Using complex debate jargon will only make it harder for me to understand your arguments.
• Personal attacks:Attacking your opponent personally is not a valid argument.

Starting out 2024 as a notable unbiased judge

Email: blessingnkojo@gmail.com

You can catch me sparing at ALDD (speechforces) when am not Coaching at RSUDS

Crucial points about my philosophy on debate:

- Equity:

I believe that the fairest debates are those where there is no discrimination or use of derogatory language towards opponents or their arguments. Every argument should be respected and considered.

Things to avoid:

1. Do not classify any argument as nonsensical or stupid.

2. Do not make generalizations based on identity, race, or gender, as this can be stereotypical and provoke retaliation.

Things to do:

1. Be specific when analyzing people or places to avoid generalizations.

2. Approach every argument with a critical lens, refer to it, engage with it, rebut it, and respectfully counter propose. Now that this is clear,

please read before speaking if I am judging you…

Typically, I start evaluating during the second speech in any debate round. Therefore, I am more impressed by students who demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful note-taking), and intelligent cross-examinations, rather than those who rely on speaking quickly, using confusing language, jargon, or recycling arguments.

I have become more open to philosophy-style arguments in the past year. However, I have not extensively studied any specific literature bases. Philosophy arguments that are solely used to trick opponents will not win my vote. However, I am open to well-developed philosophy strategies. Since I am an ordinary intelligent voter, you need to ensure that your explanations are clear and robust in explaining how to evaluate your arguments.

Counter Proposals: Especially in policy debates, but not limited to them, counter proposals that aim to change the focus of the prompt (resolve) will be disregarded as they do not meet the necessary criteria. Use a counter proposal only if it is absolutely necessary or if it aligns with the spirit of the debate. My evaluation of a good counter proposal is just as important as my evaluation of the original prompt.

Goodluck..............

debated PF/LD and I've done speech so I will be flowing your rounds

Add me to the email chain always (aanyamittu@gmail.com) I will disclose, just give me a few minutes after the round

Time yourselves, I trust you. If your opponent is going over, just knock on the table or show me your stop watch in the camera (if online)

TECH > TRUTH ALWAYS. just make sure your link is super clear and evident, I don't care if your arg leads to ww3 but you have to explain HOW. if your links aren't clear or you simply don't have one I won't even bother with your impact

EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS AND YOUR WARRANTS!! I don't want to hear about some argument in the first speech and have it never be brought up again until the last one. If you drop something, you drop it. Also, don't just extend cards/key words EXPLAIN THE LINK.

I don't care too much about CX just don't be rude or speak over your opponents. I'll listen but I won't really make note of anything, if it's important bring it up in your speech. And of course, during your speech don't be discriminatory/disrespectful. I understand that you have to make a point, but there's a line. Don't cross it. I'm good with being a little aggressive (esp bc I literally am) but just know your limits.

I'm good with spreading, just share the doc with me. Always have good ethics in this, don't wait until after your speech to send the doc or say a dumb excuse, if you're gonna spread share the doc. If your opponent asks for a card or something, only start prep time once they receive it -- don't waste your prep on waiting for them to send the doc.

Weigh your arguments/impacts and actually EXPLAIN. I don't want to hear "we outweigh on x, y, and z" I want to hear WHY these impacts actually matter.

Speaks should always be 28+ unless you're just horribly offensive or rude. I will deduct speaks to 24-25 if you say anything insanely out of line.

Ways to boost speaks:

• SIGNPOST/ROADMAP PLEASE!!

• if you're funny or I laugh I'll boost your speaks (but don't do too much here pls)
• if you buy me food

Ways to harm your speaks:

• being rude or offensive
• saying your opponent "dropped all your args" when they literally didn't (i'll be flowing, i'll know)
• bad evidence ethics
• ofc, like I've been saying, if you're rude, I'll drop your speaks BIG TIME

PLEASE BE ON TIME OR EARLY TO YOUR ROUNDS. I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO WAIT FOR YOU.

As a debater, it is general knowledge that arguments made ad hominem would not fly and in some circumstances would invite penalty due to it's inappropriate nature....

More importantly, what you should do would be to prove your case (role and burden fulfilment), engage the spirit of the debate and be very receptive/open-minded. Very few subjects rank above education, l believe that it's of utmost importance and unparalleled advantage that the culture of academic Debating is fostered for students first as individuals. There would be no evolution or development if all things were taken hook, line and sinker, but an opportunity to be expressive and rationally opt for better options which serve better utility first for societal benefit and others should be more encouraged.

Active debater, public speaker and judge(2019–present)

He/Him pronouns

Always add me to your email chain olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

I love PF so much and judge it more often.

FLOWING

I view myself as a flow judge, but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial. If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel. A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for analyzing and weighing the round during the Final Focus.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs is very crucial to me, while debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

SPEECH AND PACE

• I can’t follow everything in PF if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and myself comprehends you. Your efficiency and eloquence in subsequent speeches will shape your scores.
• Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
• Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
• I'm not particularly fond of theory becoming a standard in PF, especially disclosure theory. If there's a significant violation and theory is the only recourse, I might accept it, but expect reduced scores. Ideally, address the issue in a manner more aligned with traditional PF standards.

BREAKDOWN OF SPEAKER POINTS

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

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

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

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

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

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

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

DECLAMATION

I’ve just judged a round of this and I’m so much in love with it. Be authentic with your topic, appeal to your audience’s emotions, be eloquent, use a good lighting so I can properly judge your gestures and body movements, have a good cutting, introduction and conclusion and you’ll be good to go. I’ll most likely give you a 100 if you prove yourself worthy of it.

I as well judge other formats like Lincoln Douglas, speeches, World schools and parliamentary debates. Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

Hello!

I am Esther Olamide Olayinka, a graduate of University of Ilorin Nigeria. I am an advanced level judge and debater with over 2 years involvement in debating. In these years, I have experienced/ participated in over 200 rounds of debating in BP, LD, WSDC, AP, PF and Policy Debates.

I have no conflicts and you can always contact me through olamideakanbi2000@gmail.com

Simply, I value and take note of arguments that are well analysed and impacted. I don't really have a preference for speaking styles or speed as long as you're comfortable with it and your arguments doesn't violate equity policies. Please within rounds, ensure you keep to time, abide by the tournament's policies and respect both I and other speakers in your room.

Finally, I find comparative arguments to be very persuasive. Good luck in your rounds. Thank you!

Hello, my name is Owolabi Victor Oluwatobi. I am a debater, public speaker and seasoned coach.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, these includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary debate and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I prioritize when speakers attack only the arguments and not attack fellow speakers, I also take equity issues as important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely.

Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles or speakers that speaks at average pace or gives me a heads-up before speaking extremely fast.

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.

In debate, I value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do.

Also effective use of fiats, counter prop and other important techniques.

I also appreciate when summary speeches prove why speakers win, by emphasizing on the arguments, justifications and logical implications, no new arguments should be brought up.

I also encourage speakers to keep track of time because arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

For online tournaments, speakers are encouraged to turn on their cameras except in extreme situations which they should take excuse for.

As much as possible, I always try to be open minded, take all relevant notes, have clear decisions and helpful feedbacks.

Let’s have a great time!

• Competed in PF and Public Speaking in HS
• jasminejw.park@mail.utoronto.ca
• Send me an email before/after rounds if you have questions; feel free to use this email for an email chain
• Minimal spreading is fine but if I can't understand you, it won't end up on my flow
• Clear taglines are helpful
• Tech > Truth
• Weigh in FF with voters!
• I don't flow crossfire; mention it in rebuttal/summary/FF if you want it to go on my flow
• If it takes you more than 5 minutes to find a card, you don't have it
• If you're asking for every single evidence and I don't see why you needed it, it won't benefit you
• Be respectful during the debate

Jai Sehgal

Updated for 2023-24 Szn

*Online Rounds*

Please go at ~60% of what your normal speed would be. I am not going to flow off of the doc, so if what you are saying is not coherent, I will not flow it. I have seen far too often debaters compromise articulation in their speech because they assume judges will just blindly flow from the doc. I understand that virtual rounds are a greater hassle due to the sudden drops in audio quality, connection and sound, so err on the side of slower speed to make sure all your arguments are heard.

Be sure to record your speeches locally some way (phone, tablet, etc.) so that if you cut out, you can still send them.

LD

Prefs Shortcut

LARP/Generic Circuit - 1

Theory - 2

Phil/High Theory Ks - 3/4

Tricks - Strike

General:

I default to evaluating the round through a competing worlds paradigm.

Impact calculus is the easiest way to clarify my ballot, so please do this to make things easier for you and I both.

Assume I don't know much about the topic, so please explain stuff before throwing around jargon.

Give me a sufficient explanation of dropped arguments; simply claims are not enough. I will still gut check arguments, because if something blatantly false is conceded, I will still not consider it true.

I love good analytic arguments. Of course evidence is cool, but I love it when smart arguments are made.

I like it when a side can collapse effectively, read overviews, and weigh copiously.

There's no yes/no to an argument - there's always a risk of it, ex. risk of a theory violation, or a DA.

Evidence ethics are a serious issue, and should only be brought up if you are sure there is a violation. This stops the round, and whoever's wrong loses the round with the lowest speaks possible.

Disclosure is a good thing. I like first 3 last 3, contact info, and a summary of analytics the best. I think that as long as you can provide whatever is needed, you're good. Regardless, I'll still listen to any variation of disclosure shells.

Please write your ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Crystallization wins debates!

I debated mostly policy style, so I'm most comfortable judging those debates. I dabbled into philosophy and high theory as well, but have only a basic understanding of most common frameworks.

LARP:

My favorite kind of round to judge is a util debate. Unique scenarios/advantages are great.

I love impact calculus. The more specific your scenario is, the more likely I am to be persuaded by it, and a solid analysis of the impact debate will do good things for you.

A lack of offense means that there's always a moderate risk of the DA or the advantage. Winning zero risk is probably a tougher argument to win - that being said, if there's a colossal amount of defense on the flow, I'm willing to grant zero risk. However, simply relying on the risk of the DA will not be too compelling for me, and I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it.

Theory:

If you're going to read theory, prove some actual abuse. My threshold for responses to frivolous theory has certainly gone down as I've judged more debates, so be wary before reading something like "cannot read extinction first."

I default competing interps, DTD, and no RVI's, but have realized there is some degree of judge intervention in every theory debate. Therefore, the onus is on you to win your standards clearly and do weighing between different standards.

Please go at like 50% speed or flash me analytics when you go for this because I’ve realized theory debates are sometimes hard to flow.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with generic K debates, but I'm probably not the best judge for high theory pomo debates.

The K must interact specifically with the aff because generic links a) make the debate boring, and b) are easy to beat. The more specific your link is to the aff, the more likely I will like listening to it.

I'd rather see a detailed analysis on the line-by-line debate rather than a super long overview. In the instance where you read an egregiously long overview and make 3 blippy arguments on the line-by-line, I'll have a very low threshold for 1AR extensions for the concessions.

I'll vote on K tricks and dropped framing arguments, but only if these are sufficiently explained. An alt solves the aff, floating PIK, conceded root cause, etc. are all much more persuasive if there's a clear explanation.

PF

I don't have many reservations in terms of what I want/don't want to see while judging PF, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. If it's not in FF, I will not vote on it.
2. Weighing should ideally begin as early as possible, and it will only help you if you do so.
3. If you would like to read theory, don't hesitate, go ahead.
4. Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.

danielaudreycole@gmail.com

daniel please, Not judge and definitely not sir

So who is this random guy?

POST JUDGING TWO CIRCUIT TOURNAMENTS THOUGHTS:

I don't know if I just did not care about it when I debated and judged regularly last year, or if there was some committee meeting where people decided just to toss evidence ethics completely out the window. It seems even worse than before. I saw a card that was tagged "Iran key for nuke war" then the card said in tiny unhighlighted font... "5 places where war could go nuclear." Authors, even at very credible websites write speculative pieces and opinion pieces that are being weaponized by debaters for cards with absolutely no regard to whether or not it is actually what the card says with context. Making something size 5 font does not make it go away if I catch anyone doing this... I will stop paying attention and drop you. No questions asked. I don't care if I'm the only one in the community that cares about this, if you can't be bothered to edit your case so it meets very high standards of evidence ethics, then PLEASE strike me.

Policy debater at Houston Memorial (2022), TFA, and NSDA Qualifier with a horrendous record at National Circuit tournaments- Arkansas 26(Not debating)

I judge mostly these days for fun, and far less than I used to. I cover sports in my spare time for sports illustrated, Slow down from top speed.

Speaker Points: 30s for all, call me lazy but I've got enough crap to do as a judge, I'm not sorting through the minutia of what the difference is between a 30 and 29,6...

There are two major exceptions to this rule:

1. Unnecessary showmanship and/or general rudeness... Don't spread if you don't have to... Don't run 7 off if you don't have to... Don't cut your opponent off in cross every question... you know the usual stuff...
2. Evidence ethics... This is DIFFERENT THAN MOST OTHER JUDGES... You should not highlight one sentence from the card and then make the rest of the text incredibly small to make the context of the card impossible to read. The general rule of thumb, is if the author of the article came in and listened to you read the card, would they feel comfortable with the way you have represented the card? If not, please recut..., I will drop your speaks to 27.5 without saying a word, your opponent does not even have to say anything (although if you stake the round on it, I am certainly willing to sign and deliver my ballot if you are correct). It won't change the rest of the debate, I won't even mention it in my RFD. Trust me, as someone who writes content that gets published online for a job, we do NOT write articles with debate in mind... cut them as such, do not cut a sentence out of an article, just because it is a fire link to your DA. (See longer rant above)

Pref Shortcuts(LD)-

LARP-1

(Real theory-Condo, T Violations vs LARP AFF, etc.) 1-2

Phil-3

K-4

Trix-The cereal is for 3-year-olds, and so is this kind of debate :)

This used to be a heck of a lot longer, I’m convinced that most of y’all didn’t read that disorganized mess. This is how you should think of me as a judge. A former policy debater that went strictly topic related T and Policy stuff and a few basic Ks. Slightly out of practice but judged 50+ circuit LD rounds last year.

Hello , I have judged several rounds and have a good understanding of debate theory and strategy.

When it comes to judging, I prioritize clarity, organization, and persuasion. I believe that a debater's job is to present a clear and convincing argument, and it's my job as a judge to evaluate how well they accomplish that goal. In my view, the most persuasive arguments are those that are backed up by evidence and logical reasoning, and that address the core issues of the debate.

I value fairness and respect in the debate community, and I expect all debaters to adhere to those principles as well. I also believe that the debaters should be civil and professional, both in their speeches and in their interactions with one another. Any instances of disrespectful behavior will be taken into account in my decision.

In terms of argumentation, I am open to all kinds of arguments, including policy, value, and fact-based arguments. However, I am not interested in hearing arguments that are discriminatory or disrespectful. I will not tolerate any form of hate speech or discriminatory remarks.

When it comes to evidence, I prefer quality over quantity. I value well-researched and relevant evidence that directly supports a debater's argument. Evidence that is taken out of context, misused, or irrelevant will not carry weight in my decision.

In terms of style, I appreciate debaters who are confident, articulate, and poised. However, style alone will not win the round for a debater. Substance and sound argumentation are key.

Finally, I believe that every round is a learning experience, and I encourage debaters to ask questions and seek feedback after the round. I will do my best to provide constructive criticism and offer suggestions for improvement.

I look forward to a fair and respectful debate. Good luck to all debaters!

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Looking forward to the debate.

I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.

I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.

I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.

I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.

I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.

I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.

Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.

I have debated and judged debates for about 5 years now. I have experience in more than 6 debate formats.

I encourage debaters to be keen throughout the round, be precise and mechanise their arguments in addition to weighing in of clashes in a round. But most importantly, I encourage debaters to learn from each and every debate regardless of whether they win or lose.

Rebuttals should be as concrete as your constructions because they carry as much importance.

I am okay with spreading.

I possess over a year of experience as a judge in mainly PF debates but I also have experience with the BP style of debate as well. With that being said, I am more of a flay judge as well. My preference is to evaluate arguments based on their substance rather than style because the latter can be a disadvantage for ESL participants. Additionally, I prioritize convincing arguments over speed. (Please do your best not to spread, my old ears aren't as good as they used to be, and I might not be able to process your argument.)

During rebuttals, I urge the debaters to allow their opponents to respond to their questions. Furthermore, I strongly recommend that the debaters structure their arguments logically and succinctly. I am open to accepting cards and paraphrasing for evidence as long as the presented information is accurate and reliable! While I am not too nitpicky on evidence, I must emphasize that I will not tolerate deceitful claims such as lying that cows are pink or grass grows upside down.

Lastly, I wish all the participants the best of luck and encourage them to enjoy themselves!

Hello, I'm Sarah, and I'm a first-year university student. I am a first time judge with some experience in CNDF and public forum. If you run theory or K's I'll try my best to follow, but I don't have much experience in that area.

I have been judging public forum debate for over a year but I am still a lay judge and I expect you know how lay judges make their decisions. If I happen to be the judge assigned to your round, I ask the debaters to speak SLOWLY and CLEARLY, simply because: the more I understand you, the more I am convinced by you, and therefore, the more likely I would vote for you.

LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST, I AM NOT A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER!!!

Background: I come from a background in high school and university debating.

Decision-Making Factors:

1. Weighing Arguments: The ultimate factor in my decision-making is the weight of the argument. While I do pay attention to the flow and organization of the debate, what matters most to me is the substance and impact of the arguments. I want to see debaters prioritize the significance of their strongest points.

2. Progressive vs. Traditional: I am open to progressive debating with theory or K's, but I encourage debaters to keep in mind that a more traditional approach can be a safer strategy.

Role of the Judge:

1. Tabula Rasa: I strive to be a tabula rasa judge, which means I will evaluate the round based on what transpires during the debate, rather than bringing preconceived biases or preferences.

Respect and Conduct:

1. Respect is Crucial: Respect is crucial in debates. Please avoid any passive-aggressive comments. I can recognize when things turn that way, and it will be taken into account in my judging.

2. Enjoyment Without Harm: Let's have fun with our arguments, but not at the expense of someone else's experience.

Feedback and Communication:

1. Questions and Comments: If you have any questions or comments, feel free to ask before or after the round. I'm available for feedback after the debate.

2. Speaker Scores: I typically assign an average speaker score of 27, unless your blow my mind or drop some jokes (risky).

3. Contact: You can reach out to me at georgewujizhang@gmail.com for post-debate feedback or for pre-debate email chain purposes.

i competed in pf for 3 yrs, on nat circ too

i understand jargon etc, but i wont weigh for u

warrant out ur impacts, tech>truth

i stop listening after you go overtime

i dislike spreading

if u have to, send a doc to amberzhu2@gmail.com

prog ok, NO trix

set up email chain before round (include me), if evidence takes forever , i'm taking it off prep

if you run out of prep, we'll move on and disregard whatever was relying on the card

u NEED to provide opt out form AND read tws (if your argument is graphic, ie. quantifying sa cases)

template ex. (this LITERALLY takes two seconds)

if u choose to ignore this, i will literally stop the debate if the other team as says "judge stop the round bc they didn't provide a tw/opt out and i feel uncomfortable"

idc abt cross but i'll dock ur speaks if i hear like one-sided berating

all in all, i'll be a chill judge, so please lmk if u have any questions about my paradigm! i'm more than happy to help:)

______________________________________________________

for local tournaments (georgetown disregard this):

I am an IB (International Baccalaureate) risk taker and AP (Advanced Placement) scholar. I am also an acclaimed Modern United Nations delegate and highly decorated Distributive Education Clubs of America Business Law and Ethics competitor.

I will evaluate the round based on the IB Theory of Knowledge concepts. Please heighten your academic prowess prior to the round. Please OPCVL your sources during your off-time road map, structured similarly to Section A of the IB North America Historical Investigation; I will only consider intellectual sources such as JSTOR and published dissertations, preferably recognized by a minimum of two universities. Sources otherwise may be fickle and suspect to subjectivity.