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.

Hi,

I am a very new parent judge. I can’t hear really well so try to speak up and sit very close to me. I am not familiar with debate jargon so don’t use too complicated terms. I value a few well explained arguments than lots of small arguments. Please sign post well and don’t speak too loud. I don’t like theories and critiques. Please impact your contentions and explain import points

hariharan balasubramanian

Background: 4 years of LD and current coach. International Affairs/Econ major.

Email: unabasta3@gmail.com. Put me on the email chain but I will not flow off the doc. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else— I'm happy help anyone.

General:

• Give me voters! PLEASE WEIGH. Tell me how to write my ballot.
• Please impact your extensions. I won't simply flow through a card author.
• I dislike it when individuals run arguments that they don't understand: 1) quality over quantity; 2) don't waste my time.
• Unless you run something egregious, I'm tech > truth. I don't vote on my stylistic preferences and try to evaluate each debate in an appropriate vacuum. I try to minimize judge intervention as much as humanly possible (give me weighing and crystallization to avoid judge intervention!!).
• Debate is meant to be educational.
• I think the best debate rounds are those in which the debaters agree what is being debated and don't try to play games-- don't try to confuse your opponent, don't try to tell me you addressed something when you didn't, etc. Just be clear and engage with the issues of the round.
• Speed: I have no preference and a pretty high threshold. I try to keep a rigorous flow so if you get too fast I will clearly stop typing or writing. If you also don't slow down a bit on taglines, arguments and cards probably won't get flowed where you want them.
• Evidence ethics is critical to debate, I’ll vote you down if you lie about your evidence.

LD:

I’ll watch any argument that you want to run, but if your opponent is trad or a novice the onus is on you to make the round accessible to them. If you're running a super progressive case please understand what you're running. If you're running something offbeat that an average person would not understand, make sure to explain it adequately. I vote off the flow, the easiest way to get my ballot is a strong last speech that addresses, crystallizes, and weighs the key arguments in the round.

PF:

I'm a flow judge. In general I prefer traditional PF, but I'll listen to a progressive round. I don't have any super strong preconceptions of what your round should look like. I use an offense-defense paradigm to evaluate who won. Make sure you at least win some offense; defense alone never wins rounds.

CX:

In CX, I will typically vote on whatever debaters make important in the round. I'm fine with forms of non-traditional debate like K's, theory blocks, etc. I cannot flow at the fastest speeds people will spread, but typically can still follow all arguments presented.

I have a finance and accounting degree. I am a director in a publicly traded company and for my job, I must conduct frequent public speaking presentations.

I am judging based off of:

• Speaking Style:
• Sound confident and project your voice
• Speak slowly and accentuate your main points (ESPECIALLY YOUR IMPACTS)
• Please do no use confusing jargon and define uncommon words
• Sportsmanship:
• Be respectful and polite throughout the debate
• Preparation:
• It is YOUR job to time yourself and your opponent
• Make sure your cards are prepared and everything is ready to go

About Me: I was a Mountain View/Los Altos parliamentary debater who graduated Los Altos High School in 2022. I'm currently a college second-year studying biology and history. My partner was Anand Mehta, also LAHS Class of 2022.

TL;DR: Don't make up evidence, have a good debate, be respectful, and tell me why you win the round.

I can flow a medium-to-high speed round but will call a slow/clear if I can't understand what you're saying.

I strive to be tabula rasa. That said, I will be skeptical of any claims you make if you contravene facts that are widespread, well-known, and provable by a layperson with minimal tools.

I protect the flow but prefer for you to call the POO anyway.

I'm fine with tag-teaming but will only flow what the speaker says.

Happy to provide an oral RFD if the tournament allows; otherwise I'll attempt to leave you a detailed written RFD to explain my judging decision. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer any further questions by email: rcolgrove45@gmail.com

Case: I love case debate and was a case debater in HS. Be sure to signpost your arguments, use warrants correctly, and don't skip out on the uniqueness. Aff debaters should be ready to repeat their plan if asked to and willing to provide a text if asked; I would also appreciate if the first affirmative speaker was willing to take a POI after reading their plantext/top of case.

I like international relations and STEM arguments (because these align most with my own knowledge interests) but I understand that the resolution is ultimately deciding what arguments you can run. Strategically I preferred fairly light uniqueness blocks with long link and internal link chains to feed into big stick impacts. I won't weigh these arguments higher than others, but rather to encourage you to construct cases according to your own team strengths.

In a case debate I want to see interaction between links, and especially via warrant-to-warrant comparison. Qualifying and turning your opponent's links can be key to generating offense and doing so in earlier speeches can benefit the rebuttal speeches.

The important thing in case debates for debaters, even those with experience, to remember is that debate relies on interacting with your opponent's contentions. Remember that your arguments can interweave with your opponent's case, and this comparative analysis can be both strategic and rhetorically powerful for showing why your impacts are better than the arguments of your opponent. Weighing and being explicit as to how and why I should vote for you over the opponent is crucial to getting the ballot. I default to magnitude over probability but am open to be persuaded otherwise.

Counterplans: I believe that counterplans are a good strategic resource if used by the negative properly, but can be detrimental if care is not taken. Good counterplans are mutually exclusive by nature or net benefits, and don't need to rely on artificial competition. I will vote for plan-inclusive counterplans and basically any kind of counterplan, but will also vote on PIC theory/theory positions against counterplans. Personally I don't think the negative should run multiple counterplans (from a fairness perspective but also I don't think it's strategic) but am open to arguments otherwise. For the affirmative, it is important to remember that the permutation is a test of competition.

Theory: Some of my theory defaults (none of these are carved into stone, and feel free to argue to the contrary): Competing interpretations > Reasonability. No RVIs. Articulated Abuse > Proven Abuse (I don't think I can be looking at sheets for signs of proven abuse without exceeding my mandate as a judge for the round). I value education over fairness in the round just because I don't think it's actually possible to create a completely fair round. I also don't really like spec theory or friv theory but will (albeit reluctantly) vote on it if you cleanly win.

The most important thing to remember during theory arguments is that (1) you should be willing to take POIs, especially if you are using lots of jargon and (2) you have to read (at least) cursory warranting rather than dropping blippy jargon terms to explain each component of the shell.

Ks: I am most familiar with kritiks as someone debating against the K, but have passing literature familiarity for capitalism and securitization. Make sure to have specific links and bring an alt that has non-stock solvency. I would also appreciate it if debaters running a K are more willing to take POIs from opponents.

K-Affs: Please disclose to your opponents. If you don't, I am extremely sympathetic to disclosure arguments. I personally think parli is unique in this regard where very limited prep means the affirmative running a K-aff without disclosing can be tactically advantageous (because it basically invalidates all of neg prep if they assumed the affirmative would be topical and defend the res), and I don't really want to see rounds come down to k-aff vs. t-usfg or other neg generics.

Good luck and have fun!

Please do not spread, you can talk at whatever pace that is comfortable for you, but not too fast.

Criticism will NOT be tolerated. Judge your opponent's arguments, not them.

I do appreciate sign posting.

I vote on who has the biggest impact/value.

Please use vocabulary everyone can understand.

Good luck

Avoid spreading, if I can't understand you I can't give you credit for it.

You're responsible for timing yourself and your opponent.

If your opponent states a contention that you disagree with, make sure to say so.

Congress

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

LD Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

CX

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments

INTERP

Overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

I value clear speaking and good speaking style - don't talk too fast, good speaking style is essential.

Make sure you have good content with with both evidence and reasoning. When it comes to these two elements, reasoning is more important. However, make sure you have evidence to back up your claims.

Make sure to impact out your contentions, and signpost clearly throughout your speeches.

Please respect everyone in the round. Be polite to your teammate and your opponents - I will dock speaker points if I observe someone being unnecessarily rude.

If you choose to run a counterplan, make sure that you explain why it's a better solution and link it to your points.

Hello!

I am a parent judge, and I don't have that much experience judging so please bear with me. Make it clear where you are at within your speech, and give logical reasoning. I will vote off of whichever arguments convince me best, and have proper impacting. I am fine with whatever speaking style you are comfortable with, but try not to speak too fast.

I look forward to judging you!

Policy: I am tabula rasa in the sense that I believe my judging paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I default to a policymaker paradigm if the issue isn't debated. I don't prejudge arguments; I'm open to listening to any kind of argument you care to make. Be kind and respectful of others. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Warrants, impacts and clash are important. I don't like time to be wasted.

LD: I tend to be somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to theory, though I can be persuaded. I consider the standards debate (value, criterion -- and please don't refer to a "value criterion") to be very important. Big picture is as important as line-by-line. Warrants and impacts are crucial.

PF: I adhere to the NSDA rule that prohibits plans and counterplans. My primary background is policy debate, so I tend to look for impacts to arguments. The appropriate paradigm I should use to judge the round is an issue to be debated in the round. I'm not a fan of paraphrased evidence.

I am new to judging. Please keep track of your timings. I would like you to talk slowly so that I can follow.

please be respectful!

I am a parent judge who started judging in 2022. I love debate and speech and hope to help students become better debaters and speakers. One request -- please speak clearly and do not speak super-fast. There is no point in cramming too much information in your speech if your audience cannot understand any of it. Better to argue your points clearly, understandably, and forcefully.

Hi I am a lay judge.
Since english is my second language, I ask that you speak slowly and make it as easy for me as possible to understand your case.
Also, I am not very familiar with this topic, so it would be best if you defined confusing terms and used as little jargon as possible.

If I have made up my mind for who won the debate, I will be disclosing. However, if the debate was messy/unclear to me, I may need some more time to make up my mind.

Debate exp: WSDC and BP

Please don’t run Ks, please don’t spread

Lay/Parent Judge: A public librarian, word nerd, mother of two awesome teens who values positivity and kindness.

For Speech: Please time yourself and speak in a cadence that I can follow. Be engaging.

For Debate: Keep it clear and simple, no LD jargon. I cannot judge fast rounds; I need to be able to understand and comprehend what you are saying. I value well-crafted arguments, supplemented with warrants. And evidence (for PF). Above all, be respectful and kind to your opponent.

Overview

Don't be rude to your opponents. You might win the round but I'll tank your speaks. Tech>truth. Weigh, metaweigh, implicate + weigh turns on the lbl. Defense is NOT sticky.

Spreading

I know this is lame but I can't follow it. Talk as fast as you want but don't sacrifice clarity. If it's not on my flow because I couldn't understand you, that's on you.

Signposting

Do it

Extensions

You can't just say "extend (card name)" and call it an extension. I'll flow card names but you need to extend claim + warrant.

2nd Rebuttal

Frontline everything ESPECIALLY turns + terminal defense.

Summary

Extend every part of the arguments you want evaluated. You should probably collapse here if not earlier.

FF

Nothing new in first final except weighing; second final can respond to new weighing in first final.

Dropped Arguments

If you drop anything and your opponent implicates and weighs it, you're probably screwed.

Speech Timing

You get 10 seconds grace. After that I stop flowing no matter how important what you said is.

Framework Debate

I default util if no framework is read. Pls read a carded framework or at least warrant why I should prefer your framework. Also no random framework dropping in summary or final. You can't randomly tell me not to evaluate half your opponent's impacts mid-round. It should've been in constructive or rebuttal.

Evidence

Cut cards. Jesus. Just do it. IF YOU MISCONSTRUE EVIDENCE, AND THE OTHER TEAM CALLS IT OUT, you will lose. IF YOU MISCONSTRUE EVIDENCE, AND THE OTHER TEAM DOESN'T CALL IT BUT I FIND OUT, I'm not sure what I'll do but it'll be bad. So don't do it.

For sharing, add me to the email chain: leilasbfdg@gmail.com. If you take forever to send evidence I'll drop your speaks.

Know your cards. Don't say "our evidence says/indicates..." Instead, say "(card name) says/indicates..."

Cross

I won't flow cross so bring it up in speech if something important happened.

If y'all are friends let me know before the round so I don't think you're being mean when you make fun of each other.

Feel free to joke around lol

If I'm the only judge, both teams can agree to not do GCX and get 1 min prep.

Collapsing

You should probably collapse as early as possible. Make it clean.

Weighing

Taken from Willie Tsai's paradigm:

"Weigh please. Weigh EVERY point of clash. Broadly, I need to know whose impacts are more important. I love a good link-in but they aren't enough unless you weigh your link-in against the original link. I love good pre-reqs and they will boost your odds of winning the impact calculus. Also weigh contrasting claims. If one team argues that a plan causes wages to go up and another team argues that a plan causes wages to go down. I need to know how to break the clash. Does one team have a warrant that specifically applies to the status quo? Does one team's wage impact go global as opposed to domestic? I also love when teams use evidence to compare clash. Tell me a flaw with your opponents evidence and tell me why that matters as well as why such evidence flaws win you the clash."

That's a great summary of how I feel.

THAT SAID, the weighing doesn't matter if you're not winning the arg to begin with. Link weighing > impact weighing; you need to win your links into the impact in order to win the impact weighing but if you prove their links fail then you'll be winning the arg even if they do a great job of impact weighing.

Disclosing

I always disclose unless I'll get in trouble for it. Ask anything you want.

Theory

I will evaluate any theory argument.

Competing interps + no RVIs default. Paraphrasing is probably bad. Disclosing is probably good. But you can argue anything.

I think the best arg against competing interps is that if you read a counter interp, you use reasonability to decide which shell is better anyway so judge intervention is present regardless.

Respond to the shell in the next speech or you basically lose the round.

If your opponent doesn't respond to the shell in the next speech, call it and you'll basically auto-win as long as you extend it.

The only reason you won't need a shell to prove is if there is evidence misconstruction. If it's sufficiently bad, an IVI will suffice.

Theory USUALLY up-layers the K; but I think it would be easy to warrant otherwise.

Kritiks/Ks

If you're gonna read these, dumb them down for me unless its cap. I'm not the best at flowing these but if you read them I'll try to evaluate regardless. Don't read a non-t k.

Tricks + Friv T

These are hilarious. Feel free to read 5 tricks and collapse on the one they dropped. Threshold for responses will be low, but you can absolutely win on a cool strat even if its BS.

Be careful with Friv tho bc if someone tells me your useless shell is crowding out substance that is a real impact I can vote on.

TW Shells

I won't punish a team for reading a TW, I also won't punish them for NOT reading a TW. Please try to be safe and respectful -- but also, to some extent, debate should be a safe space for ideas, not people.

It's probably safest not to read this in front of me. But if you want to go for it, feel free. Just know that I do believe that limiting speech is broadly bad; I would only read it if your opponent does something egregious e.g. graphic descriptions of sexual violence, violence in general, etc.

Speaks

Speaks are fake, and probably racist/sexist. You'll do well trust. If your round is past 10pm or before 8am you'll get auto-30s.

Other

I'm probably hungry so if you bring me a snack, +0.5 speaks.

Auto-30s if you read exclusively impact turns in 2nd constructive.

Min 29 if you read climate change good, nuke war good, etc impact turn at any point in the round.

Auto-30s for EVERYONE if both teams agree to no prep.

I'm a first-time parent judge.

Parent judge, this is my first time judging. Please speak slowly and clearly. Be kind to each other, and make sure you keep track of the time of your speeches. Have fun!

This is my first tournament.

For Debate:

Please speak slowly and clearly, repeating important points many times so I will remember them when writing my ballot.

Refrain from using any debate jargon.

I will vote for whichever team has the better points and can respond to their opponent well.

Thank you and good luck!

Hello, I’m a lay judge, and this is the second tournament I am judging. Please speak clearly and provide strong arguments to support your side. good luck!

I am a parent judge

I am a parent judge. 

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

I debated in High School and College and am in my sixth year coaching.

I have experience in judging Policy, LD, Parli, PuFo and Congress. My primary experience is in Policy.

Address for the email chain: chris.ryan@lmusd.org

Judging Preferences:

I am big on courteous debate. A national champion or top talent must to be able remain professional under all circumstances, whether debating other top talent or a heavy mismatch. I can and will drop arrogant, superior debaters for violations of decorum. No debater should leave a round and be discouraged because of how they were treated by their opponent(s). Similarly, partners that write speeches or handle all of the CX are not "partners". When will your partner learn if they are not given the chance to succeed or fail on their own merits?

Policy Specific:

I would like a well debated round. The resolution is for conflict between the Aff and the Neg. Speed should not be at the expense of logic and well crafted arguments. Barfing cards or precanned responses is not debate. I can understand speed I just don't think that it furthers our activity. Explain why your arguments are important and how they create a narrative to capture my ballot.

I typically am a policy making critic.

LD Specific:

I prefer classic LD that warrants deep philosophical thought about a topic. I'd prefer if it not devolve into single competitor policy debate, plans, counter-plans and kritiks.

I am a parent PF judge.

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

I am a parent judge and have been judging tournaments for a couple of years, and here are some important things to keep in mind:

Approach to Judging:

1. I am not a tabula rasa judge, and I won't vote for false arguments or facts.

2. I like to see logical and structured arguments in the round. I prefer if every argument is clearly structured. The motion should be seen from all viewpoints, not just from one focused one.

3. There must be links. Every argument needs to be heavily backed up with evidence and warrants, and I want to see logical and thorough conclusions. I won't buy any claim that is thrown out there unless you can use common sense to understand it.

4. The Affirmation's plan should be bound to the resolution, and should only specify necessary details. The negation's counterplan shouldn't stray too far from the original plan.

5. Please no theory or kritiks.

6. Don't make new arguments in the last two speeches, but the other team should call a POO if they hear one.

7. Don't ask too many POIs (3 max) but the other team should try to answer all of them.

8. No spreading! Speak VERY CLEARLY and SLOWLY!I can't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, and be sure to SIGNPOST! No complicated debate jargon. With this in mind, oral presentation skills are important to me.

Bonus speaker points if you say something in Telugu to end the last speeches.

Above all, have fun and be kind to each other!

Please add me to email chain: Email: schirjeev@gmail.com

I am a lay judge. Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow.

Very experienced in BP Debate. Experienced in PF and other typical high school formats as well. I have limited experience with K's. I do my best to judge specifically by the rule book and rubric of the relevant format, but I also consider any tournament specific norms or instructions from conveners holistically.

Member of the Debate Union at UCLA.

go UCLA !

I am a parent judge. I expect you to demonstrate your knowledge and depth of the content as well as the ability to make a confident argument towards your stance.

I cannot judge what I cannot understand so clear and logical communication is key.

Also, keep track of your own and other team's speech/prep times.

Basically just be nice and enjoy your passion towards debate.

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, you (hopefully) would get my judge email on there instead.

I don’t currently operate from a laptop so my ballot speed is not ideal atm; I’m usually typing out paragraphs from a doc until the last allowable minute, but my timing is not the most perfect. You won’t always get a pageful but its my personal policy to give a minimum of 5 sentences. If you send over an email asking about your round; it might take up to 24 hours post tournament but I -will- reply back.

_____

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there

Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.

RFD FLOW - I try to have at least a paragraph summary explaining my flow (sometimes it’ll be copy/pasted)

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

(For those who have read all the way through, some free interp gems that will be erased in a month, besides the basics: storyboarding, stop animation, pixar’s “inside out,” samurai jack, sound track your pieces.)

A little about me:

4 years debate experience at Carlsbad High School (Extemp, PF, Cong, Imp)

National finalist in USX, 3x TOC competitor PF, 4x Nationals competitor PF/USX

For rounds:

Speed is fine. Jargon is fine. Don't be sneaky with card cutting or anything of that sort. Any evidence problems are a good enough reason for me to vote for the other team.

Keep the organization of speeches clean/adhere to roadmaps if you give them.

Stay on flow, work me through link chains, attack warrants etc. I'm good to vote on most things (nothing racist, derogatory, or rude in any regard) so long as your logic is sound and you have an impact. I will not vote for Ks. They run counter to what debate is about as a tool for fostering discussion and critical thinking.

If you don't do impact calculus for me, I will do it myself. Please don't make me do it myself. I retired from debate to stop doing impact calculus, and school has too much actual calculus for it to be enjoyable anymore. Tell me what to vote on and why- you'll be fine if you do.

Humor is always welcome, just never at the expense of another person or group of people (hopefully self-explanatory boundaries). Remember to have fun!!

I am a lay judge. I have been judging speech and debate for quite a while now. When it comes to debate, please read your case TO me not AT me. Don't bore me with random facts. During the debate, assume I know nothing about the topic. When it comes to framework, keep it simple and make sure your case follows your framework the entire time. Please always explain and weigh impacts and arguments. Don't be afraid to crack a few jokes and be humorous during debate speeches. As long as you are respectful and still on topic, go for it. I appreciate off time road maps to help me with flowing and ballots. Please speak clearly, don't spread and most importantly have fun!

Hello my name is Esther and I am parent judge. I do not know much on this topic so please explain why certain countries will do certain things, historical examples are appreciated. Do not use debater terms I will not know what you mean by “turns” or “dropping”. Explain what you are doing instead.

Please really crystallize the round for me. I do not flow so 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/circuit arguments and will be less likely to vote for you.

Above all, give me clarity in arguments.

Please send your cases to me before round so I can follow along. You do not have to send cases to your opponent if it is a traditional round. My email is: esthersyoo@gmail.com

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