I am a parent Judge. Just a few notes: 1. Time yourselves and all your talking points should be made within the time. 2. Talk slowly as I need to be able to hear you. 3. I value crossfire less than others, so feel free to bring up whatever you think you should.

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly, and conduct yourselves respectfully! Good luck!

STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 02/21/25)

Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)
B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)

--

FORMERLY:

- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- Head Debate Coach @ Amador Valley HS in Pleasanton, CA (2014-2016)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

--

I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.

--

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS:
this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats

Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!

1. SPEED/SPREAD:
No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:
2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.

2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me VERBALLY what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's. Not mine. Don't give me extra reading homework.

2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me for key/critical pieces of evidence- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case. If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence.
Note: Author last name and year is okay for less important evidence... i.e. "the U.S. spent X billions on military" or "there were 5 million cases of COVID" ... factual/observational stuff.

3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT:
I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!

4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM

I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.

Furthermore... while the NSDA has a rule against plans/CPs, please remember that by rule "Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions." If your opponent argues we shouldn't AFFIRM because Status Quo solves... or "we shouldn't vote PRO and join X organization because Y organization is better"- that is NOT a counter-plan. Alternatives to the AFF/PRO are not always counter-plans! (unless of course your opponent attached a timetable... funding source... plant text... etc.)

--

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.

- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

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

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

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)

- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.

--

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

POLITICAL

- I identify as a Classical Liberal.

- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.

- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary (the one that matters). I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle.

- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues (like Bernie Sanders, personally, I think he's a little too far left), but I like him as a thinker.

- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights. I didn't riot when Trump got elected (both times). While I'm rarely jealous of Florida as a Californian, I can't help but think that Governor DeSantis could run California better than Gov. Newsom. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S. I could give a damn about red/blue... Republican/Democrat... I want the right solution / best outcome.

COMPETITIVE

- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Proud member of Logan's 2005 CHSSA State Championship team. Go Colts!
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Debate: 2004 & 2005 MLK Jr Invitational 1st Place Champ in Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP ('04 State Qualifier), EXTEMP, & DEC/OI (15th Semifinalist @ '05 CHSSA State)

For the parliamentary debate, I seek how nuanced the argument is to the motion first where is it going to solve the problem that has been faced by the motion or simply the problem in the motion doesn't exist, I prefer on how well elaborated the argument is and when the argument are easier to follow the probability it will pass might be higher too so please refrain from using jargons, if jargons really needed to be delivered in the debate it would be really great if you able to explain it.

For rebuttals, i credit more to rebuttals that attack directly at opponent assertion, i would advise to not attack examples to prove that opponent argument is wrong.

Judging and Debating Experience
I am a collegiate debater involved in the British Parliamentary debate with over 5 years of experience. In addition I also have over two years of APDA experience.

In BP, I have judged an Octofinals at Worlds, a NSF at Yale IV, a quarters at HHIV, a final at Berkeley IV, and a semifinal at McGill IV. As a speaker I have pre-quartered at North East Asian Debating Championships, finaled Cambridge Mini where I was 9th OBS, finaled DK Wien Invitational, and quartered at JHU and Ateneo IV where I was the 6th OBS and 10th OBS, respectively. In APDA, I have judged a Novice Final and an Octos at Rutgers, CAed two editions of Drexel APDA and judged the final at one, as well as judged a quarters and a grand final at Hopkins Nov and Drexel Nov. As a speaker, I have received Novice Breaks and novice speaker awards at Princeton and Penn, a novice speaker award at Chicago, and debated a quarterfinals at UT Austin APDA.

Judging Philosophy

I go by a rule of minimize intervention and same standards of judging i.e. I am not exactly what you would imagine a perfect tabula rasa judge to be (but to be fair one doesn't always exist and we all vote for our biases or break deadlocks in ways that are familiar to us or seem intuitive which varies across audiences).

What I mean by this is that I would attempt to judge without intervention but am willing to do so to break deadlocks, rather than try to use unproven non clashed ballots to resolve a win (ofc if that clean ballot is proven to a reasonable extent to at least give you access to any partial impact and the main clash is probably a "wash", I can vote off it if the weighing demonstrates exactly this). I believe no clash is ever a wash and usually lean one side even if very very marginally but I do believe in offensive strategies that attempt at high level of washing out of impacts and then weighing out that line of offense (ofc this needs to be explicitly or implicitly demonstrated and executed).

I also will credit you only for the impact your warrants prove and not the impacts you claim so make sure that you "prove" your arguments, but also will not intervene to underimpact your case to make it creditable if you exaggerated your impact excessively unless it is really warranted by the state of the round --- this is because I think impact selection is an equal part of the game and me having to do impacting for your case because you exaggerated the impacts you went for is also intervention that is unwarranted --- the suggestion here would be if you plan to exaggerate impacts relative to your warrants, to do layering of impacts starting from base level impacts before moving to the exaggerated impacts (which allows me to credit the former even if you dont access the latter without any intervention).

Another suggestion to have easier ballots and speak higher in front of me is to run comparative argumentation/and responses (don't prove arguments in vacuum), ie don't just prove your argument's impacts but prove them in comparison to other side's case, and do sufficient level of weighing work (both for the first layer of why your impacts matter but if necessary in a round with competing weighing of how why your weighing matters)

I also want to be explicit that if I do intervene and apply standards of proof to break deadlocks, I attempt to apply them to both sides and therefore if the other team is also not having sufficient degree of warranting work, there is nothing you can lose by making sure your case is warranted.

For speed, I am fine with tracking fast speeches, as long as you don't spread! I I do want to note that speed tradeoffs a little bit with clarity even if you are a really good and clear speaker (the teams and judges are human beings too). Nonetheless, you won't be penalized just for the speed alone ( and it is not necessary the speed will have huge tradeoffs with clarity; after all some of the world's best speakers at the university level are pretty fast yet pretty clear).

Finally I am not a huge fan of Ks and Theory Blocks. I don't believe in solving out of the round issues in round! Nonetheless, if you do run it, I will attempt to judge it (but I do want to point out that I might be a much worse judge in this instance than if you just debated the round as it was).

Good Luck

I am a new lay judge who has judged a few rounds in the past. I will take notes (not flowing) In a good debate I look for: Statistics, good analytics, and argument extensions. I also look for good arguments in rebuttal and clean

Please go slowly and speak clearly.

For cards and links, please use chat directly

What I look for in the winning team:

Clear articulation of your case
Using data points to support your case to show the impact of magnitude
Using logic to elaborate your case and against your opponents
Going deeper into cards/links and expanding on your findings

Core Principles
Impartiality: Fair and unbiased judging.
Active Listening: Full attention to speakers with detailed note-taking.
Consistency: Applying the same standards to all participants.

Evaluation Criteria
Content: Relevance, evidence, and logical analysis.
Delivery: Clarity, confidence, and effective non-verbal communication.
Organization: Clear structure and adherence to time limits.
Impact: Creativity, audience engagement, and memorability.

Feedback Approach
Specific, constructive, and actionable comments to support improvement.

I am a parent judge with some judging experience. Here are my expectations:

• I know the debaters like to speak fast but please speak clearly and use pauses and emphasis so it's easy to catch your argument.
• Please keep your camera on, and always be respectful
• Please be mindful of time.
  
  

Nice to meet you. I first stumbled upon PF debate in 11th grade. Since then I have enjoyed debating and soon started judging PF debate rounds for half a year. Here are some of my preferences:

1. Please do not spread. Talking fast is fine, but I recommend maintaining a steady speed when presenting contention taglines and ref titles so they can be clearly heard.

2. Remember to extend and reconstruct throughout the round although I will be flowing the entire time.

3. Have Fun!

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm What Stands Out to Me :

Strong debates go beyond surface-level arguments and delve into the reasoning behind evidence. I appreciate when debaters break down their opponents’ evidence—whether by highlighting contradictions, exposing overgeneralizations or overly specific claims, or pointing out when it lacks proper reasoning. Instead of a simple “my evidence beats theirs” approach, show me why their evidence is flawed. This deeper level of analysis is persuasive and increases your chances of winning

Framework discussions are another key area. A full framework debate isn’t always necessary, especially if both sides’ impacts align or if the frameworks lead to the same outcomes. However, when you engage in framework debate, focus on the parts that truly matter and explain how they shape my evaluation of the round. Remember, conceding your opponent’s framework doesn’t automatically mean you lose—what matters is how you use it to frame the impacts in the round.

Consistency matters just as much. If your case relies on a philosophical argument, don’t shy away from defending its implications—even if they’re uncomfortable. For instance, if someone challenges utilitarianism for prioritizing the majority over the minority, defend that stance rather than retreating. Similarly, if you argue against consequentialism by claiming predictions are unreliable, don’t then cite studies based on predictive claims. Stay committed to your position, and I’ll take it more seriously.

Analogies are a tool I wish more debaters used. They can clarify your arguments, point out flaws in your opponent’s reasoning, or make your case more relatable. A well-crafted analogy not only helps me understand your position but also makes your arguments more compelling.

Finally, impact weighing is often what separates a clear win from a close round. Instead of broad statements like “this outweighs everything,” dive into specifics—explain why one impact is more significant than another. If you can tie your weighing directly to the framework, even better. Specific, nuanced weighing gives me the clarity I need to make a decision.

I prefer a slower, more deliberate style of debate. Clear and effective communication is essential, and a slower pace allows for better persuasion and stronger arguments. If you choose to speak quickly, it’s on you to ensure that I can follow along. If I miss something because it wasn’t clear, I won’t evaluate it.

Regarding prep time, I’m not a fan of flex prep.

Cross-examination exists for a reason, so save your questions for that time. You can ask for evidence during prep, but clarification questions should wait for

CX : Argumentation Preferences I’m not a fan of policy-style debates in LD. If your case revolves around an intricate policy plan with speculative links leading to improbable extinction scenarios, it’s going to lose me. Stick to debating the resolution instead of inventing new ones. If you’re more interested in policy debate, consider competing in that format. Evidence ethics is something I take very seriously. Misrepresenting evidence or cutting cards dishonestly undermines the debate and ruins the experience for everyone. If I catch it, I will intervene—even if no one points it out in the round.

When it comes to kritiks, I’m willing to evaluate them, but there are conditions. For pre-fiat kritiks, you need a clear role of the ballot and specific links to the affirmative’s performance in the round. Vague links or underdeveloped alternatives won’t convince me.

Post-fiat kritiks are fine, but I still expect well-developed alternatives and clear warrants. Topicality and theory arguments are acceptable, but they need to be well-warranted and directly impacted. I favor reasonability over strict interpretations and believe theory should only address truly abusive cases—not be used as a strategic tactic.

Public Forum Debate Paradigm

How I Evaluate PF In Public Forum,

I default to an “on-balance” standard for comparing impacts. If you introduce a framework, make sure to explain why it’s relevant and how it shapes my evaluation.

A simple assertion without justification won’t carry much weight. Topicality arguments are fine, but I’ll only consider the impact of “ignore the argument,” not “drop the team.”

Similarly, I’m not interested in theory arguments in Public Forum and won’t vote on them.

Arguments to Avoid Certain arguments don’t belong in Public Forum. Counterplans, kritiks, or anything relying on fiat are out of place in this format. Both sides should focus on fulfilling their equal burdens of proof without resorting to overly technical debate styles Judging Philosophy Public Forum is designed to be accessible and straightforward. Because of this, I’m more willing to step in if I feel an argument is unfair or goes against the spirit of the format.

Keep your arguments clear, focused, and appropriate for PF, and you’ll be in a much better position to win.

So, my priorities as a judge are clarity, consistency, and strategic argumentation. If you focus on these elements, you’ll make it easier for me to evaluate the round and increase your chances of earning my ballot.

I prioritize students with a much structural speech and no one-liner arguments. A peaceful yet competitive debate with clear analysis of their points and arguments are what I hope in a debate round. I prefer a student who did their homework on what points should be bring and what not, a deeper analysis will be great even if it's a small points. And although I valued matters more than manners, manners does make a speech valuable.

I consider myself a lay judge. I would appreciate if speakers can talk slowly with clarity. I consider evidence and impacts as important.

I will evaluate teams on the quality of the arguments actually made, not on their own personal beliefs, and not
on issues they think a particular side should have covered. I will assess the bearing of each argument on the
truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution. Also I tend not give much weightage to value based arguments.

I am a lay Judge . Speak clearly and slowly

I've debated for all four years of high school, and I continue to debate British Parliamentary on the collegiate level with the Debate Union @ UCLA. I have competition experience mainly in Public Forum and Parliamentary debate, but I have also competed in World Schools, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress. Some notable competitions I've qualified to are CHSSA State Quals, NSDA Nationals, and NPDL TOC.

I'd say I'm a fairly standard judge. Some notes:

• I will judge as if I went into the round knowing nothing about the topic.
• Interact with your opponent's case. Either through rebuttal or weighing.
• Please signpost/have organization for your case. I can flow even if your case is a little all over the place, but not being organized increases the chance that a judge will miss something, plus it makes your case less effective.
• If you speak pretty quickly I can keep up, but don't do it to the point of incomprehensibility. AKA do not spread.
• Every claim should be warranted. Even if you don't have access to statistics/sources, you should explain with logical reasoning as to why an impact comes into being. Just asserting something without backing it up with some explanation does not get you your impact.
• Logic > statistics for being convincing.
• You should clearly state what your impacts are, and why I should consider your impacts over those of the other team. Not clearly weighing impacts means that the judge must make that consideration themselves, and that is not something which you typically want.
• I was not a super circuit debater during my time in high school, so I am not the best person to run a K with. Given that, I do know what it is, and I have heard some in round before. If you feel that you must, you can, but explain why your K takes precedence over the debate, and give clear explanation as to what kind of argument you are running, as your opponents may not have even heard of a K before.
• If you want extra feedback after the round, or need to add me to an email chain, my email is ellenakim0806@g.ucla.edu.

As always, please be courteous and respectful towards everyone in the round at all times- you know the drill. Good luck and have fun!

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
• If a card is dropped say it! I won't know otherwise
• Be very clear in your responses to arguments
• No climate change/ Nuclear war impacts, anything that sounds improbable will lose!
• If you connect an impact to alien invasion, you will get an extra speaker point

Parent judge, please speak slowly. Can't judge if I don't understand you.

Debate exp: WSDC and BP

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

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.

Former college policy debater and speech competitor. Been coaching speech and debate for the last 12 years.

A fan of clean, structured, easy to follow debates. I'm big on pre-speech road maps and internal signposting. Staying on track and explaining to me where you're going indicates to me that you are in control of the round and your performance within it. Debates that get muddled aren't fun for anyone, so keep it clear where you are cross applying and clashing.

I won't time anything in round. Keep tabs on each other.

I do prefer you extend thru summary if you have time so I know what you're going for.

Definitions only help us stay on the same page so when they are helpful, they are appreciated. Totally down with an overview.

Also fine with jargon. Competed in policy so speed shouldn't be an issue. I prefer it to be a little slower as this is PF, but if I can't understand you it's almost certainly an issue with articulation, not speed.

Impact weighing should be a primary part of your final focus. If I don't know what you impact out to then what are we even doing here and why does it matter? I do my best to leave my biases at the door, but that also means I will not intervene for you. Don't sprinkle a trail of bread crumbs and lead me down a path without actually ending up somewhere. Don't imply impacts or warrants, state them directly. You shouldn't make me work to follow you, it should be easy.

Speaker points for me are a function of your ability to logically break down and explain your points in a clear and concise manner. In my opinion it's not about how pretty you speak, that's what IE's are for (a stumble here or there means nothing to me in debate). Be clear, articulate, logical, and explain where you are going and you'll get high speaks from me. Be warned though: in 12 years of judging debate I have given out less than 10 perfect 30's. To me, 30 means perfection, as in you could not have done anything better whatsoever.

Framework is cool with me. Makes it easier to weigh the round.

Truth over tech.

Any other questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

I debated public forum for 6 years from middle school to the end of HS at BC Academy.

Please read this paradigm carefully before so that we don't have delays. Assume that I will always be ready.

Zoom Specific:

My campus's wifi is not very nice, I do advise you to disclose your case to me at roseoh1004@gmail.com before the round actually starts if you are planning to spread. Ddd me to the email chains while you're at it!

can handle up to 200 words per minute cuz you never know when my wifi will crash <3 , please send me your speech docs if you are planning to spread over my limit

I don't care if your camera is off or not if your wifi is also like mine but turning it on is recommended to replicate the in-person debate experience to the largest extent

Please try to wear headphones so that no one echos in the debate round -- my personal pet peeve!

General:

My debate terminology is a little rusty. Progressive strategies might throw me off but I will try to understand and follow them to the best of my abilities.

I'm tech>truth, so make sure to call out sus cards in front of me (I will call for cards if this is notably important at the end of the round - this is why i suggest teams to send me their cases)

If you're saying something problematic/homophobic/anything along those matters, I automatically give you a 20 on speaker points

If you're rude and not professional, I deduct 1 speaker point every second you keep up the attitude until it reaches 20

If it takes you more than 5 minutes to get the card, you don't have the card (actually Yale requires me to be patient a little, so I'll just deduct prep time until u run out lol)

Preferably time yourselves, but don't abuse this - I'd rather focus on the flow/content

I will keep track of prep though, seen too many debaters tryna pull a fast one on me

Much as I like double drop theory for the entertainment factor, do not run this as the ballot doesn't allow me to do so

I consider defence sticky in the 1st summary

2nd rebuttal should frontline offence

extend in SS to be considered in FF I will not extend for you

impact weighing is a must for me in FF, weighing in summary is not required --> if you don't weigh, don't expect to win the round

please do the work for me. I do not like to build bridges or connect messy points together to flesh out what happened in the round nor like to artificially make clashes for debaters

MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE FUN!!!! DEBATE IS NOT THE END NOR THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD

Hello My name is Nitin. My conflicts are WWP North team. I prefer you to speak slowly.

• 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
• Please time yourselves!
• 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

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

2. EVIDENCE:

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

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

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

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

Please speak clearly and slowly.

Provide clear concise statement on why you should win in the final rebuttals

Please try to provide evidence based arguments

I vote the most persuasive argument who counters arguments against most effectively while supporting their own side.

I'm a Lay Judge.

1. Speak clearly with good enunciation for me to best understand what you are talking about.
2. If you speak very fast, I may not catch your actual intention.
3. Try to SPEAK CLEARLY and LOUDLY, but not FAST!Do your thing.
4. Just keep your flow going and do your best; Keep track of time and maintain formality throughout the round.
5. Make strong weighing arguments and explain clearly why your contention is better than your opponent's contention

6. Stay polite and civil to your opponents and only speak when it's your turn

I am looking forward to judging your debates. Good luck debaters!

For March April- I love this topic. It reminds me of my favorite move (Companion starring Sophie Thatcher) Pls give a content warning if u read a case about like suicide and such, ty!

WBFL Squals- I flow diligently, but here I am a flay judge. Don't think of me as a circuit judge. I am more truth>tech here.

you don't have to disclose. engage in the case. read evidence about AGI not just AI. I do look at evidence- if you stake the round on one piece of evidence and it is about AI in general, I will not give it as much weight. I will call for cards.

Overall, the most important thing I want to see in the round is for you to write the ballot for me in your last speeches. Make me do the least amount of work on the decision. Clearly lay out the voters and tell the story of the debate. I will reward this with high speaker points.

--

cool with speech drop or add me to the email chain-katieraphaelson@gmail.com pls do not email me otherwise.

Brentwood 19'

Smith 23'

The New School Graduate Program in International Affairs '26

Head Coach of Brentwood Debate

Hello! I'm Katie! I use they/them pronouns. I debated LD at Brentwood School from 2015-2019. I was a quarterfinalist at CHSSA state and 10th at NSDA nats my senior year. I focused mostly on circuit in high school and broke consistently my senior year. I mainly read performance non t affs and postmodernism Ks

I've been coaching and judging for about 6 years and have experience judging every event, but I do come from an LD background.

A consolidated list of things to keep in mind:

1) provide content warnings if you are going to talk about SA and violence against queer ppl. Please don't read cases that are primarily about SA/r*pe. thank u!

2) don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophopic, ableist, etc. Debaters are people. The people we talk about in debate are people. Every argument has real world implications. Be sensitive to that.

3) clarity>speed, tech>truth generally. I look through evidence. If you go all in on a piece of evidence, and it does not conclude what you say it does, that will factor into how much weight the arg has in my decision.

4) I am neurodivergent, and it can be hard for me to get everything down if debaters spread super fast and I can't really understand the words. I also have trouble hearing spreading these days, so when I'm sent a doc, I do tend to flow from it. If you start extemping args, it would help if you go a little slower at first so I know to look up.

It is mainly to benefit y'all- if you want to make sure I am getting everything, send your analytics.

5) I want to know what the world of the aff/alt looks like. Write my rfd in your speech.

6) don't argue with me about my decision. Asking questions about how you could improve? amazing! pointing to arguments you made as if I just didn't flow them to try and convince me I'm wrong? NOT cool!

6) time yourselves please! and keep track of your prep time. I am not keeping track.

7) Be nice to each other!!!!!!!

8) Debate the way you do best! Have fun!

prefs key

Soft left affs- 1

1off K - 1 (esp with specific links, less if relying on link of omission)

trad/newer to circuit- 1

theory/T- 2

larp-2

K affs- 2 (i have a high bar for these, be creative)

larp but like 8off DAs/CPs/theory- 3

Phil-3 (unless u explain it to me)

tricks-4

meme args- 5 (i have little patience)

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

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

Address for the email chain: chris.ryan@lmusd.org (this is a relic that may completely disappear soon).

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 debaters for violations of decorum. No one 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?

I enjoy hearing creative arguments/positions but am not willing to follow you down a rabbit hole with weird authors and alt philosophies.

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. Just because you've shared your case/evidence doesn't mean that you can be unintelligible. I can understand speed (and deployed it as a student) 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 can be convinced to evaluate kritiks but please don't test my patience.

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, (ie, plans, counter-plans and kritiks).

Current undergraduate student at Berkeley with 4 years of experience in PF.

Email is aryanvsawant@berkeley.edu. Add me to the email chain.

TLDR: Everything below is a preference, and not a rule. Following these preferences does NOT guarantee a win. Do what you have to do to win the debate. I will literally evaluate ANYTHING (I mean it) so long as it is intelligible.

Tech > Truth

[1] General:

Spreading: I don't enjoy it. If you're going to spread, send a speech-doc.

Signposting: Yes, signpost.

Crystallization: Not super important for me personally, though it can be beneficial if the round is getting muddy.

Final Focus (the last speech, not only PF but other events like Parli). Given that you're not making new (particularly no substantive arguments, requesting to look at cards for example will be evaluated) arguments, I will evaluate FF.

I don't flow cross. I listen, sometimes. For Parli: I don't flow POIs, but I DO flow POOs.

Make unique arguments, I love unique arguments

I enjoy charismatic humor (have fun). Don't be disrespectful to your opponents or your teammate(s). Humor won't (by itself) win you the round, but it's a massive plus. Besides, we're all here to have a good time. If you debate like your college applications don't depend on it, you'll find that you'll have much, much more fun.

I enjoy disclosing, but sometimes it takes me forever to go over the flow and review both sides, forcing competitors to wait for me to make a decision. This adds a ton of pressure on me to finish up early that frankly does neither side justice. So unless a tournament explicitly requests that I disclose or I have already made my decision, I don't disclose. If I am on a panel in outrounds, I almost always disclose. Feel free to ask me post-round if I'm disclosing and I'll lyk.

+ 1.5 Speaks for Team(s) That:

• Collapse on a "try or die" framework
• Argue for a ROTB argument on feminism/women's rights
• Introduce a new side about debate I didn't already know about (whatever that means lol)

Do all three earnestly and I will award 30 speaks.

/

[2] Theory:

Ts: I like Ts, -- and topicality debate-- a lot. That being said: Worry less about the "structure" of a T shell and more about the actual argument you're making. You can spend time going down the voters, issues, etc but at the end of the day I'm there to vote for an argument, so make it tangible and easy to vote for. I generally default RVIs.

Ks: I've run feminism/sexism-related ROTB Ks in high school but haven't worked with more of the standard Ks such as Cap Ks, Set Col, etc. I wrote my college application essays on an experience regarding running sexism ROTB K's, so I'd say I have a pretty decent understanding of how to run a K. While I can't promise that I'll be able to keep up, I'd definitely like to learn more about K debate and so I'm generally open to them.

DAs: I like them when they're run by themself in the 1NC. Makes the round cleaner and easier to flow. In other words, I find judging a DA enjoyable when the DA is the entirety of Neg's case.

/

[3] Hot Takes:

[A] Harmful content should be defined VERY NARROWLY. I believe that it's very easy to define uncomfortable arguments as harmful, and that they need to be properly defined in order to protect people, while concurrently allowing free expression within an academic setting. I do not require trigger warnings [unless tournament rules specify otherwise]. I will drop a debater for harmful content if:

1. It goes against the tournament rules. That's not in my hands, so make sure to read the tournament handbook.

2. You're being disrespectful or outright rude to your opponent(s), partner, or judge(s).

[B] Low-point wins should not be a rarity. Speaks and a pure flow debate have absolutely nothing to do with another. You can be both a good speaker and a good flow debater, and you can also be a terrible speaker and a good flow debater. I do not and will never understand why some circuits discourage low-point wins.

[C] If you make a frontline or response that goes unresponded to, you should not be obliged to extend it throughout the round, because it is the burden of your opponent to flow it and respond to it. For example, if your opponent doesn't respond to your rebuttal speech frontlines in first summary, you do not have to bring it up in second summary. You should bring it up in final focus (the last speech) so I know that you're going for that argument. Is it always the best strategy? Probably not, since there's a chance I may have not flowed it. That being said, the burden is not on you.

/

[4] Random, but Important to Me: The inflection between theory and small schools

As a debater from a small school that began the speech and debate program at my school, I'm very, very aware of the financial and educational difficulties that prevent small schools from accessing the same amount of resources as bigger schools. Big schools can compete at tournaments 5 times the number of rounds a small school can compete in. Not only do they receive more "practice" in competition, but they have big prep teams that have the ability to share and pay for information. In other words, when big schools compete against small schools, the rounds hold a greater value for small schools because they are one of the few opportunities throughout the year that they have to compete within the national circuit.

With all of that being said, if you are a school that chooses to run theory/K/any tech argument on a small school, I will vote for the theory (assuming it's winning: your opponents legitimately do not respond to or defend against what you're running). I've wrestled with this issue for a long time, but I've (you could honestly convince me otherwise on any given day) come to the conclusion that theory is a part of circuit debate, whether or not I like it. So yes, invitationals matter a lot to small schools because there are only so many they can compete within an year. But I am also of the opinion that basic theory knowledge is necessary for national circuit debate, and that it is essential for a pure trad team to face a theory round in order for the small school to work toward becoming better at circuit debate. How would they go about that given the lack of educational resources? Reddit, Discord, and asking others etc is probably the best option at the moment. But I think that the benefits of facing such a round, especially for a novice team or a small school is necessary for the long term and future rounds, since they will have to ultimately hit a tech round someday.

I am not a fan of "oppressor vs. oppressed" hierarchies within a non-technical sphere (outside of the scope of theory). Please do not try to convince me you are a small school or a big school, it doesn't matter. I've seen millionaires attending Title IV schools and low-income students attending private college prep boarding schools. I've seen it all. This is why I intentionally left out my definition for the two terms-- it opens up a can of worms that is really unnecessary.

If you are running theory on a small school, all I ask is that you do it for a legitimate reason (plagiarism, etc). If you run something wild like a really badly, convoluted theory that has no response by your opponent, I will vote for you. But not only would I feel terrible about myself after that, but I think that would just be a sucky round to judge overall. It would be off-putting rather than productive. The choice is yours.*

If you are a small school or a team that doesn't know how to respond to theory: Just respond to the argument. No matter if you call it a K, T, or a DA, it's always an argument at the end of the day. Debate like you always do, and don't let your opponents intimidate you with a bunch of technical jargon. That is the best advice I can give you for now.

* If a newer/smaller team can successfully argue such theory is abusing the system (ie not conducive of an educational environment), I almost always default to the RVI (the team that argues that the theory is abusing the system).

/

I'm constantly changing this paradigm over the tournaments I judge. If you ever have a question about something, disagree with my paradigm, and or want to offer thoughts on how I could improve how I judge, feel free to lmk!

If you have any questions, my email is aryanvsawant@berkeley.edu.

I'm a lay judge so don't spread

Unrealistic impacts, that I dread

Speak clearly and fluently

And behave civically

UCLA '24

tajsmyname@gmail.com

I debated policy for four years at Lovejoy High School, in Lucas, Texas.

General Things

- I much prefer a CP/DA debate over a K debate, but you do you.

- Speed is fine as long as you're clear.

- Tech > Truth

- I don't keep up with topics so don't assume I know much about all topic-related jargon/acronyms.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

Hi!

My name is Sodiq Farhan (he/him). I am a graduate of the University of Ilorin, Nigeria and I have experience in speaking and adjudicating at national, regional, and international levels in British Parliamentary, World Schools, Public Forum, Policy, LD, Asian Parliamentary, NSDA speech and debates, amongst other formats. I also have solid experience as a trainer and coach. So I very much understand the need to create a very empowering learning experience for participants and provide them with useful feedback. I am confident that I will be a good and impactful addition to your team of judges and educators.

Email address: farhansodiq360@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

One of the things to note if you would meeting me as a judge in a room will be that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Do not be rude, disrespectful or discriminatory.

Even in instances when you do not agree to contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary.

I also really appreciate that speakers ensure to always keep track of time and adhere to the timing as much as possible.

Lastly, I do understand that speakers often times have a lot of ideas to share during their speeches in a short stipulated time but please, don't speak excessively fast. Just as much as I would pay very close attention to speakers, I am most comfortable with audible and medium paced speeches.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please ensure to confirm that your microphone works well and doesn't have any breaking noise. Be sure to be close enough to it as well, so that you can be as clear and audible as possible.

All the best!

Hey!

My name is Srinidhi (but you guys can call me Sri!) and I'm a high school PF debater.

A few things to note!

General

- I will be flowing the round. Crossfire will not be included however if you would like a point from cross to be considered please add its your next speech.

- Weighing will play a big part in the decision, so please weigh during your summary speech and your final focus

- Remember to extend all your arguments to your final speech. If you don't restate the arguments again I will consider it dropped and it will be crossed off the flow.

-During cross please try to be respectful the entire time!

- Tech over truth!

Speech's

- Remember to frontline in all your speech.

- As well as no new evidence should be brought up after the second summary and ff.

Any racist, xenophobic, or just downright rude remarks will not only impact debater's speaker score but also the ballet of the round.

Good luck and have fun! :)

Hello, I'm a parent judge.

I appreciate arguments made in a simple manner that can be connected to your side clearly (+speak slow and clear).

When making refutations, state what exactly you are refuting in your opponents points and provide layers to invalidating opposing side's points.

Give me clear judge instruction and tell me where to vote in the debate. Identify major points of contention in the debate and why aff/neg won in that point.

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 with no real experience. I will listen carefully to your arguments and keep my own opinions out of the debate.

I would like both debaters to please be respectful to one another during each round. Keep it simple, tell me how to evaluate and weigh your arguments, and present good evidence to back up your claims and stay within the time limit for each round. Keep the volume up and time yourself. If you need me to be the timekeeper, please let me know ahead.

Speaker point scale for PF:

29 - 30: Deserves to be in late elims. Has engaged the other teams arguments thoroughly, made strategic choices, and spoken extremely clearly.

28 - 29: Deserves to clear. Has made strategic choices and spoken relatively clearly

26 - 27: Needs to work on clarity and overall flowability, Needs to work on filling speech time and may have dropped key arguments.

25 : Was emotionally abusive to their partners or other participants in the debate. Went over time.

Good luck on all your rounds :)

Combination truth and tech

Back up arguments with facts and evidence, not assumptions and hyperbole

No spreading, quality of arguments outweigh quantity of arguments

Courtesy and professionalism go a long way.

I'm an experienced policy and Lincoln Douglas debater during high school.

Best of luck and have fun! Participating in this activity is a lifelong valuable skill being developed. Goes a long way in the real world.

Please speak clearly and do not speak too fast. Please be respectful of competitors and monitor your time.

I am a lay judge who has judged middle school and high school debate, as well as high school speech.

When judging debate, I consider flow and evidence. I appreciate debaters speaking at a reasonable speed to ensure understanding.

To start, I want you to know I enter every debate/round neutral and unbiased on the topic of discussion. I do not bring my own opinions/beliefs or reasonings from prior debates/rounds into my decision for the round I am judging at that time. Like a juror I listen to and watch both sides then make a decision on which team did better in their presentation and convinced me they should prevail. Each round is different. Just because the pro side won the last round does not mean the con won't win the next round (& vice-versa).

Facts/evidence and referencing supporting documentation/sources are important and necessary but the presentation is just as important as the facts. I can’t judge or be convinced of anything if what your saying is unintelligible or I can’t follow your argument. Don’t talk too fast. Annunciate, use commas, periods and strategic pauses. I realize you may have a lot to say/present but if it is not comprehensible and/or everything you say is one big sentence, that does not help your case. If you talk in a monotone voice, I may fall asleep. Keep my attention. Make eye contact. Don’t stare down on your notes/paper the whole time. Glance down/away as needed. Be organized, professional and courteous. Being eager, animated and/or passionate is good but I have an aversion to unprofessional, discourteous, smug and condescending behavior. Being argumentative is okay but excessive badgering and/or interrupting the other side needlessly is frown upon.

Good luck and have fun.

Experienced Public Forum Debate judge for HS JV/Novice and Middle-School divisions.

I will vote based on the debaters' speaking clarity, providing sufficient research evidence, reasoning with logic, and finally weighing on impacts.