I prefer to talk/read slowly so I can follow you; it helps me judge more easily. If you are a fast reader/talker, please make sure you slow down.

Hi! I'm Claire. I was decent at PF in high school (College Prep BB, if you want to stalk me). I still coach (Palo Alto High School) and debate (BP and APDA at Stanford).

How I judge PF:

Tech > Truth, I'll vote off of anything on the flow as long as it's 1) warranted and extended and 2) not offensive/discriminatory in any way.

Evidence still needs warrants. Please have good evidence ethics and send evidence quickly. I will call for evidence if it's contested, and it should be a proper cut card that actually says what you say it does.

Frontline in second rebuttal and collapse well in the back half, it'll make the round much nicer for everyone involved.

Extend your arguments fully, don't just extend taglines and author names. If you want me to vote for an argument it needs to be warranted and weighed in both summary and final focus.

Weighing should be comparative. Don't just read made up jargon, give me actual reasons why your impacts are more important and tell me how to evaluate the round.

I'm fine with speed. Send speech docs (cbeamer@stanford.edu) if you're planning to go fast (or even if you're not), but I won't flow off of the doc; if you're going too fast or are unclear, I'll let you know, but after that it's on you if I miss anything.

I'd prefer you debate the topic, but I'm fine with progressive arguments and will evaluate them just like any thing else. For theory debates, I default to competing interps and no RVIs but you can change that pretty easily.

I don't care about your "brief off time road map." Just tell me what flow to start on and signpost during your speech.

Feel free to ask me any questions before round! And, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out (email or messenger).

How I give speaker points:

1. Auto 30s to everyone in the round if you collectively agree to have a paper only round with no evidence and treat it like it's British Parliamentary.

2. Otherwise, they will be based on cross. I promise I have good reasons for this; I will not elaborate.

How I judge anything else:

Do whatever you want; I probably won't know the rules of your event so you can make new ones up for all I care. Although, being persuasive, reasonable and clear will probably be in your best interest.

Hello Everyone. First and foremost - Let me congratulate you on making a choice to be part of Speech and Debate. Speech and Debate are essential tools for citizenry of democratic society with free and independent institutions and a very important vehicles to arrive at best possible solutions.

I am Raghu Bondalapati and a proud parent of a High Schooler. I have been a speech and debate judge for about a year and half. What i would like to see from Debaters is a clear and concise arguments, respect to participants of other teams and sportsmanship.

My name is Rohit Dharne. I have experience at Toastmasters and other public speaking initiatives.

Having judged a few debates already, here is what I look for;

** Well articulated contentions on each team

** Please have at least 2-3 contentions to debate with

** Speak coherently so that the judge and other participants can clearly hear

** Do not just read out notes. Please engage in eye contact

** Show conviction in your arguments and strengthen them with facts and figures

** Rebuttals need to focus on the points the opposing team puts out and not random facts

** Strong closing

hi I'm aimee, I do ld and I've judged ld, pf and some policy before.

• I don't flow cross
• I don't time speeches- if you'd like me to time for you or your opponent, please let me know

I am a parent judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly, explain thoroughly and do not make assumptions about my knowledge of the topic. Please avoid using debate terminology.

I will take notes, and vote on arguments, though delivery is also important. I may not have time to give extensive verbal feedback.

Good luck to you all !

Hi, I'm Nupur Kapadia, a senior varsity PF debater at Palo Alto High School.

General:

Add me to the evidence email chain: nupur.kapadia6@gmail.com

For PF debaters, don't worry too much about definitions because I will know your topic pretty in depth. Other events, I am unfamiliar with rules and topics.

I do flow, so I will keep track of which arguments are extended and dropped throughout the round. Please signpost all of your points clearly so that I can follow your arguments.

Talk at a reasonable pace, so that I can flow those arguments. Try not to take more than ten seconds over time to finish your speech. After the ten second grace period, I will stop flowing.

I will not flow cross, but please be courteous.

Most importantly, make sure to very clearly explain your arguments and responses and warrant all of your points. I will not buy arguments if you just assert them without evidence or warrants.

PF:

In summary and final focus, write my ballot for me. Tell me why your argument and impacts outweigh your opponents and why I need to vote for you.

Make sure you respond to both sides of the flow starting in second rebuttal.

I don't require you to extend your entire point in order to flow it. If, in summary, you frontline defense, then I will flow your points across.

Speaker Points:

Be respectful throughout the round, especially in cross. Any rude comments will result in an automatic 25. Bonus points if you make a Drake reference in round.

Good luck!

Current PF debater, Have 4 years of PF experience

Don't speed read, if I don't catch your points I won't flow them. Make sure to signpost where you're responding.

I know the rules, so if I catch you cheating you lose my ballot.

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, tell me why I vote for you.

keep it civil

Please signpost, and be respectful of your opponent. clearly present your evidence and make a compelling argument.

Hi, I'm Lucy (she/her). I'm a senior who has been debating PF for 4 years at Palo Alto high school in California. I started competing on the circuit my sophomore year, and I've qualled to toc and nats.

Add me to the email chain: lucyli7777@gmail.com (and feel free to ask me any questions)

TLDR: pretty standard flow judge, not entirely tech over truth (args need to make sense). The easiest way to win my ballot is to have well-warranted arguments, clash, and good comparative weighing. Wear whatever you want, I've slowly stopped putting on a suit for online tournaments lol

Speed- I'm fine with speed as long as you're coherent and send speech docs. I don't prefer to flow off speech docs though, I'd rather do it by what I'm hearing. Also, collapse so you can speak at a slower pace in the second half! If you don't, you're only hurting my ability to reasonably evaluate the round.

Progressive args- not a super big fan; I have experience hitting them but I would much rather judge substance. I will evaluate standard theory args like disclosure/TW but I'm not super familiar with Ks, so run them at your own risk. I'm not the best judge for progressive args in general, and I most likely won't vote off theory unless your opponent is doing something pretty atrocious.

Evi- I'm fine if you read something paraphrased, but you need to have the cut version ready if it gets called.
also, I really value a good analytic! I prefer them over blippy cards any day.

Structure- frontline and collapse in second rebuttal. defense is NOT sticky, arguments I vote for must be extended at the link and impact level through every speech. they also need to be warranted- if they don't make sense, I won't vote for them. also, new weighing in final focus is fine with me.

Weighing- weighing guides my ballot. weigh at the link level, and also weigh comparatively. don't just say "we have higher magnitude/scope/probability", I want to see why your links are better, and why your impacts are better than theirs, and how they interact with their impacts.

Cross- I won't vote off of something only said in cross, but if a key concession is made, and it is extended and implicated later in speech (before grand) then I will consider it.

speech time- teams get a 10-15 second grace period for me, but beyond that I'll probably stop flowing.

speaks- happy to be generous with speaks, they'll probably start at 28.5 and go up from there if you speak well. I'll drop them for rude behavior, prep stealing, taking super long to pull up evidence, or having bad evidence ethics.

Important note: Please don't be problematic or do anything that excludes your opponents from the round, and send out an opt-out form in advance if you plan on running an argument that is potentially triggering. If you make any sexist, racist, etc. comments, I reserve the right to drop you for it.

**also I will bump your speaks if you say your opponent's name in cross because I find it absolutely hilarious

I will disclose and give a verbal rfd at request. Feel free to ask questions about the round and/or how I judged it; I love giving feedback!

Most importantly, be kind to each other and have fun!! Crack jokes and make me laugh. Debate is simply an educational activity at the end of the day. :)

Hi All,

Look forward learn interesting topics.

This is my 2nd time being a judge!

Only request: Please do not talk fast. Take it easy and slow. Stay cool and have fun.

Good luck!

Cheers!

I'm a sixth-year debater and generally flay. I've only been debating in West Coast spaces for TOC. Flowing all speeches except for cx.

• Spreading is fine, just be cohesive. (Or just drop speech docs)
• I hate funky evidence ethics but I love indicts for those ethics! misreading or lying about cards will result in lowered speaker pts or an auto drop.
• Tech > Truth

Argument expectations -

Extensions:

Collapse to make all of our lives easier, PLEASE. Extend necessary link chains and impacts during summary; if only one team extends, that’s essentially an automatic win. If neither team extends through summary, I’ll evaluate based on previous speeches but both teams will lose speaker points.

Weighing:

impact analysis/world comparison/weighing in general is more likely to win you the round. Remember to warrant phrases like "timeframe" and "magnitude" instead of just throwing them around. If only one team weighs that’s a massive advantage for them. If neither team weighs, I’ll evaluate the arguments based on my own knowledge which will likely result in a decision you don’t like.

Other:

Signpost/roadmaps:

Just do it. I am not exactly well known for my ability to flow capably, so tell me where I should be looking instead of leaving me to find it on my own.

Theory(PF):

I will only evaluate good theory, so if it's run badly it will be an auto drop. You will definitely have to convince me why I should be voting for your progressive arg vs. the res at hand.

That being said, I am a passionate proponent of anti-disclosure theory! It’s your freedom to disclose just don’t force it on others. I will not be voting off of disclosure unless the other team completely ignores their theory argument. Try to define all interps and responsibilities. have fun with it!

Novice: Just don't run theory/Ks

Evidence:

I'll probably ask you to drop the card if you can't find it in 5 minutes max. Do not lie about your cards, even if you miscut it. If I find that a team falsified evidence, depending on the severity it could result in an automatic win for their opponents and/or contacting tab and their coach.

Non-PF Debaters:

I have 0 experience with parli, LD, cx, congress, literally any type of debate other than pf. Please explain rules to me and keep your opponents accountable. However, if your opponents violate a certain rule, you will need to bring up the rule on the NSDA website or the tournament rules.

Current varsity LD debater

• always signpost!! make sure your argument flows and that you respond to everything.
• extend your arguments, i'll vote based on the flow
• weigh ⇒ tell me why you believe your side deserves the ballot
• be aggressive during the debate if that's your style (especially during cross feel free to cut off your opponents), but stay respectful
• bonus speaker points for making the debate super entertaining =)

Greetings! As a parent judge, I will score on compelling arguments, clarity of speech, and presentation skills. During the speech, the following points would guide my scoring:

1. Ability to Understand: I should be able to understand your speech so if you are a fast speaker then provide written speech if possible.
2. Effectiveness of the Arguments: Ensure that the argument is crafted for your stance in the debate.
3. Engaging Presentation: Keep the presentation engaging and to the point.
4. Concise and Explanatory Language: If you are using technical jargon, please provide definitions and explanations.
5. I am committed to evaluating each debate round impartiality and without personal bias. I will focus solely on the arguments presented, the quality of evidence, and the effectiveness of communication.
6. Constructive Feedback: After the round, I will provide constructive feedback to help debaters understand their strengths and areas for improvement. My comments will focus on argumentation, presentation skills, and strategic choices.

Hi! I'm in my fifth year of public forum debate as part of the MVLA speech and debate team. I've solely debated in west coast circuits other than TOC. Flay (flow all speeches other than cross)

TLDR (READ THIS): Be polite, follow PF rules and evidence ethics, and have fun. The best rounds are when both teams can vibe together.

• Tech > truth (with the exception of really abusive arguments or link chains that just logically don't make sense)
• Don't make evidence calls longer than they should be (I'll just drop the card after a few minutes)
• Send the fully cut card
• Good cards > good analytics > bad cards > bad analytics
• No "debater math." Seriously I will drop the card
• Fully extend (links and impacts with the card name) in summary and FF or I'll drop the argument
• Please weigh (more detail below)
• Collapse!!
• Just signpost and provide a brief offtime roadmap to make all our lives easier
• Theory, speed, evidence, discrim stuff below in more detail

General Preferences:

Time yourself. Turns can be extended on their own as long as your opponent also extends the contention you're turning, otherwise you have a bit more work to do about extending their link + impact. Voting on clever turns is really fun for me, just make sure to explicitly say "link/impact turn" so I flow it as offense.

Some of my favorite rounds to debate and judge have been because of interesting framing. Ideally, frameworks would be brought up in constructive but rebuttal at the latest. If no framework is brought up, I'll default to utilitarianism. Personally, I think frameworks about things like structural violence can be really effective if done correctly (tell me why it's so important), and good critiques of util can be really interesting. I love well-implicated overviews and interesting definitions, just make sure to explain them.

Make sure to WEIGH! Make the round as easy for me to evaluate as possible by weighing. If one team weighs, I usually default to their weighing. If neither team weighs, I will have to evaluate the round based on my own understanding of the world, and no one wants that. Metaweighing is cool, I think more teams should metaweigh but it's not a huge deal if you don't.

Speed:

If you spread, I want your speech docs (send them to your opponents too if they ask). I will yell CLEAR if I can’t follow. Do NOT spread in novice. Regardless of your speed, please speak clearly.

Evidence:

Bad evidence will get dropped and if the evidence ethics is really bad, it may result in an auto drop, but you have to point out faulty evidence to me; otherwise I won’t evaluate it. Indicts are amazing if you're clear about them.

I won’t intervene unless I really have to, and I’ll take your evidence at face value (unless the evidence ethics is so bad it’s incomprehensible), so you have to indict the evidence if there’s any problem with it and directly tell me if you want me to call for it/evaluate it. There's no need for me to be part of your email chain/doc share unless there are evidence ethics violations.

Progressive arguments:

Novice: Do not run theory or Ks unless there is a really egregious violation. I will not vote on disclosure theory or paraphrasing theory in novice, that’s really exclusive to the debate space and it’s not suitable for a novice pool.

Varsity: Theory and Ks are fine. I think the critical evaluation of debate is really important but you still have to convince me why I should prefer your progressive argumentation over the resolution. At the highest levels of debate (TOC, nats, high elims), I’m more inclined to vote on anti-paraphrasing but I usually won’t vote on disclosure unless it really is a norm at that specific tournament and it’s very well argued.

Ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before the round!

I wanted to share my inputs to better judge for debaters as the kids have put their hard work.

1) Usually its hard to understand what the participating kids say because they usually rush through their debate content, they have prepared, in order to finish in the defined timeline.

2) If they are using a specific term in their practice or if a term is being used in the topic of debate, they should give one line reference/define if needed, so we as Judges get the context.
(pls remember that we are not suppose to learn the topic beforehand so we do not get biased).

3) If the kid has already responded to a question during crossfire, do not repeat the same question to the kid unless has not answered properly OR mention the reason why the same question is repeated.
(repeating the same question to summarize in the end or ask igain inthe 2nd round shows that the kid who asked the question repeatedly, inspite does not have any thing else to strengthen their position).

I am currently on the Palo Alto High School public forum debate team. I would prefer if both teams send evidence through an email chain or shared doc.

Each argument should have a uniqueness (what is happening rn), link (how the resolution changes or maintains the status quo), internal link (how that will lead to the impact) and impact (why your argument matters). Links are the most important. Evidence w/o warrants are not helpful.

Extend (re-explain) your offense in every speech after second rebuttal.

Weigh (if both you and your opponents arguments are true, why do yours still matter more).

Speak normally (if you are going to speak fast then send a speech doc).

After the ten-second grace period, I will stop flowing.

I will not flow cross unless it is brought up in subsequent speeches.

Good luck!

Hey everyone! I'm Louisa, a junior and PF captain at Valley Christian High School in CA. evidence chains: louisazyu7@gmail.com

If I'm judging you, don't stress!

I will vote for you when you:

* EXTEND EXTEND EXTEND - will not flow anything not extended through summary into ff

* don’t care too much if you drop an arg, as long as you collapse on something strong

* evidence quality over quantity

* make offensive arguments i.e. turns, their arg is so bad that it strengthens ur own

* analytic is fine to a certain extent; pf is all about research

* warrant, don’t just say like turn or smt

* weigh, but be fr don’t be like we win on magnitude scope probability when you don’t actually

Notes:

* tabula rasa- blank slate, will only judge based off arguments made, no predispositions

* prefer traditional over prog any day

* use k/theory at your own risk of sounding annoying

* use jargon if you would like, but i would prefer if you treated me like a lay judge

* either be respectful in cross or make it petty and entertaining for me haha

* Speed is fine, but don’t full on policy spread, this is pf

* Will give 15 secs max grace period

* if no weighing will default to probability>magnitude

chill out and have fun! debate is not a big deal and it's ok if you mess up nobody cares!!