****For Woodward LD:

email: raif.ahmed30@gmail.com

Be clear. Signpost. I underestimated how technical LD could be compared to PF, so if you have a lay case read that.

**just treat me as a lay judge

Tech judge. Please do not do off time road maps unless if you say where you are going to start and end on the flow. Please keep it below 5-10 seconds.

Hi! My name is Raif, I debated PF from 2016-2020 at local, state, and nat circ tourneys in the northeast. I coached TOC qualifying teams and judged extensively from 2020-2022. Once we are in the round, I will provide my email for a email evidence chain or a google doc whichever u prefer. On any other event than PF you can treat me like a well meaning lay judge.

PF:

General Stuff:

-I live for the line by line debate, a rebuttal that clearly signposts what part of a contention that the second speaker will be responding to and then applying responses that are actually responsive and not just topshelf is awesome, and same thing goes for summaries/final foci. "Big picture/voters style debate" is tolerable, but nothing beats a good line by line round.

-All Offense(Contentions, Turns, or Disads) has to be properly FRONTLINED(Improperly frontlining is when you just straight up extend through ink pretending that explaining your link story actually responds to your opponent's response when it clearly doesn't or drop any response on any argument you collapse on), EXTENDED(An extension that isn't sufficient is one that extends a link, but then drops the impact, or just only extends an impact without a link, please do both), and probably WEIGHED in BOTH SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS IN ORDER TO BE EVALUATED. In non-debate jargon: Explain the arguments you want me to vote for you off of, answer your opponent's responses, and explain why your arguments are more important than your opponents in both summary and final focus.

-WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS. "Weighing" by saying "we outweigh on probability and magnitude" with no further explanation is not weighing. You genuinely have to compare your impacts or links and explicitly explain why I prefer one link or impact over the other. Weighing will boost your speaks, but weighing by just using buzzwords with no additional analysis will make me physically cringe. Don't take advantage of Probability/Strength of Link Weighing to read new link or impact defense that wasn't in the round already. If you start weighing in rebuttal, +.5 speaks for you and an imaginary cookie! The only time I will accept new weighing in either final foci is if there has literally been no weighing in the past speeches by either side(if u reach this scenario, your speaks won't be as high compared to if yall started weighing earlier).

-Turns read in the first rebuttal have to be responded to in the second rebuttal, or I consider it as a clean line of offense for the first speaking team(hey first speaking team you should probably blow that up!). The second rebuttal probably should also frontline defensive responses for strategic purposes, but that is not mandatory.

-UPDATE: 3-minute summaries require defense to be extended in first summary.Because of 1st Summary not being able to definitively know what the second speaking team is collapsing on in summary and final focus, 1st Final Focus CAN extend defensive responses from rebuttal to Final Focus ONLY IF the response was dropped(uncontested). That being said, I would much rather prefer if you could also extend the responses you want to collapse on in FF be in summary too. Please don't say a certain response was dropped when it wasn't. If a link turn is read by a team in rebuttal, and then is not read in summary, but is dropped by the opposing team in their summary, I am willing to evaluate the turn as terminal defense in final focus if the team who read it in rebuttal decides to extend the response in their final focus.

-If there is no offense at the end of the round I will presume the status quo(default con), but before that I will try to find some trivial piece of offense on on the flow that may seem insignificant to the debate if it comes to that(please do not let it come to that).

-Signpost: If I can't tell where you are on the flow, then I cant flow what you say, and that sucks for everyone!

-Warranted analytic>Carded response with no warrant most of the time

-Tech>Truth

Lay-------------Flay---------X---Tech

-Defesne is sticky, even if a response isnt extended in summary and final, if said response was read onto one of the arguments that would be collapsed on in the latter half of the round, I would be more hesitant to vote off of that argument compared to other arguments collapsed in the latter half of the round that have less ink on them or no ink that hasnt been frontlined.

-For concessions in crossfire to be evaluated, CONCESSIONS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH.

Speed:(<275 Words Per Minute)

-Please don't spread, you can honestly just work on your word economy!

-I’ve been less involved recently, and if it’s online please speak at a normal pace.

-Def pref 180-200wpm the most but above that is bearable untill 275wpm.

-If you can speak CLEARLY AND QUICKLY, you should be fine!

-If you go fast, and I yell clear more than twice, your speaks are getting docked(there is literally no educational or tangible real-world benefits made from spreading so quickly that neither I nor your opponents can comprehend your arguments).

-Quality of responses>Quantity of response

I trust you to count your own prep time, please do not abuse that.

Theory/Ks/Other Progressive Args:

-As someone who debated mainly in the Northeast, I don't know how to evaluate progressive arguments because I have never really debated them nor have I been exposed to them much. I am open to hearing them and don't plan on hacking against them, but I would much rather not have to judge fast progressive rounds if I do not have to.

-2 exceptions tho:

A) Impacting to structural violence if it is warranted, frontlined, and continuously extended in a logical and intuitive manner.

B) If your opponents are genuinely being abusive in the round, at that point you don't need to read a shell, just straight up say they are being abusive and warrant it quickly(i.e. "they read a new and unrelated contention in second rebuttal that does not interact with our case, that's abusive bc of timeskew.")

Evidence:

-I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible.

-Paraphrasing is okay so long as it is within the context of the actual evidence

-If you can't get your evidence within a reasonable period of time, I'm just not evaluating it, and we are moving on with the round. If want to use your team's prep time to still get the evidence after the two minutes, you can do that too if it is so important.

-Your speaks are getting DOCKED if you're misrepresenting evidence and I will drop the evidence/or even the argument entirely from the round based on how severe the misconstrual is.

-Unless the opposing team tells me miscut evidence means I should drop the debater and why, the team that miscut the evidence WILL NOT have an auto-drop.

These are the scenarios I call for evidence:

A) A debater tells me to in the round

B) It sounds hella sketch/too good to be true

C) It is important for my decision

-Evidence weighing or whatever is generally really cringe, but there are exceptions like in this vid(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siA9SmHyO7M&t=2610s) at 42:15.

Good luck, don't be mean, and have fun!

Judging Paradigm – Lincoln-Douglas Debate

1. Framework Matters
- I evaluate debates based on the framework set by both debaters.
- If uncontested, I default to the Affirmative’s framework.
- If frameworks clash, I weigh which best upholds the resolution and provides the most fair and applicable standard.

2. Value and Criterion
- The Value should align with the resolution and be a legitimate goal.
- The Criterion must logically link to the Value and provide a clear way to evaluate arguments.
- I prioritize clash on how the Criterion functions rather than just rejecting an opponent’s outright.

3. Case Debate
- Clash is key—a debater must engage directly with their opponent’s case.
- I evaluate logical consistency, evidence, and real-world application of arguments.
- Extensions must be well-explained and impacted—if I don’t hear the impact, I won’t weigh it.

4. Weighing Impacts
- I weigh impacts based on magnitude, probability, and timeframe.
- Debaters should explicitly tell me why their impact matters more.
- If weighing is missing, I default to the most well-explained and logically sound impact.

5. Speed & Clarity
- I am okay with speed but prioritize clarity—if I can’t understand it, I won’t flow it.
- Try to avoid spreading, but if you can't help it, clear taglines and signposting help keep the round accessible.

6. Speaker Points & Conduct
- I reward strategic thinking, engagement, and delivery.
- I deduct for rudeness, excessive interruptions, or poor conduct.
- Good persuasion and speaking style can boost speaker points.

7. Final Focus: Give Me Voters
- The best way to win my ballot is to give clear voting issues in the final speeches.
- Tell me why your case and framework should win in a concise and structured way.

Good luck!

Judging Paradigm – PF

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

Hi! My name is Sarayu Cheemalapati (she/her). I graduated high school in PA in 2023 and am currently a student at Pitt studying Political Science. I debated all through middle school and high school, having topped the TOC bid scoreboard and the NSDA National Rankings in Congressional Debate during my senior year, as well as placed 4th at NCFL and semifinaled TOC and NSDA Nats. I also have experience coaching, judging and competing in World Schools, Big Questions, Informative, Impromptu, and Extemp.

I absolutely do not accept any form of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, ableism, islamophobia or any type of hate. If I hear any type of this in any way, you will be dropped on my ballot and I will report you to the tournament immediately.

Congress:

TLDR: I am 55% presentation and 45% argumentation, ultimate ranking comes down to doing your job as a speaker based on when you speak, refuting is important. If a bill has one-sided debate, flip or move on.

Presentation: Make it sound like you are persuading me to pass or fail. At the end of the day, anyone can have good arguments, but presenting them well is what is mainly going to help me as a judge differentiate you from other competitors in the round. Add personality into your speaking! Don't be monotone and make it look like you're just reciting. Be funny, tell jokes, do whatever makes you a unique speaker!

Argumentation: Try to provide a card for arguments where you NEED it. Today, there are arguments that many can run with logic, but be careful. Don't rehash other people's arguments unless you are using it to weigh or to crystal. It shows how much you are actually paying attention to the round. I will pay attention to well-crafted and structured arguments with good rhetoric. Also, structure your arguments depending on when you are speaking! I rank based on if you fulfill your role as a speaker/debater given the time at which you are speaking (ex. strong constructive for authorship, crystals for late round, etc.)

Flipping: I will always give those flipping a higher rank than an okay speech on the same side in a row. There are exceptions to this, but it's simple. I do not think anyone wants to hear to same aff argument for an hour.

Refutation: One of the most important things to me in getting my rank is refutation. Anything after the first aff should refute, recognizing their opponents and telling me why they are wrong. Strong constructives without any reference to any of your competitors, in my opinion, only hold some sort of value until the second neg, otherwise, it does not contribute anything to the round.

Presiding Officers: In order to rank high, POs should run the chamber in a fast, efficient and unbiased way. I trust you to be able to follow the procedure you set, follow the standard/tournament rules, and make minimal mistakes, especially when you make it known for the start that you want to preside/run in a PO election in order to preside. POs tend to rank generally high from me if you do your job. It is simple: the less I think about you during the round (in a bad way), the better ballot you will get from me. I will probably let some of these rules slide if you are the only one willing to preside in a round/being forced to preside.

Any questions about in round issues, feedback, paradigm, etc, email me: cheemalapatis@gmail.com. Be confident and have fun!

I am the coach of my club's extemp program. With that being said, debate is a prominent staple in my family. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying, you have lost the round.

2. I like empirical evidence - you will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument. Telling me that you are winning is not a strategy.

3. I like a well-thought-out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots and follow on the flow.

4. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertiveness, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You will absolutely lose for snarkiness. This is debate not arguing.

6-year debate parent. Argumentation heavy.

I have been coaching debate since 1980. I was a policy debater in high school. I have coached policy debate, Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Big Question and World Schools debate. I am also a congressional debate coach and speech coach.

LD-

It comes as no surprise based on my experience and age, that I am a traditional judge. I do keep up on current theory and practice, but do not agree with all of it. I am a traditional judge who believes that LDers need to present a value to support based in the resolution. A criterion is helpful if you want me to weigh the round in a certain way. Telling me you won your criterion so your opponent loses doesn't work for me, since I believe you win the round based on your value being upheld by voting affirmative or negative on the resolution. Telling me to weigh the round though using your criterion makes me very happy.

Voting Issues- I need these. I think debaters ought to tell me what to write on my flow and on my ballot.

Not a fan of K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's in LD. I know the reasons people do it. I don't think it belongs in this type of debate. I know debate is ever-evolving, but I believe we have different styles of debate and these don't belong here.

Flow: I was a policy debater. I flow most everything in the round.

Speed- The older I get the less I like speed. You will know if you are going too fast --- unless your head is buried in your laptop and you are not paying any attention to me. If I can't hear/understand it, I can't flow it. If I don't flow it, it doesn't count in the round.

Oral Comments- I don't give them.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum since it began. I have seen it change a bit, but I still believe it is rooted in discussion that includes evidence and clear points.

Flow: I flow.

Public forum is about finding the 2 or 3 major arguments that are supported in the round with evidence. The two final focus speeches should explain why your side is superior in the round.

I am not a fan of speed in the round. This is not policy-light. I do not listen to the poor arguments moving into the PF world.

Experience:

Hello everyone! I've competed in speech and debate for 5 years doing a mix of congress, extemporaneous speaking, OO, HI, etc. My main event in high school was Public Forum on the local Arizona circuit and national circuit.

Also, I have done no research on the topic. Please ask me any questions you have before round, I promise I'm nice. :)

General:

I am a typical flow judge. Tech over truth and line-by-line, but warranting is important. I vote for contested but well-warranted, well-explained arguments over shallow, blippy extensions of dropped arguments every time. If you are a 'fast,' 'technical' debater and do not make any comprehensive arguments, you will have to adapt to pick up my ballot.

If you have any questions, or using an email chain add me, sedonakorzay@gwu.edu

Speed:

- the faster you speak, the higher chance I will miss something

- I and your opponents can say "speed" at any time and you should slow down, if you don't your speaker points will reflect that

Structure:

- Second rebuttal must answer turns made in first rebuttal; I prefer that second rebuttal answers defense.

- Arguments that you want me to evaluate should be extended with a warrant and impact in summary and final focus.

- Don't extend through ink.

- Please roadmap/signpost.

- Collapse; if you don't, you might not like how I vote

- Don't abuse and overview

Weighing:

- do NOT make me do your dirty work, I will not appreciate it...

- Must be warranted. Give me reasons why to prefer your mechanisms; this is done best when comparative and specific to opponent's offense.

- don't just throw words out (ie. scope, magnitude) EXPLAIN why I should be preferring you

Speaker Points:

- I will only give you lower than 25 speaks if you do something TERRIBLE

- I do take the way you speak and hold yourself into account for speaks

Notes on Progressive Arguments:

- If you run a Plan, Counterplan, Kritik, or most Theory, you're lowering your chance of me voting for you. PF is supposed to be accessible.

- Theory: If your opponent introduces significantly abusive arguments/tactics, I will evaluate traditional or simple fairness arguments made using simple formats and weighing mechanisms. No to speaker point and disclosure theory.

Misc.

• I will intervene, stop the round, and tank your speaks if something egregious or offensive occurs (ad hominem, racism, ablism, Islamaphobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). Your coach will also get an unpleasant email. (one very important reason for this is because I have experienced it in rounds and the judges did nothing about it until the round is over.)

- Have fun!

"New" Judge -- parent judge, really lay

PF and Congress

PF:

• Good Framework
• Weigh
• Weigh
• Did I mention weighing
• tell me who wins the round STARTING FROM SUMMARY
• tabula rasa -- just assume I know nothing about the topic because I don't know anything about the topic

Congress:

• Pretty lay
• Your speech should stand out
• make it engaging
• have rhetoric pleaseee

My kid (Saoirse) wrote this but it should be reflective of his judging enough

dw abt the um tone my dad isn't actually like that

My email is mart4516@gmail.com, please add me to the email chain. Feel free to ask for feedback.

I've been judging for 7 years out of high school. I have judged TOC bid tournaments in CX/LD/PF.

I am also an experienced parli for Congress.

Most debaters will tell you I am strict but caring. I value debaters mental health and safety above all else but I also will move a round forward if debaters aren't on task.

Tournament Specific:

TOC Digital Series:I hurt my back this week.

Policy, LD, PF

TLDR:

I actually have zero preference on what you read. K, T, Theory, CP, DA's, I am fine with. I mix tech and truth. If the truth is common knowledge (9 out of 10 people on the street know) I will default to the truth, otherwise I will default to tech. I am fine with tricks in LD. You can run IVI's, RVI's really whatever and I will do my best to understand it.

Topicality:

Yes, I will evaluate this as an apriori. For the aff I have a reasonable threshold, if you gut check meet I will probably be fine with it, unless it is dropped. Aff's that reject the resolution I am fine with as well. But you do need to be able to debate the T debate.

K's:

I understand most economic based K's (Neolib, Cap). I have a good understanding of (Antiblackness, Orientalism, Feminism and Set Col). Some of the more "eccentric" K's, Baudrillard-esque, I will do my best to understand but you are much better off prefing a judge who has a background.

I am fine with an aff being K, try to explain why you are doing such though, which you should be doing anyways.

For my sanity, please do not assume I know your lit base. If you want to check if I do just shoot me an email and I will be transparent.

Theory:

Sure, run it. Disclosure, tech check, if it is in front of me I will have to evaluate, but please for the sake of me prove in-round abuse. Most of the time I default theory to being apriori or an IVI.

Misc:

I am very much a laid back judge. Spreading is fine, send me a speech doc, I will yell clear 3 times and then I just won't flow.

If it is a TOC tournament or a break round I am prone to do much less work for you in terms of impact weighing. If it is a novice round I will do much more work.

If you are winning or there is a clear experience difference (looking at you Open divisions) try to make it more educational for the other students.

If you are going to run 30 speaks you better have a reason. If it is to combat racial/gender equity issues or something similar I am prone. Otherwise you just wasted 1 minute running an argument that I will not evaluate.

Congress

Most of this is from the point that I am the parliamentarian, if I am scoring just read General

General:

Varsity/TOC: I expect you to be prepped on both sides of the bills. This is a debate activity, be prepared on both sides. If cycle is broken before the last speech I will take note, if you are able to jump in and switch sides you will rise in my ranks, I take note of sponsorship speeches, questions, switching sides, and other things. Even if you aren't selected for questioning I am aware of your participation in the round.

Nov/JV: I hope you had prepped both sides but if we have to break cycle it is not the worst thing. I am aware that this is new to you and I am here to support you much more than you think. Feel free to raise Point of Inquiry and ask questions.

PO's:

PO's if done well will rank in my breaks. I generally allow 1 mistake per hour. You will be evaluated on your ability to manage the chamber. I try not to intervene as much as I can, I am keeping track of your mistakes on my sheet.

If this is a novice/Middle School round, I will hand hold you through it if you need it. I want you to be successful. If there are no people I will help you by letting you view my Parli sheet. I dislike debaters who abuse POI when there is a new PO especially if they were forced/voluntold to PO.

Rule Violations:

I am fine with adjudicating evidence challenges, if the point is raised I usually default to contacting tab and pushing back the hard stop in order to accommodate the evidence challenge.

TFA:

While I have never debated on the TFA I am versed in terms of the rules specific to the circuit. If I make a mistake I will not hold it against a student to point of order me.

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

I am a parent judge who has been judging congress at a local, state, and national level for about 6 years.

PARLI
I am often selected as a parliamentarian for prelim rounds. As a parliamentarian, these are my top issues:

- Adjust to the flow of the debate. You may give me a fantastic speech, but if it has nothing to do with what others have said in the debate, I cannot rank it high. I love dynamic rounds where a lot of things are happening and everyone adapts quickly to the round.

- Similarly, I love dynamic cross-ex. I want to hear a lot of questions and answers. Don’t ramble on. Don’t yell over each other. It’s okay to interrupt if someone is going on too long, but don’t scream. If someone is talking over you incessantly, don’t escalate — they already look bad and it’s a win for you. At least in my book.

- As a parli, I love a chamber that can run itself. Help each other out! In this event, you have to collaborate with each other to compete against each other. If you sabotage each other or get in each others’ ways, that will always reflect on the quality of the round. I reward constructive and productive leaders in the round. That being said, don’t try to domineer the “politics" of the chamber.

- As a parli, I don’t give detailed feedback for each individual speech. I try to give you actionable advice based on what I see across all the rounds. I will use your speeches as examples.

PRESENTATION

- I pay a lot of attention to delivery and presentation.

- Good delivery is necessary to get your point across! I don’t judge it on a rubric. It’s just a critical component of actually communicating your argument. Often, competitors make unique or nuanced arguments — I absolutely do appreciate it, but you have to work extra hard to communicate that argument clearly to your judges.

- iPads are OK. If they hurt your presentation, I’ll mark you down for poor presentation. If they don’t, no problem.

- No laptops. You won’t get a rank from me if you speak off a laptop.

CONTENT

- I like structured speeches. I’m just a parent judge. Don’t lead me along a wild goose chase. If you have some kind of round-winning impact at the end of your speech, I want you to preface it at the beginning before you jump right into the content.

- All speeches in a round are equally important, from the sponsorship to the last in a round. You can win my 1 speaking from any point in the round. For example, if an early speech is essential to the round, I will reward it more than a later speech even if it does have more refutation/adaptation etc.

- Late round speakers who are repeating or rehashing arguments don’t get ranked well.

- I don’t like short speeches. 3 minutes is already so little time to engage in a debate that is 90-120 minutes long. Use your time and use it well! I consider anything under 2:30 a short speech and will probably mark it on your feedback.

PRESIDING OFFICERS

- Please please please elect someone who knows how to do their job. I’ve seen people who are perfectly capable of POing pressure someone who has no idea what they are doing into POing, and then the chamber is awful for the next two hours. Don’t do that to me.

- Don’t “backseat PO.” Yes, correct the PO for substantive mistakes like precedence/recency slip-ups, but don’t be a smartass. Don’t get in the way of chamber business. Correcting technicalities will slow us down and that can often deny people a chance to speak.

- POs have to be assertive and play at least some kind of role in leading the chamber.

- A good PO will always get a breaking rank from me.

Have fun! Don’t take yourself *too* seriously.

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

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

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

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

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s have a great time!

anita.DukeDiv at gmail

My name is Anita Salazar. I competed in and have judged just about every speech and debate event.

For Debate, although I only competed in PF and Congress, I have been judging LD and CX since 2009. I have seen an array of traditional and progressive arguments; and I value validity and logic. I tend to be critical of dropped arguments, but I don't believe more substantiative points should be shadowed by a delineation. Regarding speed: I am fine with any speed if there are signposts and good taglines, but being virtual makes this a bit trickier. Being included in the chain helps this exponentially; but because of internet stability issues, I think it is wise to always confer with your opponent and judge(s) in the round first before spreading.

Good organization, professionalism, and excellent oration always stand out to me. I also try to be mindful of any citations that are used and how they are presented.

I was taught by someone that sternly discouraged students from approaching a judge to shake their hand at the end of a round—and now with safety in mind—I do not shake hands with competitors but am thankful for the kind regards.

I've been judging Debate since 2019. 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.

L-D 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.

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.

My experiences in Public Forum and Congressional debating may are considerably sufficient. I possess a wide variety of experiences in British Parliamentary and World Schools debate styles that has provided me with skills in discernment and of course, listening techniques to establish comparative, objective and fair judgement, as well as feedback to speakers - which I believe, all hold similar principles to PF and congress styles. Below are some of my criteria for judging in terms of my expectation for speakers during rounds;

- Cross-Examination (CX): I don't flow CX. Use it for clarification and identifying clash. If something arises, bring it up in your or your team’s next speech.

- Progressive Debate while not an expert, I've picked up some progressive tech over time. On Ks, if well-structured and clear why it's prioritized over the case, I'm open. If not, I'll judge on the case. Avoid CPs in PF and minimize in LD. Theory is beyond my judging capacity; don't run it.

RFD in Public Forum: I vote based on well-defined, linked impacts. All must be extended across the flow. If your Summary drops an impact, I won't consider it in Final Focus. Framework and weighing can influence impact importance, but I don’t vote off Framework.

- RFD in Lincoln-Douglas**: Framework is crucial for impact weighting. I evaluate how each side fulfills the FW and its impacts, similar to PF but with more emphasis on competing FWs.

- Speed and flow: I'm a paper flow judge. Speaking too quickly increases the chance of missing points. No spreading; it's disrespectful and lacks value in communication.

Judging is a critical aspect of ensuring fairness, accuracy, and quality in competitive events across various disciplines. The following paradigm aims to provide a comprehensive framework on how I assess the participants fairly and effectively.

1. Clarity of Evaluation Criteria:

Define clear and specific evaluation criteria tailored to the nature of the tournament.
I ensure to understand the criteria thoroughly to maintain consistency and fairness in evaluations.

2. Fairness and Impartiality:

I emphasize the importance of impartial judgment irrespective of personal biases or affiliations.
I encourage to focus solely on the performance or presentation without prejudice.

3. Transparency:

I maintain transparency throughout the judging process by explaining the criteria to participants and providing feedback when possible.
I disclose any potential conflicts of interest and ensure they do not influence judgments.

4. Feedback Mechanism:

I provide a constructive feedback to participants to facilitate their growth and improvement.
I also offer specific feedback based on the evaluation criteria.

5. Ethical Considerations:

I Emphasize ethical behavior among participants, including confidentiality, honesty, and integrity.
I Prohibit any form of discrimination or unfair treatment based on personal characteristics.

6. Continuous Improvement:

Solicit feedback to all participants to identify areas for improvement in the judging process.
Regularly review and update the judging paradigm to adapt to changing needs and emerging best practices.

Thank You for going through this Paradigm. ALL THE VERY BEST.

Hey! I'm Aamvi, I'm currently a college freshman, and I competed in Congressional Debate in NJ and on the National Circuit for almost 4 years.

For Congress:

• I value presentationslightly more than content (as long as what you're saying makes sense, aka, your analysis/warranting is good), but that's only if your speech is well-written and relevant with reputable sources: I won't hesitate to fact check you if something sounds questionable. In other words: if two competitors have similar content value in their speeches, the one with better presentation will be ranked higher :)!
• Please adapt your speeches depending on where we are in the round. An authorship speech should not be given towards the end of debate, nor should a refutation be given as the first negation speech. BUT I love crystals
• I hate extended questioning just for the same question to be asked 100x. If you guys move to extend- have a good reason.

POs:

• You guys start around a 3 on my ballot, and depending on how the round goes you'll go up or down accordingly. As long as you're efficient andmostly accurate (mistakes happen, just don't let them mess you up for the rest of the session), you will 100% be ranked on my ballot.
• HOWEVER, if I notice any disrespectful behavior (ex: laughing at speakers, intentionally dropping a certain speaker/school, etc) that is an immediate drop.

Most importantly have fun, and be respectful to each other! I judge mostly Speech and Congress, so for any debate event (PF/LD/etc.), treat me as a lay judge! But like I mentioned above: please please be courteous to one another. Condescention/disrespect for your fellow competitors is an immediate drop no matter what you are competing in.

A quick note about myself:

Hi. My name is Jackson. I competed for Northland Christian School in Houston for four years. I have an extensive background in congress. It was my primary event. I competed in nat circuit tournaments like Berkeley, Emory, TOC, Sunvite, and others.

Congress:

-Before reading into this: don't feel like you need to change yourself as a debater. I understand people have different styles and techniques. I will equitably evaluate all of these.

- Facts first. You aren't making this activity educational by making things up.

- Relevant and captivating introductions will get even the most experienced judge's attention.

- I like hearing direct lines and quotations from your evidence. Sometimes paraphrasing is necessary. Use good judgment here.

- Cite your evidence to the full extent that you can (don't leave out author, date, etc. when that info is made available in the book or article). Make it easy for me to find your evidence!

- Think about the kind of speech you are about to give. Is it a constructive AFF/NEG, Rebuttal, Crystallization, Refutation, Combination? Remember that this is a debate event. Just as LD or PF starts the round with constructive speeches to set that debater's position, the first few aff/negs in congress do the same. As you get further along in an item, the speeches should be getting more conclusive/overviewing.

- Be careful about tautological arguments.

- As the PO, you will start at 1 and can move down with errors. Please be efficient. I'm not asking you to abbreviate parliamentary procedure but think about your word economy when calling for speakers and questioners. This could make the difference between a few more speeches happening or not. If you run against someone to get to the seat, I will expect more from you.

LD, PF, & Policy:

If you get me for these, don't spread. It would be best for you to stay topical, but if you decide to take the theory route, I will listen.

Everyone:

- Have fun :)

- Be respectful, civil, and kind

- Think of what you are about to say. Is it problematic and potentially harmful to someone? If you don't know, think of something else to say!

Hi debaters,

As a parent with a background in mathematics and English as my second language, I prefer debates that are clear and concise.

I appreciate debates conducted at a slower pace to ensure full understanding of the arguments and evidence presented.

Logical coherence and data-supported claims are vital to me, given my mathematical background.

I value debaters who can clearly outline their arguments and if possible, effectively use visual aids to bolster their points.

Professionalism and courtesy in presentation are also crucial as they enhance effective communication.