I am a parent judge, judging for over 3 years. I evaluate argumentative logic first and care about evidence quality and evidence ethics. Speaking presentation and style are for speaker points but do not substantively impact who wins or loses the debate. Please don't spend less time arguing about technicalities, more time debating. Please do not paraphrase when you first introduce evidence. Also, please don't speed-read.

I am primarily a tab judge. I do highly value stock issues as well but would not consider myself a traditional judge.

I am perfectly fine with the negative running counterplans, DAs, and kritiks so long as they make sense with the affirmative's case.

Spreading is fine to a certain degree; I still need to be able to understand you.

I am a parent judge. I do not go off of personal biases and base my judgement on sound and complete argumentation. Please keep your speaking pace understandable, and do not use any debate jargon. Be respectful to your opponents, and try to have your arguments backed up with high quality evidence. Don't forget to have fun!

First of all, I like a pace where one can understand, so not too fast.

Confidence which reflects the conviction into what one says, statistics to support arguments to reflect your research.

Ability to counter arguments to support your case, it will be great if different arguments are provided rather than repeating same argument.

I am a parent judge who has been judging for 2 years now. I am not great at flowing. I focus on the evidence, arguments and rebuttals. I believe in quality over quantity and so don't try to rush through a lot of content in your initial speeches. Speak clearly without speeding.

My background: PhD in Chemistry coupled with an MBA degree with an emphasis on finance and operation management. I grew up and completed my undergraduate studies in Asia before pursuing postgraduate education in the United States.

I started to judge in regional and national tournaments in the year of 2021, primarily PF debates.

Logic flow is important to me. I like arguments that are logically consistent and presented in an organized manner. I have a hard time following arguments without a clear and solid logical flow.

Trained as a scientist in my early career, I tend to be data/evidence driven. Credible evidence is important to support your arguments. Quantitative data makes your arguments stronger.

Debaters should prioritize clear and effective communications in your speeches, avoiding spreading (i.e., speaking rapidly or spreading out a large volume of information in a short amount of time).

I would like debaters to treat your opponents with respect and have fun.

I currently work at Taipei American School coaching debate and public speaking. I have previously coached the Spanish National Team for WSDC, and have been heavily involved with training of the National Team for HK, and Mexico before Spain. My favorite style of debate is British Parliamentary, but I will be sure to check that bias when judging other styles of debate.

When judging PF or LD I expect that you will follow the NSDA rules when it comes to evidence. Please do not willfully misrepresent the evidence. When judging any round I find procedural tricks, K, and theory fairly unconvincing. If you are deciding not to debate the motion you had better have an exceptionally good reasons to do so. A poorly articulated argument or assertion will not win you any favors. If you are hoping that one dropped argument is going to win you my ballot, you will likely be disappointed. Depth of arguments, impacts, and comparatives will get you much further. Weigh your arguments against those of your opponents and tell me how I should judge the debate. If reasonable, this will likely bode well for you.

I am by no means an expert on judging PF or LD. Please do not spread like this is a policy debate. I prefer well articulated arguments than sprinting through a speech in order to put as many arguments of the table as you can. You can send your disclosure to me at cookm@tas.edu.tw

Follow tournament best practices. For online tournaments, turn your camera on!

*Public Forum was designed to be for the public. You should not sacrifice style when giving your speech just because I know how to flow. If you read your speech from your doc and sprint through your arguments, you may very well win my flow, but expect very low speaker scores.

I currently work for an organization serving domestic violence survivors- so many debate games not revolving around "truth" are frivolous and purposeless.

My flow was only slightly above average when I was doing it every weekend, I can only imagine how bad it is now, with no driving force like shame to ensure I kept copious notes.

I will vote less on dropped/conceded arguments and more on true arguments- something about the "real world" makes me less for "debate games" than truth in argument.

Explain why you're winning. It might be helpful to explain why you're winning even if your opponent is also winning something. Comparative analysis matters, like Black Lives.

Be smart. Make good arguments. If you're funny, be funny. Don't make fun of your opponents; making fun of their arguments is fair game. Don't be an a**hole to be funny tho.

I have learned debate in school but I have not done competitive debate. I have judged practice rounds and helped assist debate classes, but I have limited judge experience at national competitive debate tournaments. I have directed debate tournaments and watched many debate rounds.

I am open to anything and I try to be as tab as possible. Just use warrants in your argumentation, even if it is theory. If an argument has absolutely no warrant and is just a claim, there is a chance I still won't vote on it even if it is 100% conceded. That is to say, if you just say conditionality is bad because of fairness and education, that is a series of claims without warrants, and thus is unpersuasive even if the other team doesn't address it. However, if a poorly warranted claim goes conceded, then I will not necessarily adjudicate the strength of the warrant as it is the other team's obligation to defeat this warrant, and as such I will take the warrant as true unless it is unintelligible or utterly absurd. I will default as a policymaker if you don't put me in a competing paradigm.

When adjudicating competing claims, it is my hope that debaters will engage in evidence comparison. However, if two contradictory claims are made, and no one weighs the strength of the internal warrants of the evidence, then I will likely call for the evidence to adjudicate which claim is more strongly warranted (assuming the argument may be part of my reason for decision). Same goes with topicality. I am 50/50 in voting for topicality, and I default competing interpretations.

Finally, you should tell me explicitly how the reason for decision should be written if you win so I can understand your vision of the round. If you do not have ballot directing language, I will use my own judgment to write the RFD, so it is in your interest to write the RFD for me.

Here's the (somewhat) TL;DR version of the paradigm

I am as old-school and traditional as they come when it comes to judging, with hundreds and hundreds of rounds under my belt.

Debate is about persuading me (as a proxy for an audience) that your position is the one I should support. I view my role as that of an undecided audience member attending this debate to learn about both sides of the topic. I use the information, arguments and clash in this debate to move me from “undecided” to “decided.” Philosophically, as mentioned, I am a very traditional judge. I am from the policymaker school of thought with some appearance judging added in to ensure competitors remember this is a speaking competition.

To do this, I rigorously compare the strengths and weaknesses of the definitions and arguments (or, in LD, the value, value criterion, and contentions) presented and rebutted to determine which side has persuaded me to support their position. I will especially compare the arguments that generate the greatest clash. Since I approach debate as an undecided audience member, I judge strictly on what you say (I mean, this is a competition where you speak your arguments, right?) and WILL NOT read your speeches or your cards, except as noted below.

Come at the debate from any perspective or approach you want to--and I do welcome out-of-the-box frameworks provided they provide a reasonable space for clash and argument and can demonstrate direct relevance to the topic for an undecided audience member seeking to be persuaded to one side or the other. I try to offer each round as blank a slate as I am capable of doing as it relates to the resolution.

Risk-taking is fine if you know what you are doing when you take the risk. I like humor. I am generally skeptical of disclosure theory and other "debating about debate" approaches. The game is the game. If everyone is in compliance with the tournament rules and the affirmative's definitions allow for clash, I am generally a very hard sell on arguments concerning fairness and disclosure--although you are welcome to try, and I will give it as fair a hearing as I can.

To maximize the strength, effectiveness, and persuasiveness of your arguments, they need to be delivered clearly (NO SPREADING), with solid evidence, data, and citations (placed in context for a judge who may not be familiar with them) in a well-organized speech that is delivered TO me, not read like a drone AT me. In other words, you should seek to win on logic and argumentation, but in doing so, you cannot neglect the communications skills necessary to sell your position and ensure that your audience understands your logic and argumentation--just like you would if you were doing this to a real audience in the real world. Again, I should be able to judge the debate solely on the words spoken without having to refer to documentation beyond my own notes when writing my ballot.

I do not grant off-time roadmaps unless the tournament rules specifically require I accept them. Your speeches should be well-organized enough to not need one.

Some quick, event-specific notes:

Policy: I am not going to be on the email chain because this is not an essay contest, this is an oral persuasion event. I will judge it based ONLY on what I hear and understand. If you spread, I am not going to be able to follow you. You will likely lose the round unless your opponent is foolish enough to do the same forcing me to determine who lost by less. You can try and debate your K, or your T, or any other letter of the alphabet, but if you do, it better clearly relate to the basic premise of the resolution, because that is the show I bought a ticket to see. Not saying you can't run them, just they need to be relevant to the spirit of the resolution.

LD: This isn't policy. DO NOT SPREAD. Be clear on your value and value criterion and explicitly tie your contentions back to them or you will hurt yourself. Otherwise the notes for policy apply.

PF: This is an event intended for a lay judge to be able to adjudicate. Even though I am not a lay judge, I will judge this as though I walked in off the street and never judged before to stay true to the spirit of the event. Make sure you engage accordingly. In other words if you treat this like a mini-policy round, it will go poorly.

If you have any questions about this, ASK!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for those who want to get into the weeds on my approach to judging and my thinking about debate:

First and foremost, have fun

Debate should not be a slog for you or me. This paradigm, although long, is really about getting the slogging and ticky-tack nonsense out of this process. We are both giving up our weekends to participate in this. Let's enjoy it. Keep it loose.

My philosophy

I am generally a VERY traditional old-school judge with a VERY clear set of expectations and standards. If I had to pick a judging theory that I fit, I tend to fall into the policymaker/legislative model of judging with some purposeful appearance-style judging thrown in.

My "role" or "persona" is of an average, undecided listener looking to form an opinion on the topic

In ALL debate events, I view my role as judge to be an undecided audience member attending your debate to learn about both sides so I can form my own opinion on the topic. As that audience member, I will use what is presented in this debate to move me from “undecided” to “decided.” Accordingly, I believe debate is about persuasion--winning the minds AND hearts of the audience, which is, in this case, the judge(s). That means this activity is about all the skills of debate: research, argumentation, speech, persuasion, and rhetoric.

--Your arguments must be strong, with sound logic, solid research, and real analysis;
--Your presentation must be well-organized so the audience can follow it effortlessly without roadmaps and signposts;
--You must overcome the reasonable objections put forward by the other side while attacking their contentions, case, and/or values, especially on arguments with significant clash;
--You must show why your side has the better idea (or the other side's ideas are worse than the status quo if you are the negative and not running a counterplan);
--And you must sell all this with a persuasive delivery that seeks to connect with the audience, which means gesturing and movement, making eye contact, varying your vocal tone, showing passion, and speaking clearly and at a normal pace.

Wait! Aren't experienced judges just into technical stuff and do not consider speaking style?

Here is why I incorporate some "appearance-style" judging into my paradigm. As a competition that is rooted in speaking, I firmly believe that debate requires you to both make strong arguments AND communicate them persuasively through your delivery. You should be connecting with your audience at all levels. In the "real world" a dry, lifeless speaker has a tough time winning over an audience no matter how good their arguments are. I hold you to the same standard.

I HATE spreading

SLOW DOWN!!! If you speak significantly faster than a normal rate of speed or if you "spread," it will show up in your comments and impact your speaks negatively. This is a debate, not a speedreading competition to crowbar 10 minutes of content into a 6-minute constructive. You cannot persuade anyone if the listener cannot follow your argument because you are flying through your speech at 250+ words per minute. "Spreading" has really damaged debate as a discipline. If this is an issue for you, please "strike" me as a judge. I will totally understand. I will say CLEAR once and only once if you are too fast.

I make every effort to come into the round agnostic as it relates to the resolution

I am agnostic about both the topic of the debate and how you build your case--it simply has to be both comprehensible enough and persuasive enough to win. You can approach the case from any fair direction that is directly relevant to the resolution and allows for reasonable clash and interaction from the other side. Just remember that I need to clearly understand your argument and that you have to be more persuasive than your opponent. Also note the next item.

Agnosticism ≠ Idiocy, therefore Truth > Tech

I will not accept an argument that the average person would immediately know is simply not true. Being agnostic about the resolution does not mean I am an idiot. The sun doesn't come up in the west. 1+1≠3. Telling me things that would obviously be false to someone with an average understanding of the world is not an argument that can flow through, even if your opponent doesn't address it. By the same token, if an argument like this IS offered and the opponent does not attack it, that will be noted as well--negatively.

Assume I know nothing about the topic beyond what an average person would know

The risk of insult is the price of clarity. As a judge, I am not as deep in the weeds on the subject matter as you are. Avoid undefined jargon, assumptions about what I already know, or assuming that I am familiar with your citations. Better to make fewer points that I do understand than to make more points that I do not. This is CRITICAL if this is a public forum round.

I only judge what I HEAR you say and how you say it

This is a debate--a competition rooted in a tradition of speech, logic, evidence, and rhetoric--not a competitive speed-reading recital of your persuasive essay writing. That means I want to HEAR your speech and citations, which is really hard for me to do if you spread. Let me be clear. I will not read your speech or look at your cards (unless there is some question about the validity of the source). That means if you insist on spreading and I can't follow it, you are going to run into a HUGE problem on my ballot.

Part of being an effective and successful debater is to ensure that your audience understands your arguments based on what you say without the audience having to look at a document--think about how you would address an audience in a darkened auditorium, and you will get the idea. I will make an exception about requesting cards if I have reason to question your evidence.

I reward risk-taking and humor

Don't be afraid to take some risks. Be interesting. Be funny. Maybe even a little snark, A well-chosen risk can result in big rewards in your score. Just remember they call it a risk for a reason. You will also never hurt yourself by making me laugh. Debate does not have to be somber, and it does not always have to be serious. If you are funny, be funny--provided you remain persuasive.

I pay close attention to definitions/values/value criterion

Define the terms of the resolution (and, in L-D state a value and value criterion), and then explicitly link your arguments, contentions, and rebuttals back to your definitions and values. I want to clearly understand how your arguments relate to how the debate has been framed and/or how it supports your definition and value. What is the point of taking the time to lay this out and then never mentioning them again when you get into your speech?

How I weigh your arguments

The overall strength of your case and arguments--especially where there is clash--relative to your opponent's case is paramount in earning my vote. This means the quality and development of your arguments, contentions, evidence, citations, and rebuttals are far more important to me than quantity.

--Focus on your strongest arguments rather than throwing in the kitchen sink.
--Make sure they link back to your definition and/or your value and value criterion
--Go deep with your analysis before going broad;
--Use examples and metaphors to illustrate your points;
--Tell the story coherently in a speech that is logically organized to lead me to side with your position.

Ties ALWAYS go to the negative/con

The affirmative/pro ALWAYS has the burden to convince me to change the status quo. In a tie, the affirmative has failed to meet that standard. In any instance where I truly believe both sides fought the round to an absolute draw, I will cast my ballot for the negative/con. For the history nerds out there, this is based on what is known as Speaker Denison's rule, which is a convention in the British House of Commons that when the Speaker votes to break a tie, they never vote for the side that will change the status quo.

Dropped arguments do not always matter to me

Just because your opponent drops a weak argument does not mean I will flow it through. If you jam ten contentions in and the opponent only responds to 9, that does not mean the 10th argument carries, and you should win the debate because it was dropped and therefore flowed through. The quality of the dropped argument matters a lot. As long as your opponent addresses and rebuts your main arguments and effectively responds to your case overall, I will not be concerned that they dropped some weak, secondary contention, especially if they have filled their time. Obviously, not addressing a major argument will hurt any opposing case.

I NEVER allow off-time roadmaps unless the tournament rules require me to

Unless the tournament rules state otherwise, I will not grant ANY off-time road maps. Off-time road maps are a crutch lazy debaters use to avoid getting their speech into a clear, well-organized form. Worse, being off-time, it allows the speaker to preview their arguments without the clock running--essentially giving them free time to communicate without pressure. Nonsense.

Your speech should be properly organized so that a listener can follow it without you having to spoon-feed them what you are going to do up front. If you need to do a roadmap during your allotted running time, you are welcome to burn your clock time to do so, and I will not penalize it. That said, you would be better served simply organizing your speech and, perhaps, doing some signposting.

Also, do I really need to be told, yet again, that first you will refute your opponent's points and then if there is time, you will reiterate and extend your own points? Really?

Give your citations context so I can give them credibility

Assume I know nothing about your citation nor will I read your card unless I have reason to question the validity of your evidence. While I recognize that a citation of "Smith, 2019" is the minimum the rules often require, it has little real credibility if you don't give me some context about why the citation matters. I don't know who Smith is, where you found his material, or what he wrote in 2019. It is SO much better to say something like: "In a 2019 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Julian Smith, an expert on vaccines, wrote...." Now I know where you read it, who Smith is, and when it was written. That makes it much more impactful.

I pay very close attention to CX, crossfire, and POIs

While I generally don't "flow" CX/crossfire (or POIs in Parli), it does matter to me. There should be engagement and clash. Debates I have judged are occasionally won or lost in CX when one debater put the other in a logic box or otherwise made the debate impossible for their opponent to win. Use CX/crossfire (or POIs in Parli) to undermine your opponent's arguments and to expose weaknesses and logic problems in their case, rather than rehear parts of the opponent's speeches you missed the first time. Additionally:

--If you are rude during crossfire/CX by aggressively interrupting or cutting off respondents who are not filibustering, it will impact your speaks;
--If you insist on yes/no answers in crossfire/CX when more information is obviously needed to make a response, it will impact your speaks;
--If you keep asking questions in crossfire without giving your opponent a chance to ask some too, it will impact your speaks;
--If you filibuster and are dilatory to try and run out the clock in crossfire/CX (or refuse to answer at least one POI per opposing participant that asks for a POI in Parli), it will impact your speaks and;
--If you are passive and ask no questions in crossfire/CX (or make no POIs in Parli) or sit back and watch during grand crossfire without participating, it will impact your speaks.

Your public speaking and presentation skills matter to me

Your speaking skills and delivery can impact the outcome of the round. Our greatest persuasive communicators are all excellent and compelling speakers. This idea that debate is some monotone recitation with your eyes glued to a piece of paper or a screen while you stand there like a wax statue is absurd. Yes, your arguments and rebuttal of the opposition matter most, but your job does NOT stop there. You must hold the audience's interest too. It is part of the game. That means:

--Speak TO me, do not read AT me;
--Gesture and move to help communicate your arguments;
--Make eye contact;
--Vary your tone and vocal emphasis;
--Show some passion to demonstrate you really believe what you are saying.

I am the official timer of the round unless the rules say otherwise

Unless the tournament rules state otherwise, I am the official timer of the debate. You may use your timer to monitor your speaking time (but you MUST turn off any sounds or alarms or you will be penalized in your speaker points after one warning), but my time governs.

Before each speech or crossfire, I will ask, "is (are) the speaker (participants) ready? Are the opponents ready? Time begins on your first word." At that point, speaking may start. I will announce "time has expired" when the clock runs out. You may finish your sentence if I make that announcement mid-sentence. No more speaking after that unless the tournament rules allow for a grace period or otherwise limit my discretion to end the speech. I will also update both sides about the remaining prep time during the round.

Unless tournament rules require it, I do not give time signals.

The game is the game

If something is required by the rules of the tournament, do it--if not, game on. If the tournament rules do not require it, then it is up to you if you want to disclose, etc. Arguments about disclosure, debate fairness (other than debatability of the resolution as framed by the affirmatives' definitions), etc., will meet heavy skepticism if the other team is acting within the rules of the tournament and civil behavior. I am agnostic about arguments for and against the actual resolution. I have limited interest in debates about debating--unless that is the topic. You can certainly argue it in front of me if you want, and I will do my best to take it seriously, but in almost every case you would be better served simply debating the topic and then taking up your disclosure/fairness issues with the coaches, tournament directors, and league administrators.

I will not tolerate racism, rudeness, or nonsense

If you make faces, gestures, insult or otherwise show disdain and disrespect for me, for another judge (if there is a panel of judges) or for any other competitor, it will destroy your score. You can take it to the bank that I will address your actions with the tournament director. Then I will find your coach and address the issue with them, too.

Also, if you say or do anything that demeans the race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., of ANYONE (unless you are directly quoting a relevant source or citation in context with the debate topic), it WILL ruin your score. It WILL be reported to the tournament authorities and I will find your coach and discuss it with them.

You can (and should) compete both aggressively competitively AND respectfully. It is not a binary.

What I like to hear: when it comes down to it, pacing, and emphasis on important points are key to great speech delivery, and direct refutations are a must

Total old school debater, just prove how you win each stock issue, and be convincing. Speech roadmaps and organization is much appreciated!

Normally, T and Spec arguments mean that the neg doesn't have much to run, but if it is blatantly untopical, ect., go for it.

Spreading/Champ Reading- awesome, as long as you're good at it. don't try spreading if you haven't practiced, ect.

Public Forum- Clarity is important, why your reasoning is most logical, impact/advantage magnitude, weighing

Ks and CPs- Yes. Kritiks are great as long as you make the three parts clear, and I'm a sucker for philosophy Ks. Counterplans are cool, just again compare stock issues, show how you solve better.

Congress- clash is obviously super important judging aspect, speech organization with a brief overview/roadmap is always great

LD-well developed value&criterion, demonstrate steps of refutation

First time parent judge. Please speak clearly.

Email- deepna.abhishek@gmail.com

I am a mother of 3, and professionally, I am in Enterprise Tech Sales. My passion lies in dancing and traveling. I have a sophomore this year who loves Policy Debate, so I decided to help as a judge. I am looking forward to a great tournament today, with talented young minds who will show utmost professionalism and collaboration! Here are some of my Judging preferences:

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. Less is more!

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards.

I look forward to a great Debate and getting to know you!

I'm a father of two kids, a middle schooler (participating), and a 4th grader. Personally, excited to listen to the young minds debating finer details, more than happy to share my thoughts at the end with constructive feedback. I would like the participants to ensure they keep time, make coherent arguments, deliver in a legible way instead of going at breakneck speed, be respectful to the opposition, and try to have fun along with learning.

This is my 2nd competition so I relatively new to judging Public Forum debates. I would appreciate if you speak slowly and clearly as I can judge only the basis of what I understand. I will be jotting down key arguments during the debate. I also expect debaters to be professional and respectful to everyone participating in the round.

I have been doing Public Forum for about 4 years, and I was the Novice Director at Brooklyn Tech. Overall, I love judging and I really do enjoy giving you feedback on how to grow as a debater.

If you do disclose please email me your case, it makes it easier for me to flow the round and decide who should win the round, my email is nabila.hoque2004@gmail.com.

1. Theory: YES. I love it when people run theories. However, you have to realize you're fighting an uphill battle since many judges won't know how to evaluate that. I, however, am bored and get excited about interesting arguments. The well-argued theory makes for interesting debates. This, for example, is how you call people out on rulebreaking - don't just say "it's illegal/not allowed," make it an argument with impacts.

2. Card-calling: I believe that being able to call for a card is an important strategic tool. That means it should be used, get this, strategically. You should have your cards ready and it should not take that much time to get it, however, if you are taking a long amount of time I will start running your prep.

3. Crossfire: Crossfire is your time to clarify. Don't expect me to write any argument you make during crossfire because it won't happen. Instead, follow up on strong points during your next speech. Finally, resist the urge to engage in shouting matches, it will definitely cost you speaker points and is a terrible use of everyone's time.

4. Attitude. If you are rude to either your opponent or me I will deduct your speaker points and if your attitude is off the charts I will give the other team the win regardless of the flow. Overall, be nice.

5. Rebuttals. Signposting is something I want to see all throughout the debate, however, in rebuttals it is key. I like off-time road maps and I expect that you should follow your off-time road map during the speech. I also want a logical and concise analysis of the faults of the opponent's argument, not just "this card says otherwise." Tell me why their argument is faulty and why your argument is better.

Speaker Points

30 - If you run a good meme case/if you speak with an eloquence that can only be personified by someone like Barack Obama/Best speaker in the tourney in my opinion.

29 - If you speak really well with minimal error.

28 - Good job but you can use some improvement.

27 - You need improvement, but it's only an upward climb.

26 - There's a lot of room for improvement. Don't get down if you receive this from me. The debate is all about improvement, and if you attain this score then I will definitely give you tips on how to improve and better yourself in the verbal and digital feedback.

25 - Why are you here?

24 - If I have to go down here then you should go to policy/LD/Parli/Anything that isn't PF...

I prefer clarity over speed. Clearly and concisely delivering a few effective argument is much better than many vague and ineffective arguments.

Be courtesy to your opponent. During the cross, allow other side to also ask questions. Too many follow-up questions will cost you points.

Stick to the time limit. I generally allow both sides to finish the sentence after the timer stops, but no more than that.

BACKGROUND:

BRMHS 23' Reed 27'

Did policy debate in high school, some congress. Attended 2021 Dartmouth and 2022 RKS labs for policy. I ran almost nothing but kritiques the whole time I debated. Some authors I enjoy are Deleuze, Guattari, Fanon, Bataille, and Said.

HOW I JUDGE:

Any questions email me at prrsh004@gmail.com

Tech vs. Truth is meaningless

T is not a voter

I decide the outcome of the round off the flow, but so does almost everyone else (if you want me to analyze the round in some other manner I'm totally open to that, argue it).

If there is a framework sheet, that's what I'm going to look at first.

I mostly look for offense when going over my flow at the end of the round, even your defensive arguments should not only seek to defend your case but undermine your opponent's. Impact calculus is important here. You should always connect back to the hermeneutical lens you're arguing the round should be viewed through and why when viewed through such a lens, that argument matters. I should also note I find myself less and less persuaded by nuclear war impacts, I find most of their link chains to be pretty weak.

Signpost clearly, especially when virtual. I would also like to be on the email chain so I can refer to evidence and (ideally) speech docs.

pf at the toc - paraphrasing is probably bad and disclosure is probably good but these ideas can be changed by good debating. defense is not sticky. would prefer not to judge tricks, but consider this a green light for just about anything else - just as happy to judge creative strats as i am to judge typical policy throwdowns.

hi i'm neel. i competed in a bit of circuit pf and circuit ld at plano east in texas. i'm now a third year at michigan (go blue) where i am not affiliated with the debate program. i made a couple of useful resources (pf forward and the debate group) and taught at pfbc back in my debate heyday.

gimmeurcards@gmail.com for the chain please.

i think smart debating > everything else - a good debater/team is one that makes truthfully sound arguments and executes an in-round strategy with technical skill. i think the tech vs. truth binary is a little silly, but if you extend an argument with a claim, a warrant, and an impact until the end of the round, i will consider it when making my decision though i think that this tends to be easier to do with "truer" arguments. this rule is blind to the substance of this argument except for death good and arguments that are morally reprehensible (which i will not evaluate).

i largely debated policy arguments and the kritik, and as such, i have largely judged policy arguments and the kritik. i'm a decent judge for theory. i'm not a great judge for phil (due to a lack of experience) and i'm a bad judge for tricks (because i dislike judging these rounds).

i think ballot painting matters a ton - your backhalf should very clearly explain the argument you are going for, why you have won that argument, and why it means that you win the debate. i'm a fan of short overviews that accomplish this goal.

i will disclose my decision and speaks - feel free to shoot me an email if this doesn't happen/if you have questions.

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

As a Taburasa Judge, Charles Shima plays a key role in evaluating and mentoring aspiring entrepreneurs as they pitch their ideas in a high-stakes competition. Taburasa challenges participants to present innovative solutions with clarity, confidence, and strategic vision.

With extensive experience as a public speaker and startup founder, Charles has pitched his company, Tourifique, to hundreds of investors, industry leaders, and audiences. He understands the art of storytelling, the pressure of the pitch, and what it takes to turn an idea into a thriving business. His judging style is insightful, constructive, and driven by a passion for public speaking.

I'm a lay judge. Do not spread, make use of your time appropriately, do not steal prep, keep track of your time, and be respectful to your opponent(s).

NOTE: send me your speech doc; email chain: k.selvaganesan@gmail.com

Hi,

My name is Sean Lam and l am a Parent Judge from Quarry Lane School.

Here are my expectations.

For Constructive etc, l would like to see clarity and fluidity in delivering your case. When the time is up, debaters may finish their last sentence. You will not continue a new sentence, else points will be deducted.

Please follow the general rules of debate.

State your winning factors clearly and l will give you my ballot.

Thank you

Hi everyone,

My email is klayton.nd@gmail.com so you can add me to email chains!

I am new to judging debate and don't have much debate experience. I am looking for cohesive evidence based arguments and thoughtful responses to the opponents arguments. I will appreciate if everyone maintains a professional and courteous atmosphere.

I am a lay judge. This is my first time judging debate. I value good reasoning to help me understand how your evidence relates to your arguments and make sure to stay on topic and not detour. To receive 30 points, you must have strong reasonings, good presentation, and on time. Happy debating!

I am a novice parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly; this will help me better understand your arguments. Also, please be polite to your opponents.

Student Judge- 4 years experience in Varsity PF

Be sure to extend your contentions through FF

I'm a parent judge with some experience judging public forum and speeches. I'd appreciate if you could speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Clarify and quality of argument are valued more than quantity. Thank you and good luck!

I prefer debaters presenting, reinforcing their arguments and rebutting their opponents’ arguments with solid logic and reasoning as well as authorized evidences.

I value respectful and strong discourse in crossfire, but not rude or overpowering. I don’t like spreading.

Thanks and good luck,

Lanyun Liu

My judging criteria is as follows:

1. Truth of claim :

The claim must be proven with strong reasons and evidence. The second level of proving the truth of your claim is in responding to responses of your proof of the claim from the opposing team. This is important because the other team could attack a link in the truth of your argument and without sufficient response then the likelihood of truth of your argument becomes diminished. The result of this is that your impacts are unlikely to occur because the claim has been proven to be false which greatly reduces your chance to win the debate.

2. Impacting :

The claim once proven should be impacted. The importance of the argument is strongly reliant on your impacts. The greater the impact proven the more likely the importance of the argument increases. Ensure your impacts are reasonable within the debate and can be proven rather than looking for a huge impact that is unlikely to be proven within the debate.

3. Responses :

There are two level of responses I think are important within the debate. Responses that are constructive in nature which means you are responding to a rebuttal that was attacking your argument and rebuilding your argument. The second are deconstructive arguments attacking the opposing teams arguments. It is important to have different responses to the most strongest arguments in the round. Firstly because it allows you to mitigate the other teams arguments much more and reduces the likelihood the response is answered by an easy response from the other team. Lastly because you need to prioritize the strongest arguments and respond to those particular arguments within the round because they are the most likely to win the round and time limitations do not allow you to respond to every single argument.

4. Weighing :

Most responses within debate rounds usually only mitigate the other teams arguments and do not necessarily prove them to be completely false. The importance of this is to understand the importance of weighing after giving your responses, it is because although mitigated some strong arguments are still left within the round that required to be weighed up. You can use different metrics to weigh your arguments such as which one affects more people, more urgent or occurs more often and many others to prove your arguments are more important.

5. Structure :

It is important to have an argument that flows from the beginning to the end of the argument. This is because it makes it easier to track the argument and reduces the likelihood that there is internal inconsistency within the arguments.

Kindly respect your opponents. Do not engage in any rude and offensive language/actions within the debate round. I encourage you to be creative and have fun as you learn and engage with new people within the realm of debating. All the best !

Hello! I competed in public forum for 4 years on the local and national circuit at Kennedy High School (2017-2021).

email: lamackey@usc.edu

There are a couple of things to do to win my ballot:

1. Have a clear narrative throughout the round. This helps me understand which argument is most important to each team rather than having a ton of random arguments that aren't clashing.

2. Extend claim+warrant+impact (don't forget links or you lose impacts and have nothing to weigh)

3. Extend the cleanest piece of offense

4. Weigh!!! It is important that you weigh because if you don't I am forced to choose what I think is important and you lose control over my ballot

Flowing

- Please signpost. At the end of the round I evaluate what is on my flow so it is important to be clear where you are making arguments.

- I can handle fast PF speed, but be aware of how fast I can write- speed is not always an advantage if I am unable to write it on my flow in time (also if you do choose to speak faster than normal do not exclude the other team)

Rebuttal

- I prefer well thought out articulated responses over a bunch of blippy responses (quality>quantity)

- I really like carded responses, but don't card drop excessively

- For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet

- For 2nd rebuttal it is your choice what you do strategically. It would be smart to do some frontlining, but I have no personal preference

Summary

- Please collapse and make grouped responses

Evidence

- I will call for a card if the other team calls for it and it becomes a point of discussion within the round or it you bring up a specific card that is very important to winning your point

- If it takes you more than 2 minutes to find a card we will have to move on and I will cross that card off the flow

K's/Theory

- I do not like theory and would prefer if it stayed out of the PF space. If you do choose to run theory, please make sure you dumb it down for me and your opponents, otherwise debate becomes an inaccessible space.

Other Things

- pre flow before the round! please don't delay

- I am open for discussion after the round, but please be respectful

- rude or disrespectful comments of any kind will not be tolerated and will surely result in a loss for your team

- Have fun, debate doesn't always need to be so serious!

Had experience judging couple of tournaments in last few years.

Don't talk too fast. Explain technical terms.

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

Judge Paradigm:

Background:
As a judge, I believe in fairness and objectivity. My role is to evaluate the debate based on the arguments presented, not my personal beliefs or knowledge. I appreciate clear, logical argumentation and effective communication.

Flow/Structure:
I will flow the round carefully, so I appreciate clear signposting and roadmap speeches. A well-structured case that’s easy to follow will always benefit you. If you want me to weigh a specific argument, make it clear in your summary and final speeches.

Evidence vs. Analysis:
I believe both evidence and analysis are important. Strong evidence should support well-thought-out analysis, but a debate that is too evidence-heavy without explanation or context may lose persuasive power. I value quality of evidence over quantity—just throwing a lot of facts at me without tying them to your argument won’t win you the round.

Speaks (Speaker Points):
I evaluate speaker points based on clarity, delivery, and engagement. Confidence and professionalism in presentation matter, but you don’t need to be flashy. Effective use of rhetoric, persuasive tone, and strategic word choices can enhance your delivery.

Cross-Examination (CX):
Cross-examination is key to identifying weaknesses in your opponent’s case. I appreciate debaters who use CX to ask meaningful questions and clarify points rather than trying to score cheap wins. It’s also a good opportunity to control the narrative.

Theory/Framework:
If you run theory, make sure it's warranted and not frivolous. I am open to hearing theory and framework debates, but it must be well-justified and impact the round significantly. I am more inclined to vote on these if the abuse is clear and affects the debate directly.

Speed (Spreading):
I’m comfortable with speed, but clarity is a must. If I can’t understand what you’re saying because of speed, it won’t make it on the flow. I’ll call for "clear" if needed, but keep in mind that over-spreading can hurt you more than help.

Weighing:
I highly value good weighing mechanisms. Make sure to tell me why your impacts matter more and how they compare to your opponent’s arguments. Impact calculus is crucial in close rounds, and I prefer to hear clear explanations of magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

Voter Issues:
In the final speeches, please be clear on your voting issues. Summarizing key arguments and telling me why you should win will help me when making a decision. I prefer to see debaters focus on crystallizing the debate rather than introducing new arguments in the last speeches.

Conclusion:
In summary, I look for clear, structured, and logical arguments. I’m open to all kinds of debate styles, but clarity and strategic choices are key. Make sure to tell me why you win, and I’ll base my decision on what’s presented in the round.

Qualifications: I competed in speech and debate tournaments for five consecutive years throughout all of high school. Most of my debate experience comes from public forum and I have extensive judging experience as well.

Paradigm:

- I am fine with speed, but please talk clearly. If I cannot understand you, what you say will not appear on my flow.

- Organization is important. If you are organized, I will be able to connect your speeches throughout my flow better and (hopefully) end up voting for your team. Be especially clear with taglines.

- Weigh the impacts and clearly tell me why you win. If you don't, I will end up having to put my input into the vote.

- Impacts are important. Even if you have a clear claim and warrant, nothing will count unless you have an impact as a result of that. I will most likely vote based on your impacts and voters, so make sure they are clear and strong.

- Warrants are important. If you have an impact but no clear warrant or link to the resolution, I will not vote for it.

- Be sure your arguments are backed up by evidence. The better your arguments are backed up, the stronger it will be.

- I do not flow during crossfire. If anything important comes up during crossfire, be sure to mention that within your speeches if you want that to go on my flow.

Any clarifying questions about my paradigm can be asked before the round starts or to anstlgus02@gmail.com.

I participated in the debate program all 4 years of high school from 2004 to 2008. Since graduating I have been a coach specific to Public Forum. I have years of experience in all fields. Please see below for specific preferences.

1. Flow

2. Impacts

3. Do not speed and spread.

Yes chain: onorthcuttwyly@gmail.com

College: University of Southern California

Pronouns: they/them

ALL: Probably don't care what you read. I read Ks in college on the aff and neg. I tend to default to an offense defense paradigm and section off my flow in big picture ideas

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Policy/CX Debate

I ultimately evaluate truth over tech. With that being said if you are substantially ahead in the tech debate I have a significantly lower threshold for your truth claims.

Presumption on these debates is much easier to win and is a smart arg. If the aff wants presumption to flip you need to tell me that - otherwise presumption is always a valid 2NR option separate advocacy or not.

KvK / Method v Method debates - the K needs to be competitive.

Framework - Go for it but debate the impact turns please with that being said I will default to a competitive activity so there has to be some sort of role for the aff and negative in your model of debate.

Theory - Go for it - diversify yours standards for speaker points here. I won more rounds than I should have on ASPEC, so your theory arg is probably fine w/ me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Forum Debate

Editing this based on what I saw at last weeks tournament - internal link chains MUST be in the final focus. If the final focus is JUST impacts there is ZERO chance you will get my ballot.

Fast is fine and can be strategic given the short amount of time allocated to speeches.

Off time roadmaps should only consist of the words 'pro case' 'con case' and 'framing'. I start the time if the roadmap > 10 seconds.

ONLINE DEBATE: I expect both pro and con teams to have their evidence readily available and share with teams and judge before round. This helps minimize the extend internet speed/connectivity has as well as cuts down/eliminates awkward "I didn't hear you" can you re-state moments.

I'm an active debater, public speaker and judge (2019–present). I've had a two-time experience coaching college student in public speaking and oratory

He/Him pronouns

Feel free to add me to your email chain and mail me If you ever need a judge for your school's online events: olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

FLOW

I view myself as a flow judge (writing down key arguments), but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial.

If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel.

A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for my understanding, analysis and weighing of the round.

EXTENSIONS

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

SPEECH CONDUCT

• I can’t follow everything in your speech if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and I comprehend you.
• Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
• Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
• Endeavor to work with time. It's advisable that you have a separate timer
• Feel free to come with a water bottle. I've seen speakers battle with cough and I believe speakers do better with the least amount of discomfort.

WHAT APPEALS

Although every judge has a pre-existing belief, I consider myself open-minded and all you need do to convince me is to be clear with your speech with relatable evidence.

Over time, I've discovered that speakers who struggle to provide evidence especially when questioned by their opponent tend to be less convincing to me and seldom lost the round to their opponents who often reiterate that they failed to provide evidence and that reduced the quality of their argument.

Also, more appealing to me is an engaging speaker especially during crossfire. So, please, engage your opponents as much as possible. Avoid being cold/lukewarm/silent during cross.

Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

Hello, 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!

Raj Pattabi

I am a parent Judge and excited to be part of this judging process.

What and how I judge are as follows

• Assess the strength of arguments that includes the clarity of the thesis, quality of evidence, and logical coherence
• How well debaters respond to counterarguments and whether they maintain a logical and consistent position
• Consider the persuasiveness of debaters, presentation style, research and evidence
• Assess the debaters’ cross-examination skills, overall delivery and style

GENERAL: I debated for Bettendorf HS '14-'18. I competed in Public Forum Mainly, little bit of Lincoln Douglas, and tried just about every other event. I was a 3 time national qualifier and this past year became the assistant coach at Bettendorf High School. Lots of national circuit experience in PF. As far as other events go i'm not here to push my or any agenda. My goal is to interpretate your performances in the debates/speech rounds not how I feel or think. My paradigm here is just to make your lives easier. Any questions feel free to ask!!!

For email chains- Daepoole00@gmail.com

I understand that things can be tense at tournaments so I try to keep the things pretty relaxed but with that being said a few things I expect:

1) Shake hands with opponents after round

2) Make sure everyone is ready before we start

Afro pessimism = auto W and 30’s from me.

{Public Forum}

NPF-No new evidence in second speeches or no new after two on the flow. Just be nice to each other everyone is learning.

VPF- Rock roll, just send speech docs if spreading. Better safe than sorry. Not that I can’t flow just want to make sure you are actually reading cards in case and not just like 3 words of a card.

SPEECHES:I like nuanced arguments. Clash is must Summary can be line by line and FF should generally go over the same issues in the same order. But please for everyone’s sake no new in the 2 and make sure you are signposting.

CROSSFIRE:I don't flow crossfire, questions must require some nuance or explanation so don't force opponents to quickly answer yes or no to make them look bad. At the same time answer the questions and move on. If you opponent wants more of an explanation don't just try and push past it for your turn. Feel free to capitalize on concessions but everything that happens in CF must be used in the speeches for me to flow it.

Afro pessimism = auto W and 30’s from me.

{Lincoln Douglas}

NLD- No new evidence in second speeches or no new after two on the flow. Just be nice to each other everyone is learning. Unless you can clearly explain what you are arguing, keep it simple. Novice is to learn and should be treated as such.

VLD- Truth over tech. I'm pretty much a traditionalist in the sense of topical LD debates. Easiest route to my ballot is value, criterion, (definitions if needed) and contention level debate. However I do enjoy a well constructed CP or even good K if actually fighting against real issues and not using K as a chance to win ballots.

Speed: I'm okay with speed normally. Most people I have met cannot spread and they say a bunch of words but don't finish sentences Im not going to write down words you didn't say so don't try it. I like some kind of doc share just to be safe.

SPEECHES:1AR, and 1NR, should be line by line with lots of sign posting. 2NR, and 2 AR should generally go over the same issues in the same order with some form of crystallization. Give me voters and tell me why based on your last speech you should win.

CROSSFIRE:I don't flow crossfire, questions must require some nuance or explanation so don't force opponents to quickly answer yes or no to make them look bad. At the same time answer the questions and move on. If you opponent wants more of an explanation don't just try and push past it for your turn. Feel free to capitalize on concessions but everything that happens in CF must be used in the speeches for me to flow it. CX should be relevant and questions should actually further the debate or be used to clarify questions not as prep time. I will not hold it against you if the cross doesn't go full time if you deemed yourself done with questions.

{Speech events}

Interp- (DI- Whoever moves me the most or makes me the most sad along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Hi- Whoever makes me laugh the most along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Duo- Whoever makes me laugh the most or Whoever moves me the most or makes me the most sad along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Exempt: Usually I prefer 3 main points. Good intro and outro. Sources are dated and usually enjoy when you are able to create a story out of your answering of the question.

Spon: Same thing as above just no sources.

I am a very inexperienced lay judge who will be looking for argument strength, confidence, and clarity.

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 50 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I worked for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum for 15 years and judged numerous PF LD practice and tournament rounds. I have been the LD coach for Puyallup High School for the past six years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.

The past six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. The summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus. I expect the second speaking team to engage in the arguments presented in the rebuttal. I do not like disclosure theory, and it would be difficult for me to vote for it.

Please don't go for every argument. The final half of he round should focus on the important issues and expand the debate there.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past five years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run kritiks, DA's, or plans, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. CX is binding. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you. Deontology frameworks are fine, but they must be justified. Any tricks must be clear, and obtuseness in CX will not be allowed. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule. I have judged a couple of policy rounds this year, and they were not difficult to judge. Just expect me to like traditional positions.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

JANUARY, 2025 UPDATE:I prefer to judge lay rounds as indicated in my paradigm below. However, in the last few months, I have judged K rounds, theory rounds, and elim rounds where one or both teams have spread. Please note that I have so far never squirreled in an elim round where teams have run either Ks, theory or have spread (though I ask for the docs)...and often I am the lay/flay on a panel with 2 tech judges. Coincidence? Who knows? But I feel like I should provide this information so that teams can decide what arguments they want to read. Good luck, all! :)

MY PARADIGM, IT DOES RHYME

A reluctant judge who’s a parent,

Better make your speeches coherent!

Don’t run theory or a clever K,

Risky strategies because I’m lay.

Surely, you don’t dare to spread.

Rely on good warranting instead!

Fake a conflict, and I’ll hold a grudge--

Use a proper strike to remove me as your judge.

I’ll do my best to keep a good flow,

Of all the arguments apropos.

Don’t falsely say an argument was dropped,

Or your score will unceremoniously be chopped.

Near impossible to earn 30 speaks--

Lay appeal combined with incredible techniques.

My ballot is truth over tech,

Especially when probability is but a speck.

Terminal impact of nuclear war,

When farfetched, is a claim I abhor.

I end this with typical lay dross—

Have fun and be respectful in cross!

--Parent Paradigm Poet

PS. Add me to the email chain (smsung@post.harvard.edu). I do actually read the cards and cases, if needed for my RFDs

********************************************************************************************************************************

April 2024 update...I feel I must step it up for TOC, so I'm adding another version:

PARADIGM TO THE TUNE OF “ANTI-HERO” BY TAYLOR SWIFT

PERFORMED BY THE TALENTED FIONA LI, THE OVERLAKE SCHOOL '24

I try to flow where I get speeches but just never crossfire
Debates become my sacred job
When my confusion shows with nonsense claims
All of the students I've downed will stand there and just sob

I should not be left to my own devices
They come with prices and vices
I end up in crisis (tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

Sometimes I feel like disclo-theory is a sexy case read
And I'm a substance judge for real
Too lay to judge tech, always leaning toward the actual factoids
Truth through and through, to me appeals

Did you read my covert activism--I drop speaks for chauvinism
And same goes for racism? (Tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

I have this dream the teams that I judge signpost and speak clearly
Collapsed and covered, showing skill
The impacts weighed well with data and then someone screams out
"She's writing up her RFD!"

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, everybody will see, everybody will see

It's me, hi (hi), I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis (dis) close (close), everybody will see (everybody will see)
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

**PLEASE ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN: SMSUNG@POST.HARVARD.EDU

Hi, I am a parent judge.

Here are a few things I consider:

• clarity > speed
• logical arguments with backed up rationale
• speak confidently
• Have fun debating!

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

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

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

I am okay with spreading.

I have been the advisor for our high school debate team for the past 4 years. Prior to that, I had no experience with debate.

I am 60 years old, so references to currently popular movies and culture may go over my head.

I would rather hear a few solid points than garbled speed talking, and please save the far fetched "the world will end" argument for another judge.

Speak at a moderate conversational pace, be clear, so it will be easy for me to follow along with you.

I prefer logical and persuasive arguments. Ensure that your arguments are well-structured and supported with enough evidence. Please use quantitative data to support your arguments where possible. You can keep a track of time for each round, a little overtime is ok.

Please share your cases/evidence to vadlamani.sirisha@gmail.com and emeralddebatedox@gmail.com if you create a email chain.

Be Respectful, have fun!

I love debating and hearing debates :-)

The primary aspect I judge on is the persuasive capability of the debater/s. So, present your positions in a clear & cogent narrative, speak confidently and showcase your mastery of the topic, especially in Rebuttal and CF rounds.

At the same time, I also pay attention to the flow. It will be difficult to make a comeback from multiple dropped or insufficiently addressed flows.

Keep your focus till... well the Final Focus. I wont decide on the winner till the last word is spoken.

If you are speaking too fast for me, I will call CLEAR. In general, clarity and efficiency trumps over speed & quantity.

email to be used for sending debate links: Sreevals@yahoo.com

I am a Quarry Lane parent and please add my email sridharreddyv@gmail.com to the email chain. This is my second year at judging. I prefer debaters:

• show respect to their opponents,
• speak at a reasonable pace,
• make a strong impact starting in the summary,
• If possible, collapse in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary to one contention each ("collapse")
• only make arguments in the summary/final focus that exist in the prior speech ("no new args"),
• use cross-fire for clarification and resolution (and not brand-new arguments),
• Read direct quotes when first introducing evidence in a debate (i.e., do not paraphrase).

I'm a lay judge. Keeping your delivery slow and clear is very important for me to understand you better.

I'm looking for logical reasoning and evidence-backed arguments in my decision-making I encourage debaters to present their points with precision and coherence, supported by relevant data and analysis. Convincing me requires not only persuasive rhetoric but also a solid foundation of logical reasoning and quantifiable evidence.

Rapid speaking and excessive technical language may hinder your performance. It's acceptable to speak quickly as long as you remain clear. But if speed affects your clarity, it's better to slow down.

I won't share my decision post-round to ensure the tournament progresses smoothly and to uphold fairness in all debates. The decision will solely be reflected in the ballot.