hi!

I am a parent judge so please do not do anything that you wouldn’t do for a parent judge, and I have a few rules of thumb.

1. Please do not speak too fast and make sure you are clear while you speak.
2. I listen to everything during the round, and I will judge based off whose argument is more convincing.
3. Please be respectful and kind to both me and your opponent's.
4. Please have fun and try your best and good luck to both of you guys!

I am a parent judge. This is my third year judging debate. I normally do policy. Please do not spread or use K's. Make this a fair round. Remember to speak clearly and most importantly have fun.

My email is urthirumal@gmail.com

Policy -

I am an inexperienced lay parent judge. Please don’t assume I know what every debate term means. I value clear communication, respectful and thoughtful engagement with the views of others, and apparent lines of reasoning.

Speech -

I am an inexperienced lay parent judge, but bring a lot of personal experience with public speaking. I'm looking forward to hearing you and will value seeing an even mix of ethos, pathos, and logos.

I have judged all events, but when it comes to debate most of my experience stems from LD and Congress. I value clash and enjoy watching strategies unfold. Framework is important and so is strong evidence. If you ask me in person what do I like in a debate, I say show me the best you can do and impress me. I don’t mind spreading (especially in CX where it is expected) or traditional and/or progressive debate as long your arguments are sound and adapt to your opponents’ points. Be respectful, professional, and have fun.

I have been involved with Policy Debate since 1981, when I debated in High School in Arizona. I debated NDT for Arizona State in the late 80s, and have been coaching High School debate teams in Arizona, Wisconsin & California for a total of 23 years (off & on) starting in 1986. I coached Policy Debate most recently at Lowell High School in San Francisco from 2012-2016. I worked the 2001-2003 Stanford & Berkeley debate camps. I am Tabula Rasa, but default to Policy Making-I enjoy all aspects of the game, The K, The Counterplan-Disad debate, Case Turns, T whatever, it's all fair game. I do have a higher than average likelihood to pull the trigger on theory arguments if you develop them and win them (conditionality, pics, international actors etc.). Ultimately I think that virtually everything is debateable including the nature and function of the activity itself-that being said you will have an uphill battle the more aggressively anti-norm you get with me. I.E. I think that the affirmative should defend the Resolution, not attack it. Affirmatives without plans are fine, but not my preference. If you read an Aff without a plan I think you should read some Solvency cards for whatever performative experiment you are conducting. Speed is fine, be as loud & clear as possible. I prefer longer, more highly explanatory cards than a slew of 1 line cards, but also understand the tactical utility of the short card in high school debate-just be aware that I do tend to read a few cards after the round, so if you have a crucial argument that you need to win, read the long card. I love to see integrated strategies that are coherent and well-evidenced-love aggressive (but not obnoxious) smart, fast debaters. If you have any specific or more nuanced questions please let me know pre-round and I will answer them. Email chain to gerardgrigsby@hotmail.com

Hi! My name is Christian Lopez and I used to compete for Arizona College Prep for a couple of years in high school. I did LD, Congress, and dabbled in Duet Acting for fun. What I look for when I'm judging is a clear argument that I can understand (so no spreading). I would appreciate it if you could summarize things for me in your final speeches so that I can be reminded of what each side has to offer. Think of me as somewhere between a parent judge and a tech judge. Make things easy for me so that when I go to make my decision I have all the information I need to make it a good one!

Please send the files that you have to this email address: alinikahd32@gmail.com. I competed in Policy Debate for four years and in Congress for two years, so I'm very familiar with debate.

Congress: I'll try to evaluate 60% of your performance on the basis of argumentation skills (refutation) and 40% based on presentation skills (eye contact, hand gestures, etc.). Engage with other arguments in the round and avoid rehash of arguments. Try to weigh your arguments as we move forward into the debate. You should aim to speak at different points of the debate in a session. In order to stand out in the round, you should aim to convey a sense of authenticity in this type of debate. The "teacher voice" in Congress has become timeworn, and I really prefer a new type of expression that can actually connect with people in the real world.

Policy: You can run whatever you'd like: DAs, CPs, Ks, etc. I'm fine with spreading in policy, but please be coherent and slow down as you approach taglines. Make sure you signpost as you're going between on-case and off-case (notify me when you switch to DAs, CPs, etc.). You should also have brief overviews that properly represent what the authors of your cards try to articulate. I've seen students often times struggle understanding or explaining Ks in the debate, if that's the case, then just stick with traditional policy debate. Use your last rebuttal speeches to flesh out your arguments and weigh your impacts.

PF/BQ: I haven't competed in these two events, so I'm not too familiar with the specific structures of these debates. I'll be evaluating your arguments primarily based on refutation and the weighing of impacts. I really don't care about your presentation as much as the substance of your arguments. It's also essential there be a clash in the debate.

Email Chain

Add me: dgpaul8@gmail.com

Please include tournament and round number in the subject line of the email.

T/L

Tech > Truth always - There is a lower threshold for refuting an "argument" that is clearly untrue, but it is your burden to clearly explain why it should be evaluated as false

I will make the least interventional decision, meaning:

1. T is the highest layer - the rest is up for debate, but you better deliver a very solid T
2. What's conceded is true, but will only have the implications as argued by you
3. More judge instruction - Communicate the locus of your offense and defense clearly. If the final rebuttal is thoughtlessly extending and answering arguments without a unified argument, your likelihood of winning is low. Have intent - I will not grant any logic or rational to you if not explicitly said.
4. My vote is always influenced based on how the round goes down - I have no preconceptions

DAs

U/Q is up for debate - my vote is influenced based on how you debate

No preference over specific links vs. generic ones - just tell me why your link is relevant

Don't drop straight turns, and don't double turn yourself - that being said, you have to tell me they did it for me to evaluate

As the affirmative, if you drop a disadvantage, I'm still willing to hear weighing arguments from the rebuttals as to why you outweigh, but I will assume 100% risk of it happening

CPs

I think sufficiency framing is a valid argument - that being said, you must explicitly make it, and if you can't defend it, I won't buy it

'Judge kicking' the counterplan is merely to evaluate the disadvantage against the plan, in order to test whether the plan is in fact better than not only the counterplan but also the status quo. The ONLY burden of the negative is to disprove the desirability of the plan. The desirability of the counterplan should be irrelevant if the status quo is better.

• I will assume judge kick, but if presented with reasons not to, it's up for debate

T

The threshold for winning against frivolous T-interpretations is lower, but you better be sure that it really is frivolous

Won't vote on RVIs

I'll view your standards however you debate them - ie. show me why fairness o/w education

T v. K-Affs

The negative needs to have good reasons, argued effectively, why being topical is a good thing. Consequently, the affirmative needs to have good reasons, argued effectively, why it's not - I'm not preconditioned to vote either way.

Ks On the Neg

I'm fine with all kritiks - whatever you want to argue, argue it - my only brightline is that you argue it better than the other side

Argue whatever framework you want to - the team that wins framework decides how I view the kritik debate - doesn't equate to an automatic win or loss - just depends on the framework interpretation

Extinction o/w is a good debate - show me why it does, and show me it why it does not - I'm open to swinging either way

What matters most is that you make your point - these debates boil down to a battle between positions

Theory

No preconceptions on whether conditionality is a good or bad thing - A good affirmative can explain why it's bad, and a good negative can explain why it's not - if it is completely 50/50, which I personally do not believe it, that means the negative won on conditionality - the affirmative is burdened with proving it is bad (51/49).

Most condo 2ARs are new - if you really want to go for it, make sure your 1AR sufficiently covered it - blowing up a a little blip in the 1AR is a hard sell

Debate the standards - don't just read down blocks

All other theory arguments are fine - exception to incredibly frivolous theory arguments - even if dropped, if they hold no arguable, serious, realistic weight, I'm not going to vote on it

Cross-Examination

I do not flow cross-x

It can be fun to watch

Bring up anything you would like me to evaluate from cross-x in your later speeches - I won't automatically assume anything

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being engaging to watch, being smart, being clear = higher speaks

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making bad arguments, not being clear = lower speaks

30 = best debater I've seen

29.6 - 29.9 = top debater at the tournament

29.1 - 29.5 - break deep into outrounds

28.6 - 29.0 - capability to break

28.0 - 28.5 - solid team, some learning to do

< 28.0 - some work to do

Ethics

Being racist, sexist, or violent in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate is bad.

Role as an educator outweighs role as a disciplinarian - I err on the side of letting things play out and correcting ignorance after the fact - This ends when it threatens the safety of round participants

You should give this line a wide berth

Hiiiiiii I’m Brandon Pham and I competed on the circuit for 3 years (if you count online as competing XD). Tbh I’ve done it all, as in I preferred to just try out different events rather than focusing in on being good at one event (weird ikr but I’m here to have fun). I typically know what to look for in each event and what the standards of each event are like. I consider myself a fairly technical and flow-based judge. Most of my success was in my senior year of s&d consistently placing in my events, and I qualified for nationals reaching triple octas representing Arizona on the World Schools Debate team: Team AZ Citrus or Team AZ Yellow idk they kept changing the name (at one point it was one of our teammates’ names). not only that but i’m also part of the ASU forensics team traveling across the country for our own tournaments so if im not on the judging pool its probably because im competing at my own tournaments. i *kinda* know what im doing. im practically yalls age so i dont mind if you treat/see me as such. im chill like that.

email: phambrandon668@gmail.com

DEBATE

I’ve done every debate event (PF, LD, CX, BQ, WSD) except congress, so if I ever judge congress bc of judge desperation, go easy on me o.o. (I have judged congress a few times including the harvard semis round so I still know what I'm doing ish) Regardless, I know how each debate event is run with their nuances and how to judge.

1. SPREADING: idc about spreading and can keep up with it bc i used to spread *occasionally* but if you’re gonna do the “speak in a super loud monotone voice with no inflections thing” you better start an email chain or at least preface that you’ll spread. If I say “clear”, chill out brev, and that means you have either a) not started a sufficient email chain and b) are just speaking way too fast to the point I can’t even flow.

2. SIGNPOSTING: istg if you don’t signpost i’m docking speaks and am less likely to give you the dub. it helps with flow reference, make you appear organized and not fumbling mid-speech, and it even helps your opponent know where you are to sufficiently rebut!

3. CARDS: tag cards appropriately during speeches and reference them as such + key info during later speeches. saves time, helps flow, and is just a more organized form of debating. novices, i get it i was there too, but if you have questions on this or other things ASK. for checking cards, i won’t take prep unless its just a seriously long time. ill start prep the moment you show your opponents the card bc ngl the longer you take to find a card, the more time your opponent will have to prep and that’s your own downfall for poor organization. if you as the opponent need me to check a card bc of a mutual misunderstanding of it, lemme know. also, i *might* ask for cards post round - shouldn’t affect decision too much but it better be cut appropriately!! misconstrued cards reflect HORRIBLY on you so be careful!!

4. CROSS FIRE: lmao i don’t pay attention here. if im on my phone, its bc i couldnt care less what happens here. this is your time to clarify or find weak points. anything brought up in cross ex MUST be brought up in a later speech if you want me to consider it. also for policy i am cool with tag-teaming.

5. EXTENSIONS + WEIGHING: this is the most critical point in the round. i go by the flow, so if you do not flow it through in summary, its lost in the abyss forever. obv u dont need to flow everything, just collapse on the key voters. again, flow cards with tag + info/stats and explain why this is important. i also like seeing great clash and further elaboration on your arguments/rebuttals, not just a repeat of your constructive/rebuttal. also, pls try and properly weigh. ive seen too many debaters weigh the wrong way. use weighing mechanisms and why you win on a certain arg. also, don’t forget to frontline! and be very organized with these speeches/say which side/arguments you are addressing. if you want you can offer an off-time road map, up to you.

6. TIMING: time yourselves bro. i’ll be timing too, but take responsibility. if you’re over by five seconds, ya done. anything you say after i won’t even listen/flow. if your opponent is over and you want them to stop, raise a closed fist in the air and i’ll cut them off. also, yall shouldve practiced speeches beforehand so you should know what your time is like. if you’re under time, i couldn’t care less and won’t dock you as long as your arguments are great and well developed. i will have a bit of judgement in the back of my mind if you give like a 2 minute constructive tho, i just wont consider how short your speech is in the round.

7. DEBATER MATH: no.

8. THEORY: i was never too much of a theory debater, but if you are, you do you boo. i do understand theory and will know what you’re talking about, but just thoroughly explain what your argument is and also why your form of theory is necessary here. poorly run theory will get docked!! pf i don’t really see theory and don’t see much of a purpose, but for other debates feel free. policy, make sure you have your stock issues, or else… youre dead. and for policy make sure you guys have a solid solvency card(s) bc this is one of the most important parts of the debate for me.

9. SPEAKS: lmao speaks will NEVER determine who wins an argument for me. you couldve given the worst speech ever but if your organization and arguments were there and you were doing your job to win the debate, you can def still win. i do appreciate some passion and style tho bc lets face it, debate in the real world relies on this type of stuff and for those of you looking into any kinda public speaking career, nows the time to start practicing! i will, however, give extra speaks for people who gimme a snack or some kinda energy drink or coffee/tea. i love love love boba o.o. but don’t try to suck up to me. i will give you LOWER speaks if you do this.

10. tech>truth

11. Congress specific: I have two primary criteria for judging your speeches; Content and Delivery. I might abbreviate them as "C" and "D" on the ballot but that's just for efficiency for me. I like to see a lot of critical analysis on topics and providing originality on your speeches rather than just regurgitating info you found from a card online. Having a unique and attention-grabbing hook helps with receiving delivery points from me. Also, make sure you are asking questions that help to develop the bill and opens room for debate, if that makes sense. As for my POs, I rank you guys very well and POs almost always make it onto my ranking list. As for whether or not you rank highly depends on how efficiently you run the chamber and ensuring that you are allowing each representative a fair chance at giving a speech and ensuring that everyone tries to speak once per bill for around a total of two speeches throughout the session. I personally don't know much about the certain nuances or the amendments to bills and whatnot, so just make sure that in the event that this does happen, POs, that you handle this situation properly and whatnot.

12. World Schools Debate specific: I go based on exactly the ballot, so I judge based on content, style, and strategy. I need content that develops why we should or shouldn't pass this motion and has a highly analytical basis. Make sure you have evidence that really drives your points and helps with developing your arguments. Make sure to hit the golden number two P.O.I.s and make sure they develop the argument. also be INCREDIBLE speakers pls to me this event gives debaters the chance to simulate actual policymaking when being voiced in a public session. gimme some passion + good arguments. obv have your own style of speaking, but motivate me! for strategy, I also love some good bench comm bc it shows you guys are a team! try to be a lil more ad lib and dont read off your notes. be sure to incorporate things your opponents have said and what your teammates put forth in the round to really bring it all together. like everything else have good organization, speak clearly, and be confident. ive never judged world schools before but ive done it.

If there is ANY instance of discrimination, homophobia, racism, sexism, or ANYTHING that needs to be brought to my attention PLEASEEE do. I take these things seriously and will make sure that your opponent is NEVER seen on this circuit again and receives sufficient punishment. pls do this asap before/after round or whenever is most convenient so that we can get appropriate action to prevent further tournament complication. and if for whatever reason your opponent isn’t punished, i’ll sick my poodle on em.

email: phambrandon668@gmail.com

-for email chains or if you have any questions about rfd or just want advice or even need a friend to talk! i swear im not that scary uwu fish are food not friends i mean huh wo- i think imfunny huh..

that was a lot im sry even i got tired of typing all this but i got a lotta things to say. im pretty flexible tho so lets go wild. if you have any questions ask away ehe. again if you have any questions about rfds or my ballot, need advice, whatever, my email is phambrandon668@gmail.com.

glhf girls bros and nonbinary ho- *ahem* :D

I debated for a year but it’s been a while, so I would prefer no spreading.

Don’t waste time talking about things that don’t correlate to your main contention, try to stay on topic please!

I vote for people who consistently flow arguments throughout the debate, as much as I value evidence, it’s important to emphasize the importance of certain cards.

Absolutely do not be rude during any point in the round.

Cross isn’t too important to me in terms of proving the opposing side wrong, just keep your cool and act like you know what you’re talking about.

Be nice and confident :)

Hello! My name is Muthu Seenivasagam. I am a lay parent judge and I am new to judging policy debate. Please do not spread and remember to speak clearly. I am not that familiar with debate terminology, so please make sure to explain any terms you use. Please do not run K's. Topicality is okay, but it can't be too far-fetched. I have no biases against any argument, but any discriminatory language will get you reported. Most importantly, remember to have fun.

My email for the email chain is: Muthukumar74@gmail.com

Hello, I am Rayna Shaik, a current freshman at ASU. I did LD, BQ, CX, and PF in high school, so I understand pretty much all the nuances of debate, and I am a pretty technical judge. I can follow any type of argumentation. I value evidence, but I also very much value the logical side of debate. I think if you can show me that you are able to argue with logical reasoning, that has the same weight as cards in my book.

I am a flow judge, and I WILL NOT weigh new argumentation in final speeches (I see it done a lot), and I expect you guys to signpost. If I cannot follow or understand an argument, I will probably ask you about it or drop it, depending on my mood. I flow rounds, and even though they are messy, I would like weighing done for me; just pretend I am a dumb 5th grader when it comes to the topic. I will give feedback, but I generally don't like disclosing.

Debaters who portray a persona of racial or gender bias and discrimination in any form and use it as a tool to bully or demean other debaters will be marked down. We want to make sure that debate is a safe place for us all. So please be kind.

Email: zoe.c.soderquist@gmail.com

Yes I want to be on the email chain. I will -2 speaks if you ask for my email, it's at the top of my paradigm. If you're unintelligible and don't os it's not going on my flow. I appreciate when the doc also includes analytics.

Please don't shake my hand.

Background: Coach for 3 years, debated LD for four years and one year of college policy.

In short, you can probably read any argument at any speed and I can evaluate it. Ask if you have a weird argument that you want to be sure I'd be ok with.

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

Defaults (I can change if you explain why):

Tech > truth

Comp worlds > truth testing

RVIs good

Competing interps > reasonability

DTD > DTA

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

LD/Policy

If you're reading obscure literature, I would appreciate a brief explanation.

I don't mind if you read 1-3 theory shells when there is legitimate abuse or an argument that makes sense, but I don't like when debaters read shells just purely out of strategy when there was no abuse or to throw off a novice.

Don't be rude, I will dock speaks and it will affect my decision.

I love signposting, weighing, and proper extensions.

Please properly label each section of your case.

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

Policy specific things

Tag team is fine

You can split up speeches any way you want, just say at the start who's doing what

I have had consistent problems with rounds running super late because sending takes forever. You get 5 min TOTAL for the round for sending. People constantly pretend that they're having tech issues just to prep more and it's quite obvious. I'm sympathetic to true issues but if there is not a good reason to go over 5 min it gets taken out of prep. This includes time spent making marked docs.

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

Random:

Flex prep is fine

I will not be timing unless you ask.

Don't care if you sit or stand.

No using rest of cross for prep.

Asking for cards after speeches is fine, but actually reading cards is on prep. If you ask for the card during cross, you can use cross time to read it.

If your opponent asks for a piece of evidence during their prep, they can keep prepping the whole time it takes you to find the card. You get two minutes max and then I'm deleting it from my flow.

No need to shake my hand.

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

PF paradigm-

If I am the only judge or on a tech panel, do what you want. If I'm on a lay panel, please treat me like a lay judge and do a lay round. I feel that PF should be a debate that any judge can walk into and understand. So just evaluate the situation and see if it's a good idea to read progressive. Also, knowing that I am comfortable with progressive arguments, ensure your argument is structured properly, you know what you're doing, and that you will encourage education and an interesting debate by reading it. If not, don't.

Some notes:

- Asking for cards and reading isn't on prep unless the panel disagrees.

- I watch cross it shouldn't be used as a rebuttal it should be a time to actually ask questions. Please don't excessively talk over each other, keep it civil.

- Defense and offense aren't sticky I need extensions in summary or I don't bring it into final focus.

- No new arguments in final focus.

- Ask me any other questions, or refer to my LD/policy paradigms.

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

Congress-

- Do not use debate terminology like "extend," "outweigh," or "vote aff."

- I care more about rhetoric than argument in a congress speech. Construction > content.

- Giving a good speech is not a guaranteed first place. You have to be active within the round (asking questions + motions) to do well. I keep track of people who raise motions and ask questions.

- Please avoid using a computer and/or fully prewritten speeches. At least print out the speech and paste it on a legal pad (c'mon, it's very easy to fake a speech).