• I am a lay judge. This is my first time judging.

• Please be respectful to your opponents

• No spreading. Talk at a pace at which I can hear you clearly and understand you.

• Weigh

Vann Berryman

vberryman@auburn.wednet.edu

Assistant Coach, Auburn High School, Auburn, WA

Coached: 6 years

Competed: 1 year in policy

Hello,

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you. I'm cool with speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow it.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important. It's the main thing I'm going to vote on as well as the actual topics being clashed.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus, give me voters in the 2AR and 2NR for policy.

4. I find myself voting a lot on de-linked arguments. You could make a sick case for your argument, but if your opponent de-links it then it's gone.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence, no matter what we may think.

in policy, please don't run garbage filler off-case. If you want to run a T or two or a decent K that's fine. If you run more than four off I'm not listening. Argue the case and cut out that wack garbage version of policy.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. Be direct, be confident. If I have to keep yelling "Clear" you won't get a 30. This is rarely an issue but be attired properly. I understand that debate attire isn't accessible to everyone, but if you come across like you don't care about the round, it'll be hard for me to give high speaks.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (that actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be civil.

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive-either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding any or all of the above points.

Insulting an opponent personally.

Remember we're here to have fun, as am I. If your judge is telling you how many times they went to state, they're doing it wrong. If I tell you how many times I went to state (spoiler: it's 0), make fun of me.

If you want it, I’m happy to send you my flow. Just let me know.

Andrew Chadwell,

Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA

Coached PF: 10+ years

Competed in PF: 1 year

Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years

Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.

Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.

Hello all,

Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be Civil

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive- either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding All of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent personally.

TOC Specific Items

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

The speed of Delivery: Medium speed and clarity tend to win out more than the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

I generally would go for either Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.

Role of the Final Focus

Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.

Topicality

Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.

Plans

Not for PF.

Kritiks

With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.

Flowing/note-taking

You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.

What I look for:

1. Enunciation - one pitfall I notice is that debaters trail off near the end of their sentences, and the end of their opening statement. Please speak clearly the entire time, dont' trail off.
2. Speed - I want to understand your argument, your sources and your numbers if you choose to cite them. I think you should error on the side of caution, that you clearly lay out your argument by speaking at a speed I can track, instead of rushing through. You do not need to speak slowly, just not at a speed where you are rushing through your words...
3. Argument - Lay out your argument, explain, why your position leads to good results, and why your opponent's position will lead to poor results. I find a lot of debaters will tell me the good/bad result of both sides' positions, but fail to explain the how or why those positions lead to those particular results. A sentence or two should suffice, this does not need to exhaustive.
4. Cross - Finishing making your point. I find most debaters are abel to ask the questions that point to the weakness of their opponent's argument. Few take the next step of getting your opponent to concede that their argument is weak or has a fallacy. In close debates, winning/losing often comes down to this skill....

Feel free to discuss after the round if time permits and if you'd like more input - have fun!

Don’t speak so fast that I don’t follow your argument along.
It’s more important to have a quality speech and crisp and clear analysis.
Be respectful of your opponent team.
Don’t use acronyms that may not be common unless you have prequalified them.

Crossfires are when I get a good gauge of your depth of knowledge on the topic.

old paradigm (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O3z2ygZtT-wZE0sF7m2BY9C8AlU9_ub-3IQDhAbgw6I/edit?usp=sharing) was too unserious :(((

Chris Coovert,
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 26 years
Coached CX: 17: years

Coached PF: 20 years

Competed in LD: 4 years

Competed in NPDA: 2 years


LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know.

I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why, based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another paradigm being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.

As far as specific arguments go.

1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments if the aff is affirming the entire resolution. In a round where the affirmative runs a plan, T becomes more relevant.
2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. I especially hate AFC, and must/must not run plans, or arguments of this nature.
3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.
4. You need to keep sight of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.

Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. Please adjust your speed accordingly. I will not keep repeating myself and will eventually just stop flowing.

Public Forum Paradigm

I want to see clear arguments with warrants to back them up. I am ultimately going to vote on the arguments in the round not speaking ability. That said, speaking persuasively will never hurt you and might make your arguments seems stronger. Please do not lie about evidence or take it out of context.

CX Paradigm
I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic.

In general:
1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise.
2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt.
3. If you make post-modern K arguments at warp speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you.
4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations.
5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice.
6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents.

I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.

I am a parent judge and I do not have much experience in judging debates.

I look for effective reasoning (explain why your points matter more than the other side's!)

I reward effective communication, confidence, and organization

Speak at a medium pace so I can understand your arguments and avoid jargon.

Be respectful and Good luck

Hello, I am a lay parent judge with one year of judging experience in Public Forum. I am new in judging congressional debate. English is not my first language.

Truth > Tech. Please speak at a reasonable pace. I will be taking notes but not flowing. Please do not be rude. No debate jargon. Please do not post round me.

Make your arguments make sense to me. If I still do not understand the logic of your argument at the end of the round, I will not vote for it (or I'll have a hard time voting for it).

Please do not just say "drop their Contention One because..." I will not drop it unless you tell me very clearly WHY I should drop it or why it's important.

Speaking matters. Be clear and confident. Realize that I won't understand your argument if I can't hear your argument.

Tell me very clearly why I should vote for you.

At the end of the day, this is a high school activity. Try to have fun and don't give me or your opponents a hard time :)

UPDATED January 2024:

I haven't been judging LD for a while; I've mostly been judging PF for the last 3 years. I've almost certainly left things out of this paradigm - if you have more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at serena.e.fitzgerald@gmail.com.

Generally:

I competed primarily in LD in high school (graduated 2015) and NPDA in college (graduated 2018). I've been a (mostly) full-time debate coach since.

I base win/loss only on the content of the arguments; speaker points are based on a combination of rhetorical performance, strategic vision, and technical skill.

Speed is fine, but I'm somewhat rusty, so I might "slow" or "clear" you. I'll call for cards if there is a dispute over their content, but I won't rely on a speech doc to cover for mudmouth or sloppy spreading.

I don't vote off of "arguments" made in cross, only in timed speeches.

Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first. Absent debaters' arguments, I generally default to evaluating procedurals first, kritiks second, and policy arguments last.

I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless extended in the last speech; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.

Specific arguments

LARP/policy/util debate - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.

I am willing to engage in a lot of warrant comparison if the debaters don't do it for me in order to weigh whether a DA/ADV is more probable, so having specific, solid warrants in your evidence (rather than broad claims) will likely help you.

Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks.

I have a relatively high threshold for frame-outs. I find myself more comfortable either voting on substantive solvency arguments based in the critical literature, or granting a weighing mechanism that substantively benefits your critique, than an outright "don't evaluate their case at all" framework. The other two options might be more strategic ways to cross-apply your framework cards in front of me.

In college and high school, I mostly read Ks focusing on Marxism, anti-colonial writers like Fanon and Friere, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari. Puar, Mbembe, and Butler are some of the contemporary philosophers most influential over me. For other theories, you may want to read an overview if you are collapsing to it, to make sure I understand your thesis accurately. (It's probably helpful even if I have read that author before, since you might be emphasizing a different part of their work.)

Theory/ Procedurals - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow.

I find that compared to other judges, I'm not as rigid about the phrasing of theory arguments. If someone substantively makes a "we meet" argument but doesn't formally flag it as such, I will still evaluate the content of the argument and apply it to the theory. However - this is imperfect, and I may not always know what you meant a particular argument to refer to, so it is still always best to flag your arguments and signpost clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of IVI's as they are usually read; the existence of theory in debate does generally seem like the best way of deciding and enforcing the "rules" of debate. However, I find they're usually more persuasive when they incorporate more substantive arguments (especially if it dovetails with the thesis of the case or other arguments presented) - for example, many of the responses that critical affs develop to topicality are very interesting.

Hello, I am an English Second Language parent judge with science background. Please speak slowly and clearly, without debate jargon. Be nice and have fun!

BIGGEST LAY JUDGE THERE IS

be good debaters

champed BSD invitational (so i'm decently fine)

i'm an old senior age pf debater who's been circulating around the circuit for a few years now. i am strictly pf. if i am judging another event please tell me what certain terms mean. if i don't know something and it is never explained i will cry

please come to round with cut cards for ur case and anything else u read, if ur opponents call for a card and we hv to wait more than 2 min for a card i'll get angry n maybe dock speaks or smth idk yet

clarenceguo2005@gmail.com <- email chain or google dox (i prefer docs)

don't be any of the -isms and we'll be fine

Former high school policy debater.

First time judging in over a decade.

Flow judge, I like clash.

Please do not run arguments you do not understand.

I’ll vote on what you tell me to vote on, weigh the impacts.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM (Policy Paradigm Below)

I AM A FLOW JUDGE. The Flow will Decide all things.

I was a policy debater in high school.
I have judged both policy debate and public forum debate at multiple tournaments.

Feel free to ask me anything before the round. I am open to all speaking styles and open minded about arguments. I try to keep my own bias out as much as possible.

Cross-X
I do not have strong opinions about cross.
This is a chance to clarify, question, and have direct interaction with your opponents.
I do not flow cross-X, but I do listen. Anything stated in cross-x only becomes binding if it's brought into the round via a speech.

If you are going to be jumping around it helps to tell me where to flow your arguments. Example "now go to their card/argument about x and my responses are as follows" I am also fine with off time road maps and sign posting as you go.

Make as many arguments as you like. I am not afraid of a bit of speed/spreading. However, keep it within reason. I feel most PF debate rounds would benefit from fewer arguments, replaced with better analysis and more clash. The more depth, the better.

Timeframe arguments and frameworks.

This keeps coming up. Please do not tell me to vote on timeframe unless your impacts come first and are more likely. If your impact is extinction, that is fine, but if it is an uncertain future impact, you really want me to weigh on something else, probably Magnitude.

Unless you tell me how to weigh arguments, I default to weighing Impacts on magnitude and scope above other considerations.

I take source and date into consideration when choosing between cards. Good analysis helps.

I won't call for cards unless there is significant disagreement on what the card says, and it factors into voting. NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and the date (minimum) so you should do that if you want me to accept evidence as "legally presented"

Your evidence should agree with your tags. Mis-tagging, or power tagging makes me grumpy as a flow judge. I have seen a fair amount of this lately, though often it is unintentional.
Just remember, A good tag is taken from what the card actually says.

I prefer clash, but if your opponent refuses to address your arguments, please extend them. Tell me to pull arguments across. note why they matter and point out when they are dropped. If both teams completely drop arguments in rebuttal, I am less likely to resurrect them onto the flow in final focus.

Important for Public Forum, I am not keen on running Kritik's or other theory arguments. Those do not fit well in PF. Please save those for other formats like Policy, or L.D.






POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

General Note.
If you run your arguments in order down the flow top to bottom in the same order as they were originally presented, you do not need to sign post. Please Warn me with a road map if you are going to jump all over.

When you are refuting a specific argument or card from your opponent, I prefer you call it out as you go.
I don't want to make the mistake of flowing arguments unlinked or in the wrong place.

Prima Facie Stock Issues. If Aff meets their prima facie burden and avoids or defeats outweighing Dis-Ads, Counterplans, etc. Then Aff wins the ballot.

Neg needs to attack the Aff position with some real menace. I like on-case arguments from the Neg, but it is not mandatory to win. A single off case argument that links well to the Aff case and has heavy impacts can be enough to outweigh and win.

I will pull off case Neg arguments that are dropped by Aff and weigh them as voting issues if prompted. Aff - I need at least a blurb in defense for each off-case position, even if it is only summary. If neg claims your plan causes teddy bears to explode, thus impairing children while yelling "wont someone please think of the children!", spend the 10 seconds it takes to tell me there is no demonstrable link, or evidence for this. If you do not, I am automatically weighing explosive bears as an impact for the Neg.

Aff - Pull your Solvency and Impacts through to rebuttals. If something is clean dropped by Neg, I am happy to weigh it for you in voting so long as you tell me to. Please do not assume that I am going to weigh every piece of evidence presented in the 1AC if I never hear about it after that.

NEG - Beware of overly abusing the Neg block. I allow new argument and evidence in the 2NC. However, I prefer not to see 8 minutes of completely new evidence in the 2NC followed by 5-minutes of extensions in the 1NR.
If there is no way the 1AR can address the amount of bomb you drop on them in the Neg block, then there is no way I am going to punish them for it and will take it into account when voting.
AFF - if this happens, just cry abuse, point out the new stuff and then address what you have time for the best you can.

TOPICALITY Warning, I have big feels about T.

Neg - Do not run topicality arguments on clearly topical cases. I allow some flexibility for Aff in meeting the resolution.
If you run T for 30 seconds and then spend 7.5 minutes running through dozens of case-specific and off-case cards, you clearly have sufficient ground.
If I suspect this is simply a time suck mechanism that you just kick out of after being refuted, I'll be grumpy about it and will consider a Reverse Voting Issue argument from Aff.

Always run T on non-topical cases.
If a case is non-topical, commit to your topicality argument and give it some real care. I want to hear the contempt you hold for an Aff refusal to debate the resolution properly. You showed up ready to debate against the resolution and the Aff wants to talk about clowns on unicycles instead. Blast-em.
I like when you provide definitions for and underline words in the resolution you feel the Aff has neglected specifically.

K & THOERY

Everything is on the table. If you run an argument about how sock puppets help improve the educational side of debate and provide sock puppets for everyone to use while speaking, I am fine with it.

Two words of warning on K & Theory.

1. Please do not turn the entire debate into theory only. Let's at least have an attempt by both sides to debate the resolution.

2. Please do not run arguments about how debate is bad. We all showed up for just that purpose. It is tiresome to argue that the activity we are all engaged in voluntarily is somehow inappropriate. I do not like it, will not flow it, and will not vote on it.

I am a lay judge, and while I debated at high school and university myself many years ago, I am far from proficient at judging debate. I have judged both LD and PF formats, and get more experienced at every tournament. The main request from me is that you don't "spread." What I am most interested in hearing are focused, original arguments that tie together well. I want to see people responding directly to their opponent's arguments, good clash, asking clear questions in the cross, and summarizing well in the final speeches. Finally, I don't disclose at the end as I like to spend time fully weighing before submitting my ballot. Thank you.

As a former competitor (from middle school to college), I am a flow judge and will decide winners based on evidence/arguments on the flow and how a debater wraps it all up in the last speech (e.g. voting issues). For LD, tying in the value and value criterion are essential parts of this.

For all debates:

I weigh dropped arguments pretty heavily on the flow (less for beginning competitors in middle school, novice, etc.).

I'm fine with creative stances on Con/Neg in PF & LD, but make sure they fall within the status quo. No brand new alternative solutions.

No new arguments or evidence in the final speeches (LD 2AR, PF final focuses). Wrap up the debate with voters and strongest arguments. It's unfair to bring up an entirely new point that your opponents cannot rebut.

Otherwise, let's all just be respectful of each other! And expect a full ballot of feedback from me, because I know we each get better with every round :).

Parent judge, English is my second language so please speak slow.

PF paradigm:
- No spreading or jargon. If it is too fast for me to understand, I will deduct speaker points.
- Please outline your speeches.
- Be respectful towards everyone in the round.

Speech paradigm:
- Same rules apply.

- Very good storytelling, well organized, and persuasive speeches will get a high ranking/speaker points.

There will be simple feedback on the ballot.

Good luck!

Hello,

Thank you for participating in today's debates. I look for well-crafted arguments delivered at a reasonable speed.

Please limit spreading. Fully explain your thinking and reasoning. Slow down when making main points (contentions) or when making pointed critiques of your opponent’s argument.

All the best,

Kieran Jacobson

Hello I'm Stacey Jimenez,

I am very happy to be here judging your Debate and I am excited to hear each of you present your case. Here is how I'd like to begin the round:

1. I will ask who would like to perform the coin toss (if there is no preference then I will do it).
2. I will ask if the winner wants to go 1st or 2nd speaker or aff or neg, then I'll ask the other team what they want from the choice not picked.
3. When asked, please clearly state and spell your first and last name (allow me time to write it down).
4. When asked, please clearly state your school's name (allow me time to write it down).
5. I will then ask if everyone is ready to begin and I will start the round.

Please take note of my preferences as your judge:

1. Please speak clearly and annunciate your words. Do your best to keep your cadence at a natural pace (I know that is difficult when you are excited & nervous). If I can't understand what you are saying - I cannot accurately judge you.
2. Please don't use "debate jargon" - use regular words and let me know if you want to abbreviate something before we get started.
3. It is your responsibility to know the time rules for the Debate you are in (they can vary).
4. I would like for you to keep track of your time, including running prep (3 minutes). If you are inaccurate in your time keeping then I will make a final decision.
5. Please do not go over the time allotted for each section. If you hit your time I will allow you to complete your sentence, but if you start a new one I will stop you by saying "your turn is over". I'd prefer not to have to stop you.
6. During Final Focus - please give me your impact calc/warrants.

Final Note:

Due to time constraints my feedback will not be given verbally at the end of the round. I will do my best to give you feedback, but will likely only have time to write it under "individual team feedback". Please know that I will do my best with your feedback, but often I will have back to back judging and will only be able to write a few notes. My biggest feedback will always be what I wrote at the very beginning, which is - speak clearly and annunciate your words.

Thank you, have fun, and good luck!

Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)

2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.

3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.

4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.

5. Don't be rude.

i’m a college student who did public forum in high school

try not to run Ks/theory but all frameworks are allowed

i’m okay with speed but be clear - i won’t weigh an argument if i can’t understand it

i will weigh anything if it's on the flow at the end

if you face an abusive argument, just a quick "this is abusive" and a short reason should be enough to knock it off the flow

no new arguments in second summary or later, and no new evidence in either final focus

to me, links matter more than impacts, though if you have both and the other team is missing one, you will almost always win

i may ask to see your evidence after the debate to ensure everything is fair - please don’t cite Quora or Reddit as factual evidence

hi I’m parent judge, my daughter is in public forum so I have a bit of prior knowledge. For flow, please have a medium pace, I won't be able to catch or write down your arguments if I cannot understand them.

general

• I prefer empirical evidence over theory etc. weigh impacts and explain to me what I need to vote on

• critical arguments should provide substantial evidence, or I will not buy it

• make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples and have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand. no paraphrasing.

• the focus should be winning the debate on the actual topic, not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is most important. it is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round.

constructive

quality > quantity. a few well-developed arguments are more persuasive than ten less-developed arguments.

rebuttal

if you can't fill time rebutting their speech, start talking about your own arguments. cards are good to bring up here, cite them before or after (its up to you). go line by line on their arguments, tell me what you are responding to. off time roadmaps are appreciated.

summary

first summary is the last time to bring up new information, I don't want to see you bringing up new evidence after this.

final focus

extend and weigh.

I am a 1st year parent volunteer judge.

Hello everyone,

I look for clear arguments with a claim, warrant, and impact linked to the ballot, and I must fully understand your argument to consider it. Key points for me include clarity of arguments, the significance of impacts, and clear voters in the Final Focus. I'm cautious about overly restrictive frameworks or conduct that limits fair debate. Professional conduct is expected.

I'm open to frameworks, resolutions analysis, and observations, provided they're fair. Logical arguments are valid even without cards, but evidence debates should be meaningful and not detract from prep time. For high speaker points, clarity, effective crossfire questioning, and strong rebuttal and final focus speeches are crucial, along with good analogies.

Winning my ballot involves unique, linked arguments, cleverness, politeness, and an engaging, balanced debate. Abusive tactics, unprofessional attire, ignoring evidence debate guidelines, or personal insults will count against you.

For me, quality is much better than quantity. It is better to have one or two really strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points. Don't dump information by speed-talking. As my colleague Nate Silverman put it well: "If I can't understand something you say, because you speak too quickly or unclearly, then I can't write it down. If I can't write it down, then I can't refer back to it when making my final decision. In other words, it's as if you never said it."

On that note, for your sake, if you begin to speak too quickly, I will raise my hand so you slow down. If you do not slow down, I will stop flowing.

If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not.

Other points:

Please sign post. Is this a new thought or more warrants or impacts on the same claim?

Off time road maps are a waste of "real" time. I'm guessing you're going to tell me why you're right and they're wrong. Right? If you sign post, I'll know which order you're going in.

Be respectful of your opponents. Let's be real, if the coin toss were different, you'd be arguing for the other side so don't act like your entire life's work has focused on your stance on this topic. Keep it civil. On a related note, rudeness is unacceptable as is outright lying.

This is high school debate. It's a learning experience. I don't expect you to be perfect and would hope you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win this round or not.

The key to explaining your reasoning to me lies in precision and continuity.

1. When you state facts or provide evidence, ensure you have sufficient granularity to make your point. Eg. “Half the world is male. Therefore, half the students in computer science can be safely assumed to be male.” Insufficient granularity to make the assumption. I consider this a "leap of faith."

2. Once you have established a fact, show me why it is relevant - without link it might look like "data salad" to me. I might not see what you feel is obvious. So state the obvious to make sure we are on the same page and path of reasoning.

3. Ensure your argument is closely reasoned. Well reasoned descriptions go a lot farther at convincing people than a tirade of random bits of evidence.

4. Cross & Grand: Your cross should cover all points raised in opponent's contentions. I have little choice but to favor contentions that are not refuted unless I believe them to be outright false. Listen to your opponents so you can surgically refute or challenge opponent's arguments. If you can’t cover all contentions due to time, then I will take that into consideration as well.

Remember, we are all here to learn. My goal is to be fair and give you feedback, not as criticism that cost you points - chances are it didn’t - but as a way to help you broaden your thinking, sharpen your focus, or help you articulate a position more effectively. Enjoy. This is a great journey you are on. I hope with my feedback you are able to discover how to better leverage that great factory in your brain.

Speech:

I am a first year parent judge. I look for interesting speeches - make an effort to make your speech interesting, especially for someone who doesn't necessarily know the topic of your speech very well.

Public Forum:

I am a first year parent judge who has never done debate before - as long as you stick to the topic and sound more convincing than your opponent, you probably have my vote.

I am lay judge and I would like people to give me off-time roadmap and sign-post clearly. I also prefer logical and clear arguments over fake sounding squirrelly arguments.

This is my third debate tournament judging. For best results speak slowly with an economy of words.

I value clarity of argument. Be civil. Be clear. I prefer you don't go to fast; otherwise, I may miss things in my flow. Topicality is important, although creative cases are always interesting to hear.

I'm a parent judge and new to this. Please keep time throughout the round. I'm looking forward to listening to you debate today!

he/him

i did pf for four years

i'll be tech>truth

in general, do what you like, but do it well. i'll try and evaluate it.

i exclusively have experience in pf so if you have me for another event idk good luck ig just treat me like a parent judge

more specifically--

what i like:

frontline in second rebuttal (u must do this unless ur a novice in which case it's ok)

weigh as early as possible (if there's no weighing i'll default to who has better warranting/i just have to intervene which i don't like)

extensions!! if it's not in summ AND final focus i can't vote on it. this INCLUDES WARRANTS i am a big fan of warranting

i'm a big fan of analytics -- a good warranted analytic can be just as effective as a card (tell me why to prefer it to a card tho)

PLEASE collapse

number ur responses in rebuttal, makes it easier for me to flow

what i don't like:

abusive frameworks

theory (i j dont know how to evaluate prog, i can try but i won't be v good at it)

sticky defense is a no no (unless second rebuttal doesn't frontline at all)

when teams just keep repeating stuff and don't actually interact with each other

"this is true because X author said so" - tell me WHY the author says so, or the reasoning the arg is true

off-time roadmaps over 5 seconds (it really should just be "our case, their case, weighing", or some variation of that)

speaks:

read unique/creative cases and i'll boost ur speaks

be funny and i'll boost ur speaks

do something cool strategically and i'll boost ur speaks

be overly annoying in cross and i'll drop ur speaks

be annoying/slow about evidence exchanges and i'll drop ur speaks

add me to the email chain - zubinoommen@gmail.com

just ask me if u have any other questions before the round. email me if you have questions after the round - zubinoommen@gmail.com

I will briefly cover my paradigm in round. I am a former pf debater and current college student.

1) Please be nice. One of my judges once said "make it easy for me to vote for you"

2) No off time roadmaps

3) Say the words “Contention 1: …” and “Subpoint A: …” and so on in your opening (signposting)

4) In cross, be concise, nice, and aggressive

I flow somewhat minimally, mainly just subpoint names and responses, and most of your cards, as well as anything that stands out to me. Please make sure to reference ALL of your and your opponents subpoints directly (say the words 1b, 2a etc) in every speech after the opening.

In your rebuttal and summary statement, please include a summary of the round (something like an intro or conclusion paragraph) in your speech, preferably at the beginning.

I really enjoyed debate, and I learned a lot from it. Remember to have fun!

I am a lay judge.

I value clear (no rush) speech and warrants for every contention. If you spread, I will deduct speaker points.

I do not flow or listen to cross.

Please roadmap and signpost as much as possible.

My background is primarily Policy and Public Forum Debate. I am rapidly gaining experience in LD.

FOR LD DEBATE

I am not a fan of speed. I hate listening to spreading and my brain borderline shuts down if you speak too fast. If I can't understand you because you're going too fast, I'm probably not flowing and probably not really tracking your arguments at all. I like to judge primarily on my flow, so you should probably slow down a bit.

I won't vote on tricks.

My background is primarily CX and PF, so you may have to briefly explain the purpose of some of the very LD specific terminologies or theories.

Explain why your value/criterion are preferable to your opponents'.

Please do impact calculus, and please ground your impacts in reality.

Be nice to each other. Being rude or snarky sucks.

FOR POLICY DEBATE

I am not a fan of speed (especially constructive speeches when you are presenting your case). I would much prefer quality of arguments over quantity. If I can't keep up or understand your arguments, you won't win them. I know you like to spread in Policy, but I borderline hate it. SLOW DOWN. You can do it. You can adapt to your judge's paradigm. You are capable of doing that, I promise. You don't have to run 6 off-case on the neg. You really don't have to!

I would like to vote on pretty much anything if you are persuasive enough. I am generally okay with everything as long as they are explained well. Don't just read your arguments, explain their purpose in the round! However, I am more of a "traditional" judge in that I would usually much prefer a solid debate about the resolution rather than endless K debates with super generic links. Lately I have seen more bad K debates than good traditional debates. It makes me very sad. I judge primarily based on what I see on my flow. It is in your best interest to use roadmaps, signposting, clear taglines, and SLOW THE HECK DOWN to make my job of flowing the debate as easy as possible.

I also prefer impacts grounded in realism. If every single policy debater for 50 years that has been claiming nuclear war as an impact was actually right about it, the world would've been destroyed 1,000 times over. But regional conflict? Economic downturn? Environmental damage? Oppression of minority populations? These are impacts we've actually witnessed as a result of policy action. I strongly prefer impacts that I as an Earthling can actually visualize happening.

I will be friendly with speaker points to debaters who are friendly to each other. I will be unfriendly with speaker points to debaters who are unfriendly with each other. This should be a fun experience for everyone. Just be nice to each other.

Nicholas.Phillips@bellinghamschools.org

I’m a parent judge with not a lot of experience judging. I would prefer debaters to not speak too fast.

Please have clear, well-substantiated, logical arguments. I weigh arguments supported by evidence.

Be respectful and have fun.

My name is Michaele pronounced Mi-kel. I’m a parent judge with two years of experience. I still consider myself a lay judge and prefer a clear and slower speaking style.

I also prefer quality over quantity in regards to arguments. Clarity is very important as well as I need to understand each person’s points clearly in order to judge fairly.

I appreciate debaters who are respectful and patient with each other (and with me too).

Also, being a debater is a huge and impressive accomplishment. And I say this as a mom, I hope you are all proud of yourself!

Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)
Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, platforms, and interp.
Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute

General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high
Speed - 6ish -7 ish, if you are ridiculously clear
Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear and beyond egregious.
Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques, but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context or the philosopher, as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level.
Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. What drives me crazy is, what appears to be, the assumption that framework is a done-deal. That there is only one way to view framework, is faulty and counter-intuitive. It is the job of both teams to advocate, not just their framework, but the logic behind their framework.
Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me.

Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy

Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated. In my mind, this is not just as issue that will affect speaker points but potentially the round.) 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically, different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart".

I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.

I do not like "theory." Debate the topic.

As always...for me, quality is much better than quantity. It is better to have one or two really strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points.

While I can handle spreading, if I can't understand something you say because you speak too quickly or unclearly, then I can't write it down. If I can't write it down, then I can't refer back to it when making my final decision. In other words, it's as if you never said it.

If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not.

Other points:

Signposting is good. Please signpost. Is this a new thought or more warrants or impacts on the same claim?

Off-time road maps are bad. They are a waste of "real" time. I'm guessing you're going to tell me why you're right and they're wrong. Right? If you signpost, I'll know which order you're going in. This is a more valuable skill to learn. For those of you motivated by speaker points, know that I will deduct a full point for each off-time road map.

Be respectful of your opponents. Let's be real, if the coin toss were different, you'd be arguing for the other side so don't act like your entire life's work has focused on your stance on this topic. Keep it civil. On a related note, rudeness is unacceptable as is outright lying. I've seen too many teams blatantly lie in round. If you lie, you lose.

Yearn to Learn. This is high school debate. It's a learning experience. I don't expect you to be perfect and would hope you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win this round or not.

Add me to the email chain: shobana.venkatachalam@gmail.com

I am a parent judge- this is my first-time judging, but I am decently acquainted with how pf works.

general pf things:

• I consider myself a lay judge.
• I'm not familiar with any jargon or technical terms.
• Please be respectful to your opponents.
• I am a very truth>tech judge- your arguments need to make sense.
• I always prefer the sensible argument that affects a reasonable amount of people- not the iffy one that affects the whole galaxy.
• Speak slowly and clearly- I can't vote on it if I don't understand it!
• Debate is an educational activity- so have fun, learn, and do your best!

Articulate your points clearly and do weighing. I like clash and if both sides have evidence saying opposite things, tell me why I should prefer your evidence. Do not make new arguments if you’ve already dropped a point, and if you don’t extend your own arguments I will count it as dropped.

I have recently started judging this year. My mentality is informed by my previous experience competing in speech events, Student Congress and Public Forum back in 2006, when we did not read judges' paradigms. We just made the best arguments we could and followed the rules of the event. Coming from this perspective, I may be the furthest from the "game theorist" sort of judge. That is not to say that I am completely tabula rasa, since I am relatively well-informed on world affairs, though I do judge based on actually debating prowess, as if you were debating in any other context.

I will judge you primarily on the strength of your arguments, which means the validity of your stated reasoning and the apparent accuracy of your premises. I also judge on decorum, primarily in the sense of how you deliver your arguments and engage with your opponents. I am looking for civility, as well as articulation. Show that you understand your opponents' arguments and explain how they are wrong.

Some debaters, particularly in policy rounds, will speak as quickly as possible. I ask you to speak no faster than Eminem. If you speak as if you were narrating a horse-race, then I will likely not understand what you are trying to say well enough to give you credit. Annunciate clearly and phrase succinctly. We can establish pacing before we begin the round in order to ensure that will not be a problem.

Marshall Wilcox