Please talk slow and do the timing yourself if you can.

(she/they) Email: lauren.gilli03@gmail.com

(Pre-Round Skimming=Bold)

I have 4-years' debating experience in VPF (mainly trad/lay), various IEs, and 3 years at NSDA Nats for PF/Extemp (once somehow). If you have any questions before/after the round, ask! I like giving help and will give critiques when I can.

~Decorum~

- Don't be an [expletive] in round. If bad enough, give you the lowest speaks possible or the L :)

- I will not stand for prejudiced arguments/rhetoric. I will give opposing team the opportunity to continue, otherwise I will end the round with a fun chat and an L for the offending team, along with lowest possible speaks and a talk with coaches.

- Use trigger/content warnings please. If you have enough foresight to do that, I expect an alt prepared.

- Please no descriptions of sexual assault/in-depth anecdotes of such.

Basics

- Your job is to make my job easy.

- Keep a clear narrative throughout the round- overviews are nice and I love them done well.

- Speak clearly :)- stumbling is fine, I feel you. It doesn't mean you're any less confident.

- In PF, it's not policy- and in LD, stay understandable. No spreading please. If y'all are going way too fast, I will raise my hand.

- For Congress, spreading is absolutely contradictory to the point of the event. Please don't <3

- If, for some god-forsaken reason, you decide to spread against my warning, please send me a case doc. Email above.

- Debate is a competition, yes, but also respect the origins. The point of debate is to persuade, and you can't perform if you are spreading. If you are going too fast, I signal, and you don't slow down... I will flow what I can understand. You have been warned.

- - - I have four points about spreading. That is a sign.

- EVERYONE: SIGNPOST PLEASE <3

- Weigh for me, otherwise I'll do it myself (and that is a threat...mwahaha).

- I generally don't vote on obviously false args. Opposition, at least tell me it's clearly false, give a quick reason before moving on.

- As long as an argument is warranted, have fun with it! I like wacky args if the links are there.

First Speakers (PF)

- Please don't state Cost-Benefit Analysis (a la common sense) as FW in your case. It is useless unless it is used as a response to your opponent's FW.

- Give me (preferably only) voters in summary (collapsing/crystallizing) - again, makes my job easier - line-by-line is rarely summarizing and I will die on this hill. At least throw in voters at the end if you decide to not summarize in your summary

Second Speakers (PF)

- Your success in rebuttal rests on signposting. Tell me where you are! Please!

- For your partner's sake (and your own), start weighing in rebuttal

- Have fun with final focus because it doesn't matter much- The round is won in Rebuttal and Summary! Be sassy but stick to your guns- keep your narrative cohesive w summary

Crossfire/Ex

- It doesn't matter. Keep it clean, no punching. I don't flow during this time unless there is a mic-drop moment. If there is said mic-drop moment, bring it through in later speeches.

- I'm only here for the quotable moments

- finish answer if timer beeps, but not question

Evidence

- I have absolutely no tolerance when it comes to evidence violations. I have had bad experiences in round and will not let an abusive team win. If you want me to call for your/the opp's evi at end of round, tell me. Don't be afraid to stop the round and call a violation if they continue insisting on their evidence being something it's not.

Theory

Very limited experience, outside of a few rounds re: disclosure in LD and one in PF. If you run theory, be clear about your narrative and make it obvious why it should be preferred over substance.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am sorry, I have limited experience in LD judging. I'm teaching myself as much as I can starting '21. but please treat me as a lay judge. Spell it out please. I know next to nothing about LD, so be clear and explain thoroughly. Limit jargon- I competed a lot, but in a very traditional circuit. Glean what you can from the PF paradigm <3

_________________________________

This is debate! The point is to learn and meet people! In the words of my former debate coach, "Do your best. Have fun."

Experience: I have competed in almost every event and I'm well-versed in how each is supposed to be ran. I've qualified to Nationals twice and I'm currently an active NSDA Alumni offering judging for various schools.

Speech Events
I will be timing you, but you are also welcome to time yourself when appropriate. I will give hand signals if asked. I dislike when speakers try to fill all the time by repeating themselves or talking in circles. Quality over quantity.

Having all your themes and points connect to each other and tie together at the end is really important to me. The less disconnected tangents, the better.

If you are double entered, I will alter the speaking order if necessary to make sure you can give both speeches timely. Please speak up if you need this, since Tabroom doesn't always tell me.

Debate Events:

If evidence asked for in-round does not exist or is being blatantly misused, I will not vote for you. If there are claims of evidence being misread or used in an abusive way, I will look at it myself. Most importantly, looking at evidence counts as part of your prep time, unless it gets into rule-breaking disputes.

I am okay with assertiveness during cross, but don't be over the top. A good cross to me looks like advancing a conversation and making points, not just clarifying. If your opponent asks a reasonable question and you are being intentionally vague with your answers or stalling the clock, I will count it against you.

I am okay with progressive debate and know how to judge it, but I am strict with making sure it is used properly. Don't be abusive with it. If your opponent clearly has no idea what they're supposed to do when faced with it, try to tone it down a little.

If you plan on spreading, please have your cases ready to share with your opponent(s) or me as necessary.

Email for evidence/case sharing: maeve.k.hall@gmail.com

Lincoln-Douglas:

I weigh most on the value/criterion debate. If I see it from one debater and not at all from another, my ballot is easy to write. If neither engages, I will have a hard time picking a winner. If both engage, then it's up to whoever convinces me which framework is best and who best upholds it.

I do believe having a value/criterion is necessary. If you don't provide a framework, it's really hard for me to vote for you.

Public Forum

Highlighting where in the chain of logic and evidence your opponent's arguments break is the most important to me on offense, especially when repeated speech after speech. Do it well, and I won't vote on their argument at all. That also means on defense, I'm looking to make sure impacts are accessed the most. The biggest numbers won't mean anything if your opponent explain they won't happen. A good round to me will usually look like both sides dropping smaller or weaker arguments and focusing on their biggest ones more and more as the round goes on.

Unless told otherwise, the framework I'll assume is cost-benefit analysis.

Policy:

Please ask for specifics in round

I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.

I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.

Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

I haven't participated as a judge, not been part of formal events for speech and debate. I look for the following:

• No spreading, period (.) This will never work in real life and that's what you should be preparing for in these events.
• Avoid excessive body language, speak naturally
• You can refer a script, but know your data points, key aspects of your speech
• Please share your speech with me if you are public forum or Lincoln Douglas

Good Luck!

Uday

uday_kotla@yahoo.com

he/him

tech/flow judge

feel free to spread

As a judge I will look more on terms of argument strength /proven evidence towards supporting the arguments, and the way you deliver your stance and confidence on the speech.
I strongly encourage debaters to time themselves (I won't be timing) while they speak and deliver the argument clearly.

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 300 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE!I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED.The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct.

3. As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em.

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

4. Cross-examination: I know some judges don't pay too much attention to this. I REALLY do. To me cross is the essence of debate . During cross, I am looking for you to probe the weaknesses of your opponent's contentions to set up your rebuttals and to defend your own positions. I expect lively exchanges involving vigorous attacks and robust defenses. I will also look to see which team can establish perceptual dominance. Your performance in cross is often a key factor in how I decide speaker scores and possibly the round.

As a debate judge, I am committed to impartially evaluating the quality of arguments based on clarity, evidence, and logical coherence. I also expect that all speakers will communicate at a moderate pace, ensuring clarity in their delivery and avoiding the use of jargon that they cannot explain coherently.

I am a relatively new judge.

Hi, nice to meet you. My name's Lena ! I have a background in medical, business, and tech. I've been judging debate for 7 years working with Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA.

Judging Preferences:

- I appreciate a strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I prefer when an argument is backed up with factual evidences through cited sources and quantitative data. If there's no real evidence, then it's just an opinion at this point.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for - Please DO NOT repeat the entire debate.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Can't win if I can't hear your arguments properly.

I debated Public Forum 4 years in High school

All I ask is that you speak clearly and at an understandable pace. If I can't hear you I cannot flow your arguments.

I default to weighing the round off of impacts I suggest making time in your speech for impact analysis especially in summary and final those speeches should be used to crystalize your main arguments not try and extend everything thats been said in the round. Use framing like probability, timeframe, and magnitude to your advantage by comparing directly with your opponents impacts and tell me why your arguments are more important.

Make sure you warrant clearly. Impacts don't mean much if you don't have a solid link chain you can defend and is logical.

I also like hearing unique and niche arguments.

Besides that it's your round debate it how you like.

email: colewogan@gmail.com add me to email chain

Graduated HS in 2021, 4 years of poli experience, 2 years of light parli experience .

Parli Paradigm:

Do comparative analysis. Parli debates are won and lost not based on the individual strengths of y'alls' arguments, they are won and lost based on how well you can convince me that for XY or Z reason your argument outweighs, modifies, or what have you the opponents argument. Points of information are reasonable, just don't abuse them. Same goes for responding to POIs -- I tend to dock speaks if you never answer any POIs; it's bad optics. Points of order can be a creative and fun way to win the round. Don't be afraid to make them.

Parli K debate: I will evaluate these rounds fairly, but the link chain needs to be solid for me to weigh the K, especially considering most Parli K teams have blocks that they apply regardless of the topic. That's not to say that there aren't specific links, you just have to apply your arguments to the topic, don't expect me to do it for you. Will vote either way on FW.

Policy Paradigm:

4 year 2a who mixed between policy (typically soft left) affs and k affs. Will give all args the light of day of course, but it's probably important for me to note that I am far more familiar with K-stuff and theory, so if you are going for traditional policy args like a DA + CP articulate the link chain VERY clearly, with specific links to their aff, not just [generic politics link] [generic extinction impact].

K debate:

Obligatory try to mitigate the overview as much as possible. I get it, your overview is the most gorgeously written diatribe you've ever written, but it probably isn't all that applicable, or, if it is, can be split up throughout the line by line. I'm not opposed to an overview, in fact in a lot of ways I think it's very important to have, but if it's going longer than 1min, you're probably overdoing it.

Don't assume I know the critical theory you're reading from -- I might have been familiar with this stuff in the past, but my memory isn't all that great, so err on the side of overexplaining. Link turns as a K-debater are your best friend, and a good one can go a loooong way.

For K-affs, I would say I am solidly middle of the road on the FW question, so if you're a policy team absolutely go for it, and if at all possible a TVA is pretty helpful IMO. I like good FW debates, the generic our specific aff education versus generic limits setting is quite trite.

Other:

I highly encourage you to go for theory (especially T or ASPEC) , or at the very least extend it past the 1nr - in my experience most teams don't know what they're doing and will just read and re-read their 2ac theory blocks.

Also, extend case in the block lmao.