Most importantly be respectful and kind towards your opponents :)) I WILL deduct speaker points if you are rude.

I'll give 0.5 extra speaker points if you can include a good joke in your speech.

My name is Daphne Du and I am the parent of a competitor. My daughter started to participate in speech and debate competition two years ago and I have been involved with her debate program and volunteered to be a judge two times. I am most familiar with congressional debate as that is the form my daughter debates in. I also have some experience judging LD and PF. I focus on the content of the presentation and argument, how convincing it is, whether the argument is valid and to the point, and how well it gets across to me. I also value attitude and the manner you carry yourself in the rounds, not talking over other speakers and follow the guidance from the PO. Most importantly, I am looking for how you contribute to the discussion and move the discussions forward and in a constructive way.

Hello all!

For a little bit about me, I am a senior in high school and I have been doing debate for the last three years (parli and policy). For judging, I would like to see clear points/organization backed up with solid evidence. Keep the debate relevant and focused. For speaking, a steady pace thats not too fast and not too slow is great. Respect is very important too! Anyways, good luck debating!

Simone G

I have judged various divisions of parliamentary debate for one year. I like good organization, interesting arguments, and clear impacts for cases. Refrain from running theory, and remember to signpost. It is important to speak well, but arguments will be prioritized over how well you speak.

Add mmartono@bu.edu to the email chain, please.

+0.5 speaks for 30 seconds of every speech in singing form.

Can we please weigh? Thanks.

I have no tolerance for people being mean and rude.

Email: vnguyen@headroyce.org

Experience:

-MS S & D coaching sporadically since 2000, HS S & D coaching since 2018. I have no direct debate experience but do have a fairly substantive understanding of argumentation and speech and debate as a secondary English educator for three decades.

-Most experienced with MSPDP and HS Parli. Have a working knowledge of Congress, Novice Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, IEs like Impromptu, Extemp, Informative, Interpretations, and Original Oratory.

-My main interest in various debate spaces is to collaborate with others, especially in leadership positions, to improve critical thinking and make the debate space less transactional and more accessible and transformational. I believe debate is just a fun and challenging HOW. For us to get something of lasting value from this educational activity, we need to be clear about our WHY to this HOW. My contributions to the debate community has focused primarily on event-specific curriculum and judging training/feedback.

-Have judged at tournaments as need be. NPDI JV Semis. GGSA Semis for Varsity Student Congress, JV & Varsity Parli and Lincoln-Douglas Prelims. ASU Novice Policy Semis. I have also judged many mock rounds for Head-Royce and some scrimmages between my school and others. However, I usually prefer not to judge at competitions because I am often busy helping to run Parli tournaments or coaching my teams.

Philosophy/Pedagogy:

-Paramount for me as a longstanding English literature teacher/debate and former volleyball coach since 1999 years are sportsmanship and discourse that deepen understanding of debate and connect general school knowledge to current issues of the day. My hope is that we (kids and adults alike) can become more informed critical thinkers and contribute to our representative republic, to our overall humanity. If all that sounds very kumbaya uptopian, it is and worth pushing for.

-I am more of a truth over tech judge, but do value tech. I flow extensively by case and by speech on one or multiple sheets as appropriate to levels and events like Parli, PF and traditional LD. My main interest is to be attentive and not interventionist and to capture as best as I can, the balance between the trees and forest of the clash as teams make their cases and collapse toward 1-2 convincing voters.

-You will most likely earn my ballot if you are courteous, organized, and nuanced. Signpost consistently; focus on depth over breadth; prioritize arguments; make explicit your syllogistic logic chain; impact out using PMT(CR)S (probability, magnitude, time frame, cyclicality,reversibility, scope) calculus; clearly tie it all arguments back to the weighing mechanism; and ultimately tell a compelling story with a thematic thread featuring your 1-2 voters.

It might be helpful for you to know that I can handle speed but only to a certain extent, I am frankly averse to spreading—speed at the cost of cogency and clash is simply neither strategic nor compelling for non-policy events.

Lastly, please focus on topic content. I do believe, however, that debate is a game (akin to chess), and I enjoy clever use of theory, especially in the form of double binds. I am also open to K args., notably if they are resolutional. Don't run a K, esp. a K Aff in Parli, unless you really can explain it well and ideally link it to the round topic.

Hey everyone!

I am a flow judge with 4 years of debate experience, and a current high school debater. I have experience debating in parliamentary, public forum, and MS debate. I am comfortable with speed, but I may not catch a few points in your debate if you spread.

Preferences:

- State your main points clearly and in an organized manner

- Make sure to sign post THROUGHOUT your case

- Stay respectful to the other team: Don't attack their character, attack their case! (this will impact your speaker score)

Weighing:

One main thing I'd love to see in your case is lots of weighing! Weighing is very important to me and you should spend a good amount of your third speaker case weighing. Your weighing mechanism must compare the arguments made in the round, and also show why you win on impact analysis (irreversibility, magnitude, probability, etc.). You should also address points of clash and show why you win compared to the other team. Weighing can change the entire debate because if you can prove that your one point is more important that the opponent's three points, you have a VERY good chance at winning the debate.

POI's/Heckles:

I believe POI's are impressive and show that you are thinking on your feet, but ONLY if they have a purpose. Wasting your opponents time to make a baseless argument will not earn you any speaker points. Heckles are okay as well, but again, they MUST have a purpose!

Speaker Scores:

I will try my best to give each team member individual feedback that is useful for future debates. Useful POI's, refuting their actual evidence instead of just the point, and also adding some lightheartedness to your case such as a joke will definitely boost your speaker score. I do think I give generous speaker scores, but of course that is based solely on how well the speaker does.

Hey guys, I'm a high school debater with 4+ years of debate experience in both Middle School and High School Debate (PF & Parli).

General Preferences:

• I can handle speed, but keep in mind that there is a chance I might miss things on the flow if you spread extensively
• Stay respectful to me and your opponents throughout the round!
• Make sure to consistently signpost and reiterate the main points that you will be collapsing on

POIs/Heckles:

I value POI's and want to see you all using them throughout the debate! PLEASE make sure that they are actually constructive questions and not just pointless jabs to throw the other team off. I also value heckles, but only when they have a purpose and are actually relevant.

Weighing/Clash:

Weighing is one of the MOST important parts of a round to me, and is also one of the things that most teams fail to do well. The points made by your first & second speaker should almost ALWAYS connect back to your weighing mechanism in their impacts and a large section of the third speech should be spent weighing as well. Make sure you are conducting a thorough impact analysis for your points (irreversibility, magnitude, scope, probability, timeframe, etc).

In terms of clash, make sure you are actually responding to the other team's points with logic and addressing their evidence instead of just repeating your own evidence to show why your point stands. If there is clash on the weighing mechanism, you must PROVE to me why I should weigh this debate using yours -- and even better, if you are able to prove to me why you win on YOUR weighing mechanism AND theirs, I'll be so much more inclined to vote for you.

Speaker Scores:

Although I am pretty generous with speaker scores overall, I am looking for speakers who articulate their arguments well (eye contact, modulation, speaking style, emphasis) and will factor that into your speaker scores. I will always provide teams and individual speakers with feedback and RFDs after the round is over.

Hello,

I judge Parliamentary debates. Even though I am not very experienced, my criteria to judge is based on how well the debaters bring their points on to the table. Either it could be Aff or Neg, I prefer to have the teams present some strong analysis. Please be clear and confident on your supporting evidence. Having an organized presentation will be an addition.

Good Luck and Happy Debating!

Please speak slowly and articulate your words so I can understand what you are saying.