(a) Paradigm: (aneeladvani@gmail.com)

total points for each speaker/debater: /30

logos (strength of argument, evidence): /10

taxis (clarity, structure, rebuttals): /10

lexis (style, speaking, smoothness, interactions, emotional impact): /10

(b) Specific comments:

• I prefer clearly understandable speed of delivery; if you are spreading rapidly please send me your cases so I can follow along.
• Please speak up so I can hear you

• I am a new parent judge

• I will take notes to keep track of your arguments and key points

• I will not evaluate any new arguments brought up in the final speeches

• I would like debaters to elaborate and explain their argument very clearly

I am a former high school policy debater who judged a few tournaments after I graduated and got back into judging again this year. I don't mind speed and will flow all speeches. I do appreciate sign posting and numbering arguments. I will award the round to the team whose winning arguments have the greatest impact (based on the evidence and analysis they presented). For arguments that are contested, I'll decide who won based on the evidence and analysis that each team presents. Arguments that aren't contested are awarded to the presenting team as long as they are carried through rebuttals. I value the creativity/thoroughness of a speaker's arguments more than speaking style.

I have 35 years of public forum, policy, and LD debate experience as a participant in high school and college and coaching at the college and high school level. My judging paradigm leans towards a stringent emphasis on logical coherence, depth, and respectful communication. My approach encourages debaters to prioritize quality over quantity and engage effectively with their opponents' arguments. Generally, I am not a fan of debate theory arguments. I also believe debate is an oral activity, so no need to exchange evidence and cases before the round.

Key Principles:

1. Note-Based Judging:

• Objective Evaluation: My evaluations are based solely on the flow/notes taken during the round, ensuring impartiality.
• No Knowledge Injection: I refrain from interjecting my own knowledge or opinions into the debate, maintaining a neutral stance.

2. Engagement and Clash:

• Direct Engagement: Debaters must address and refute opponents' arguments directly.
• Effective Clash: Construct your rebuttals with a clear and direct clash, ensuring that counter-arguments are tailored to challenge the initial claims.

3. Well-Developed Arguments:

• Depth Over Width: I prioritize one to three deeply developed, logical, and well-warranted arguments over numerous superficial points.
• Valid Warrants: Your arguments should be underpinned by credible, well-explained warrants.
• Impactful Arguments: Clearly articulate the real-world implications of your arguments to demonstrate their significance.

4. Category-Relevance:

• Format-Appropriate Arguments: Ensure your arguments, including critical frameworks like Kritiks, align with the debate format (e.g., Policy, Public Forum). I am not a proponent of non-topical arguments.
• Maintaining Relevance: Steer clear of diversions and ensure that your arguments are pertinent to the topic and category of debate.

5. Humanistic and Respectful Communication:

• Respect: Maintain a respectful demeanor towards all participants, including opponents and judges.
• Clarity and Pace: Be mindful of your speaking speed to ensure your arguments are fully understood and noted.
• Avoid Excessive Jargon: Use accessible language to explain any technical terms or jargon.

Additional Notes:

A. Quality of Evidence:

• Credibility: Only utilize credible, verified sources and evidence in your arguments.
• Application: Apply your evidence accurately and ensure it directly supports your claims.

B. Strategic Argumentation:

• Consistency: Maintain consistent argumentation throughout the debate, avoiding contradictory claims.
• Strategic Choices: Make tactical decisions regarding which arguments to pursue further based on their strength and impact.

C. Constructive Criticisms and RFD (Reason For Decision):

• Feedback: My feedback will be constructive, aiming to highlight areas for improvement alongside positive aspects.
• RFD Transparency: My decisions will be accompanied by clear, coherent reasons rooted in the arguments presented during the debate.

D. Timing

• Requesting Evidence: Debate is an oral activity. I do not need to see the evidence or cases. We should be able to look up sources. If you request cards, the requestor will have this time deducted from prep unless tournament rules prohibit this. I see this often abused during rounds to gain more prep time, and I am not a fan of this practice.
• Roadmaps: If you provide these, they will be timed. I do not need them and will follow where you go.

Conclusion:

Debaters are encouraged to view the debate not merely as a competitive arena but as a platform for developing and refining skills pertinent to effective leadership and communication. Focusing on depth, clarity, and respectful interaction, my judging paradigm fosters a conducive environment for meaningful, impactful debates beyond mere point-scoring.

Reminder:

While it's pivotal to be strategic and competitive, remember that the skills you hone here – articulation, critical thinking, and respectful discourse – are the real victories, equipping you for constructive engagement beyond the debate floor.

I look forward to witnessing thought-provoking, well-argued, and respectfully conducted debates!

***IMPORTANT***LD is not policy, so don't act like it is. Framework comes first and arguments only matter if they are impacted out under the framework. I will not vote on anything that's not clearly tied to the framework.

I participated in LD throughout Middle and High School and am now a coach, so I have a good amount of experience with all traditional rounds. I'm comfortable with any speed as long as it's coherent. Evidence is important, but I greatly prefer reasoning and thoughtful explanations to card-reading in rebuttals. Please feel free to email me at sedabu01@gmail.com with any questions regarding the round, I’m happy to give more thorough feedback.

I did policy debate for four years in high school, and have judged at many tournaments. My attitude for each round is "tabula rasa"- I am open to most arguments, but I request teams explain clearly, especially in the closing rebuttals, why their argument wins/outweighs that of the other team. I go for as minimal judge intervention as possible- you need to tell me why I should give credence/preference for your arguments.

I believe that framework is a shield, not a sword- I will evaluate a team's arguments first under a framework if they win on it, but that doesn't mean they necessarily win those arguments.

I generally place a higher standard for Reverse Voting Issues (RVIs). I also have a higher threshold for voting for theory/debate-specific/performance arguments. I am willing to vote for these arguments and have done so in the past, but you need to do a brilliant job to sell them to me.

PUBLIC FORUM: Tabula Rasa ; Policy Maker ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; plans are okay ; Ks are okay, if ran and explained well

POLICY DEBATE: Policy Maker ; Stock Judge ; Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; I'm okay with running Ks, as long as they are well explained and topical

LINCOLN DOUGLAS: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

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

TFA STATE:

PUBLIC FORM: I'm a Tabula Rasa judge on the surface and a classic debate judge in my core. Progressive debate is okay with me. No spreading. I like debate rounds that have plenty of clash , weighed arguments , excellent speeches , and good sportsmanship. I expect each round to be educational. My ballot will reflect the round's voting issues , and my own expertise / knowledge.

I value quality over quantity of evidence -- relevancy (topical) , source , unique , legit

I expect teams to adhere to the resolution. Meaning, arguments MUST be balanced -- you choose how to balance them -- these balanced arguments will be your VOTERS

My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

WATCH OUT FOR DROPS! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own.

Carry all arguments throughout the round.

Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

STYLE & DELIVERY:

ALL SPEECHES MUST BE CLEAR AND WELL ARTICULATED. Bonus points for tapping into annunciation and pathos.

PRIORITZE TAGLINES—this makes flowing easier. It also keeps your arguments, cards, and evidence organized on my flow—you’ll get a better ballot from me.

NO SPREADING

USE YOUR PREP TIME efficiently

UTILIZE SPEAKING TIME WISELY

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

UIL CX STATE:

I am a policy maker judge who cherishes stock issues and will enter the round willing to flow anything. No spreading. I like debate rounds that have plenty of clash , weighed arguments , excellent speeches , and good sportsmanship. Frameworks and observations are key to the lens of the debate. I expect each round to be educational. SHOW me how / why you’re winning. My ballot will reflect the round's voting issues and my own expertise / knowledge.

PHILSOPHY:

SNAPSHOT: Firstly, I am a Policy Maker ; Secondly, a Stock Judge ; Lastly, a Tabula Rasa mindset

I need Voters and an Impact Calculus

K’s must be explained well, topical, educational, and link

My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

AFF: I will pay close attention to how you frame your plan text, especially stock issues. If I do not completely understand your PLAN by the end of the 1AC, it will be hard for me to flow you. PROTECT AND ADVOCATE FOR YOUR SOLVENCY! USE FIAT WISELY.

NEG: I will flow any argument you run against the AFF. Have an even balance of OFF and ON CASE arguments. ALL ARGUMENTS MUST LINK TO THE AFF’s PLAN. Split the NEG block. Be advised: I’m a policy maker who heavily considers stock issues. T’s & K’s must show EVIDENT violations and be educational. I will assume there is nothing wrong with AFF’s SOLVENCY if there aren’t any DAs. I prefer UNIQUE CPs that cannot be PERMED.

BOTH: WATCH OUT FOR DROPS! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own. Carry all arguments throughout the round. Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

STYLE & DELIVERY:

ALL SPEECHES MUST BE CLEAR AND WELL ARTICULATED. Bonus points for tapping into annunciation and pathos.

PRIORITZE TAGLINES—this makes flowing easier. It also keeps your arguments, cards, and evidence organized on my flow—you’ll get a better ballot from me.

NO SPREADING

USE YOUR PREP TIME efficiently

UTILIZE SPEAKING TIME WISELY

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

I competed in policy debate in high school and for a short time in college. I am an experienced coach in policy, LD, and congressional debate. I have also coached PF and speech in the past. This year is my 13th year of coaching and my 6th year as a head coach. I have been judging off and on since I graduated from high school many, many moons ago and consistently for the past 10 years.

Because I am a former policy debater and current coach, I am able to follow spreading, however, if I cannot understand you because you are not enunciating I will simply stop flowing. Please adjust your speaking accordingly. Having said that, if you are an LD, PF, or congressional debater, I expect that you will adhere to the norms of your debate event and refrain from any egregious spreading.

I keep a complete flow of the round, but also expect you to make connections between arguments for me, not expect me to search for clash after the round is over.

While delivery and speaking skills are important, the round will come down to your argumentation skills. I appreciate off time road maps that give me a chance to organize my flow before a speech. I also prefer debates with sign posting as it makes it easier to find arguments on the flow as a speech progresses.

I am tabula rasa judge, so I am judging the round based only on what is argued in the round. I expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on using impact calc, weighing, and direct clash. I will vote on counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks as well as a good theory argument, but you have to make a solid case for why I should vote for you over the other team.

Most importantly, I have high expectations for debaters’ in-round conduct. This is a competitive event, but I expect everyone in the room to treat all others with the utmost respect and comport themselves with decorum at all times.

Peter Kim

Chantilly

Please include me in your email chain. My email is pkimdebate@gmail.com.

I used to coach at Chantilly High School in Chantilly, VA. If you believe that my judgment came to be questionable, please let me know and I am more than happy to discuss the ballot with you. Please communicate with me a ton in and out of your round. But most importantly, have fun!

Comprehensibility is the litmus test for speaker points and evaluating arguments. I will dramatically improve your speaker points if you speak passionately and are clear enough that I can hear every word you say (including cards). If I can’t understand you or the evidence you are reading, I will drastically dock your speaker points and will be extremely unlikely to call for or evaluate evidence. The primary criterion for deciding speaker points will be clarity, enunciation, passion, volume, ethos, etc. Higher technical skills will help your speaker points, but the baseline / great majority of your points will be determined not by debate tech but by your actual speaking. A few notes on this:

1. I won’t call clear. If you’re unclear (especially through constructive speeches), or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.

2. Proximity. Number one point people ignore at their own risk: orient where you sit and speak from in the room towards me. Proximity is an important part of ensuring you can effectively communicate. You need to be aware of the acoustics of the room and the ability of your words to physically reach me.

3. Effective communication. Clarity is much more important than speed, but it is also just the beginning of effective communication. Effectively communicating means speaking passionately and persuasively; speaking to the judge and not at your laptop or flow. It means emphasizing the warrants in your evidence while you are reading it. Most debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. Effective communication is not just about speaker points. Most debaters over-estimate the number of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t.

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

I look forward to judging your debates,

Peter

I look for a clear argument with real, meaningful evidence. More evidence is not better evidence. Talking fast means does not give debaters a victory. If I can't understand what you said because you are talking too fast, then essentially, you didn't say it.

Iudged 20 tournaments ( updated 10/26/24)

- 9 PF

- 6 LD

- 5 Speech

Competed in 20 tournaments ( updated 2023)

- 7 LD

- 13 Speech

Hey friends!
TLDR; 10+ years of experience coaching and competing in all formats of debate and all styles (traditional and progressive). I'm fairly open-minded to any argument that is well justified and I'm going to vote for the team that paints the best picture via their impact comparison. I want you to write my ballot for me in your closing arguments. Also please note I will not vote on any argument that isn't extended in your final speeches. If you want me to vote on something you need to extend it and tell me why I'm voting for it. Other than that, just have fun, debate is your space.

*Speaker points are arbitrary but here’s something that isn’t: If you give all of your speeches without reading cards, I’ll give you a 30 as a baseline (may still deduct a bit from this for certain things). Of course, please refer to cards and summarize your them in your own words. Evidence debate has led to people not listening to each other’s arguments and IMO it’s net worse for debate. Constant powertagging means paraphrasing theory is probably irrelevant (but I’m very open to criticisms that a team said that a card said something that it didn’t)

Here are just a few specifics about my philosophy, feel free to ask about more:

On Evidence:
I believe there is far too much emphasis on evidence in many rounds of LD and CX as of late. Cards are important for backing up a claim which specifically needs evidence (think statistics, quotes, etc). Some folks are quick to dismiss their opponent's arguments by saying "no evidence" without actually responding to the merit of the argument. Conversely, the overemphasis on evidence has made some students afraid to get up and make an argument simply because they don't have a card on it. Perhaps it is because of my background in NPDA, but I strongly believe that many claims can be made and warranted via analytics and in fact that these arguments are even preferable because they demand that debaters think on their feet and respond to the argument specifically instead of searching desperately for a card that may or may not actually verify the claim they want to make. An argument has 3 parts: Claim, Warrant, Impact. A card is one type of warrant but historical and or/material analysis is another which is just as valid and I encourage debaters to make whatever argument occurs to them so long as they can warrant said argument.

On Strategy:
In general, I don't care what you read. Debaters should make their own strategy and use whatever they think is competitive. That said, I am of the opinion that "6 off" strategies tend to be uncompetitive because no arguments are really developed and I will lean towards skepticism of neg blocks which develop a lot of new arguments because their initial constructives refused to engage the debate in depth. Quality tends to prevail strategically over quantity but I won't impose this belief onto you, if you think 6 off is more strategic, then prove it and I'll vote for it if you win. There is no K, CP, or theoretical argument I will reject outright on principle. Some arguments are likely more theoretically legitimate than others (An uncondo K is probably pretty alright and 8 condo delay CPs may not be) and some arguments are certainly more true than others but what I think is irrelevant in context of what is said in the round. Whatever it is you decide to go for, I do believe "collapsing" is good and makes debates simpler and also that arguments should be explained in context of one another. That's to say, how does "straight-up" make sense of the K, how does theory make sense (or not make sense) of the Aff, so on and so forth. Framework is the most important aspect of debate (followed by links). Tell me what my role as a judge is or the role of my ballot is and precisely how I ought to use it. I want to do as little as possible when writing my ballot and want as much of the argument as possible to be framed and explained for me. You should understand the difference between defense and offense and recognize that defense does not independently win rounds. Defense can empower offense but is not sufficient in and of itself to overcome any offense which improves upon the status quo.

*As an updated addendum to this, I would strongly prefer not to vote on violations that are alleged to occur outside of a debate round.
** A second addendum on theory - in light of some rounds that have occurred in early 2023, I'm realizing that in a debate that collapses to theory where theory truly feels like a wash, I think I'm preferring to flip to the team that didn't go for theory. This means you should use theory with me in instances that truly feel abusive. This is not to say that I won't vote on potential abuse, but it is to say you better win your shell convincingly if you intend to collapse on potential abuse

On Speed:

In general, I don't mind speed. I used to debate quite quickly, I listen to every podcast in the world on 2.0, and one of my previous partners was probably one of the fastest there ever was. That said I don't think speed should be a tool of exclusion and I do think there is a point at which speed is used (especially in evidence style debates) as a tool to lazily "warrant" an argument by reading cards that don't say what you say they say in the tagline and just hoping no one notices. Obviously, you should slow down to read taglines but even when you're "spewing" out the actual card, it should be comprehensible. This is especially true in a world of online debate which can become particularly hard to understand. I've watched some judges in a panel be too afraid to clear/slow when no one can understand a word someone is saying (especially in online debate). To be clear: I am not afraid to clear/slow you. Clear means speak more clearly, slow means I need you to slow down. I'm much more likely to say clear than I am slow as I want to hear the merits of your cards so if the card becomes an issue in a debate I can actually hear what you read. I don't mind going back to read a card that is contested but I also think that as soon as I start spending time outside the round reading, I'm now being asked to input my interpretation of what I read and apply it to what the debaters said. This quickly begins to violate the so-called "path of least resistance" that most judges are looking for. As such, my preference is to evaluate what I understood and hopefully not have to go back and read. It's the responsibility of debaters to make sure that what they're arguing is understood by the judges to the maximum extent possible. Spewing out a card at a speed you can't handle without slurring your words does not accomplish this goal. You'll get a lot further spending your time making coherent arguments everyone can understand than you will spitting nonsense to make fake claims.

*As an addendum to this, this issue has gotten a lot worse since I first wrote my paradigm. And frankly, at the highest levels (CEDA), we now see debate starting to slow back down. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like this is my preference. I'm not going to punish anyone for spreading, and I don't need you to speak your case at 2mph, "2.0 podcast" is a pretty good speed. My highest priority is understanding. Look, we are talking about some really in-the-weeds ideas in some of these debates. Debate will inevitably bastardize almost any philosophy, but I think you're going to do a lot more just interpretation of it when you slow down enough to actually explain your position and how you resolve the issues in and out of round.


If you ask me for prep, I'm just going to run your time, it's up to you to keep track of how much you're using. Flex prep is fine, but if you're going to do it, please ask your opponent and establish it at the beginning of the round. I've had some debaters ask me if flex is OK after their opponent already used some or all of their prep and this seems unfair to me. If you make an argument in CX, make sure you actually put it on the flow during your speech time.

PLEASE provide me a copy of all texts (Plans, counterplans, perms, alts, interpretations, etc)

Yes I want to be on the email chain--feel free to email regarding decisions or any random debate questions or thoughts--I love talking about debate because I'm a nerd and this is my life.

Please add this email to the chain and send any questions here: Jack.A.Seraph@gmail.com

I am a third year George Mason University, a Varsity Debater. I've been a 2A and a 2N. Cleared at two nationals. Still debating. I go for framework and read a plan, but will vote for whatever(no seriously I'll vote for almost anything).

TL;DR: Spreading is literally preferred just don't gargle marbles. I'll vote on anything. Tech over truth. Framework vs. K affs is either way but maybe 55% neg on the question.

Spreading: Not only do I think spreading is fine, I think it's one of the best things to happen to debate. It's a very useful communicative and competitive tool. That being said, don't take this as a green light to be unintelligible. Yes I can flow a clear 450 wpm. NO I will not be able to flow 300 words per minute that sounds like you're brushing your teeth and gargling water.

Policy vs. K:

A few thoughts.

1. My understanding of K debate and respective critical theorization comes from the perspective of answering the K from a policy perspective. This means that what I look for in deciding these debates is assessing what each team needs to win in the context of the strategies that were deployed, and whether those arguments were won by each team.

2. Framework is the most important part of these debates hands down. Many judges usually say something like 'the aff gets the plan and the neg gets the K.' I take objection to this because usually neither team gives this as an option for me to resolve the debate. The logical conclusion to an aff team saying 'weigh the plan's consequences' and a neg team saying something like 'the 1AC is a narrative or scholarship etc.' being debated out nearly equally is not for me to contrive some sort of compromise. Also how can the aff team 'get the plan' and the neg 'get the K' it literally makes no sense and is totally amorphous. If the debate were about a DA vs. Case, I'd interpret risk and competing claims on a sliding scale, whether I should consider the plan's consequences MUST be a yes/no dichotomous choice though. Most important part. It's much harder for me to conclude that a nuclear war or extinction doesn't outweigh something about the status quo being messed up or some of their assumptions being problematic than otherwise. On the other hand, if the neg is killing the aff on framework, I'll vote on a non-unique reps link.

3. This is also about framework but it deserves its own number -- I think if the neg says 'the aff should defend their reps' or 'the aff is a research project' the aff should make an argument that if they win the plan is a good idea and their impacts outweigh, their research project is net beneficial so who cares about these link args that don't turn the case.

4. The neg should make args about how the links turn the case

5. The neg should criticize the aff's framing of extinction or big stick impacts very heavily. Make this plus framework basically most of your position.

6. I can be convinced of anything so long as it has a warrant. That means death can be good.

Framework vs. K affs:

1. I'll vote either way -- I know that debate is a game, therefore it makes sense that affirmative teams might say that it is not in order to win. This paradox does not make me always vote neg.

2. TVA and SSD can be very critical in mitigating aff offense. That being said, sometimes people are anti-topical and you just need to win that they should be topical and defend a topical plan.

3. Fairness is usually an impact either directly or residually. It's a better impact than 'we'll be advocates and save the world' because we all know that's kind of non-sense. Clash can be an impact that turns the case if the case tries to actually forward scholarship/do something.

4. Fairness should always be impact turned by the aff and I am amenable to voting for 'fairness is bad' or 'fairness impossible.'

5. Kritikal teams are usually correct that the negative's debating in framework debates is usually phenomenal on the link and internal link level, and atrocious on the impact level. Everyone keep this in mind.

6. I prefer affs that think debate is good and try to do something productive/forward scholarship/are close to the topic and try to mitigate neg offense. If an aff basically does nothing or is a sort of self-care argument, I will definitely be amenable to voting aff on those impact turns, but the neg's strategy then should just be a hardcore 'be topical, you're anti-topical, ballot does nothing, fairness good.' The aff should just impact turn fairness.

7. If you don't read any of the above or choose not to take my advice, you'll still be able to win just or close to just as easily.

T: Limits and Ground I'm good for both. 'You have ground' isn't a sufficient answer to 'limits DA.' Affs should have contextual ev to their interp obviously. Aff should impact turn the debates that the neg's interp would produce. Caselist important. Don't make caselist too big -- you might link to your own limits DA and that would be amusing yet unfortunate.

CPs: I'll usually judge kick unless the aff argues otherwise. The neg still needs to justify why I should judge kick if the aff gives me a reason I shouldn't. Love advantage CPs. Love PICs if they're actually testing something substantive. Agent CPs are meh -- really depends on who does the better debating on the competition portion of the debate. Textual vs. functional competition or both being necessary is a debate and you should debate it out. I can be convinced either way.

Condo: I typically am good for unlimited condo/negation theory. I think the neg still has to not blow off condo and can definitely vote aff given a great 2AR on it and bad neg debating on the question. 2AC skew is the best argument. Contradictions isn't a great arg 99% of the time because either the neg has double turned themselves, or they're just testing different portions of the aff.

Other theory: Reject the argument not the team answers every other theory arg if you don't plan on going for the counterplan/position.

Style: I love aggression and sass in debate--but be weary for that is a line that can be difficult to tow. Also don't be sassy or indignant if you're losing--that's just painful. Don't be overtly, or covertly for that matter, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Experience: I have coached PF and LD for 3 years.

Delivery: Quality is better than quantity. This is not a race. Judges need to be able to hear you and understand everything you are saying.

Note taking: Argument is primarily judged, however, I do a mix of flow, arguments, and technical thoughts/recommendations.

Persuasion: Those who properly and appropriately use their research and cards will receive higher scores. Your notes must back up your main points.

Conduct: Please be respectful. Do not attack the other team. Do not talk while the other team is giving their speeches.

Hi,

I am Veena Yendapalli, a computer engineer working in IT field for several years. I am a parent judge with experience in judging debates including Princeton LD and several other tournaments .

Email : vyendapalli@gmail.com

Good Luck to all the debaters!!

I am a parent judge with no personal debate experience, but I'm aware of most things commonly used in LD. English is not my first language, so I prefer clear and concise speaking (no spreading). Off-time roadmaps are okay and appreciated. Tech >>> truth (unless it's a bigoted argument).

I don't flow author names, so clearly refer to your arguments and fully explain them. Citing a page of evidence won't suddenly make me understand the point you're trying to make. No new arguments in final speeches and no new evidence in 2AR. Voter's issues are appreciated but not required; you'll win if you're able to convince me.