Greetings,

I'm Shashi, and qualified for judging various debate formats including the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, and Speech Events.

My Approach to Judging:

I approach each debate with a global perspective, setting aside any personal biases to ensure a fair evaluation. To sway me in a debate, your arguments must be both credible and persuasive within the context of the discussion. Here are some key aspects of my judging approach:

• Clearly articulate your arguments and support them with a thorough analysis.
• Foster fair engagement with your opponents by challenging their arguments and offering comparisons to demonstrate superiority.
• Organize your arguments in a coherent structure, avoiding abrupt transitions.
• Fulfill your role effectively within the debate.
• For Speech Events, demonstrate creativity and utilize all available resources to deliver your presentation effectively, including eye contact, body language, energy, and expression.

Additional Points:

• While I slightly prefer medium-paced speeches, I evaluate all speeches based on merit regardless of speed. However, taking deep breaths can enhance clarity and coherence.
• I value respectful and cooperative interactions among competitors and discourage rude, hostile, or intolerant behaviour.

When you encounter me as a judge, expect fair and thorough evaluation along with constructive feedback aimed at supporting your growth as a speaker.

—James Madison HH—

—JMHS '24; VT '28—

Hi! My name is Maya and I’m currently a varsity debater at James Madison High School and have been doing PF on the national & local circuit for 2 years. I’m not too picky with judging, but you can find my prefs below. I do have some judging experience (most of it doesn't show up on my judging record for whatever reason) and have learned that I tend to prefer tech over truth, however I will not really evaluate really weird arguments like “Biden must do this to win election and stop the world from ending”. I know a lot of the top teams do this, but I think it’s just a way to appeal to the majority political preference in debate. I’m not saying it doesn’t work, but I prefer real substance and instances that are actually probable. With that being said, if you do run it, please prove that it will actually happen and know how the government and legislation works! My absolute biggest pet peeve in PF is prog debate & disclosure. I think they are becoming extremely harmful norms, and as someone who lost in semi-finals to frivolous theory, I will not condemn anyone to the same fate. Any progressive arguments will not be on my flow and speaks could also be affected if you attempt them. Same goes for disclo, sending speech docs or posting them on the wiki is just harmful for everyone. Come into the debate prepared instead of relying on someone disclosing their case, this should never be an expectation as you enter a round.

—Novice & JV—

I won’t be too picky with teams at this level, I just have a few hard prefs. No spreading, I will not read a speech doc, say it or it's not going to be on my flow. This should go without saying, but absolutely no prog at this level. Finally, make sure you are signposting, you are a lot more likely to have your arguments evaluated properly if it is extended cleanly across my flow. Feel free to ask questions if I’m allowed to disclose my decision.

—Varsity/ Nat Circ—

As I said above, absolutely no prog. Otherwise, feel free to run what you believe in. Other prefs: No spreading, I will not read a speech doc, say it clearly or it's not going to be on my flow. Please signpost and don’t give me a roadmap. Nothing should be new in the second half of the debate, but I will accept new evidence in summary, just no new arguments. Treat me like a flay and explain your warranting and link-chains to me. Extending author names is fine as long as you give me a quick reminder of what that author said, it really doesn’t need to be much. Use cross for gotchas and actual substance, not clarifying questions. I do not flow cross, so if something happens that you want evaluated please be sure to bring it up in a speech. Finally, be respectful. Attitude is one thing, but being straight up rude is another. I don’t really care about attitude, it can be pretty funny sometimes, but be kind to your opponents or your speaks will take a hit. Also, feel free to post round or ask me questions after I disclose my decision. Obviously, My decision will not change, but it helps me learn to be better and it helps you take out some frustrations and understand why I made the decision that I made.

James Madison KP

JMHS ‘24

Northwestern ‘28

For Novice PF:

Try to be as convincing as you can! Use a combination of evidence and your own analysis. I don’t care what you argue as long as you argue it well.

For JV/Varsity PF:

I am a flow judge who enjoys traditional PF rounds with effective clash, nuanced and unique arguments, analytical debate, and quality, non-power-cut evidence.

Some general preferences:

- Some speed is fine with me, but please don’t spread (I won’t flow off a doc).
- Don’t misrepresent evidence.
- I enjoy when teams don’t exclusively read off a speech doc for rebuttal. If, outside of reading new evidence, you can deliver an organized rebuttal with unscripted analysis based solely on the flow, then by all means go for it.
- Weighing impacts in the back half of the debate is crucial to winning the round.
- You absolutely can and should attack poor evidence.
- I won't evaluate theory or K's; please debate the resolution at hand.
- Please exchange cards efficiently.
- If both teams agree to make an email chain, please add me at cakaplan28@gmail.com.

Most importantly, have fun!

James Madison GW

Novice/General PF

• don't spread or speak too quickly, keep a reasonable speaking pace
• be respectful in crossfire and in the round in general- I am not very picky about this but don't be straight up rude or yell
• every argument needs an impact
• signpost, especially when responding to the opponent's arguments (tell me what argument you are addressing)
• no prog

JV/Varsity PF

• an offtime roadmap is unnecessary
• try not to read off a doc for your entire speech (excluding constructive), be able to look up and give some analysis that isn't pre-written
• explain and reinforce the warranting of your argument throughout the round
• weigh your impact in the back half of the round- doesn't have to be in summary although that is preferable, but at least in final focus
• quantified impacts are always preferred