Debate coach specializing primarily in Public Forum debate.

Things that generally make a debate round enjoyable for me are the interactions between debaters through clash, cross examination, rebuttals, POIs, etc.

I don’t like judging rounds where I am just being read at.

I value a handful of strong persuasive arguments over a laundry list of contentions meant to overwhelm an opponent. Analytical or common knowledge responses to arguments without cards still register for me.

When it comes to speed, I prefer slower deliveries. I value speeches that are understandable, stylized, and with inflections that highlight the most important aspects of your case. A rapid delivery dumping card after card does not impress me.

I value manners and sportsmanship EXTREMELY heavily. Debate is supposed to be fun and engaging. If I feel like a debater/team is being overly aggressive, demeaning, or rude, the speaker points and possibly the ballot will reflect that. You should ultimately welcome a lively discourse with your opponents. Even if you are facing a team that is inexperienced or unprepared you should try to promote a discourse and avoid intimidating or shutting them out of the round.

Ultimately, thank you for the time and effort you put into debate. It’s a pleasure to be involved in the debate community and to work with debate students. I hope you get something valuable out of the debate experience and make some lasting memories.

My name is Nichole Becker. All I require is you speak clear enough, so I am able to hear and understand your contentions and evidence. I will also not be disclosing after the rounds. Everyone will do an amazing job. Just remember to breathe.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.

I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.

3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.

4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.

5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Online Debate Update:

Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.

PF Overview:

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.

I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.

K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".

I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).

Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.

Focus on the issues and persuade me of your position.

Writing the ballot for me is a plus.

Hi! I'm Olivia (she/her/hers). I'm a high school senior & competed in varsity public forum for four years.

To win my ballet

1. Give overviews and weigh (tell me which arguments are the most important, and why)
2. Terminalize your arguments

Other notes

1. Add me to the email chain: olichia@nuevaschool.org
2. Zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Be kind! :)
3. Tech > truth. I will not intervene, so use consistent logic and complete your arguments
4. I can keep up with speed as long as you are clear
5. If the tournament doesn't specify, I'll give 10 seconds of grace after your speech time ends

Yay have fun

Take a breath, remember you're doing this because it's fun. Have a good time with it. All you can control is whether you put your best into the round, and if you truly make your best effort, you should always walk away proud of having done so.

Have fun with it.

(FYI, I had chat-gpt write my paradigm using my old one lmao)

I changed my mind. If it’s first round I am now a lay judge, otherwise read the paradigm.

Email: Mhadd.eon@proton.me

**General Preferences:**

You can call me whatever you like in round— “Judge, Mr, Dudehandlingtheballot, one person called me Yoda the whole time” a random nickname—just be consistent. I find it amusing and might even bump your speaks if it adds to the fun of the round.

I’m comfortable with circuit-style debate, spreading, and progressive argumentation, though I prefer _logical_, value-driven debates with clear impact analysis. My background includes Policy, LD, and **Parli**, so I’m familiar with the nuances of these formats. So: I LOVE PLANS! I love counter plans, I love em all. If your opponent doesn't run a plan though, please do not run a counter plan just to appeal to me.

I strive to be a tabula rasa judge, evaluating the round based on the arguments presented. That said, there are a few things I strongly prefer:

1. **Logical Argumentation:** I love well-structured, logical arguments with clear impacts.

2. **Clash and Impact Calculus:** Direct engagement with your opponent’s arguments is crucial. Impact calculus is often the deciding factor in my decisions, so weigh impacts clearly and thoroughly.

3. **Respectful Debating:** Personal attacks, offensive rhetoric, or appeals based solely on moral guilt (e.g., “not voting for me is racist/sexist”) will not persuade me at all, quite the opposite, to be honest. Keep the focus on your arguments and impacts.

**Event-Specific Notes:**

• **Policy:** I’m very comfortable here. Spread all you like, but clarity is non-negotiable. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow you, and your speaks will reflect that. Plan-focused debates are great, but Kritiks need to be well-explained with clear links to the resolution and real-world implications. Flimsy links won’t cut it.

• **LD:** I strongly value the traditional focus on values and criterion, though I’m open to progressive arguments (e.g., plans, theory, and Ks) if they’re executed properly. If you’re running a K, ensure I’m included in the email chain, and be prepared to explain it thoroughly. I value clash and don’t mind unique positions as long as they’re clear and accessible.

• **Parli:** Have fun with the round! Clear, logical argumentation with solid engagement is what I enjoy most. I don’t expect Parli debaters to spread, but if you do, clarity is just as important here as it is in Policy. Parli was what you could call my main event. It is odd that this needs to be even mentioned, but Parli has three resolution types, Value, Fact, and Policy, mirroring the three primary debate events (congress does not, and will never count). So yes... If it's a policy round, you MUST have a plan as the affirmation; you will lose if you don't have one, and the negation even slightly mentions it.

**Progressive Argumentation:**

I’m familiar with progressive debate styles and comfortable evaluating theory, plans, and Kritiks... Just uhh:

• Ks must be clear, well-warranted, and linked to the resolution.

• Theory should be concise and purposeful, not frivolous.

• I will evaluate topicality and procedural arguments fairly but don’t waste time on arguments you can’t fully develop. Also, don't just run topicality to force them to respond; I would love to see more direct clash

**Speaker Points and Clarity:**

• Be clear and organised. Your speech will suffer if I have to call “clear” repeatedly.

• I reward creativity, humour, and a confident speaking style, but logical rigour always takes precedence.

• Disclose cases for spreading rounds and include me in the email chain if applicable.

**Final Thoughts:**

I’ve competed at the national and state levels in Policy, LD, and Parli, and I appreciate the effort debaters put into their rounds. Keep your arguments logically grounded, engage with your opponent meaningfully, and have fun! I’m happy to answer questions before the round begins. Let’s have a great debate lol!

I am a parent judge. I am looking for fluency and justified claims. Evidence must flow logically and must be factual. Arguments must be linked in a way the opponent can understand the justification. Please be kind during cross examination. Be respectful and have fun! Good luck debaters!!

Update 2/13/2021

Add me to the Email Chain: MD16@albion.edu

I debated in high school at CRSJ from 2018-20 through SVUDL. I debate Policy and LD.

I am currently attending Albion College in Michigan.

Currently I am a judge for SVUDL and DUDL. I was given the opportunity to debate from a UDL and I am more then willing to help any UDL students. I understand what it takes coming from a UDL, so I just want everyone to have fun and learn.

Speed: I am fine with speed but please make sure it's clear for me to understand. If I don't understand I will say clear three times and you'll have to hope for the best.

Kritiks: I am fine with Ks but I had limited exposure to Ks themselves. If you chose to run a K that is more complicated or nuanced please do the extra work of explaining it for me, I hate assume things and it might not always work in your favor.

Topicality: If your opponents run something unfair, call it out and run topicality. I will actually listen and it matters, I've had too many parents judges just dismiss it because they just like the other arguments my opponents where making.

Theory: Please make it clear and reasonable. It may be better to have a doc sent out as it would be easier for me to follow. I will probably vote on Education, access, or fairness. Sometimes you don't have the same opportunities so I just want everything to be fair for everyone. Now, I personally don't like frivolous theory but if you chose to run it I will do my best to put my bias aside.

CP: Okay Okay... my favorite cp of all time is the Canada counter-plan. My friends ran the Wakanda counter-plan on the 2019-20 topic and I always loved how passionate they were about it and how they knew every aspect about it. They put a lot of work into it and it helped our whole team understand it and to get a new perspective on it every time.

CX: I am fine with tag-team CX. I don't usually flow CX, if it's a definition then I'd probably write it down. When the time runs out, please wrap it up and be respectful to your opponents. If your opponent doesn't answer your question, call it out.

DA: I am fine with anything, make sure it makes sense. I would rather you run 2-3 solid DAs then 6 or 7 and then drop them.

If you made it this far then yess, this might help you see what I might like and probably will vote on.

Please Please Please make sure if you are running anything that is as clear as possible, I don't want to assume things because you work hard on your cases and if I have to assume something it might not help you.

I want a good informative debate, I want everyone to learn something new and have a good time. Everyone has a different perspective on the world and everyone's voice is valid. Do not discriminate against anyone, debate should be inclusive and accessible to everyone. With that if there is discrimination in the round I will take it to tab, I will definitely will not stand for racism or Ablism, everyone matter and every voice is important. Do not make something up too, that is just abusive and hurts every community.

My favorite Ks of all time is Anzaldua and Afro-futurism, learning these two really helped my debate team really grow and helped us understand our place in the world. I am chicano so Anzaldua hit on a personal note. I really care that everyone is represented in debate and if your argument are about structural issues then this space is for you because if we are educated then we can find solutions.

I'm a parent judge and have limited experience with judging speech/debate. Please speak clearly and emphasize on the main points and evidences. I can't handle fast speed. I value speech quality and offer speaker points. As for PF, I like contestants that defend their cases well and raise questions/validations of their opponents' case.

Hi! I’m new to judging, so please be patient.

A few things to keep in mind:

• Please, no spreading. I cannot evaluate your arguments if I can’t understand them. I prefer that you clearly articulate a few points rather than speed through a bunch.
• Be thoughtful in your presentation. I care a lot about style and delivery of arguments.
• Please signpost so I know what you’re talking about and can keep track.
• Use solid evidence. I will do my best to remain objective, so please make sure you have evidence to back up your claims.
• Be respectful! I will instantly dock points for rude behavior.

I look forward to seeing you debate. Best of luck!

I have been involved in forensics since 2019, first as a competitor and now as a coach. My main focus has always been public forum but I am well experienced in judging and overall consuming all forms of debate. Put simply even with that said I prefer to be treated as a lay judge; I like explanations, I like consumable argumentation, and I hate spreading. With that said one thing I will accept is very "techy" approaches that the average lay judge may not pick up on, most notably Ks. With that said in each form of debate I expect you to be able to relate your arguments to the natural conditions of a win within your round that being a frame work, value, or simple Cost/Benefit analysis. Over all I'm here for the spirit of debate and only have 3 rules: be respectful, try your hardest, and do not spread.

lay judge, please do not spread

i have judged a few rounds before, I look for -

1. Deep of understanding about the topic
2. speakers points and how many evidences are provided.
3. Everyone should be respectful

I am a former high school policy/LD debater. I also competed in many individual events. Now, I am a trial lawyer. I seek to reward the speaking that connects most directly with the professional and personal activities that high school debaters will be performing in just a few short years.

For policy debaters: Debate is a game. And, in my opinion, policy is a place where (almost) anything goes. You can spread, you can run K, you can read a poem. If you've signed up for policy, you know the world you have signed up for. But, note the following: If I can't understand you or write/type/think fast enough, I might miss your brilliant argument. The stranger or more counterintuitive your argument is, the more proof I will need for it. Style and persuasion still mean something to me in policy debate, so if you can spread while being persuasive (yelling is not persuasive), you will have an advantage. Those who abandon speed altogether AND who make a good argument for why they should win even if they can't cover everything -- those people might very well win. As I say, debate is a game.

Public forum: If (almost) anything goes in policy debate, then public forum is its more constrained, conversational, and accessible cousin. My understanding is that it was created as an alternative to what policy has become, and therefore I am less receptive to spreading and absurdist styles in PF. As a result, I will not necessarily vote on dropped arguments. Two minutes is simply not enough time to cover everything in a debate, so it is entirely possible to pick an argument to the exclusion of others and win -- just tell me if that is what you're doing, and tell me why that argument is the winner. Please consider whether your tone, your speed, and your use of jargon are at all applicable to: a class presentation, a conversation with a professor, an informal discussion with friends or colleagues, a courtroom, a pitch to a boss, etc. These are the places in which your debate skills will be applicable.

For all debaters: If you are rude in any way (prematurely cutting opponents off in crossfire, ad homs in speeches, gesturing from your chair while others speak), you will lose speaker points, and possibly the round. Aggressiveness is fine, but I can't abide jerks.

I’m a teacher/coach and a parent, but I'm also a human being who is trying to provide you with a grounded educational experience. I'd recommend treating me like a flay judge.

I believe judges should be tabula rasa/blank slate. You probably know a lot more about the resolution than I do, so I don't know much until you tell me. In my opinion, Pro/Aff has the burden to prove the resolution with a preponderance of evidence, and I base victory on the number and weight of arguments. Ties almost always go to Con/Neg.

I'm not really concerned with cards until there is an actual point of contention. If you feel that your opponent is misreading (or worse yet intentionally misrepresenting) their evidence, please point that out to me; otherwise, it's unlikely that I will ask to see any cards during round.

Finally, I attribute speaker points to a debater's argumentation, refutation, organization and presentation on a modified scale of this rubric. Level 1 (24) Level 2 (25) Level 3 (26) Level 4 (27), Level 5 (28 or 29) Level 6 (30)

Do

• Carry contentions/arguments through from start to finish (constructive to final focus)

• Use engaging speaking skills (eye contact, pausing/repetition, inflection). You're likely communicating far less to me than you think you are, so these techniques will be the most effective way to make sure I hear you

• Actively identify any misinformation from your opponent

• Speak in complete sentences and words

• Include context/meaning when using debate-specific jargon

Don’t

• Speak too fast (around 150 wpm is normal for me)

• Engage in hostile/snarky interactions with teammates/opponents/me

• Begin with an off time roadmap: it doesn’t help me, and it seems like a way to extend your speaking time

• Link your contentions/impacts to nuclear war (unless the resolution is specifically connected to nuclear disarmament)

Send emails to bhughes@ocdl.org

Experience/Background (if you’re curious)

Education

B.A Government/Pre-Law (Claremont McKenna College): Parliamentary debate

M.A Education (San Diego State University)

California State Credentials: Social Studies/History, English/Language Arts, Administration Services

Current Employment

Director of P-8 Speech and Debate (Fairmont Private Schools, Anaheim CA): Public Forum, Modified Parliamentary, Model UN (25 years)

Lead Instructor (New England Academy, Tustin CA): Modified Parliamentary, Speech (10 years)

My background is I have judged for 6 years, mainly exempt, Interpt , oratory, duet, and duo. World Schools nationals and state. and other various debates. I have done Big Questions, With that being said, speak slowly and enunciate your words so I can understand you. I like concise, logical arguments. I want to hear voters in your last speech explaining in detail why I should vote for you and what you did that the other side failed to do.

I will listen to all arguments To earn a big win

The main thing I expect to see in a round is respect for your opponents. Keep your arguments on the topic, don’t resort to insults or petty commentary. It will not win you the round. To win the round, you need both Content and Style. Do not expect to win a round solely off of one or the other.

1. POIs are a strategic tool in rounds, not a chance to bombard your opponent. Stay respectful and wait the customary 15 seconds between POIs. I take your POIs into consideration if you connect them or circle back to them in your substantive speeches. Follow WSD norms.
2. It does not matter how many arguments you make if none of them are weighed against your opponents. Make sure to engage with your opponents' case and extend your arguments down the bench. Please don't just reiterate your substantives without telling me why they are more important or more correct than the opposing side's
3. Impacting is integral to winning my ballot. There is a reason the motion is being debated, find it and tell me why it matters. Impact out each of your arguments. Magnitude, Scope, and Relevance.

Just have a clean round and do your best!

1. Debate well
2. Be Nice!

Best of Luck to all.

I am a lay judge and this is my first year of judging. I flow the rounds, and I generally have some background knowledge on the topic, but please treat the round as if I do not because I may not know what you are talking about.

What I look for in a round regarding any debate style:

1. Speaking Speed: Please go at a moderate speed. I don’t want to have to judge a round where I am barely able to flow because of the speed the round is going at. I also want to make sure that both I and your opponents are able to understand your contentions. It’s very time-consuming in crossfires to ask for a summary of your contention(s).

2. Timing: Please make good use of your time. I would appreciate it if you time yourself. I will be timing, but I think as debaters you need to develop the habit of timing yourself.

3. Attitude: Please be respectful. I will not tolerate inappropriate language, interruptions, etc., and it would be in your best interest to avoid this. I will dock speaker points if anyone is rude.

4. Crossfires: In your crossfires, allow your opponents to respond completely and don’t interrupt anyone. Also, please have your cards handy in case your opponents call for a card. It would save a lot of time.

5. Cherry Picking: Please don’t take a single example and generalize it to the overarching idea. I’ve judged rounds where debaters have done this - for instance, on the PF NSA surveillance topic the privacy vs. security argument - and it’s very messy and hard to judge.

6. Prep Time: Please don’t take any prep time before your crossfires. I’ll be glad to give it to you any other time, like before rebuttal, summary speech, etc., but I discourage taking any before a crossfire. I am okay with taking either running or set prep.

7. Technical Difficulties: I like starting as soon as possible, and it would be greatly appreciated if you can resolve any tech issues with your partner/on your own before entering a round.

Speaker Points: I’ll be basing your speaker points on your speed, style, timing, attitude, crossfires, and, of course, the actual content of your speeches.

Clarify any questions you have for me beforehand.

I look forward to judging a clean and interesting round.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.

Background

I am a debate coach and familiar with all formats of debate. Primary focus is now World Schools Debate. I have coached teams and competed on the international level with those teams so I am well versed in WSD. Embrace the format of this special debate. I don't enjoy seeing a PF attempt in this format-make the adjustment and be true to the form as intended for it to be.

Judging Paradigm

I'm a policy-maker at heart. Decisions will be flow-based focusing on impact calculus stemming from the question of the resolution.

If I'm not flowing, I'm either not buying your current argument or not appreciating your speaking style.

Play offense and defense; I should have a reason to vote FOR you, not just a reason to vote AGAINST your opponents.

WSD-Show me what the world looks like on your side of the motion-stay true to the heart of the motion

Style:

Manners

Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.

WSD- I love the passion and big picture

Speed

Speed is not a problem with me, it's probably more of a problem with you. Public Forum is not "Policy-lite" and should not be treated as such as far as speaking style goes. The beauty of PF should not get lost in trying to cram in arguments. Many times spreading in PF just tells me you need work in word economy and style. Feel free to speak at an elevated conversational rate displaying a rapid clarity that enhances the argument.

WSD-Don't even think about speed!

Organization

Speeches should follow the predetermined road map and should be signposted along the way. If you want an argument on the flow, you should tell me exactly where to flow it. If I have to make that decision for you, I may not flow it at all. I prefer your arguments and your refutation clearly enumerated; "We have 3 answers to this..."

Framework and Definitions

The framework (and definitions debate) should be an umbrella of fairness to both sides. The framework debate is important but should not be over-limiting to your opponents. I will not say "impossible" here, but winning the round without winning your framework is highly improbable. I am open to interpretation of the resolution, but if that interpretation is overtly abusive by design, I will not vote for your framework. That said, I caution your use of abuse stories. Most abuse arguments come off like whining, and nobody likes that. If a framework and accompanying definition is harmful to the debate, clearly spell out the impacts in those terms. Otherwise, provide the necessary (and much welcomed) clash. Most definition debates are extremely boring and a waste of time.

Final Focus

Your FF should effectively write the RFD for me. Anything less is leaving it up to my interpretation.

Good luck, and thank you for being a debater.

I am a lay judge and am looking for a respectful and clashing round. While I can handle speed, please do not go too fast or too slow.

Please email all your cases to me using the email below so I can follow along.

jaleesky@hotmail.com

Looking forward to great speeches. Have fun!

Parent judge.

I am Parent lay judge. Speak at any pace you want, as long as it is understandable. Debate using lots of historical empirics and statistics backing your claims.

Add this email to the chain: VCHSdebate@gmail.com

i wont read any cards sent during the round. Only after

I evaluate all arguments, as long as they are logical

I am a volunteer parent (lay) judge and sponsor of independent team Mustang Gold and sometimes stand-in parent volunteer for Homestead High School. Professionally, I am a Vice President at a large, public technology company and I specialize in Software Architecture.

I have judged at middle-school speech & debate tournaments, one Varsity World Schools tournament, and one PF tournament.

I am familiar with the World Schools and Public Forum formats.

I am turned off by "bluster"; your best path to win my ballot is to combine strength, reason, and courtesy in your argument and presentation.

I am a first time Debate Judge, so feel free to educate me on your positions. Speak slowly and loudly so I can follow. Use facts, cite sources, and most importantly have fun.

if you debate the entire round without technology, you'll get auto 30s

Speak slowly, and for everything else please refer to kellen jiang's paradigm.

I am a fellow parent and has a very little experience judging PF and speech tournaments. Expecatations are very less to speaking clearly and slowly , explaining key points or terms as understandable to common audiences . Stating your sides politely . Good contentions and tactful rebuttals are a value add .

Expecting a good decorum among debaters!

Radha Ravi

English teacher and former journalist - Analysis & English is my passion

I was a communications and broadcast journalism major, and communications is key for me.

Debate & speech judge for the past 3 years.

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Read carefully! Pay heed!

1.SPEED: No. If I cannot understand you, you automatically get points deducted, which might lead to a loss.

2.EVIDENCE:

a. As a journalist evidence is key for me. Just spouting sentences without evidence is a no-no. You can paraphrase which is preferred and you need clear source credentials. Whichever team gets me the best source credentials gets the points.

b. Honesty in presenting your evidence matters. Fact Vs fiction. Fiction is a no no. The team that is honest and has done the actual research will be rewarded.

3. READ OFF THE PAPER: Read but don't completely read off the paper. Try to make eye contact. Eye contact happens automatically if you know what you are saying and your passion for what you are speaking comes through.

4. CROSS EXAMINATION: Cross ex is something I give importance to. For me, this is the backbone of debate. So I will closely assess how robust your probe is into your opponents' statements; and how you bounce back when your opponent finds a weak spot in your presentation.

5. FINAL SPEECH: Has to clearly state why you would like to be picked as the winner. Make your conclusion strong.

6. LANGUAGE: Language is important duh! :) Correct usage of words, be it simple or at a high level, will be assessed. If you give me too much jargon that goes over my head and puts me to sleep, you automatically get points deducted. Clarity is key.

ALL THE BEST!

I do not prefer too much spreading so much so that the participant is having hard time breathing. Please keep the talking speed such that I can follow and take some notes while you are speaking.

Hello,

I am a parent judge, so please keep this in mind during your rounds. Try and speak slowly, as I can get the best notes this way. I would like off-time roadmaps, and value statistics in supporting evidences. Furthermore, I also look at the strategy used by teams, as well as how well they attack each component.

Make sure to be polite and respectful during crossfire, and have good sportsmanship.

I wish you good luck, and look forward to judging your round!

Contact email: girish1.srinivasan@gmail.com

Speak clearly, Dont spread, use studies and evidence that are not manupilated and most importantly have fun while expressing your point of view in simple yet impactful manner.

Hello, I am a parent judge. English is not my first language. Therefore, please speak clearly at moderate pace so that I can keep up with what you are saying. In addition, please try to use less debate vocabulary. When you make a point, please make it clear what you are referring to. It makes it easier for me to follow.

You can add me to your email chain.

Finally, be respectful to your opponents and have a fun time!

I am a lay judge with no real experience. I cannot judge fast rounds when I don't understand or comprehend what you are saying. Debate jargon will only confuse me so keep it clear and simple. Talk loud and clear and keep the speed med/low. Do not be rude to your opponent as it will cause me to take off speaker points. Enjoy the occasion and don't be afraid to repeat things to me.

Please speak clearly, do not speed. Explain any expert opinion you cite and defend the relevance of any empirical evidence you present. Build your case and tell me a story. Be respectful to one another and make sure you are not making your opponent feel uncomfortable in any way.

Good luck and I'm excited to judge your debate!

Welcome, fellow debaters! As a lay judge new to the world of debate, I'm excited to watch you all debate. First off, let me assure you that I'm perfectly comfortable with fast speaking, so feel free to unleash your verbal prowess. However, I do appreciate clear signposting to help me keep track of the arguments.

In this round, I'll be particularly attentive to unique examples that support your points and demonstrate why you should win. Remember to weigh your arguments effectively throughout the debate to help me understand their significance. I am truth > tech, so please show me why and how much will be affected by your side to earn a vote.

I encourage you to break stereotypes and inject creativity into your arguments. Show passion and enthusiasm for your positions and be energetic. But please, let's maintain genuine respect for each other throughout the discussion. If someone's crossing the line, don't be afraid to counter them respectfully.

Please, let's keep the debate honest. State your evidence properly and take the time to explain it thoroughly. And remember, confidence is key! Be confident in your arguments but also open to constructive criticism and new ideas.

Above all, let's have fun! Debate is an exciting opportunity to engage with important issues and learn from each other. So, express yourselves passionately, but always with a genuine spirit of camaraderie. Let's make this round memorable!

I would like to disclose so you don't ponder about your results, and I will provide feedback and insights after the debate.

Humor is always appreciated, so feel free to start off with a funny or humorous joke to kick things off. It'll definitely earn you some extra speaker points!

Keep calm and have fun!

Thanks, Charan

As a fellow parent and experienced judge who has presided over more than 30 rounds, may I respectfully recommend that you speak slowly and clearly during your presentation? It would be greatly appreciated if you could begin by defining key terms, stating your standards, and presenting your contentions in a well-organized manner. When explaining your arguments and analysis, please use language that is accessible to a wider audience and keep the round as straightforward as possible.

My email is venkatesan.ramkumar@gmail.com

Hello debaters! Please read this paradigm carefully before the round begins.

• I am myself a fast speaker so I can generally flow other fast speakers. However, I do not think spreading / purposefully making it challenging for your opponents to catch your arguments is very good debating and will dock speaker points accordingly.

Expectations

1. Professionalism
   • Professional attire and demeanor are expected
   • Be respectful to your opponents and judge
   • No talking during opponent speeches
   • Remain engaged throughout the round
2. Evidence and Arguments
   • Clearly explain your evidence and warrants
   • Include all relevant dates and qualifications when citing sources
   • Be prepared to send called cards via email within 30 seconds
   • Evidence should be accessible and formatted for easy reading
3. Time Management
   • Keep your own time
   • Protect your prep time
   • Stop speaking when time is called

Judging Philosophy

• I value clear explanations over speed
• Weigh impacts explicitly
• Extend arguments through all speeches
• Tell me exactly why you win the round in Final Focus
• Dropped arguments are considered true but must be warranted