I'm a parent judge who has spent the last two years judging PF and LD. I'm an attorney and litigator and, as a result, particularly value your frameworks, clarity, and argumentation over technicalities regarding flow. In addition, I'd prefer you remain topical and I have limited interest in theory. In other words, while I will track points made and dropped, and consider them, I'd prefer you point such matters out once (and argue for the point's importance) and then return to your overall argument, and I'd prefer that the debate remain focused on the topic at hand and not spin out into unrelated areas. A novel argument is great, but an unrelated argument is not going to win me over.

I enjoy a good crossfire, but I won't vote on cross unless it's brought up in a summative speech. I get frustrated with debaters that have effective crossfires that aren't utilized - please remember to do that. Also, being aggressive is great, but don't cross the line into being inappropriate, rude, mean, etc.

I indicated this above but I love a good framework and the ability to stick to it. If you are able to respond to your opponents argument, or learn something in cross, and fit that rebuttal or information into your framework - or a natural extension thereof - I will be an admiring judge.

Finally, please do not speak to fast. Share your information, but remember you're trying to convince me of your argument.

Hi!

First, a (very) brief overview on me, then my preferred debating styles. I was a PF debater all 4 years of high school, qualified for NCFL for 3 years, went to octofinals there my senior year. I'm a political science major at York College. I promise to have done at least the basic research into the topic of debate. Now onto the stuff you care about:

Please keep off-time roadmaps, linkage theory, and all other jargon add-ons reasonable and minimal. I'm not totally anti-theory, but please keep in mind that PF is meant to be oriented towards a lay judge. If your speech would sound like nonsense to an outsider, I'm interpreting it as nonsense. In this same vein, avoid spreading whenever possible. I want you to convince me, not just rattle off statistics at breakneck speed.

Please remember that I cannot use points made in crossfire for my final decisions. If you make a good point, or your opponent makes a bad one, please bring it up in a later speech. I want to judge on those points, but I can't if you don't let me.

I'm all for a heated exchange in a crossfire, but please keep it respectful. Aggression in a round, especially if your opponent has done nothing to warrant it, reflects badly on you as a competitor.

Most of all, be respectful, have fun, and do your best!

I am a parent judge. This is my third year of judging local and national tournaments.

I base my decision off of my flow. Please be respectful to one another, you can be assertive and make points without being rude. No spreading, speak slow so I can understand you. Finally, have fun!

LD

Overview

Basically, I prefer a more traditional style of LD. That being said, I don't have any huge objections to progressive debate. I am fine with philosophy and try not to intervene too much. I can enjoy debates that focus on framework or philosophical issues and those that focus on contentions and substantive argumentation. A good round is a good round, no matter the layer(s) that get the most attention. I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting a criterion and by identifying who weighs most heavily under this standard. Winning the value or criterion is not itself a reason for you to win, unless you can weigh under it. Tell me what arguments you're winning, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round. I strongly prefer that clash focus on points of significance in the round and that speeches be organized. Roadmaps and signposting are extremely helpful, so please stick to roadmaps once you've given them.

I judge mostly on the local level. I was a policy debater a millennia ago, have been coaching LD, PF and speech for 13 years and have had policy teams in the past. My students have reached the elimination rounds at the NCFL Grand Nationals in LD and Policy.

This is my LD paradigm. I will not answer questions about my preferences or judging style once the first speech has been given. I do not disclose or provide oral critiques unless required to do so by the tournament. As a coach I value a well written ballot so that I can discuss the rounds with my debaters. My position on disclosure and oral critique is non-negotiable.

Argumentation

- Topicality matters. If you want to run something non-topical, go ahead, but be prepared to strongly defend why I should be considering it in the round.

- Only make theory arguments when the violation is genuinely unfair and has a real impact on the round. I won't evaluate frivolous theory arguments.

- I will not drop debaters just for making new arguments, but I will drop the arguments. An argument in rebuttal is not new if it is made at the first opportunity a debater has had to address a previous argument. A new point in the Neg's last speech can be rebutted by a new point in the 2AR.

- I will default to the Aff's proffered definitions (assuming they're stated in the AC) unless Neg offers good reason for me prefer a counter-definition (or a modified version of the Aff's definition) proffered by the Neg. I cannot reject a definition unless I am given some alternative definition or understanding to use and that alternative is argued for.

- Please summarize your winning arguments in your last speech. While I may disagree with your list of voting issues, it helps me see what issues you have identified as important and how you weigh them.

Evidence

- I do not require debaters to proactively share their cases with one another or with me. If you want someone's case or evidence, request it--it's simple enough to do. I do, however, expect you to share evidence when requested. I dislike asking for cases pro forma, and in slower debates, I prefer that debaters not call for or examine cases just as an aid for flowing. Don't be lazy.

- I am reluctant to call for evidence. Unless there are accusations of dishonest practices, I will evaluate the credibility of sources based on the arguments made by the debaters in the round.

Speed

- I dislike speed more because I cannot read my handwriting on my flow if you are going too quickly. If the first time I hear an argument is in rebuttal, it will count as a new argument on my flow and will be evaluated as such. I will not vote you down or reduce your speaker points just because you're going faster than I'd ideally like, as long as I can still understand most of what you're saying. I can only vote on what I can flow.

- I will not shout "clear" during rounds. You are first and foremost a communicator. It is your obligation to make eye-contact with/watch the judge, so you should see if I have stopped flowing. If I have stopped flowing, take this as your cue to slow down. If you sustain a pace I find literally incomprehensible, I will stop writing entirely until your pace becomes comprehensible again. Again what is not on my flow is not evaluated in the round.

Timing

- I always time all speeches and prep. My timer keeps the official time. If you need time signals, please ask, but I am not always great at remembering them. Fair warning.

- Prep begins after all requested cards are shown or sent to the requesting team (unless the requesting team wants to or does begin prepping sooner). Prep ends when the debater tells me it ends or they run out of time. Debaters must clearly indicate to me when they are starting and ending prep so that I can keep time. Starting prep before alerting me is unacceptable.

- Feel free to time yourselves. You may time your opponents as well, but please don't cut them off verbally or with an alarm. If you think an opponent has exceeded their time, get my attention quietly.

- A sentence begun before time expires may be completed after time has expired. No compound, complex or run-on sentences.

Cross-Examination

- CX is non-binding unless its content is brought up in your immediately subsequent speech. For example, if you are Aff and raise something said in 2CX in the 2AR, I am going to treat it as a new argument/non-binding and I will discount it. If the Aff wants something in 2CX to be binding, Aff should raise it in the 1AR.

- I do not allow flex prep (using prep time as added cross-ex time) in my rounds unless required to do so by the tournament. If I am on a panel and the tournament rules are unclear, I will defer to the majority on whether to allow it. Similarly, I do not allow cross-ex time to be used as prep time. If you have questions on flex prep or using cross-ex time to prep, please ask before the round begins so that everyone is on the same page. It is always okay to ask!

- I am not a fan of CXs that descend into shouting matches. CX should be interactive and probing, but not combative.

My Redlines

- I will vote down any debater who clearly and intentionally sets out to (1) advocate violence against other human beings; (2) take a position which is Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, Sexist, Xenophobic, etc.; and/or (3) personally attack an opponent, school, or anyone involved in the activity.

- I will vote down any debater who (1) is exceptionally and insufferably rude, (2) makes threats, and/or (3) falsifies, misquotes, selectively edits, and/or otherwise dishonestly manipulates evidence. To clarify, "exceptional rudeness" includes, but is not limited to, extreme badgering, using an offensive epithet, or making an obscene gesture.

- I will vote down any debater who reads extremely graphic or disturbing evidence which carries a high likelihood of causing serious emotional distress to a participant or audience member in the round, unless a trigger warning is given before the debate and the consent of all present is obtained in advance.

• It is virtually never acceptable to read an obscene word as part of quoted evidence. The educational value must be extraordinarily significant. In such a case, I will expect a debater to justify to me in their speech why the evidence and the word in question are extremely important for me to hear. This is an incredibly high burden to meet, and the justification should be quite compelling. Reading an obscene word without sufficient justification will cause me to ignore the card entirely and reduce your speaker points. Also using obscene language is never acceptable to me in a round. All of you have a bigger vocabulary than that! Find a different word to use in your speech.

Finally,

I don't bite--feel free to ask questions before the round if you have any. If you need to refer to me, you should call me "judge" during a round. Outside of a round, "judge" or "Mrs. Mandile" are acceptable. I use she/her/hers pronouns. Remember: just have fun and do your best. Good Luck!

Hey there I'm Sai, he/him/his pronouns! I debated for Marriotts Ridge High School '19-'23 in Public Forum. We qualified for TOC 2 years and despite being a trad debater, I've heard it just about everything, and will evaluate basically anything. Please ctrl + F for "National" or "BCFL" depending on where you're seeing me, while both are technically true I do have some preferences that are specific to local vs. nat. I'm here for a fun time, and probably sacking my weekend cause our school is short on judges, so jokes will be awarded handsomely. This paradigm is a work in progress as I judge more, please feel free to ask me about judging preferences before the round!

Districts update - Use BCFL para for speech, Natl for Debate.

National Tournaments

PF

Email Chain: saidebate1@gmail.com & MRHSPFDebateDocs@gmail.com

Please mention if you're planning on using speech docs or just setting up for evidence exchange, either is fine just if I need to actually check for speech docs.

I'm good with speed up to about 400wpm, faster than that even with speech doc is a little sketch, if you're going faster than this you're kind of a baller but beware I might miss some stuff.

If you're gonna use an uncommon acronym please say the full name first, "...Single Use Plastics(SUPs)..." and then SUPs is fine thereafter for example. I'll try and make a guess if you don't state it but if I'm thinking about what your acronym means I'm not flowing. I'm fine with the basic theory acronyms, RVI, IVI, DA, CI, CP, etc.

Speaks are 26-30, 25 if you did something really questionable or left like half your time on every speech. I start at 27.5 if halves or 27 if not and go up and down from there. Above 28 I look for organization and ease, the more sure I am that you won the round the higher your speaks. Flow clarity is also important, if all your points fit like puzzle pieces on my flow you get points. Point spread is relative to the round but I try to make the values as objective as possible.

Constructive:

If you can look at me when delivering an important point in your case, like a big impact or a key internal link, that's great, but I get that you're reading off your laptop and often reading fast, so I won't penalize a lack of eye contact. If your case doesn't have an impact then I will probably ignore it, if you don't give me a reason to care, I will correspondingly not care. It doesn't necessarily have to be quantified, especially if you're using a framework that's not util, but I do need AN impact. If your framework is not util, please carry through at least the laymen interpretation of your framework, it's sticky but if I have to think too hard I'll miss stuff and that's bad for you. If you don't have a number that I can compare apples to apples with your opponent, convincing me that your impact is even more important.

tl;dr: Try to give eye contact, include impacts, solidify your framework.

Both CXs:

I'll listen but won't flow this, if you have a banger concession bring it up in the next speech. I usually want to hear some elaboration on why it matters that they said this. Please keep the cross moving, no rambling and no dead time. Also evidence exchanges should happen before or after cross, avoid digging around for evidence. Good cross will also bump your speaks, bad cross won't hurt you much but it will probably hurt your other speeches so no double jeopardy on that.

Rebuttal:

I'm really just looking for a response for all the arguments made in the case, and a circle back to your own case if you have extra time. If you are second rebuttal, FRONTLINE YOUR OPPONENTS. I want to hear extensions of your own case and framework, these can be paraphrased but I'd prefer no paraphrasing of cards. You can read interp like "Lee '20 tells us that 1 = 2". Cross application of points and grouping responses is really good, if you do that I'll bump your speaks. If you strategically drop something please call it out, if your opponents call it before you do I'll vote on their offense. I appreciate early interaction with impacts, telling me their impacts don't happen and therefore to prioritize yours is great, but don't sacrifice responses to do that.

Summary:

Again looking for pretty standard stuff here, condense the debate down to the important points, and make sure I understand what the debate comes down to. I value this speech not becoming second rebuttal and I will cringe a little if all I hear is just pure rebuttal. I want to hear some of your own analysis in the process of condensing, and really why YOU think you won the round, not why your card says you won. I will only vote on this if you tell me how your win is supported by the active framework in the round. If there is framework debate and you link in through both, you can tell me that and when the framework debate is decided(Ideally by you but as needed by me) I'll use the best voters for you when evaluating. If you are second summary, you need to weigh in your speech, that way your opponents have time to respond to your points. Ideally if you're first summary you also weigh, but it's okay if it doesn't happen until final focus.

FF:

If this is a third rebuttal I will just vote you down, they would have called the speech a third rebuttal if that's what they wanted. This speech needs to be very heavy on weighing, I will only take arguments talked about here if they were previously mentioned, of course no new responses. I used to partition this speech as 1 minute briefing all the points in the round and1 weighing, if you're running a framework spend some of your time talking about that and why it's dominant in the round, and then talking about how your impacts go through the framework to win you the round. I appreciate some good rhetoric/jokes in here too but no pressure.

BCFL

PF

You can think of me as a tech judge, I am flowing your arguments like a debater, I know when you're gaslighting me, and I've read enough about the topic to know all the stock stuff and some of the unique stuff that's meta.

I cannot call for your evidence, if you don't read cites I will dock your speaks significantly and strongly consider a tab report if it's pervasive, if you don't attribute you are plagiarizing. There are really only two rules, evidence and time, please follow them.

I will stop flowing, sit up, and stare at you funny when you are over time, I will flow the end of your sentence and listen to your rhetoric like "for these reasons we urge you to vote aff/neg" over time, but I will not flow any numbers that are read off time, these need to come much earlier in the speech and if they fall off the edge I will not vote on them.

Please please please signpost, tell me what you're talking about before you start saying words or I will miss everything you say while trying to figure out where on the flow I need to write. Off time roadmaps are good but aren't a replacement for signposting, I still need to hear what contention or idea you're responding to. I will flow chronologically within a contention so you don't need to signpost each individual block just the topmost idea so I know where to put my pen. This is my biggest pet peeve and my only real non-negotiable, if I don't know what's happening I can't judge you.

Speed

I like speed, I will reward speed up to about 300 ± 30 WPM, if you're allowed to send speech docs 400+ is fine. I watch everything at 2x speed so if you can do that I will be happy. I think 250 is the sweet spot before clarity starts being sacrificed, but I have seen faster done, if you're confident go for it! This does not mean take half the prep time, you have 3 minutes and you should use it. If you talk really fast and then run out of things to say and totally stop for like 20 seconds looking for extra stuff to say, the speed bonus will not be as substantial. I am probably the only PF judge on the circuit who you will hear this from. I agree that accessibility is important, but I regularly ran cases that were about that fast and they worked because I was clear and the warrants made sense, speed for speed sake is useless at best, and confusing for your opponents and judges at worst.

Panel

The name of the game is persuasion, and if you're seeing me on a panel, please make sure to adapt to all the judges, I can understand what a parent can understand, but a parent may not understand some bonkers idea that makes sense to me, so be mindful of that. I appreciate the things in this paradigm(obviously), but if you treat me like a parent because the other n judges are parents, I will still flow and evaluate off the flow as you would expect.

I will listen and evaluate anything. Here are some things to note in your speeches

Constructive:

If you can look at me when delivering an important point in your case, like a big impact or a key internal link, that's great, but I get that you're reading off your laptop and often reading fast, so I won't penalize a lack of eye contact. If your case doesn't have an impact then I will probably ignore it, if you don't give me a reason to care, I will correspondingly not care. It doesn't necessarily have to be quantified, especially if you're using a framework that's not util, but I do need AN impact. As I said before, I will not flow impacts that aren't 100% on time. This is especially if you are putting impacts at the end of your case, if they fall off the end I will not consider them in the round until you state them on time, this will seriously hurt your chances of winning, a lot more than ending your speech 10 seconds early, so rehearse your case.

tl;dr: Try to give eye contact, include impacts that are on time.

Rebuttal:

I'm really just looking for a response for all of the arguments made in the case, and a circle back to your own case if you have extra time. Make sure you touch on framework if that is active debate.If you are second rebuttal, FRONTLINE your opponents' rebuttal.Arguments that are not responded to are conceded, and I will notice if you try and extend through ink. If you verbally collapse away from the argument, I will acknowledge that and the drop willbe nonvoting. SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST. I can't read your mind or your flow to know what you're talking about, introduce your response with "on their nth contention on ... Card'17 notes the opposite is true". Card + interp > Reputable card >Deducible interp > Junk Card(you'll know it when you see it) > Un-deducible interp. Spamming responses doesn't really convince me that something is going to happen, I need you to convince me with logic that your response is not complete garbage. If you tell me something your opponent says is illogical and you explain it convincingly, there are times where I will buy that response over a card, especially if the card is dubious. I want to hear extensions of your own case, even if they're just paraphrased, but not at the sacrifice of responses. I really need to hear tags and cites in this speech, especially on important numbers. Cross application and contention grouping blocks work extremely well for me, I will bump speaks for this, and it will help you spend more time on your big round voters, which will determine the ballot. I appreciate a quick brief on the impacts in the round that stand after this, which is usually you telling me that your opponent has none anymore and your impacts prevail.

Summary:

Again looking for pretty standard stuff here, condense the debate down to the important points, and make sure I understand what the debate comes down to. I value this speech not becoming second rebuttal and I will cringe a little if all I hear is just pure rebuttal. I want to hear some of your own analysis in the process of condensing, and really why YOU think you won the round, not why your card says you won. I appreciate strategic collapsing here, if you tell me to focus on a contention I will do that, but if your opponent has offense on a dropped point I will give them the offense unless you warrant the conditionality or sufficiently mitigate. I think it's critical to clarify the round in this speech, tell me exactly where each contention stands, telling me that a contention is dropped by either side is acceptable here. This speech should be relatively light on cards, you already rebutted the point in rebuttal, be brief but clear on frontlines, you can still sway arguments here. This is usually where I start thinking about who has won the round, that isn't binding and I will consider FF in its entirety, but this is my first chance to play with the impact, so telling me that your impact is the one I should be thinking about will really help that. My suggested distribution is about a third of your time on your opponents' case, a third on yours, and the last third on weighing. I have no explicit reservation to this but this is about how long I need to hear each of these segments for.

FF:

If this is a third rebuttal I will just vote you down, they would have called the speech a third rebuttal if that's what they wanted. This is your time to solidify impacts in the round, by this point I either buy your point or I don't, so don't focus on trying to change my mind, this is your chance to sign the ballot with your big number in the round. I do want you to recap the points in the round, if the debate has not collapsed, you can just tell me that you previously responded and I'll carry the response over to save you time. If the debate has collapsed, and especially if there is direct clash on the collapse, brief me on why you win in your own words, ideally with cites supporting, I've already heard your card text. If you tell me your opponent dropped something and they didn't, I will just ignore the fact that you said it, if you tell me they didn't adequately respond, I will flow that, but I will use what I think is a rational threshold for evaluating if they did respond to it. You should spend about a minute weighing, tell me your weighing mechanism, the card/stat you're using, and why it's larger or more important than your opponents. I give this part an outsized role when the framework is not util, because bigger impacts are not so clear. I can't cover every fw here, but for most deontology, better link is where I vote, for fiat/probability I use expected value, on other stuff you just need to tell me why you're better than the other side. This is a good time to inject some rhetoric to sell me on your point as well. Funny, hyperbole, call to action, a short poem(10 seconds tops, heard one of these,it absolutely pushed my ballot in a close round), or any of the rhetorical devices you all learned in English class are all good strategies to convince me, but don't overuse them because they lose effectiveness.

Speech

If you're seeing me in speech it's probably because our school is low on speech judges. Please send hate mail to mrhsspeechanddebateteam@gmail.com and mention Tanvi or Nathan in the subject. I have competed in EXT and I am familiar with all of the events. I care a lot about attention to detail, so while I will assess your presentation as a whole, the little things are what brings 3's to 1's. I have a pet peeve for the mispronunciation of the word "pronunciation", so if you're saying that, it is not pro-noun-ciation and if you say that I will be sad :(

I'm not big on walking and that kind of movement, but I do appreciate clear hand motions that help to convey your point, add emphasis, or even just looking like you're passionate.

Beyond that if I learn something new or you say something cool, you'll probably get a good score, especially in the events where the speech is written by you. For events where you read something else, the biggest driving factor for your score is "looking like you care".

I try to write comprehensive comments but if you have any questions feel free to send me an email saidebate1@gmail.com.

LD

Same story as speech here, I know most of the LD frameworks, and I can evaluate most impacts, but if you're gonna run something outrageous or not well tread, please explain it to me clearly, so I can make sure I am evaluating the right thing. I care about your argument, so I will cringe if the debate is just values/value criterion, and probably just vote on what I heard of the actual debate. If you don't terminalize your impact to your framework/value I will also just ignore it. Other than that I don't care too much about what you say, as long as you say it well and persuade me, I'll vote on that.

I will prioritize clarity and understanding in the round, if it sounds like you're just trying to confuse your opponent with jargon then I will vote you down for bad sportsmanship. You chose to run a wild argument, if you can't explain it that's on you.

Hello! I'm a parent judge, and this is my first year judging, so bear with me. I'm primarily experienced in PF, although I've done a bit of speech. I'm a lay judge.

In terms of speaking tips:

1) Stay below 270 WPM- the closer you get to this number, the more you're losing me!

2) Signpost, Signpost, Signpost- I need to know what your arguments are.

3) Be polite. I judge on argumentation, not speaking quality, but if you're overtly rude to your opponents I'll take that into account in a close round. Same for any bigoted argumentation.

On debate:

1) I follow "sky is red" theory. I.e if you tell me something outlandish and your opponent doesn't engage with it, I'll buy it. Don't abuse this though, and if you don't clearly impact and extend it, then I won't vote off of it.

2) Do the heavily lifting for me. Tell me why I should vote for you in your speech. Do the weighing for me- the more I have to decide who to beleive, the less likely it is to be you.

3) Evidence- I'm not really familiar with setting up evidence chains and sharing. I'll buy that your evidence is credible unless your opponent tells me it isn't, at which point I'll be pretty upset. Don't lie or abuse your cards. As in, I'm okay with questionable link chains, but don't straight up lie.

4) I'm very unfamiliar with K, Tech, etc. I don't judge much circuit. You'll have to make it make sense to me.

Lastly- Great work! I'm excited to listen to every round. Good luck!

This is my third year judging speech (all events), and second year judging PF debate. I will not judge based on my opinion and I do not get offended by the topic or any language in the content. However, I do expect everyone to be respectful to one another.

DEBATE

For PF, please note that I am a traditional judge and need you to speak slowly with very clear sign posts. The slower the better for me, but I also realize you have a lot of ground to cover.

I prefer PRO to sit to my left and CON to my right. Whether you face each other or forward to the judge is your collective preference.

If you keep your time, politely share with me and your opponent (for both the cumulative prep time as well as the timing for crossfire, rebuttal, etc.)

The better you are with roadmaps, signposts, and clearly pointing out drops and turns, the better I will flow your debate. In the summary convince me why you won and please be clear on your weighting and reasoning.

SPEECH

For speech, I tend to take a lot of notes, which helps me remember and distinguish you from the several competitors and go back through them all before final rankings are entered by me into the system. This also allows me to provide you more feedback if you are looking to improve your speech event, or know what portions were most successful.

Please let me know whatever timing queues you prefer and I will do my best to accommodate. This includes hand signals. I do not mind if you use your own timer, as long as your phone is otherwise off and it's just for the timer. I will keep track of time and can provide that to you when you finish if you request it.

For Impomptu events, I will let you keep access to the prompt after the prep period/during your speech delivery.

If you are double entered and need to leave after your event with me, just kindly excuse yourself before the next competitor begins their delivery.

I like to follow the scoring guidance on the ballots as best as possible and will consider all those criteria when doing the rankings.

have been judging LD, some PF, and the odd Policy round for the past ten years or so.

Have been coaching mainly PF (lay) for three years.

The main gist:

Show me a good debate: clash, clarity, and respect, and we'll be good.

More details below:

-Not speed friendly. that being said, if you're brisk but clear, we're good. If you see my pen go down, what was being said doesn't go down on my flow.

(LD) Value Debate:

I won't judge you poorly if you accept your opponent's value as long as you argue why your way and argument still achieves that value.

(All) Other notes
-I get that you're debating but that is no reason to be excessively rude or obnoxious.

-Don't expect me to make connections between arguments. Tell me where there's cross-application and what that implies.What I mean by this specifically is that if you're going to use evidence to argue something, read the evidence, then make the analysis to follow.

I have a strong preference for debating down the flow.

TL;DR for all forms of debate:

I'm somewhere between a lay judge and a technical judge--I can handle a brisk pace but don't spread, and that means don't baby spread either. (2024 update: I have been in tab at tournaments on a more regular basis for 3 years now, my judging is very rusty. Please be kind, don't speak quickly, but like, beyond that, I'm open to most arguments).

I drop points for rudeness.

Hi everyone! My name is Roop Vijayan. I am currently an Assistant Attorney General in the Maryland Attorney General's Office.

Here are a few notes:

• talk slowly please.

• Do not be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will not vote on these arguments and will tank your speaks.
• Stand a few feet away in front of me for all speaking except crossfires.
• Please (please!) signpost and go in order of arguments
• If your opponent requests that you share evidence or cases, I expect that you do it.
• I am looking forward to the round! See you soon!

Hi everyone! I’m currently a college student and I’ve debated in BCFL for 4 years, qualified for NCFL Nationals 3x.

I prefer truth over tech. Please signpost and no spreading. I do weigh crossfire.

Be respectful to each other during crossfire. I have more leniency toward cordial teams.

I care more about logical reasoning than evidence. Explain your evidence and relate it to your argument.

PLEASE WEIGH!!

I did PF for 2 years.

I will be flowing and keeping time (but you should still be cognizant of your own team's time).

I will not flow spread.

Don't be a butt. Period.

Don't be too intellectual, PF is supposed to be for lay judges.

Crossfire doesn't count unless you bring it up in the next speech.

Good luck!

If you can break out into song and dance in the middle of your speech I will give you an extra point.

I would like teams to speak slower so that I can understand it better. Also, please do not interrupt each other during cross examination.