As a Public Forum (PF) debater, my primary goal is to evaluate the arguments made by both teams and determine which side presented the most convincing case. In order to help me make an informed decision, I expect debaters to adhere to the following guidelines:

1. Clarity: Debaters should speak clearly and at a reasonable pace so that all arguments can be heard and understood. Debaters who mumble, speak too quickly, or are difficult to understand will be at a disadvantage.

2. Organization: Debaters should structure their arguments in a logical and coherent manner. Each argument should have a clear thesis statement and be supported by evidence and reasoning. Debaters who are disorganized or fail to make clear arguments will struggle to persuade me.

3. Evidence: Debaters should support their arguments with evidence from credible sources. Debaters who use unreliable or biased sources will be at a disadvantage.

4. Rebuttal: Debaters should address their opponents' arguments directly and provide effective rebuttals. Debaters who fail to address their opponents' arguments or who simply restate their own arguments without addressing their opponents' points will be at a disadvantage.

5. Clashing: Debaters should engage in productive clash with their opponents. This means responding to arguments made by the other team and directly challenging their opponents' claims. Debaters who fail to engage in productive clash will be at a disadvantage.

6. Ethics: Debaters should adhere to the highest ethical standards. This means avoiding personal attacks, being respectful of their opponents, and representing their arguments fairly. Debaters who engage in unethical behavior will be penalized.

By following these guidelines, debaters can help me evaluate their arguments effectively and make an informed decision. I will be looking for the team that presents the most persuasive case and supports their arguments with the best evidence and reasoning.

I am a new parent judge. ????

Email chain: aralynconnollydebate@gmail.com

**Important cx pref notes:** Will be able to judge best in semi-fast rounds or approx. sophomore level circuit debates. K affs and highly technical jargon (e.g. counterplan competition, highly niche Ks) will likely be misevaluated by me. I lean policy > K.

------

Leland '24. Debated lay and circuit policy for four years. Coaching Influences: Conner Shih (Circuit), Natalie Gao (Circuit), Michaela Northrop (Lay), Hannah Lee (Lay)

General things that are very important to me (& speaks!): Clear o/vs that "write the ballot" in rebuttals. Clarity>speed -- I'll flow best if u spread at 70-80% max speed.More than anything, kindness and respect toward opponents.

Below are some other misc. prefs and notes, but all can be changed through good debating

Policy - Circuit:

Policy vs. Policy

• Please send perm texts

T:

• Caselist
• Invest in i/l comparison > impact comparison

Ks:

• Familiar with basic Ks (cap, set col, security)
• Not familiar with non-basic Ks. If you were cursed by tab operators, got me as a judge, and these Ks are your only option: organize clash, have clear impacts, assume I know nothing, and invest in the link debate

K Affs:

• I think fairness is an impact
• Biased towards neg TVA arguments

Theory:

• I default to condo good
• You can respond to ASPEC with "no" and I'll buy it. Not true with other cheap theory tricks though -- I don't like them but be sure to answer them.
• Detailed two-world analysis and clear line by line = key to my ballot

Case:

• Love it! I likely won't vote on presumption, but I will be heavily swayed toward a neg DA, K, etc. by good case debate

Misc:

• I love smart analytical arguments, and will happily prioritize them over bad carded arguments.
• I only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence
• I won't evaluate out-of-round events

Policy - Lay:

• I default to a stock-issues paradigm, but they need to be impacted out. E.g. I won't vote on a technical concession of "they dropped solvency" in itself -- explain why that impacts the aff
• Cross-ex is an art, and super important!
• I care about evidence quality. If you've done your research, show it! That being said, analysis and spin > evidence any day
• Please give affs and DAs a tangible impact! If stats are your friend, my ballot will be too :^)

Ask any additional qs before the round!

Hey y'all! I am a high schooler with 3 years of policy debate experience (both fast and slow) so I can evaluate most kinds of rounds

Tech:

I'm primarily a tech > truth judge,

I prefer policy args but I'm fine with Ks as long as they have real links.

quality > quantity when it comes to offcase

Lay:

just don't be stupid and don't be mean. If its a lay tournament go lay. (also actually explain your arguments don't just say things and expect me to do the impact and link work for you)

hi, I do parli with Ryan. I don't like it when people are too aggressive or speak way too fast. Also please have introductions before your speeches. I prefer if u don't run theory because I don't really know about it but your choice. POI's and questions are good but don't be rude and ask too many. make sure you organize your case well and uh just think of me as a lay judge, I'm not sure what else to include here so ye gl hf!

truth > tech

i will flow, but i will also factor confidence in arguments and depth of knowledge

if you run theory explain it well

no Ks

signpost

link/impact out args

please be respectful of your opponents -- no heckling/excessive facial expressions

Do parli, she/her

overall:

please dont be too aggressive

Content:

signpost please

please be somewhat organized during speeches (ex. case then rebuttal, vice versa, etc.)

Crossfire: please let your opponent have at least 1 question

I don't know any other debate structures

hi my name is juhi!!

GROUND RULES- no discriminatory language, no racism, sexism, etc.-- auto-lose and 0 speaks

ways to get 30 speaks!!

- if youre funny and i laugh at ur joke

- if you make an interstellar, lotr, or marvel reference or star wars obv

- SING IN UR SPEECH or dance

DEBATE RELATED!!!

- prefer clash, tech over truth

- warrant all ur claims

- condense in the rebuttal speeches

- vote neg on presumption

0 SPEAKER POINTS IF U SAY RYAN IS THE BEST- NO SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION

Hi! I'm a high schooler with ~3 years of speech and debate experience, primarily in policy debate.

tech > truth generally

quality > quantity when it comes to offcase

Good luck & have fun!

Leland '24 | UMich CS '28 |email: sumaddury@gmail.com

About me:

- Debated LD all four years of high school, also did a bit of Parli, World Schools, Congress, and Extemp

- Champion of Santa Clara, Stanford CA, and California State

Guidelines:

- Consider me a flay judge --- I can't flow over around 250 WPM

- Minimal circuit experience, only really comfortable evaluating basic theory/phil --- no Ks, no tricks

- Paraphrasing bad

Hi I'm Ishani im a sophmore at Leland and I've competed in PF Debate for the past 4 years.

make email chain before round: manralishani@gmail.com

if ur doing feb pf topic-- ive debated it a lot so i know it well, april i dont really know so consider me a lay judge in terms of knowledge and explain everything

• i'm fine w speed honestly just send docs to me before round
• i dont really like prog---theory fine, i'm not the best to evaluate Ks
• extend everything!!!
• pls collapse
• dont just say things like my opponents dropped xxx, explain why it matter that they dropped it.
• weigh! i love timeframe/probability weighing
• i dont flow cross bring it up in ur later speeches if something is important

I don't like when people misconstrue evidence, if ur opponents do call them out!

I'll be asking for evidence if I need to see if before making my desicion and after rd.

speaks:

28.5+

if ur strategic and a good speaker i'll give u higher

be nice

email: xnmuix@gmail.com

Leland '24, Berkeley '28.

I did policy debate for four years, 6 career bids + TOC octofinalist 1x, qualed to state and nats 3x.

START TIME: i expect everyone to be ready at the time tab sets. every minute late is -1 minute from speech time.

general: the key factors to my ballot are direct clash, well-warranted arguments and judge direction. i like high-quality evidence, but i will not read it for you. i care much more about you implicating the warrants of your evidence and why i should vote on it. i flow everything on my computer and start evaluating the debate based on key issues raised from rebuttals and work backwards from there.

speed: any speed is fine, but clarity > speed and slow down on analytics and tags + authors to 70% speed. if you are unintelligible i will say clear a few times, but will stop flowing if the issue isn't corrected.

if i am on a panel with a judge who requires accommodations, i expect you to adapt accordingly. debate is a communication activity, and locking judges out of engagement is antithetical to the activity.

specifics:

tech > truth, but definitely policy-leaning. good debating can overcome these issues and my biases, i just have more comfort adjudicating those rounds.

i'm an "offense-defense" judge, meaning i evaluate arguments based on risk. i don't think winning defense matters if there isn't a counter-argument to vote for, meaning i'm very perceptible to try or die arguments.

argument specifics:

cps:

• you should probably read a solvency advocate
• i like adv cps but i also often think they link to the net benefit
• i am not a good judge for competition debates - i don't have much experience here, and if you go for it, be extremely slow and clear because i often don't understand the general warranting and impacting out of standards.

da:

• i love these, i think that clear judge direction on reasons to prefer evidence, stronger warranting, and clear impact analysis are most important for me. i think turns case is very important

topicality:

• i still don't fully get ptiv so go slower on this if you make the argument
• i wish that teams spent more time on the internal link analysis for why they access fairness/education better rather than explaining why those impacts are important.
• i want a caselist

kritiks:

• i love the fiat k and am fine with tricks, but think that too many teams are using this to be ships in the night.
• i hate block reading. links should be contextualized to the aff and have clear turns case analysis.

k affs

• fairness is an impact but i can be convinced otherwise
• i'm honestly inexperienced with adjuducating framework debates but i think that impact turns to fairness are persuasive. it doesn't make sense to me when teams say that fairness is racist but then read an interp to recreate that model.
• i feel very compelled by the tva and sws debate, and like in depth explanation on what both of those look like

kvk

• i will probably feel very compelled by the perm and need strong link explanations for why the two are mutually exclusive
• im not going to lie that i get lost in the back of these rounds - i think clear link analysis and judge instruction will help me the most

case

• i don't think 0% risk is possible or that presumption is real but i do think risk of case can be significantly lowered to the point where some other argument should be prioritized
• i love case debate and honestly wish teams were better with extending and warranting out defense

theory

• condo is good but i can be convinced otherwise - i'm annoyed when there isn't clear in-round abuse, but if it's dropped i'll vote on it.
• any other theory lowkey irks me, and using it as cheap shots to win will probably tank your speaks.

update for squals:i'm fully aware that this is a lay tournament and am fine with you going slow or treating me as a lay judge. note that i'm more based on the flow than the truth of an argument, so responding to arguments line by line and condensing down to important impacts is key to me.

for policy at squals:

• for disads, i need a tangible impact to vote on. making a link is not enough to be a full argument.
• counterplans need solvency advocates and counterplan texts.
• for topicality, if you introduce it you must have a definition of the word with standards and impacts.
• i love solvency debates, but think teams need to leverage quality of evidence more when comparing them.

feel free to ask me any specifics before the round!

Prateek Nedungadi

Prateek Nedungadi

(Pra-teek Ned-un-gadi)

Occupation: Prateek Nedungadi

I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon.

Name: Medha Nemani

I do policy and only policy, so I'm not that familiar with other forms of debate. I'm willing to try and adapt, just make sure to make clear explanations so I understand how to properly evaluate arguments. I want to make sure to be the fairest judge I can!

There's a difference between speaking quickly and outright spreading. I don't mind if you talk at a bit of a faster pace, but if you spread--I am now a parent judge who who will be relying on cross-ex to make their decision, so please don't spread.

Don't bring up new arguments in the rebuttals.

I like powerful intros, analogies, good rhetoric - aka anything that will capture my attention.

Please make sure to include Trigger Warnings/Content Warnings whenever necessary. I'm a person sensitive to certain things and 100% need the necessary warnings. If you are not sure whether to include a warning or not, feel free to ask me!

Please be respectful. I understand if you need to interrupt someone in cross-ex, but do it politely. There's no need to be too rash. Also be courteous throughout the entire round. Make sure to respect pronouns, use inclusive language and apologize if mistakes are made. It's important that the round is a safe environment for everyone.

Policy:

Truth > Tech

I love framework. Specify burdens and emphasize how I should be evaluating the round and why I should be doing so.

Please signpost. Otherwise, debates can get very confusing with flowing and just in general.

Impact calc is awesome and I love to hear it. Helps me to know how to vote and in the end, please specify why I should be voting for you and resolve the clash.

Wholesome:

Feel free to chat with me after round about anything! Debate, speech, your favorite TV shows, etc!

And of course, have fun!

For Debate

Keep it simple, no off-topic or irrelevant arguments at all, keep improbable impacts off the table. Make sure you combine good, clear speaking with understandable arguments

For Speech

Simple and clear, good modulation and enunciation, and a topic to learn more about.

Let's try to keep it fast, fair, and efficient.

P.S.

K's, theory, spreading CPs are all allowed and praised.

For Debate:

- I do LD but I don't really know other events too well

- Please don't spread

- Be kind to your competitor

- Explain any event specific or topic specific definitions

- Just because you give 50 refutations to an opponent's contention doesn't mean I will flow all of that

- All arguments has responses, just because you refuted a statement doesn't mean you won

For Speech:

- Speak clearly(obviously)

- Let me know what your topic is before we start

- Please make sure that your mic and camera work fine, I will let you know if your internet cuts out or anything, don't worry too much about it :)

- Also don't worry about controversial topics or takes, I will ensure that I have no personal bias towards any topic

u better debate well.

I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon.

(she/her)

hi! I am a sophomore in high school and this will be my second year of policy debate!

- I have done Duo, BQ, Oratorical Interpretation/Declamation, and Policy in these 2 years

Debate:

If it's not policy, just treat me like a lay judge that flows, because I'm not really familiar with other debate events.

I LOVE analysis, but in order to have that you've got to have a strong understanding of evidence. Also for the other way around, don't just read evidence the whole time, you've got to have analysis for me for it to be a sufficient argument.

I love love love pathos. And big picture analysis/overview-ish analysis is awesome. Basically, I want you to write my ballot for me, big picture, two world analysis, impact calc, etc. anything that will make my job easier/clearer to vote aff or neg.

I definitely weigh the last speeches/rebuttals more, so end your debate with a bang! Within the debate, make comparisons of each side and each side's arguments, and prioritize explaining why and which one is better or weighed heavier. Please explain any arguments in a way that makes sense, so I won't be lost, shuffling my flow papers, flailing in confusion :) and please please please have clash. If there's no clash, the debate literally isn't productive at all, and I will start crying in the corner and use a random number generator to vote for me

Please don't spread, yes, I can understand speaking faster, but if you go turbo speed on me, I'll start doing my ap euro homework. If you do bring up any circuity or fast arguments, please explain them in detail, and why I should vote for you on that, you don't have to go super in detail, just enough so that I can actually understand the debate :)

And last but not least, please be nice; i am a tabula rasa judge(blank slate), so I am open to all arguments on the exception that it is generally just blatantly false, or offensive.

I will not tolerate ableist, sexist, racist etc, any discriminatory behavior or arguments. We're all here to have fun, so just be a nice. person. please. I'm begging you.

anyway, i just want a super fun and educational debate that everyone can enjoy.

yall are awesome and have fun!

help paradigms are weird

I vote neg because I hate change and aff because im positive. glhf

Good luck have fun

good luck ! 

If you walk up with a legit BQ case and make me listen to it, you get an auto 25.

Hi everyone!

As a judge, I'm pretty fine with any argument as long as its not racist, sexist, homophobic, all that stuff... Please no fast, I personally don't like fast very much.

Other than that, please have fun (if you don't no speaks frfr), lock in, etc.

Good luck yall!