hi! I'm gabriela (she/her). add me to the email chain: gabrielaadler25@marlborough.org

also PLS have the email chain set up before the round and have it sent and ready by start time

marlborough 25 nyu 29

a lot of my opinions about debate come from Adam Torson and Chris Theis

but! any of those opinions can be changed through good debating other than voting foranything morally grody, ie. sexism, homophobia, racism etc.

tech > truth

policy > k > phil (kinda!) >>>>>>>>>tricks (please don't)

disclosure is always good andcondo is good

if I don't understand it by the end of the nr/2ar I am not voting for it!

my threshold for answering friv theory is VERY low, and all docs must be shared electronically

have fun debate well!!!!

As a judge, I value clear and organized argumentation that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic. I prefer debaters who are well-researched and able to support their arguments with evidence and examples according to their given framework. In Parliamentary, I appreciate teams who focus on clash and weigh the competing arguments and their impacts. In Lincoln-Douglas, I expect debaters to engage with the philosophical implications of the topic and provide a clear value framework that is consistently applied throughout the round. I expect all participants to adhere to the principles of fair play and respectful discourse. It should be a given that rude, disrespectful, and aggressive behavior will not be tolerated and will result in low scores or disqualification.

I am a lay judge - please go in-depth and be respectful

I am a parent judge, and am new to judging. Please speak at a moderate pace. I will judge the round on impacts and strengths of the overall arguments. I like references (Examples: Facts, statistics, etc.). Please be kind and respectful.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in Policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and NSDA, TOC, and NIETOC national finals in Policy, Extemp, and Informative respectively. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

Please do not spread, you can talk at whatever pace that is comfortable for you, but not too fast.

Criticism will NOT be tolerated. Judge your opponent's arguments, not them.

I do appreciate sign posting.

I vote on who has the biggest impact/value.

Please use vocabulary everyone can understand.

Good luck

Hi! I am a lay judge.

I dislike spreading and value interacting with your opponent's arguments well.

Lay Judge. HS Teacher with degrees in Math and Philosophy and a background in theatre.

Debate:

I do not like spread. I take copious notes and need to follow what you say.

My hearing is fine. Don't yell to make your point. This is distracting.

Save time and don't say "Judge" every sentence.

Diction is important. Speak clearly please.

Evidence is good, but do not cite statistics ad nauseam.

I am a Speech coach at Loyola High School.

Speakers' points are assessed based upon:

1. How well the speakers spoke to the room including vocal intonation, eye contact, and posture.

2. Creativity of the argument and strategy

About Me: UPDATED FEB - 2025

I currently do College policy Debate as a Freshman at Cal State Fullerton and Debated Policy in high school at Elizabeth Learning Center for Three Years. I've debated 2021-2022 HS CX Water Topic, 2022-2023 HS CX NATO Topic, Last year's 2023-2024 HS CX Economic Inequality Topic, Judged this year's IP Topic, and currently debate the CX College Decarbonization Topic.

I also love CSULB DB8, and their best debater Aless!

Bottom Line - I am okay with most arguments (K-affs and such) as long as they are intelligible and that you can adequately explain them to me. ESPECIALLY WITH PERFORMANCE because more often than not I will lean toward a more practical and policy-oriented approach. *THIS DOESN'T MEAN I DONT LIKE K's* I love K's I run one myself Please just give me an in-depth explanation and plenty of judging instruction. Thank you!

* FOR LD EVERYTHING IS APPLICABLE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO MY EMAIL*

Judge Cheat-Sheet

Any other questions can be forwarded to my email: domisraeldebate11@gmail.com

• I highly cater my judging style towards a technical approach. I will evaluate any arguments as long as they hold warrants behind them.

• Line-by-line debates KEY. Not only does it help organize the flow which makes better decision-making, but it also helps YOU manage the order of your constructives/rebuttals.

• USE ALL prep/speech time to its best effort. If you have remaining time don't concede it, find a way to use that time. There is always an argument to make. If you concede any time you have and are dropping any arguments, it will drop your speaker Points.

• REBUTTALS WITH AN OVERVIEW. At the top of your rebuttals, it is key to outline to your judge why you are winning this round, or why specifically your opponents are losing. In most cases, you can't extend every argument you have made throughout this round,(especially that 1AR) so you must isolate what arguments are most important and evaluate what arguments you are winning and which you are losing. Especially in the 2NR/2AR, you must shut every door that can lead to a potential loss. Do yourself a favor and keep it organized with an Overview.

• SPREADING. As someone who spreads in all speeches, I have no problem with it. But it will always be clarity over speed. When reading your evidence slow down for your tags, and then speed up on the rest of the evidence. Especially for rebuttals, these are the last speeches you get. But they don't matter if I can't understand them. If you're spreading so intelligibly without regard for what you read, I don't care if you know the evidence like the back of your hand I won't evaluate the evidence at all. I will warn you no more than two times to clear, after a third time I will just stop flowing altogether. Never sacrifice clarity for speed

• Cross Ex. USE Cross-ex to open the doors to new arguments that will win you the round. Ask questions and build them into arguments. AVOID Ad Hominem type of questions. Remember you should be targeting your opponent's arguments, not the opponents themselves. Insulting or outright criticizing the ability of another debater gives you no competitive edge and more often than not just comes off as snarky, and rude. TLDR, if your cross-ex consists of demeaning others, Stop. Thx.

GENERAL TIP

• Never give up. No matter what, if you dropped an argument, have nothing more to say, or are even just overwhelmed, fight your way out. Even if you know you are losing don't give your opponents the easy win, make them work for it. Regardless of speed, confidence, and experience, everyone has the capacity to win and be the best. As long as you have the grit to claw your way through you can be a phenomenal debater.

SPEAKER POINTS,

How do you get high speaks?

• What I see from a debater who earned a 29-30, is someone who executes strategy WITH their partner equally, maintains great speed, volume, and clarity within all instances of their speech.

• 28-27, Made strategic choices in the round but failed to execute properly. Maintains adequate speed, volume, and clarity within most of their speeches, Is well on their own but needs to work with their partner more. Doesn't use or explain evidence to its maximum potential.

• 26, and under. Debater actively sacrifices the speed, volume, and clarity of their speeches for "competitiveness" sake. Fails to work competently with their partner. Fails to constantly uphold at least one solid argument within this round. OR Gives up.

You made it to the end, thanks for reading, just one last thing before you go. I'm writing this as a graduated high schooler from LAMDL and I know how hard this activity can get combined with everything you got at home and the rest of school. For the betterment of you and the betterment of those around you, don't forget that you are a person with feelings, with needs, and valid wants. Take a break and don't ever lose yourself. Enjoy this activity and remember why you are here.

BTW Give me a brisk iced tea and u get 29 ig JK not Jk????

My paradigm is as follows:

1. I vote based off of what happens in the round, or more accurately, what happens according to my flow. If you want me to vote on an argument, it has to make it to my flow, and for an argument to do so, stay organized, sign post, and tag. It’s your job to be clear on what your specific response is, not my job to decipher what your tag line is or what you’re responding to.

2. While I am an alumni debater with a Policy, LD, and Parli background, I am very much AGAINST speed talking. You don’t need speed to spread, you just need to be an efficient and effective communicator.

POI: if I put my pen down during your speech, it’s an indication that your either are not communicating effectively (ie. not clear, organized, signposting, or tagging) or you are over time.

3. I suspend my own personal beliefs and simply follow the arguments for the duration of a round. You only need to make strong arguments and impact well to convince me. Don’t assume I agree with you and then cut your argument (link, warrant, and/or impact) short as a result.

4. I love structure in debate (arguments, cases, format, strategy, etc.) and have enjoyed framework debates in the past. As long as you make it clear why your argument matters both to your side and the resolution, I’ll vote on it. If you and your opponents fail to do so, the argument will not affect the RFD or I will have to insert my own opinion into the round to vote on it.

5. A consistent lack of impacting arguments to the resolution, turns the round into a “two ships passing in the night” experience rather than a high contrast debate round. When this happens, I am forced to insert my own opinion to choose a winner - which I very much don’t like doing.

6. Be professional and respectful. A lack of either of these makes your credibility drop significantly.

Hello!

I was a past debater for about three years, specializing in LD, but I have done both PuFo and Parli as well. I do flow and base a lot of the round on the flow, so please be good with signposting! Treat me kind of like a lay judge, over explain if you want, and tell me where you are on the flow during speeches. As far as pronouns go I use any, feel free to state yours if comfortable.

Not a fan of spreading/super fast talking, I can flow fast if need be but I'd prefer not to as I'll likely miss some arguments. Also not a big fan of kritiks and off-topic arguments. I was always a traditional debater- pen and paper- so adding more policy takes to LD makes it harder on me since I'm not a big fan of the two colliding at all. Traditional > circuit debate.

I hate kritiks, only run them if you have clear and concise links and explanations. I can’t understand spreading, PLEASE treat me as a lay judge. Plans and counterplans I can attempt to follow if they’re explained thoroughly and argued well. If not, don’t run it. Seriously, I was a traditional debater. I do not understand circuit stuff.

I put a lot of focus on the value/value criterion debate so please go philosophical and hit me hard with it!! Connect your case and contentions deeply with your framework and impacts. Speaking of impacts, state them clearly, please!!!

If you have questions before the round feel free to ask! All in all, focus on having a respectful debate.

Hey everyone I’m Ms.Stacy, I am an assistant coach at Leland.

Lay Trad judge, Truth>Tech

Please strike me for any theory

I am a California traditional lay judge. I prefer traditional arguments that do not impact out to extinction or nuclear war. Run theory at your discretion, but I am not confident I can evaluate anything progressive. Please speak fairly slowly so I can understand your arguments. If I can’t understand it, it will not be flowed.

Covering the flow completely is important for me. Responses aren’t sticky, so make sure to extend any offense or responses to your final speech. If you obviously drop an argument, that will flow for your opponent. A good debate should include lots of clash. Make sure you signpost on your rebuttals so I know where you are on the flow. In the final rebuttal, make sure to give clear voters and weighing. I like 2Rs which spell out my ballot for me.

Being confident and organized in the round will reflect well on you. Speaking style and content delivery is included in my ballot. Finally, please be respectful to your opponents. Any disrespect will tank your speaks. But most importantly, have fun in round!

If you have any questions refer to my PF paradigm or ask me questions before round.

Here is the paradigm for PF specifically:

Put me on the chain: shaky1832@yahoo.com

Treat me as a lay (less jargon, slower speed, etc.) I did not compete or coach tech-debate a lot so I am still working on understanding the intricacies of PF. Traditional speaking style/content delivery does weigh into my overall perception of the round, make of this what you will. Be fluent and seem passionate about what you are talking about and you will do great!

That being said, I can tell when a response is new. New responses that were not in rebuttal or summary will not be evaluated. I would like to understand the response as you are giving it, not 2 speeches later. As much as I try to be tech>truth, bad response quality, and explanation does still hurt. The same goes for extensions, which take longer than a 5-second speed run in the back half. If I do not understand the argument, I will not vote on it.

Keep advocacies topical. I do not trust myself to evaluate any sort of pre-fiat offense whether it be theory, kritiks, or whatever else. The most I could do is evaluate an evidence IVI if the cut is bad.

Please weigh. I often have a hard time making the “right” decision if I have to evaluate multiple lines of offense with no comparative weighing. If you start the weighing strong and early, it makes the round much easier to evaluate.

Most importantly, remember to have fun!

When judging WSD, I will vote mostly on the rubric, however, the flow does have a place in my overall decision.

I'm a USC student studying Public Policy & Data Analytics. I competed for what feels like a million years (all of high school, to be more specific), & I generally know the basics for all events, so don't worry about walking me through anything.

If you care about qualifications, I've placed/finaled at the California, regional, & national level in IEs and various debate events.

Here's what you need to know about my judging preferences:

Introduce yourself at the beginning of the round. I'd like to know your name past your two letter code.

A parli round is made or broken by framing. Ensure you logically explain your framing so I understand how to vote. I'd also like to see clear weighing given. Write my ballot for me.

**This doesn't apply for NYPDL**

For theory and kritiks - I'll hear them out, but I want to know that you understand what you're talking about. If you're reading a K you know nothing about and it shows, or is just outright wild, I won't consider it.

For specific Lincoln Douglas preferences: please do not spread, or honestly, attempt to. Debate is all about accurately and efficiently communicating ideas. You're not going to ever catch a lawyer in court speaking to the cadence of Rap God - because that's bad argumentation. Why are you doing it?

If you'd like to disclose (although you don't have to since we're in a traditional setting), send your cases to aayushi@usc.edu.

I'm generally truth > tech, but I'm not going to overextend myself to catch your opponent white-lying, and if they say some type of blatant lie and you don't call it out, that's going to be factored into my decision.

I need to see clash, I need to see you actually responding to your opponent's arguments, and I need to see some form of voters or weighing of the debate.

By the way, cross-ex is my favorite part of the debate. Usually, the winner becomes clear then. So, make the most of it.

Overall, just stay respectful, pay attention to your opponents, (yes, even during 2AR) and we'll all have a great time. We're all here voluntarily spending a weekend trying to better our public speaking, so don't make it stressful or worse than it has to be. Have some fun!

Hello everyone！

This is my email address: lnguo@hotmail.com. Please send round docs and/or any cards used to my email before the round starts so I can easily follow along.

As a parent judge with limited experience in speech and debate, I value clear communication and logical organization in arguments. It is important for debaters to speak clearly and concisely, making it easy for me and your opponent to follow your points and understand your arguments.

I appreciate when debaters pay attention to their opponent's arguments and address them in a respectful manner. Responding to the opposing side's points shows that debaters are actively engaging with the topic and considering different perspectives.

I prefer debates to be presented in a systematic way, with arguments clearly laid out and supported by relevant data and evidence. Debaters should demonstrate a thorough understanding of the topic and provide solid reasoning to support their claims.

Overall, I am looking for debaters who can present their arguments in a clear, logical, and convincing manner. I encourage debaters to be respectful towards their opponents and to address points effectively, making sure to support their arguments with data and evidence. I am excited to learn from the debates and look forward to hearing well-structured and well-supported arguments from both sides.

Thank you and I am looking forward to seeing great rounds!

- Lina

Just don't speak too fast.

email: ekediler@uci.edu

Heyy my name is Emma and I'm currently a freshman at UCI. I was a varsity debater throughout high school and have competed at the state and national level numerous times.

• leaning tech>truth
• organization is key, be thorough in your rebuttals and make it easy for me to follow. Still,please use valid and quality arguments. The best debaters can be sure to refute all attacks with actual substance.
• I'm fine with any speed just make sure you still have clarity (no spreading in novice/CA).
• I think a heated CX is always good because it allows me to see if debaters actually understand their cases. Just remember to keep it respectful.
• Weigh impacts and tell me why it's important to vote for you.
• Framework is important but don't sacrifice your entire case because your opponent "doesn't fall under it".
• I prefer traditional debates but think that progressive ones can be interesting if done right.
• Have fun and take each round as a chance to learn! :)

Novices:

• Please check that everyone is ready before jumping into a speech.
• Remember to be extremely clear in why you win the round in the last speeches.

Speaks:

I give speaks based on presentation. If your tone, intonation, language, presence, etc. is convincing I'll give you higher points. I like when speakers actually demonstrate passion/interest towards what they're talking about. Average 27-28 -> if you get a 29+ I was impressed.

Feel free to ask any paradigm question beforehand if necessary!!

I am a parent judge who started judging in 2022. I love debate and speech and hope to help students become better debaters and speakers. One request -- please speak clearly and do not speak super-fast. There is no point in cramming too much information in your speech if your audience cannot understand any of it. Better to argue your points clearly, understandably, and forcefully.

Traditional judge / This activity is to prepare for life. It is not a game - Ask me in round.

parent judge. no spreading. ty

Hi there!

I am a parent judge, first time doing LD

I take notes to the best of my ability, but I can't quite flow. I will do my best

I judge rounds based on the arguments presented.

Please no spreading and avoid technical theories and/or critiques, please keep it straight as straight forward as possible.

Best of luck to all teams. :)

Go La Galaxy!

I'm a lay judge who judges on points/contentions and the logic behind them over how convincing you sound when speaking. I have judged many tournaments in Middle School LD, high school/open LD, public forums, and parliament. Please always clearly state your links, taglines, and contentions. If I cannot hear it because you are speaking unclearly and too fast, it is not on my flow. I always prefer that you share your cases with me, so I can judge better and understand the points better. If you state things like global war as impacts or points far away, please link it well and explain how it relates to the topic, otherwise, it's off topic and not considered.

Do NOTspread, if you do, I cannot understand your arguments and therefore you will have a disadvantage on the ballot.

Do NOT gaslight your opponents and make me think they said something they didn't, it doesn't work on me.

Please be nice to me and your opponent, no laughing, weird faces, or such at me and your opponent. You guys both worked very hard to get to this point!

My email is liu852@gmail.com, all cases and card sharing is to be sent to that. Good luck!

Email: andrewjlopez120@gmail.com

Background: Debated for 4 years at Claremont High School (PF, circuit Parli, Congress, and, very briefly, LD). Currently coaching Parli, PF, and LD at my alma mater.

General: I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, so tech > truth. Although I list my argument preferences here, I won’t automatically disregard an argument just because I’m biased against it. If you run it well, I’ve got no problem voting on it. Just know that I’ll be more sympathetic to stock responses against certain arguments. Example: If Neg runs a conditional CP, and Aff says condo bad, I’m probably erring Neg if Neg just makes the standard responses to that shell. If they fumble it, I’m fine voting Aff.

Evidence: Ev ethics still matter! If I find that you are deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting a piece of evidence, I'll give you the loss and the lowest speaks the tournament will allow. Yes, this applies to ALL debate events. No, I won't wait for your opponent to call you out on it.

Lincoln-Douglas: In LD, I maintain the style preferences I list below. On substance, however, I’m far more receptive to Ks and Theory/Topicality. I’m also fine with all LD-specific strats (phil, skep, tricks, etc.). Another important thing to note: if you’re Neg, and Aff doesn’t run a plan, you’re probably not going to win if you run a counterplan. Just read specification theory instead.

Style: Keep roadmaps short. Speed is fine as long as you send everyone your doc and you enunciate. I'll shout "clear" if necessary. If I do this more than twice, you lose speaks. Using speed to confuse or exclude your opponents will cost you the round. Racist, sexist, queerphobic, or other bigoted remarks will do the same. If you start shouting at your opponents, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Speaker Points: I reward you for

- signposting THOROUGHLY

- impact and warrant comparisons

- being courteous

- being strategic

- being efficient

- being witty/humorous

Cross-Examination: Cross-ex is binding. PLEASE know when to end a line of questioning. Know when to cut somebody off and how to do it politely. Don’t tag-team and don’t use cross-ex time for prep. If nobody has anything left to say, it’s over. Time to start the prep clock.

Theory/Topicality: I rarely vote on it. I default to reasonability. With theory, I usually buy Drop the Argument, Not the Debater. I believe fairness is the gateway to education. I don't like RVIs, but I detest any strategy that involves regularly running Theory/Topicality as a means of just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. These arguments exist as last-resort checks on in-round abuse. Please keep it that way. Also condo is good; winning Condo Bad in front of me is very difficult.

Kritiks: Don’t assume that I’m familiar with your literature base, because I’m probably not. I understand how Ks function, and I hit them a few times in high school, but don’t read a thousand layers of dense philosophy and assume I’ll get it.

It’s hard to woo me away from a policymaking framework, but it can be done. I don’t vote for most kritiks with "reject the aff" as the only alt; rhetoric/discourse Ks are an exception. I prefer specific kritiks with tight links to the aff and CPs as alts. Performance/Kritikal Affs hurt debate in my opinion, and I'm very sympathetic to arguments against them.

Counterplans: Go for it. I love almost all types of counterplans. Consult/study CPs are a notable exception; throw theory at them all day. Aside from that, I am far more receptive to a wider array of CPs than most judges you’ll find. Multi-actor fiat, non-institutional fiat, PICs, delay CPs, and agent/actor CPs are all fine by me. I assume conditionality and reserve the right to "judge kick" unless someone tells me otherwise. If you sever out of the 1AC, you’re going to lose.

Politics Disads: Not a big fan. I think fiat precludes any process-oriented disads (eg political capital), but results-oriented disads are fair game, though I find most high school debaters don’t construct or defend them well.

Impact Calc: Do it early and often. I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. Please weigh on the internal link level too, especially if you're going for the same impacts as your opponents. If neither side does proper impact calc, I’m left to do it for you. So for your sake and mine, please be thorough with warrants and impact calc at every point in the debate.

Other

- Please make copies of your plan text, CP text, T interp, and/or Alt available to your opponents and to me. Saves us all a ton of grief.

- I will not extend your arguments for you, but all you need to do to extend them in my mind is say "extend *insert tagline here*"

- I keep a poker face on and usually look down at my flow the whole time, so don’t stress.

I believe that debate should be used to strengthen ones ability to construct, and effectively relay, a point of view by using clearly explained and expressed evidence for support. What one learns from participating in debate can be used in our everyday social interactions. With that said, there is no use for spreading or speaking like an auctioneer in the real world, such as a debate with family and/or friends or Congress. Competitors should be aware that there is a person (most likely not a professional debator) judging their case. That judge has to listen to the points given, process the weight of the arguements, and write down those points in real time. I believe that a few well thought out arguements are more powerful than rhetorically vomiting arguements at a rapid pace.

As a judge I am looking for a well structured, thought out, and delivered case, especially when judging a finals round. During a final round both teams will most likely have equally strong cases. Sometimes how the case was presented, and which team gave me what I needed the way I needed can be what tilts decision.

Sophomore at the University of California, Irvine

He/Him

4 years of Public Forum Debate

TOC Gold

- actual cards > paraphrasing

- weighing>>> not weighing

• being nice >>>>>>>>>>>> being rude

If you do a 360 when you say turn in the debate

30 speaks

chain:pranaymacherla@gmail.com

good luck!!!

Overview:

I'm a former debater who focused on LD for my four years, competing at league, invitational, state and nationals. While I did compete in other events; like Congress, Parli and Impromptu occasionally; my experience in other events is mostly limited to spectating, helping other teammates or judging. Event-specific information on my judging style is separated below, but for a couple general points first:

• SIGNPOST in all events so I can understand and judge you properly. In debate events, this obviously takes the form of taglines and directly referencing the flow. But you do this too in speech/interp events, albeit in a more pretty and implicit way, by outlining the structure of your piece and using transitions when moving from one idea to the next.
• For debate events, I'll evaluate you in prongs: this essentially means I imagine myself as a panel of three judges with different judging styles and imagine how each of these judges would view the round. This is meant to 1) reduce my bias against styles I personally dislike and 2) encourage competitors to create cases and arguments that would satisfy all sects of judges rather than pandering to one style. Typically these are the archetypes of a lay, technical, and traditional judge. For transparency though, I was a traditional debater.
• Debate constructives should contain a clear round interpretation (observations like framework, weighing mechanism, definitions, plans, etc.) for me to evaluate the round on, warrants in the form of strong cut cards with impacts that link back to your round interpretation, and elaboration as to how your whole argument is significant to the resolution/topic and should make me vote with/against it.
• In all debate events, I want to see meaningful clash and extension throughout the round for rebuttal speeches on both the interpretation of the round and the warrants/impacts of each constructive. Balance offense and defense while explaining how each line of argument on the flow is going to impact my final decision.
• For final speeches in debate rounds (voter's, final focus, summaries, etc.) be strategic and prioritize the lines of arguments that you think will impact my decision the most and are the greatest chance at you securing my ballot rather than just listing off from the flow. Typically that means I want to see no more than 5 key issues, all of which reference previous speeches in the round. After all, the purpose of this speech is to condense the round, not expand it.
• In debate rounds, speaking style will never play into my ballot decision (*unless its a technical issue which prevents me from understanding you or it's World Schools*). After all, that's what speaker points are for. But once we get into break rounds, all that goes out the window because we aren't giving speaker points anymore.
• For debate rounds, I never disclose the result unless it's a break round. The most oral feedback I'll give in prelims will be maybe like one note for each side if I believe it can help them in their next immediate round. In parli/WS though, that would almost never happen since the topics change every single round. The only way I would give oral feedback in these types of events is if I felt I had a note that wasn't topic specific (speaking style, case structure, etc.) for both sides. For breaks though, in all events I'll typically ask the debaters if they want any spectators to step outside and then give a more detailed explanation for my decision.
• For speech/interp events, content and presentation are both essential for me and should somehow thoughtfully contribute to the overall purpose of your piece clearly. Include unique elements that are personalized to your style/background because you want to be memorable (in a good way of course). Technical errors (stumbling in your script, volume, etc.) can obviously hurt you, especially if everyone else in the room doesn't make these mistakes, but I'm not going to make you automatically last because of that unless it hinders my ability to understand you or be engaged in your piece. So keep going: if not for this tournament, then to practice for the next!
• Congress is a mix of debate and speech judging due to its nature, but keep in mind the key differences. I'm judging you on your speech content not to decide whether or not I support the bill/resolution, but rather whether or not you are meaningfully contributing to the discussion. And I'm judging you on your presentation/roleplaying not to be entertained, but to see if you're persuasive. Ultimately it's about leading the room to a healthy discussion and interacting with the other competitors strategically (whether that be as dissent or agreement) so you stand out *in a good way* among the 10+ of you that I all need to rank.
• Spectators are okay if every non-spectator in the room (judges and competitors) is okay with it. At some tournaments though, keep in mind you aren't allowed to bar spectators in break rounds (unless the spectator in question is still in the bracket, in which I case will always ask them to leave myself). If someone is going to spectate, I expect them to be respectful (no talking, no electronic use, no notetaking, etc.).
• If you break the rules of your event (for example: introducing new arguments in the final speeches of debate rounds or using props in non-informative speech rounds), I'll ignore everything you attempted to accomplish with that rulebreak in my decision and may even weigh it against you in certain circumstances.
• In debate events, I typically allow up to a 20 second grace period to wrap up a speech/answer. If you exceed that time, I'll assume you are unaware of your time, say "Time" and expect you to stop talking within 10 seconds. For cross-examination/crossfire, I'll do the same if you ask a new question after time has already ended. Also keep in mind if you try to use this grace period to begin new argumentation after time (like fitting in your last rebuttal in sparknotes form or giving an entire summary), I'm not gonna flow it.Once that timer goes off, my pen goes down.
• Anyone being explicitly hateful or discriminatory (racist, colorist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, anti-semitic, islamaphobic, etc.) will be voted down, given low speaker points and/or ranked at the bottom instantly.
• If your comments and RFDs are blank or short, most likely I missed the timeframe to edit feedback and wasn't able to submit them before the tournament closed because, as seen in this paradigm, I have a tendency to write too much! By all means, feel free to email me at akshaynmaharaj@gmail.com and I'll reply with a completed version. If you did get complete feedback but you still have some questions, you can also email me for that. Just make sure you include identifying info like the tournament, event, round and your code.

PuFo:

• As in every other event, signpost everything and say "Quote/EndQuote" as well as the citation for every single card.
• Please don't have a sole contention, especially if it also has subpoints. I can guarantee that you could divide that into actual contentions.
• Off-time road maps are recommended but not required. If done, they should be under 10 seconds.
• As I said above, I decide through a three-prong strategy of imagining myself as a panel of a lay judge (emphasizing accessibility and logic), a technical judge (emphasizing line-by-line and evidence), and a traditional judge (emphasizing weighing and extension). Typically I'll tell you in RFDs what each of these judging perspectives would've thought individually so you can improve.
• Truth > Tech, but without judge interference. I'm not supposed to be voting for who I think is the "more skilled debater" but rather who successfully convinced me to take their side on the resolution in that isolated round. So while I won't consider any rebuttals your opponent could've made but didn't, I'm not going to expect them to respond to every single warrantless claim you make and weigh it w/o extension.
• For deciding who wins the round, I'll only ever base it on key voter issues given in final speeches (summary/final focus) because that's why they exist: you tell me what to vote on. Thus they're absolutely necessary in some form. The rest of the round is meant for you to develop those key issues.
• It only becomes necessary to weigh arguments myself when both teams fail to do so, and thus it's treated as a last resort for choosing a winner in rounds where neither team really did good. Since you don't want to feel robbed and I don't want to hear complaints in a round where frankly I'd give a loss to both sides, do everything in your power to provide specific voters and extend as much as you can. The less work I have to do to come to a decision --> the happier you'll be with it and the more consistent your W/L ratio will become.
• PuFo is the one debate event where I think clash isn't required in the NC. After all, both teams are allotted the same amount of speaking time and can't actually interact with each other until crossfire. Plus under the NSDA format, NEG/OPP can sometimes speak first while AFF/PROP goes second. With that being said, every other phase of the debate (rebuttal, summary and final focus) is expected to acknowledge all of the previous speeches and bears the burden of clash on the flow. This means that although the NC doesn't have to acknowledge and respond to the AC, I expect the AR to respond to the NC and extend the AR while NR responds to both the AC and AR plus extending the NC. This trend continues for the summary and final focus speeches. And I guess if we're in NSDA rules and NEG goes first, the same applies vice-versa with the AC not having to acknowledge the NC but the NR having to respond to the AC while extending the NC and the AR responding to both the NC and NR while extending the AC.
• For determining what is considered a new argument in rebuttal speeches, I generally follow this rule: Is it in direct response to something first said during your opponent's immediate previous speech? + Was there no earlier opportunity to mention it? + Given what you are attempting to accomplish through it, was there was no reason to include it in an earlier speech? If you'd answer no to any of those questions, it's a new argument and I'll discard it from my consideration. I'm most strict on this with final focuses for obvious reasons.
• After every refutation, on both sides of the flow, I want extension. Even when you claim your opponent dropped an argument, I want extension. Give me reasons why you winning that part of the line-by-line will matter in prep for voters.
• Compared to the questioning counterparts in the other debate events, I expect more courtesy for crossfire. Avoid follow-ups without consent and be sure to take turns. Dominating crossfire doesn't necessarily reflect good on you and could affect speaker points negatively.
• I expect both teammates to participate in grand crossfire. One teammate saying significantly more than the other can negatively impact speaker points.
• Events in crossfire are binding but will not be introduced onto the flow until mentioned in speeches.
• If no weighing mechanism is given by either side, I generally default to cost-benefit analysis. This isn't ideal of course, since it's pretty general and hard to apply. So please give a weighing mechanism so I can do my job more clearly!
• Similar to Parli (and I suppose CX if I unfortunately ever end up judging that), I expect teamwork and synchrony of ideas. Both teammates must carry their weight for extensions: ideas across speeches need to be so in synchrony that it's like one person has been giving all the speeches while still acknowledging that there's two of you on the AFF/NEG. One of the best ways IMO for you to accomplish this is directly referencing who said what on the flow during signposting (i.e. "As my teammate explained in our constructive . . ."/"During their last rebuttal, our opponents claimed . . ."). Similarly, passing notes can come off positively if you're entrusting an idea of yours to your teammate and they present it properly, or negatively if it's just an attempt to put your words in your teammate's mouth because they themselves have no clue what you need to say.
• If you're going to whisper during your opponents' speech, make sure it's low enough that only your partner can hear it. Otherwise, stick to nonverbal communication like writing and pointing. During prep time, this is less of an issue. The only way loud whispering could affect my decision though is through speaker points.
• On the other hand, speaker points are judged independent of your teammate. It doesn't matter if your styles contrast or are similar as long as they're both good. One teammate could even score low while the other scores high. The only way teamwork could factor into speaker points is if I notice you being rude to your teammate.
• No, I will not join the email chain and you shouldn't either: To be clear, I'm not talking about just sharing cards digitally upon request since that's basically the same as passing printed cards. What I'm referring to is sharing your entire case/speech beforehand because you know it's impossible to understand verbally or is poorly formatted. Or during rebuttals, you share a giant document of blocks, many of which you don't end up reading. If both debaters agree to doing an email chain I suppose its fine between them, but you reserve your right to refuse and demand specific cards be requested and provided traditionally (even if that means a debater has to show their whole laptop because they don't have paper copies). I, however, will never join the email chain myself because in this event I'm judging you on what you can verbally communicate, not by reading your speech and cards myself.

Congress:

I said most of it in the Overview section, so I'm just gonna give a general list of my Congress icks (AKA DON'T DO THIS)

• POs Trying to Correct Each Other --> I will intervene and stop that.
• Besides that, I will not intervene at all. If the round breaks from the rules, I will hold any offending Senators/Representatives responsible only in rankings and expect the current PO to intervene in my place. If that doesn't happen and the round runs off course, I will hold the PO responsible in rankings. Typically I judge POs on transparency (communication with the Senators/Representatives as to how you're running the round), fairness (even question and speech distribution), presence (your speaking style in commanding the room), and management (running the round according to the rules and on time).
• Unnecessarily Clashing (Especially with Competitors on the Same Side of the Debate) --> This is not a debate round, this is a discussion. It's not like I'm assigning wins and losses or holding you to a flow where you must respond to everything. In fact, I generally find decisions to agree with other competitors and expand upon their ideas intriguing. Only oppose other competitors if they go against what you are trying to stand for with your speech and if it will further discussion.
• "Some senators have argued . . . " --> NAMES. Names with everything. Being able to reference different competitors in the room directly has always been my favorite part of Congress. It shows you are actively paying attention to the speeches and serves as an invite for competitors to respond, thereby enhancing the discussion. I don't mind name dropping a bunch of your competitors if they've all been saying the same argument since it contextualizes who's on each side in the round.
• Disturbing Decorum--> We get enough of this in our real legislative bodies unfortunately, I don't need this in a mock round. Causing chaos or intentionally trying to be as controversial as possible will make you stick out, but not in a good way.
• Too "Debate"y --> Read my section on speech for some general tips, since speaking well is more than just speaker points and will affect your actual rankings. Besides that, remember you aren't assigned to a side and don't bear the burden of clash automatically. Technically in this roleplaying, the people you're supposed to be "convincing" are the people on the other side who you're arguing against. This means that if you're going to be combative or unwilling to budge from your position, you need to give a solid explanation as why it's important for you to take this stance.
• Too "Speech"y --> Just as a constructive can have a hook but still needs contentions, your entire speech cannot be just one drawn-out summary or repeating of one argument phrased beautifully. We need substance to base discussions off too, and that means making arguments for or against the bill/resolution that will deepen the discussion in the room.
• Exceeding Time--> Although I allow a bit of a grace period to finish your current sentence in other events, I expect competitors to respect the timing of the PO and yield if overtime no matter what. As soon as the gavel starts banging, you need to stop talking ASAP.

Parli:

• As in every other event, signpost everything and say "Quote/EndQuote" as well as the citation for every single card . . . if you somehow have them in parli.
• Off-time road maps are recommended but not required. If done, they should be under 10 seconds.
• As I said above, I decide through a three-prong strategy of imagining myself as a panel of a lay judge (emphasizing accessibility and logic), a technical judge (emphasizing line-by-line and evidence), and a traditional judge (emphasizing framework and extension). Typically I'll tell you in RFDs what each of these judging perspectives would've thought individually so you can improve. Because of the spontaneous nature of parli, the technical judge's standards of evidence would be lower as compared to other events.
• Truth > Tech, but without judge interference. I'm not supposed to be voting for who I think are the "more skilled debaters" but rather the team that successfully convinced me to take their side on the resolution in that isolated round. So while I won't consider any rebuttals your opponents could've made but didn't, I'm not going to expect them to respond to every single warrantless claim you make and weigh it w/o extension.
• It only becomes necessary to weigh arguments myself when both teams fail to do so, and thus it's treated as a last resort for choosing a winner in rounds where neither team really did good. Since you don't want to feel robbed and I don't want to hear complaints in a round where frankly I'd give a loss to both sides, do everything in your power to provide specific voters and extend as much as you can. The less work I have to do to come to a decision --> the happier you'll be with it and the more consistent your W/L ratio will become.
• For deciding who wins the round, I'll only ever base it on key voter issues given in final speeches because that's why they exist: you tell me what to vote on. Thus they're absolutely neccessary in some form. The rest of the round is meant for you to develop those key issues.
• On the other hand, speaker points are judged independent of your teammate. It doesn't matter if your styles contrast or are similar as long as they're both good. One teammate could even score low while the other scores high. The only way teamwork could factor into speaker points is if I notice you being rude to your teammate.
• For determining what is considered a new argument in rebuttal speeches, I generally follow this rule: Is it in direct response to something first said during your opponent's immediate previous speech? + Was there no earlier opportunity to mention it? + Given what you are attempting to accomplish through it, was there was no reason to include it in an earlier speech? If you'd answer no to any of those questions, it's a new argument and I'll discard it from my consideration. I'm most strict on this with the first speakers' second speeches for obvious reasons.
• After every refutation, on both sides of the flow, I want extension. Even when you claim your opponent dropped an argument, I want extension. Give me reasons why you winning that part of the line-by-line will matter in prep for voters.
• I expect the teams to clearly establish which type of debate (fact, value or plan) the resolution falls under. If there is a disagreement, clash over it AND explain the implications of either interpretation on how I'll judge the round.
• Definitions tend to be more annoying to me in parli than other events due to the volatile nature of the topics. Because of this, I'm more willing to buy arguments of the abuse, although you still have to explain why the implications of this definition are unhealthy for the debate and provide an alternative definition. If you feel you're being unfairly accused of abuse, the simple way to defend yourself from this is to simply prove the debate is still winnable for the other side under your definition.
• POIs are always acceptable to waive down, but there also an opportunity to get insight into your opponent's strategy and frontline. Waiving them down will only really reflect poorly on you if your opponents previously took significantly more POIs than you because they're a grace we extend to each other . . . but that would really only affect speaker points. The same would apply if there's a team imbalance in who's asking the POIs.
• Points of order (yes I'm not gonna call them POOs) should not be thrown around freely and only be brought forward when you believe a rule violation that could affect the round is actually happening. After all, it's not like I'm going to just give you an automatic win if I agree with your point. As I said above regarding rule violations, all I do is consider the round as if the sentences which provoked the point never happened. Time will stop during this, but keep the point of order and the defending team's response each within 15 seconds. So points of order should not be back-and-forth and should never exceed 30 seconds total.
• Similar to PuFo (and I suppose CX if I unfortunately ever end up judging that), I expect teamwork and synchrony of ideas. Both teammates must carry their weight for extensions: ideas across speeches need to be so in synchrony that it's like 1v1 while still acknowledging that there's two of you on the AFF/NEG. One of the best ways IMO for you to accomplish this is directly referencing who said what on the flow during signposting (i.e. "As my teammate explained in our constructive . . ."/"During their last rebuttal, our opponents claimed . . ."). Similarly, passing notes can come off positively if you're entrusting an idea of yours to your teammate and they present it properly, or negatively if it's just an attempt to put your words in your teammate's mouth because they themselves have no clue what you need to say.
• If you're going to whisper during your opponents', make sure it's low enough that only your partner can hear it. Otherwise, stick to nonverbal communication like writing and pointing. The only way loud whispering could affect my decision though is through speaker points.
• On the other hand, speaker points are judged independent of your teammate. It doesn't matter if your styles contrast or are similar as long as they're both good. One teammate could even score low while the other scores high. The only way teamwork could factor into speaker points is if I notice you being rude to your teammate.

Speech:

• Give me an outline no matter what so I know where your speech is going. The more natural it is --> The better received it'll be.
• If you're going to mention anything potentially triggering or traumatic (suicide, abuse, etc.) please give a content warning for the sake of your fellow competitors and if there's spectators.
• For the prepared speech events, I expect the speech to match the event, especially in CHSSA. Unless we are at NSDA or other tournaments where OA doesn't exist, I expect your speech to be either written as a clear OO in OO or a clear OA in OA with little overlap.
• Balancing your subject between the niche and important is essential. Your want your topic to be unique, but if it doesn't engage me at first MAKE me engaged and think I've learned something new when coming out of the round. I'm open to any topic: I'm not going to write something like "pick a better topic" or "this doesn't engage me because I can't relate." With me you have the ability to make anything interesting, just make sure you don't set yourself up for failure with a speech that isn't focused or has nowhere to go beyond surface-level.
• If you are struggling to remember your speech, KEEP GOING. I know it's embarrassing and feels cringy, but don't worry I will suffer through that cringe with you. You're never going to learn your speech better for future events if you just shut down.
• Although I dislike canning in impromptu, if you're going to do so: spend more time connecting your examples and elevating the prompt than explaining what your examples are. I can tell when you've rehearsed telling a story every single round, and trust me I will get bored.
• In extempt you need content AND presentation. All information should be organized to thoroughly answer and elevate your prompt.
• In the spontaneous speech events (extempt and impromptu), one of my biggest annoyances is when you warp the speech structure you outlined originally so that you can fill the rest of the time or finish in time. Everything should be thought out and properly paced.
• Self timing is only allowed in extempt and impromptu. For prepared speeches, I can give time signals if someone in the room requests them and everyone in the room will get them if done. Generally, I'll hold up one finger for one minute used, hold up two fingers when you're halfway through your time, and then hold up one finger again for one minute left. I will not give a time signal when your time expires, but that won't be a problem unless you go over the allotted grace period for your event (typically 30 seconds). Even then, I let Tabroom handle time penalization instead of factoring it into my own rankings, unless the tournament explicitly asks us to apply the penalty directly.
• In every speech event except extempt (since it's usually just one speaking competitor and judge in the room at a time), I expect you to perform to the house. Simply put, this means performing to everyone in the room. You treat us all as your audience that you need to engage, even your fellow competitors who aren't up currently, because that is the purpose of a speech unlike debate where you just need to convince the judge(s). So don't just make eye contact with the judge(s), treat everyone as an audience member.
• Hand gestures and posture should come across as calculated, meaning they enhance from your speech rather than distract from it. In moments I would prefer keeping your hands still than overusing motions with them unintentionally while you talk. With that being said, it will look a little unnatural if you're just standing there for prolonged periods of time like that one emoji, so keep a good balance.
• Speaking style (like tone, facial expressions, posture/gestures, etc.) should match the content of your speech. So when you're giving multiple layers to your speech (which I would definitely recommend doing), that means your speaking style needs to change naturally to suit the content whenever necessary.

Interp:

• If you're going to perform anything potentially triggering (suicide, abuse, etc.), please give a content warning for the sake of your fellow competitors and spectators if they're present. I'm looking at you DI . . .
• Your tone should match your event. Obviously HI should be humorous and DI should be dramatic. If you include elements of a contrasting tone occasionally, they should be in service of achieving your primary tone.
• POIs and Duos can vary in tone, but they should take advantage of their unique format (i.e. combining multiple sources or two performers).
• Half the battle is picking and creating a good script, so you are accountable for the quality of it in addition to your performance. It should be clear to understand, memorable in its purpose, be a good fit for your identity/personality, etc.
• Characterization through mannerisms and voice is essential, especially if you are performing multiple characters so they're distinct.
• Scene transitions can be nice but aren't necessary as long as it comes across when we're changing scenes.

LD:

This is my area of expertise, so obviously this section is gonna be the longest. But I don't want to one of those judges with the paradigms that are impossible to read when you get Tabroom postings 5 minutes before the round, so here's a not-so-short summary of the most important parts:

• As in every other event, signpost everything and say "Quote/EndQuote" as well as the citation for every single card.
• Off-time road maps are recommended but not required. If done, they should be under 10 seconds. Afterwards when moving into their speech, the debater should make clear when exactly they have begun time.
• As I said above, I decide through a three-prong strategy of imagining myself as a panel of a lay judge (emphasizing accessibility and logic), a technical judge (emphasizing line-by-line and evidence), and a traditional judge (emphasizing framework and extension). Typically I'll tell you in RFDs what each of these judging perspectives would've thought individually so you can improve.
• Truth > Tech, but without judge interference. I'm not supposed to be voting for who I think is the "more skilled debater" but rather who successfully convinced me to take their side on the resolution in that isolated round. So while I won't consider any rebuttals your opponent could've made but didn't, I'm not going to expect them to respond to every single warrantless claim you make and weigh it w/o extension.
• For deciding who wins the round, I'll only ever base it on key voter issues given in final speeches because that's why they exist: you tell me what to vote on. Thus they're absolutely necessary in some form. The rest of the round is meant for you to develop those key issues.
• It only becomes necessary to weigh arguments myself when both debaters fail to do so, and thus it's treated as a last resort for choosing a winner in rounds where neither debater really did good. Since you don't want to feel robbed and I don't want to hear complaints in a round where frankly I'd give a loss to both sides, do everything in your power to provide specific voters and extend as much as you can. The less work I have to do to come to a decision --> the happier you'll be with it and the more consistent your W/L ratio will become.
• For determining what is considered a new argument in rebuttal speeches, I generally follow this rule: Is it in direct response to something first said during your opponent's immediate previous speech? + Was there no earlier opportunity to mention it? + Given what you are attempting to accomplish through it, was there was no reason to include it in an earlier speech? If you'd answer no to any of those questions, it's a new argument and I'll discard it from my consideration. I'm most strict on this with the AR2 for obvious reasons.
• After every refutation, on both sides of the flow, I want extension. Even when you claim your opponent dropped an argument, I want extension. Give me reasons why you winning that part of the line-by-line will matter in prep for voters.
• Can I keep up with spreading? Yes, assuming you're good at it and can still enunciate properly. Do I want to? NO. I won't instantly vote you down for it, but expect low speaker points. I also won't say "clear" or whatever if I can't understand you, I'll just stop flowing. Besides, cases that require spreading tend to be weaker in LD just because the event prioritizes key voter issues and framework over card quantity.
• So actually CHSSA temporarily changed the rule this year so plans are " strongly discouraged," whatever that means. Regardless I'd still heed what I wrote below and in the subsection about this since it does pertain to my preferences. It just means I don't have the grounds to automatically rule against you anymore on this basis, but I pretty much never did anyways.
• CHSSA rules don't allow plans, but NSDA does.I'll follow the rules of whatever ruleset the tournament is being held under. With that being said however, there's a difference between plans/counterplans and advocacies/counter-advocacies and plans are still unnecessary under NSDA rules.
• For circuit tactics like theory, Kritiks, link to extinction arguments, plans/counterplans, etc: I won't vote you down instantly but know that I generally hold these to a higher standard just because the majority of bad circuit debaters use these tactics to actively avoid clash and secure "automatic" wins. If you're going to do them, do them RIGHT. I'd highly recommend reading the section for what you to plan to run.
• CX is binding but cannot be considered in the round until a speech introduces events from it onto the flow and extends it for me. It's also one-way, with the questioner being allowed to cut off their opponent and the answerer being expected to respect that.

Constructive Formatting:

• Greetings with your name aren't necessary, but if it's your style I get it. All I expect is for you to state the resolution and your side.
• Hooks can be nice if done properly but are by no means necessary. Only do them if you have a good one that can further your point.
• Signpost at the beginning of each observation.
• Every contention and subpoint needs a tagline, which must be signposted.
• Please don't have a sole contention, especially if it also has subpoints. I can guarantee that you could divide into actual contentions.
• Contentions/subpoints should include properly cut cards which are verbally cited w/ at least a source (author/organization) and year and clearly divided from elaboration/paraphrasing through the use of "Quote/EndQuote."
• Summaries at the end are appreciated and recommended but not required.
• The NC is expected to be shorter so you have time to address the entirety of the AC. Clearly denote when you switch sides of the flow.
• End your speech by opening yourself to CX.

Definitions:

• Only define words outside the resolution if you feel they're needed to understand your case. This includes uncommonly-heard abbreviations and extremely technical language.
• Definitions need to be directly quoted and fully cited. You can paraphrase after reading a card, but the basis of your definition must absolutely come from a card.
• If you want to extrapolate specific observations for the debate from a definition, do it as a frontline rather than strategically leaving first mention until rebuttals. This gives your opponent a fair window to address it.
• There's nothing that drags the debate down more than a pointless definitional debate. Don't waste your time arguing between slightly different wording of the same idea. Only challenge definitions if you think they could impact the actual debate and my decision.
• If you are going to challenge a definition, you must do three things: 1) explain why your opponent's definition is inapplicable or unhealthy for the debate and shouldn't be considered --> 2) provide an alternative definition (mostly applies to NC only, new definitions shouldn't be provided in rebuttals) --> 3) explain why your definition is better than your opponents.
• Generally I consider definitions abusive if they take away all ground from your opponent and make it impossible to win the debate as long as your opponent fully extends it. Abusive definitions will never be actively rewarded and I will try to side against them, but I can't do so unless you enable me to do so by properly refuting the abusive definition. Even if the abusive definition goes through or is overturned, it doesn't guarantee the win either way.

Framework:

• Some type of framework is absolutely necessary in LD, but it doesn't have to be a value + value-criterion. I've seen values by themselves work. I've even seen successful cases that just have a standard. As long as your framework can clearly explain how my weighing of the debate will operate and act as a mechanism/lens for me to judge the round through, it's fine. Just know v+v/c is popular because it works well.
• Values are general principles that should be universally upheld while value-criterions are topic-specific ways to measure/achieve the value through affirming/negating the resolution. Both can be attacked during rebuttals.
• I like framework debates but, like with definition debates, please make sure they lead somewhere. Only focus on the framework debate if you think it will make or break my decision. There is nothing wrong with collapsing frameworks if they are basically the same because in these cases you win by arguing how you uphold the framework better.
• With every criticism of your opponent's framework, explain how your framework is better and avoids these problems.
• Double blocking is a good but not foolproof strategy when done properly, but make sure you carry it throughout the round.
• Every argument/contention should be linked back to and weighed through framework.
• Unless framework was truly nonexistent in the round, it should almost always be a voter issue.

Cross-Examination:

• In LD CX is a one-way questioning period that we extend to each other. When getting questioned, you're expected to respect the time of your questioner and in turn they are expected to do the same for you during your questioning.
• In other words: if you're conducting a cross-examination, you have free reign to cut your opponent off. Of course doing this in a respectful way will lead to better speaker points, but still be forceful if necessary.
• And that also means if you're getting cross-examined, respect the time of your opponent if they want to interject, respond to the question in front of you, and never try to speak over them.
• I prefer you face me the majority of the time, but I won't judge you if you look at your opponent since a lot of lay judges post-COVID think the opposite. At most, it could affect speaker points (and probably only if you fully turn 90 degrees from me and make zero eye contact).
• If you're cross-examining, please make sure you give an actual question to answer. You can leave your argumentative statements for your speech.
• Events in CX are binding but will not be introduced onto the flow until mentioned during speeches.

Rebuttal Structure (Second Half of NC + 1AR + NR + 2AR):

• This should be obvious but no new arguments introduced. Everything said needs to be an extension of previous speeches or in direct response to something said during your opponent's previous speech. If your opponent makes a new argument, point it out so I can exclude it from weighing, minimize my intervention, and ensure my judgement is fair.
• Move through the flow in a logical manner (one side then the other, observations first and then contention-by-contention, etc.) with signposting. This is where I appreciate off-time road maps the most since they tell me the order you'll be going in.
• Framework needs to be interacted with in some form, be it as concession, collapse or a framework debate.
• A2s and cards can provide concise responses and will definitely appeal to my technical lens since you're reading evidence against evidence, but they aren't required. Of course you can't just make a warrantless response back, but it's acceptable to refute a contention by pointing out the flaws in your opponent's own cards or interpretation of them. This is especially true for philosophical debates, unless of course you're arguing over what a specific philosopher actually believed.
• I get so annoyed by debaters who overuse dropping. Just because your opponent responded to the whole contention and not a specific card doesn't mean the entire contention flows through --> It just means that specific card flows through, assuming of course nothing your opponent said during their rebuttal could be easily applied to it. Do not cry "dropped" lightly because I, through my flow, will know whether or not it was actually dropped. And even if it was actually dropped . . . then what? Extend and tell me how this argument flowing through helps you win the round. This isn't a point system. If your opponent drops your nine weak subpoints but manages to win the one argument that outweighs them all and actually matters, then they're going to win!
• In fact I think choosing to ignore weak contentions in favor of prioritizing the bigger arguments is good, as long as it comes from a place of strategy and not inability to keep up the flow. Hit every part of the line-by-line of course, but there's more ways to respond to an argument than just trying to refute it.
• Turns are encouraged as long as they are done properly and fully extended out.
• I encourage double blocking if possible so that you don't have to win every single line of argument.
• After successfully defending your own contentions, take the opportunity to extend them.
• Your final rebuttal speech must include voter issues that you've been extending throughout the entire round. Weigh the most important arguments of the round and give me a clear list of reasons why I ultimately vote for your side.

Plans/Counterplans vs. Advocacies/Counter-advocacies:

• NSDA allows plans/counterplans, so they're acceptable at tournaments under NSDA rules. In these rounds, I will put aside my biases and consider them valid. With that being said, a plan forces you to a higher standard of evidence & specificity, and I will still need to determine whether or not your plan/counterplan actually affirms or negates the resolution at hand.
• CHSSA rules ban (or for the 2024-2025 year, "strongly discourage")plans/counterplans, and I will uphold this rule at any tournament under CHSSA rules. Like with new arguments, call your opponent out on this so I can exclude it from weighing, minimize intervention, and ensure fair judgement.
• With that being said, there are certain rounds where I'd have to ignore this rule to be able to judge it: If you respond to a plan under CHSSA rules without calling it out for being illegal, you give it validity as an argument and I am now forced to only weigh off the rebuttals you provided. So please, check which ruleset the tournament is under and call out plans under CHSSA when you see them!
• With that being said, many debaters in LD often misunderstand what a plan/counterplan is (which makes sense since LD isn't a format you see them often) and confuse it with an advocacy/counter-advocacy. Basically there are four key differences: 1) a plan typically pre-emptively provides specific means of implementation (a reference to an existing piece of legislation or an original ABC format with enforcer, funding, timeframe, etc.) while an advocacy is just a general idea of what we should do --> 2) plans include aspects that aren't completely guaranteed by fiating the upholding or rejection of the resolution yet attempt to claim benefits from them --> 3) a plan can only be compared to another plan or the status quo, while an advocacy can just be shown as generally bad --> 4) most importantly, plans shifts the focus of the debate from the topic to the plans because, while in plan debates you only need to defend the plan you provide, advocacies/counter-advocacies are used in argumentation about whether we should affirm or negate the resolution.
• Basically CHSSA bans plans/counterplans in LD (which full disclosure I agree with) because plans seek to avoid the value debate of the resolution by limiting their burden and the scope of the topic to something so specific that it's unfair to expect debaters to anticipate the hypothetical world their opponent creates, especially given the constraints of the format. On the other hand, advocacies/counter-advocacies, assuming they are actually those and not plans of course, are healthy for the debate because they are primarily used to clarify what each side wants to and can achieve in their world based on the resolution's presence without guaranteeing they will.
• Despite their differences, they do have one thing in common: mutual exclusivity is required for offensive use. In order for it to be a reason to vote for you over the other side, the plan/advocacy must only be possible in either a world where I affirm the resolution if you're aff or negate it if you're neg.
• Defensive use of plans/advocacies does not have the same requirement of mutual exclusivity, but keep in mind it can only ever minimize, not turn, the impact of the original target argument since you're basically just showing an alternative solution.

Circuity Stuff:

• Full Disclosure: I personally dislike circuit debate. Again I will do my best to put this bias aside for fairness sake and give circuit debaters a chance, but I do have to be strict with these arguments since they are often used just to avoid clash over the resolution.
• Can I keep up with spreading? Yes, assuming you're good at it and can still enunciate properly. Do I want to? NO. I won't instantly vote you down for it, but expect low speaker points. I also won't say "clear" or whatever if I can't understand you, I'll just stop flowing. Besides, cases that require spreading tend to be weaker in LD just because the event prioritizes key voter issues and framework over card quantity.
• As a general piece of advice for any debater who knows they struggle with understanding spreading, I recommend asking your opponent if they will be spreading beforehand. Since this doesn't involve disclosing case material, I generally believe debaters should be obligated to answer. If there's any hint of spreading, set a baseline. This essentially just involves you handing any paragraph of text to your opponent, having them read at their normal speech, and saying when you can understand them as they adjust their speed. Not only will this set your expectations and protect you from ambush spreading, but it also becomes much easier to delve into theory if necessary. Obviously, do not abuse this. I'll just think it's an act if either a) you ask them to slow below conversational speed or b) you talk faster than them.
• Even if you run a plan, I will judge it like an advocacy (read the section above if you're confused what I mean). It cannot stand on its own. It still needs to prove why I should affirm or negate the resolution because that's what I'm judging, not a policy round. And in tournaments under CHSSA, you shouldn't be running plans at all, only advocacies at most.
• No, I will not join the email chain and you shouldn't either: To be clear, I'm not talking about just sharing cards digitally upon request since that's basically the same as passing printed cards. What I'm referring to is sharing your entire case/speech beforehand because you know it's impossible to understand verbally or is poorly formatted. Or during rebuttals, you share a giant document of blocks, many of which you don't end up reading. If both debaters agree to doing an email chain I suppose its fine between them, but you reserve your right to refuse and demand specific cards be requested and provided traditionally (even if that means a debater has to show their whole laptop because they don't have paper copies). I, however, will never join the email chain myself because in this event I'm judging you on what you can verbally communicate, not by reading your speech and cards myself.
• Theory: Signpost and include all components (the interpretation, violation, standard, and voters). But like with all claims of abuse, it won't secure guaranteed wins and can only be used to win lines of arguments that still must be extended and weighed. This is because I basically always default to "drop the argument" instead of "drop the debater," so you need to give me a pretty convincing reason in extreme circumstances to convince me to overturn my paradigm. Also, if you argue theory, it better be related to something your opponent specifically did during the round and not to just debate in general . . . as then, not only are you wasting my time, but you're claiming to everyone who chose voluntarily to be here, including yourself, that this whole debate is an unfair waste of time.
• Ks: They absolutely must be topic-specific, and you must explain how negating the resolution or dropping your opponent's argument is the only way to avoid making this fundamental incorrect assumption. Also, all standards of evidence go out the window once you get to this level of esoteric philosophy. So don't waste my time reading some dumb K about how extinction is good and solves everything on a debate about voting rights because I'm sure at that point I'll buy anything your opponent says.
• Running any circuit argument does not absolve you from the normal duties a debater must perform. You still need to debate the resolution, obey the rules, respond to your opponent's arguments, and weigh the round with key voter issues.
• If you're facing a bad circuit debater, still make an attempt to refute your opponents arguments and prove why you still have won the round. I don't want to have to end up voting against you and for your opponent just because you gave me no opportunity/basis to.

Hello,

I am a parent judge.

Be respectful and track your time. Honor your time limits.

Arguments should be delivered properly with emphasis on communication delivery. Be precise and communicate your point well.

I do like to take notes and would be doing it during the rounds.

For email chain: yilin@modernbrain.com

1. I did not compete in speech and debate but have been involved in speech and debate since 2016. I’ve Judged and watched a fair amount of rounds, mostly in speech, with some in Congress and PF. Also judged a few rounds in LD and other form of debates.
2. Speech and debate are such amazing activities, enjoy yourself and do your best!
3. Please be respectful and kind.
4. If you see me in a speech round, know that I care about authenticity, evidence, creativity, and presentation.
5. If you see me in a debate round, please don’t spread, and be clear so I can understand you. Tell me where I should be flowing. Tell me why you are winning. Tell me why should I vote for you.
6. Have fun, be nice, make some friends!

Background: I primarily did PF, interp, and Congress in high school. Currently I'm a speech + debate coach. 3x National qualifier.

In all forms of debate, I prioritize clash and impact weighing. Tell me where to vote on the flow. Tell me how you've won your debate. Please also use strong warranting; reading card after card, or centering the debate on which evidence to prefer, rarely wins my vote over higher quality argumentation.

Parli: I love a good k. I dislike friv theory as it wastes time and contradicts the purpose of debate (education). Your job is to argue with your opponents, not use jargon or speed to exclude them.

PF: As a former PFer, I appreciate a traditional approach. This is not circuit policy. Clash! Weigh your evidence against your opponents' evidence! Tell me why I should pref yours! Cards without valid reasoning to demonstrate how they support your argument do not prove your point. Establish tangible impacts! Make sure your links are strong so you can access your impacts! Consider impacts beyond nuclear war (and if you're going to impact out to nukes, make sure your links are solid). Please signpost, warrant, and weigh.

LD: I prefer a traditional approach to LD. Set up a framework that explains how your value weighs more or solves for your opponent's case. Use the framework as you weigh voters. Prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to words/speed. LD shouldn't be treated like circuit policy.

Policy: I do my best to keep up with speed, although I'm less familiar flowing policy than other debate formats. I'll consider kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages.

Speech: I vote based on emotional authenticity, delivery, content (topic, speech cutting), organization, and blocking. I value unique topics in platform events and believable acting + compelling character arcs in interp. Include a content warning before presenting about topics that may trigger or upset your competitors or judge(s). Not including content warnings for sensitive content will impact your ranking.

Decorum: To me, debate should be inclusive and welcoming to students of all identities and experience levels. If you make this experience hostile for someone, I cannot ethically vote for you, no matter the flow. Laughing at your opponents; excessively talking during others' speeches; or making implicitly sexist, racist, or ableist arguments will affect your speaks and my ability to buy your argument. I will deduct speaker points if I encounter students from the same program running the same arguments word-for-word. Share ideas in prepared debate events, but write your own cases.

No spreading please.

LD is a value debate so I will be looking for the debater who best connects their contentions to the value and value criterion in their case.

I am a parent judge with limited experience, so please convince me why you win using ordinary terms. I do not understand debate jargons

Hi,

I am a lay judge but i was judging for the last 4 years and have experience with PF, LD and also speech events. I am not a huge fan of spreading and really appreciate respectful interaction among all teams.

I was a high school policy debater about 30 years ago. My partner and I qualified for the TOCs three times and we made it to the semi-finals my senior year.

After a long absence from debate, I started judging LD about a year ago when my daughter started debate. I was surprised to see that LD is much more like policy now. As a former policy debater, that is fine with me. I will do my best to take a tabula rosa approach.

I judged a good number of novice rounds last year and have judged at one varsity tournament. Speed is fine but of course be clear.

I tend to vote for the debater who tells the best story at the end of the round. If it is a close debate, the quality of evidence you read may be decisive.

It is very possible that I will miss a blippy argument spoken at high speed. If there's an argument you think is a winner, make sure it's registering with me.

The kritik was just emerging when I was in high school. I'm somewhat familiar with critical arguments but am still learning the details. I am open to them so long as they are presented clearly and persuasively. You might be safer though going for more traditional policy arguments as I'm more familiar with them (they don't seem to have changed that much over the decades).

e-mail: james.park@law.ucla.edu

Hello. My name is Pristeen Perreira and I love judging Debate and Speech. I have been a judge since January 2023. I have judged at island tournaments in Hawaii as well as the Jack Howe Tournament in California. I look for eye contact, being confident when speaking, being clear in speaking and knowing what their subject is, inside and out. I appreciate debaters not being rude and interrupting the person/people they're debating against.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

General:

- Don't be rude.

- Do not attack the opponent.

- Respect opponents Cross-examination time.

- Time yourselves as well as the opponent.

- Tech > Truth

- I strongly dislike trivial T.

- Speaking points 27.5-28.5 on average.

Framework:

Framework debate is the most important part of LD for me. I want a clear PV and VC. When it comes to Framework debate, clash the VC since most PV's advocate for the same goal. Link case back to the Framework.

Contention Level:

I'm looking for clear signposting, clear links between warrant and impact, and impact weighing. It makes the round more clear.

End:

End with voters. Summarize the round to me:

Tell me what you did well. Tell me what the opponent didn't do well. Tell me why it matters.

Postrounding:

- Feel free to ask questions after RFD.

- It's ok to not agree to the decision that judges have made. This does not mean you have the right to yell at your judge or other competitors.

- Feel free to email me: imtuanphan@gmail.com

Speed:

- If both debaters are ok with spreading. Feel free.

- Be clear.

I have competed in policy/CX, LD, Congress, and mock trial. I can judge policy, LD, Congress, parli, and world school/forum. I can judge pofo, but I prefer the other styles of debate more. You can use any debate language with me. Please follow the tournament circuit rules. I do NOT like spreading. If you have to read fast to win a debate, then you aren’t really arguing. Quality, not quantity.

LD: I am a traditional LD debater, coach and judge. I will flow your entire case and argument. I will expect you to prove that your value can be achieved.

CX: I am a traditional policy/CX debater. I will flow the entire round. I will look that you prove the stock issues for your case.

Parli: I will flow the arguments and make sure that you do not drop any arguments. I will look that you prove your case depending on the type of resolution.

Congress: I will flow your speeches, and I will look for well thought-out arguments for or against the legislations. I prefer logical, common sense arguments over niche, out-of-the-box arguments for/against the bills.

World School: I will flow your speeches, and I will look for well thought-out arguments. I will look that you do not drop arguments, and that you follow the rules of the tournament with timings, questions and points of clarifications.

Debate Participants

It’s a pleasure to be your judge today, and I look forward to hearing your debate. Here are some general principles that I believe lead to a strong debate:

Setting the Stage: Framework, Burden, and Definitions

• Framework and Definitions: The framework and definitions can be essential tools in a debate. If you can effectively establish and win the framework and burden, you set the lens through which I’ll evaluate the round. Definitions, when used strategically, can help solidify your case or rebuttals. However, if you and your opponent agree on these items, there’s no need to debate them further—just acknowledge and concede them to save time. Sometimes, your opponent may set up these elements for you, and that’s okay.

Building Your Case: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos

• Logos: Focus on logic to build a clear and coherent case. Strong and credible evidence, logical links, and clear impacts are essential. Show how the evidence connects to the argument and why it matters.

• Pathos: Emotion can be persuasive, but make sure your appeals tie into logical points. Consider your arguments' likelihood, magnitude of impact, and realistic timeframe. Avoid exaggerated claims, as they weaken credibility. Passion is compelling, but keep it measured; your conviction can make your points more persuasive.

• Ethos: I value spirited debate and am comfortable with a dynamic back-and-forth as long as it remains respectful and professional. I will deduct speaker points for disrespectful behavior, and I always appreciate a handshake and a show of sportsmanship after the round.

Organization

• Off-Time Roadmaps: I allow off-time roadmaps, provided they concisely outline your presentation. This helps me anticipate where each of your arguments will go.

• Signposting: Strong signposting is essential. I need to be able to follow your arguments as you make them; if I can’t catch them, I can’t flow them. Clear signposting helps me understand the clash points and see how each of your arguments builds on the previous ones.

• Spreading: I understand the strategy behind spreading. While I am not a big fan, I do not evaluate strategy; instead, I the strength of the case will be the winner. I’ll do my best to flow all arguments, but focusing on fewer points and going deeper typically leads to a more understandable and, hence, convincing case. Quality over quantity typically leads to a win for me.

• Presentation Skills: Your speaking skills can have a real impact. The clearer you are, the better I can evaluate and score your arguments. Ensure your message is delivered clearly, with appropriate pauses and good eye contact—it helps me follow your points. If you want my attention, you may say, “Judge, this is a critical point.” Statements like this can underscore key arguments and help me not miss something that you feel is crucial to your case.

• Time Management: I encourage you to use most, if not all, of your allotted time. I give some grace if you are over, but please wrap as taking too much can lead to an unfair competitive advantage.

Weighing Wins!

Make sure you allocate appropriate time to weighing! Identify the clash points and use the framework to direct my focus. Compare and contrast your case against your opponent’s to show why your arguments carry the most weight regarding likelihood, impact, and timeframe.

My Approach as a Judge

Lastly, I want you to know that I am fair and friendly, and I’m happy to provide constructive feedback to help you learn and grow. Just by being here and participating, you’ve already impressed me. You are the future, and seeing your passion and dedication gives me tremendous optimism and excitement for what lies ahead. Thank you!

Speech Participants

Congratulations on sharing your voice! Here’s my approach to judging, highlighting what I believe makes a great speech:

1. Engagement and Energy

• Captivation: Start strong! Engage your audience with your energy and passion. Enthusiasm is contagious!

2. Content and Clarity

• Relevance and Structure: Present a clear, relevant topic organized with a strong introduction, developed body, and impactful conclusion. Clear communication helps your audience follow your message.

3. Storytelling and Connection

• Effective Storytelling: Use personal anecdotes and relatable examples to create a strong connection. Good storytelling transforms your speech and makes it memorable.
• Emotional Appeal: Incorporate surprises to evoke genuine emotions—laughter, empathy, or shock. Emotion connects us and enhances the impact of your message.

4. Delivery and Authenticity

• Dynamic Delivery: Use confident body language and vocal variety to hold attention. Be yourself! Authenticity is what makes your speech resonate.

5. Courage and Resilience

• Push Through Challenges: I admire speakers who persevere despite obstacles. Courage is not the absence of fear but how you respond to it. Embrace challenges as part of your growth.

6. The Power of Words

• Impact of Language: Remember, "Words can create, destroy, bless, or be harmful." – Tony Robbins. Choose your words wisely to uplift and inspire your audience.

Final Thoughts

You’re all incredible for participating! As Alexander Gregg said, “There are three things to aim at in public speaking: first, to get into your subject, then to get your subject into yourself, and lastly, to get your subject into the heart of your audience.” Be proud of your journey today!

Have Fun!

Every speech is an opportunity to share your perspective. I can’t wait to hear your voices shine!

I was previously a policy debater and have some experience judging Lincoln Douglas. I judge by the flow and appreciate good analysis and substance.

Add me to email chains: sharpedebate@gmail.com

Lol - contention taglines should be no more than 3 words max. These sentence long taglines gotta go. Please liberate me.

Short Verison:

*I specialized in LD in high school and moonlighted in PF when someone needed a partner. PF paradigm - Flow is the most important thing in the round, please be clear; I'll be deciding on the flow. I'm not new to debate, so I won't be voting off the last speech but the big picture of the round, who has the most positive impacts in the round. I'm a progressive judge so do whatever you want, just be respectful of your competitors.

Tho I prefer that folx don't run bad geopolitical link chains leading to nuclear war - if the links don't make sense I won't care.

TLDR:

* I really don't like racism, sexism...etc. I won't vote for hateful arguments.

* Warrant your arguments! Names of authors mean nothing to me. I won't vote for you if you just read cards.

*Weighing is very important (especially with a Value/VC/Roll of the ballot)

*Prioritize impacts, the strategy is important

*If you are going to value Morality, please explain it. What moral framework are we working under

*Be Clear

Former Debater at Homewood-Flossmoor

Lincoln Douglas was the debate-style of my high school career so I am very familiar. I started in traditional Lincoln Douglas and ended my career running Kritiks so I am comfortable with both styles of LD. I can understand most spread, but make sure your opponent is comfortable with the speed and be clear. If you are not clear, I am not flowing. You can go as fast as your mouth and lungs will let you, but if you are not clear it will most likely be detrimental to you. I will say clear twice. If you don't adjust I will probably stop flowing. Refrain from bringing your opponent's identity into the debate space, especially when it comes to sexuality, race and/or disability. I have seen and experienced many rounds where people assume wrong about someone's identity, and it becomes offensive. With that being said, if you are non-black running arguments about anti-blackness (or in general), make sure it's for the right reasons, and don't use authors that write for the black population.

Plans: Call me old-fashioned but I don't think that Affirmative needs to provide a plan in any LD debate topic. But I am not against plans in LD.

Theory: 80% of the time I do not like theory debates because it can get very messy. While I view theory to be a necessary part of debate I hate frivolous theory. To be honest, I don't care if someone's case isn't on a debate wiki, I am not 100% against voting for stuff like that but the reason why its imperative for people to explain the need to disclose.

Kritiks: I think they make debate interesting and sparks great dialogue. But please run a meaningful Kritik don't slap one together before a round that isn't well thought out. I tend to like Kritiks that challenge the topic/arguments, just because there tends to be more clash, but Kritiks about the debate space is fine. I haven't had the time to read a ton of literature in college, so don't assume I know an author.

Speaking Style:

• I prioritize clarity and organization over speed. Spreading (speaking too quickly) will not benefit you in my round. If I can’t understand your arguments, I won’t flow them. Please speak at a conversational pace, enunciate clearly, and make your points easy to follow.

Argumentation:

• I appreciate well-structured cases that are easy to follow. Your value and criterion should be clear from the start, and each contention should be clearly linked to your framework. I prefer quality over quantity—fewer, well-developed arguments will be more effective than a long list of underdeveloped points.

Evidence:

• Evidence is important, but I also care about how well you explain it and how it supports your arguments. Don’t just drop facts; explain why they matter and how they tie into your overall case.

Weighing and Impact Calculus:

• I value clear weighing of arguments and impact analysis. Tell me why your impacts are more significant or relevant than your opponent’s. Make sure to explain how your value and criterion weigh against your opponent’s framework.

Rebuttals and Clash:

• I expect direct engagement with your opponent’s arguments. Organized rebuttals that address each key point or contention are important. Avoid dropping key points—if your opponent raises a significant argument, make sure you address it clearly and explain why your case still stands.

Cross-Examination:

• I value focused and clear questioning. Be aggressive as needed but don't be rude. This is your opportunity to clarify your opponent’s arguments or expose weaknesses in their case. Use this time to set up later arguments in the round.

Final Focus:

• In your final speeches, crystallize the round by clearly summarizing why your framework, arguments, and impacts outweigh your opponent’s. I appreciate when debaters explain how the round should be judged based on what was discussed and weighed throughout.

Miscellaneous:

• Organization is key! The more organized and clear you are, the easier it will be for me to flow and understand your case.

In summary, keep it clear, organized, and easy to follow. I appreciate strong argumentation, but I care just as much about how you present your ideas.

MY BACKGROUND

competed in parli debate on the collegiate circuit - socal based
some experience in public forum and LD - ms + hs

WHAT I WANT TO SEE:

- extended impacts
- clear sign posting. please don't make me figure out where you are on the flow i'm begging
- weighing mechanisms. i would prefer if you didn't make the weighing mechanism debate last the whole round, but that's still better than no weighing mechanism brought up at all
- cordial debating. don't yell personal attacks at your opponent. i will drop you on account of courtesy if you do. cattiness is fine, just don't be a bad person
- CXbrought back into the debate where applicable (I don't flow CX)
- clash. please, please, please don't talk past each other

SPREADING (my takes):

I'm alright with fast paced debates and actually prefer them, but I was never fully introduced to the art of spreading. I agree that it can make debate a little less accessible to the general public, which is a shame (imagine if everyone knew how to spread lol). if you do decide to spread, I can get down probably about 70-80% of it. but I'd prefer not to struggle to get down your arguments.

TL;DR: fast talking, yes. spreading, no.

my definition of spreading is any pace that requires you to double clutch (the double breath, not the car thing) to keep it up. if you don't know what double clutching is, I will be able to understand you

Please add me to email chain: Email: schirjeev@gmail.com

I am a lay judge. Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow.

"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." Tom Robbins

Hello! I'm Skye. I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!

My email is ssspindler97@gmail.com for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :) No one really takes me up on this but the likelihood I forget to edit your ballot is really high, so please consider emailing me a back up option if you want clarification.

Background

Right now, I'm studying to be a HS English Language Arts teacher in a Masters of Education and initial licensure program at the University of Minnesota. I'm on track to be in the classroom by Fall 2025 and can't wait to get a policy team started wherever I end up!

Backing up a bit, I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.

I have experience reading, coaching, & judging policy arguments and Ks in both LD & policy.

I have been coaching going on 4 years and judging for 7. I am currently a policy coach at Washburn Senior High in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is part of the Minnesota Urban Debate League. I also coach speech and debate at the Harker School in California.

I've also worked full time for the Minnesota Urban Debate League and coached policy part-time at Edina HS, Wayzata HS, and the University of Minnesota.

Top Notes!

1. For policy & varsity circuit LD - I flow on paper and hate flowing straight down. I do not have time to make all your stuff line up after the debate. That does not mean I don't want you to spread. That means that when you are debating in front of me, it is beneficial for you to do the following things:

a) when spreading card heavy constructives, I recommend a verbal cue like, "and," in between cards and slowing down slightly/using a different tone for the tags than the body of the card

b) In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down; it is too dense of argumentation for me to write it in an organized way on my flow if you are spewing them at me.

c) instead, I recommend not spreading analytics at max speed, SIGN POSTING between items on the flow & give me literally 1 second to move onto the next flow (I'm serious do a one-Mississippi in your head)

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because we didn't find a common understanding, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it.

2. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.

General - Policy & Circuit LD

"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.

Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”

T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.

Plans/policy: Yes, I will enjoy judging a policy v policy debate too, please don't think I won't or can't judge those debates just bc I read and like critical arguments. I have read policy arguments in debate as well as Ks and I currently coach and judge policy arguments.

Because I judge in a few different circuits, my topic knowledge can be sporadic, so I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

Clash debates, general: Clash debates are my favorite to judge. Although I read Ks for most of college, I coach a lot of policy arguments and find myself moving closer to the middle on things the further out I am from debating.

I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.

Ks, general: I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate so a) I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round or b) the theory of power has not been proven or explained at all/in the context of the round. And those debates can be frustrating to evaluate.

Planless aff vs. T/framework: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs have a clear model of debate to answer framework with, whether or not that includes the topic. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.

Plan aff vs. K :If you actually win and do judge instruction, framework will guide my decision. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?

K v. K: I find framework helpful in these debates as well and remember that even if I know the critical theory you're talking about, I still expect you to explain it throughout the debate because that is a significant part of the learning process and I want to keep myself accountable to the words you are saying in the debate so I don't fill things in for you.

LD -

judge type: consider me a "tech" "flow" "progressive" or "circuit" judge, whatever the term you use is.

spreading: spreading good, please see #1 for guidelines

not spreading: also good

"traditional"LD debaters: lately, I have been voting a lot of traditional LD debaters down due to a lack of specificity, terminal impacts, and general clash, especially on the negative. I mention in case this tendency is a holdover from policy and it would benefit you to know this for judge adaptation.

frivolous theory/tricks ?: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.

framework: When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.

PF -

I think the biggest thing that will impact you in front of me is I just have higher expectations for warrants and evidence analysis that are difficult for you to meet when you have a million tiny speeches. Quality over quantity is a beneficial way to think about your approach in these debates!

Fun Survey:

Policy--------------------------X-----------------K

Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad

Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad

Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education

Fairness is a thing--------------------x----------Delgado 92

Try or die----------------------x-----------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits---------x-------------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:

Hello,

I'm Engin Tuncer, and I'm excited to be part of the debate community. Here's a concise overview of my judging philosophy:

Judging Philosophy:

I aim to provide a fair evaluation of each debate round. My decisions are based on the strength of arguments, evidence, and persuasive communication. I do not favor specific arguments or styles, valuing adaptability in debaters.

Speaker Points:

I use a 25-30 scale:

• 25: Significant issues with clarity or argumentation.
• 26-27: Solid performance with room for improvement.
• 28-29: Excellent performance with strong arguments.
• 30: Exceptional performance.

Argumentation and Style:

Clear, well-structured arguments with relevant evidence are appreciated. Engage with opponents' arguments, and prioritize clarity over speed. Respectful cross-examination is encouraged.

Framework and Role of the Ballot:

I evaluate the round based on the presented framework or default to a comparative approach. The role of the ballot is to determine the debate winner based on the criteria established.

Final Thoughts:

• Respect and courtesy are essential in debates.
• Discriminatory behavior is not tolerated.
• Feel free to ask for clarification.
• Remember, debate is about learning and improvement.

Best regards.

I am a parent judge. I expect you to demonstrate your knowledge and depth of the content as well as the ability to make a confident argument towards your stance.

I cannot judge what I cannot understand so clear and logical communication is key.

Also, keep track of your own and other team's speech/prep times.

Basically just be nice and enjoy your passion towards debate.

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

Put me on the email chain! imaxx.jc@gmail.com

email chain >>>>> speech drop

I flow on paper (adjust your speed accordingly, allow for pen/flow time, and prioritize clarity over speed).

I'll flow what I hear and refer to the doc for evidence if necessary

*****

0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, racism, queerphobia, misogyny, etc.

I have and will continue to intervene here when I feel it is necessary.

*****

About me:

Debated policy for 5 years at CSUF, started as a college novice & also did IEs. I've coached policy, LD, PF, and MSPDP, and I am currently coaching circuit LD & trad LD.

• Debate is about competing theorizations of the world, which means all debates are performances, and you are responsible for what you do/create in this round/space.

• More than 5 off creates shallow debates & becomes a game of technical concessions that are frustrating to evaluate. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, LaToya Green, Cat Smith, Kwudjwa Osei, Travis Cochran, Beau Larsen, Tay Brough

Some thoughts on specifics:

Policy v K: I generally think more time should be spent on FW, how and why should I (not) evaluate the AFF?

• The link debate- link analysis is key on both sides, specific/contextualized links are best.

• The alt debate- If ur going for the alt, help me visualize what I'm voting for before the 2NR

K v K: love kvk debate, creating an organized story is important (especially in LD bc time constraints)

• I consider myself well-read in many different areas of critical theory, I wanna know how those theories apply to this debate and this AFF/NEG position. I'm here for it. Just explain

FW v K AFFs: I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts and performances matter just as much as the legitimacy ppl tend to give to fiated plan texts.

• I tend to prefer the counter-interp route (it's easier for me to compare models in my head). I'm not unwilling to vote for the impact turn. I just need a deeper & clearer explanation in these debates

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical", (procedural) fairness isn’t an auto-voter for me. I love creative counter-interps of the res, but the AFF has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level (that means clash and education are more persuasive to me).
tldr: You need to prove why clash generated by the content of your stasis point is good/important/necessary

If I’m judging PF:

I think the best way to adapt to me in the back as a LD/Policy guy is clear signposting and emphasizing your citations bc the evidence standards are so different between these events

• also… final focus is so short, it should focus on judge instruction, world-to-world comparison, and impact calc

Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you
Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you












Paradigm for LD, Public Form, Parliamentary Debate, & Congress:

Participants will be scored on a rubric

28-30 Student demonstrates a complex understanding of the subject with a wide range of statistics from reliable sources and journals. Student cites academic authors in the respective field of study who examine the issue critically. Student demonstrates understanding of information peers examine and provides additional citation material for their reasoning.

26-28. Student demonstrates a complex understanding of the subject and provides some citations. These citations are from web sources or media. Student demonstrates some understanding of peer arguments and provides commentary on what the students state.

24-26. Student demonstrates an understanding of the subject at hand.

0. Student pontificates and makes an emotional argument. Student provides no citations to support their claim. Or, the student does not speak at all. Or, the student makes an argument that is confused/irrelevant.