Just go with your preparation and keep it relevant to your topic and do your best. You'll be judged by each of the judging criteria outlined for each event. I'm given equal weights for each criteria at this time (may do weighting in near future).  

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

• Second time Judge
• No experience with the Parli debate
• Appreciates slow, clear talking
• No spreading, please
• Will judge based on the clarity and quality of the speeches
• Signposting greatly appreciated

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (2023-present). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round (or, in parli, a new argument out of the block). I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 300 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think debaters sharing docs with each other increases the likelihood of them trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

Hi debaters!

This is my second year judging, and I'm excited to see your skills! Being a parent of a high schooler myself, I know how much work goes into debate. Just remember to be respectful to everyone involved, that's most important.

When it comes to judging, I care most about the logic behind your arguments, not how many fancy words you use. Strong evidence and clear facts matter more than just throwing out references. Of course, speak clearly so I can follow your points easily, but I won't be counting how fast you talk or how dramatic your hand gestures are.

Lastly, have fun and enjoy the event.

hi! i'm sky.

please conflict me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email. add spjuinio@gmail.com and nuevadocs@gmail.com to the chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. to win my ballot, you should explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. only use jargon if you know how. extend evidence properly and ensure that your cards are all cut correctly (please refer to the NSDA evidence rules). otherwise, i strike the evidence from my flows. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should have more answers than questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you have won the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful. generally, judge instructions will help you and me. sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. as nueva gc artfully articulated, "feel the rhythm, feel the ride, get ready, it's spreading time!" my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

i always try to time speeches. it is strongly encouraged that you also time yourselves and your opponents. speeches get a 15-second grace period, though you should try to finish punctually. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

teams who use hateful language automatically lose. i’ll end rounds early if given a compelling reason to (e.g. evidence violations).

want to sit, stand, or do a sick backflip while you speak? do whatever you're comfortable with (maybe skip the backflip).

don't be mean. don't lie. don't shake my hand.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds and feedback so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions, but do not fight me on my decision. i also accept emails and other online messages. i miiiiight not disclose if you're part of the first flight and/or the next round is expedited.

now, specifics!

topicality. tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly (linking the NSDA evidence rules in case). i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if you ask me to, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse for being lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions. none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. additionally, i don't like to (and tend not to) evaluate purely analytical arguments in the back half. you should read carded links and impacts minimum. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

Enjoy debates that are fact based, with evidence where possible. Please be professional and respectful at all times. I also listen to the counters during CX carefully. Strong evidence will earn you points (over eloquence)

I'm a lay judge, requesting respectful debate and valuing quality over quantity. Appreciate a slower pace, please.

I am a parent debate judge. These are some of the things I will be looking for while judging

1. Content rich definition and points.
2. Speak clearly.
3. Empirical evidence.
4. Respect each other.

I am a parent judge. I started judging in 2021.

Do not spread or run theory. I prefer speakers go not too fast and carefully establish their logical framework, rather than glossing over a list of items. If I cannot understand, the contents do not matter. Once I understand, I vote for both arguments and speaking.

I once saw a case where a Parli debater reading from a written text, which was quite odd as Parli debaters usually do not prepare a written text during 20 min prep. It seemed like reading from ChatGPT response and it looked bad. Please do not do that.

Be respectful and courteous to your opponent.

I prefer to give a written comment instead verbal comment at the end of the debate.

I am a first time parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly for all your speeches. My daughter is in PF, so I'm only familiar with PF, if I happen to be judging other types of debate please let me know the timings and topics. Please be respectful and kind to your opponents, and have a great round!

Experience:

I have been judging Middle/High school Speech and Debate events for the past three years. My experience spans various Speech categories such as Original Oratory, Original Advocacy, and Humorous Interpretation, as well as Debate events like LD.

Judging Philosophy:

I place equal emphasis on both delivery style and content. A well-crafted argument or speech is most effective when it's delivered clearly and persuasively. I prefer a moderate to slower delivery pace that ensures clarity and allows for better audience engagement.

Tldr: top 5 things to know (applies to any debate event you do in front of me)

• policy coach, tech > truth, tabula rasa critic of argument - details below but basically this means i'm tabula rasa as long as you have complete claim-warrant-impact arguments, and i place a premium on logical analytical work, evidence comparison, and impact comparison; importantly, quality logical analysis can easily beat subpar evidence

• be excellent to each other - "Keanu Reeves & Alex Winter explain "Be Excellent to Each Other" ": this video gets the spirit right (minus Alex Winter's gendered language)

• doing your own style = good & respected (i'm just as happy in a stock issues or case / DA round as in a circuity policy or K round as long as there's clear clash, weighing, & analysis, not just a card & block war)

• in national circuit style, i prefer the depth and clarity of 80% of toc style speed and fewer off [much happier with the depth in a 1-4-ish off situation] rather than full fast

• please no blippy unwarranted args - esp not for theory (you need claim-warrant-impact for it to be a voting issue - and reasoning for the voting issue when you first assert it's a voter)

everything below this line mainly includes background info, advice, and event-specific predispositions which you can override w/ skillful debating as long as you focus on the basic ideas above!

**************************************************************************************************

about you:

thank you for being here and for your commitment to speech & debate! i respect your work in this life-changing activity that builds essential life skills and shares important messages and advocacies. please communicate with me if you need any sort of support or accommodation during the round!

about me:

• she/her...and you can call me Michaela; michaelanorthrop@gmail.com – put me on the chain

• current debate & speech coach at Archbishop Mitty High School in San Jose

• policy: policy debate on a spectrum from slow lay judge format to fast circuit style nearly every year since 1999 but have focused less on circuit style the last few years - more lay & semi-fast / mixed pool debate for regional / state & nsda / cat nats

• former head coach with experience coaching all speech & debate events

• competed in hs & college speech & debate (policy, extemp, congress, duo, oratory, & parli) in the late 1990s

• tabroom experience is deceptive; i normally judge 50+ practice rounds a year

• coaching experience:

• 2000-2003 - head speech and debate coach at Lynbrook H.S. in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2003-2006 - head speech and debate coach from at Chantilly H.S. in the Washington D.C. metro (D.C. metro and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2006-2008 - assistant coach for policy debate at Wayzata H.S. in Minnesota & Twin River (formerly Henry Sibley) H.S. (Minnesota and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2015-2024- policy & impromptu coach at Leland High School in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments) + assistance for other events as needed

• 2024-present - debate & speech coach at Archbishop Mitty

SPEAKER POINTS

• i adjust to a particular tournament’s level of challenge and objectives; in lay local debate, i defer to the adaptation goals of that community and adjust points accordingly; on the national circuit, i hold the line more on substance and relative skill in the pool

• speaks are earned by a combo of:

• style (art, creativity, accessibility, memorability, ethos/pathos/logos balance)

• + substance (tech, strategy, demonstrating knowledge and control of the flow + clearly writing my ballot)

• + adaptation (i think this shows your ability to pave a way to persuasion and willingness to make a speech act connect; as a critic of argument focused on education, to me that seems like part of the mission; you make a clear effort to reach out to my understanding of and goals for debate; it’s flagged; it’s obvious; bonus points in paneled prelim round situations if i can tell you're doing this for the whole panel)

• the College Debate Ratings speaker point scale from a few years ago is a good guide for toc-qualifying tournaments but here i overlay my personal rubric so you see more of what i’m looking for per level:

• 29.7+ – exceptional; top few speakers; you’ve blown me away in style + substance + adaptation

• 29.5-29.6 – should be top 10 speakers; the force is strong with you across style + substance + adaptation

• 29.3-29.4 – still high points for top 10 speakers; very strong in at least one subset of style + substance + adaptation and other areas are still high

• 29.1-29.2 – median for top 10 speakers; by here, you may not have the full package of style + substance + adaptation but you are excellent in at least some of those areas

• 28.8-29.0 – roughly 75th percentile at the tournament; bubble territory; i see a bright spark in at least one of the areas of style + substance + adaptation but the breadth isn’t there yet / today

• 28.5-28.7 – roughly 50th percentile at the tournament; emerging strengths in style + substance + adaptation but some clear deficits in skills or effort across the areas

• 28.3-28.4 – roughly 25th percentile at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation; clearly uneven performance

• 28.0-28.3 – roughly 10th percentile speaker at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation

• 27.5-27.9 – having a tough day / round or looking early in your journey for style + substance + adaptation; some skills which seem basic for the tournament mission aren’t clear yet
  
  

MOST GENERAL PARADIGM FOR ANY DEBATE EVENT: (see below for more specific paradigms for Policy, LD, PF, Parli, and Speech - it’s a lot more specific below)

i’m a critic of argument open to most arguments (exceptions below in terms of arguments which marginalize or create harm).

If you’re unfamiliar with “critic of argument” as a paradigm, think of me as a tabula rasa judge who is:

1. tech > truth, as long as arguments have a claim-warrant-impact

2. open to whatever role of the judge / ballot you want to set up...but i first view myself as an educator seeking the outcome of advocacy skills and informed activism in / beyond the debate space

3. will default to the best-warranted logical argumentation (analysis and judge direction held in nearly equal weight with strong evidence) and the best control of comparative impacting throughout the debate (not just in final rebuttals).

4. evidence quality + analysis quality instead of evidence>analysis:

• Arguments like “I read evidence, so you must prefer it over a high school debater’s analysis” aren't persuasive for a critic of argument. Reading evidence alone doesn't trump analysis or judge direction. Instead, the quality and quantity of warrants - and the comparisons of these warrants - will be persuasive.

• Contextualized analytics with clear logical warrants / reasoning (empirics, cause and effect, etc.) easily beat evidence missing clear warranting other than having a non-impressive source.

• Flagging fallacies and a lack of warrants in opponents’ arguments moves you up the believability spectrum.

• Source quality is persuasive as a separate metric.

5. most impressed by these things (highly rewarded with speaks):

• strategic thinking in speeches and cx

• in-depth comparison of evidence (source quality, internal analysis, warrants);

• detailed, clearly substantiated analytics;

• clear advocacy (applies to condo / dispo as much as any other advocacy - tell me what this advocacy means and why it's good);

• cross-examination as an art form which i'm flowing and applying highly to speaks and then to the round if you apply cx concessions during speeches;

• a good balance of ethos, logos, and pathos

• comparative overviews BEFORE FINAL REBUTTALS (starting in the 2ac) telling me your path to the ballot via the avenues above, the flow, and clear impact calculus (saving all your impact comparisons for the final rebuttals seems unfair and poorly develops the debate)

General Preferences Across Debate Formats:

• rate / speed: speed is fine but needs to be clear; no predisposition for or against a rate as long as it's clear but I'm happiest and doing the best processing and evaluation when debaters choose a *moderately* fast rate. Please include the whole panel’s preferences when deciding a rate. If you're not clearly communicating (too fast, not enough articulation or separation of words, etc.), I'll indicate that once by typing "clear" in the chat or in person by saying "clear." If you don't change and i've already indicated an issue, don't expect me to flow.

• Debate needs to be a safe space for all participants. Be kind. We're all here to learn and grow. Ad hominem, rudeness, and exclusionary behavior are unacceptable. At a minimum, you will lose speaker points. Personal attacks or marginalizing behavior - whether careless or intentional - which are repeated without apology after an objection is raised (by myself or anyone else in the room) may also be grounds for a loss, especially (but not only) if your opponents raise the issue.

• i won’t vote on an individual's behavior *outside* my ability to observe it within the round.

POLICY DEBATE ADVICE / PREFERENCES (remember it’s all up for debate / persuasion)

• Number of off case / depth vs. breadth in arguments & cards: as a critic of argument who values argument development, you'll fare better with me in a 1-4 off round than a 5+ off round. i'd much rather see a few well-developed arguments. i'd rather hear more internal analysis in a smaller set of quality cards than lots of cards highlighted down to bare bones.

• CX: love it, pay attention to it, actually flowing it for reference, but waiting to hear you integrate it in speeches to factor it in beyond speaker points and general credibility

• Overviews: love them! impact calc and a clear lens for the round at the top of a speech and / or on top of the core issues is strategic starting in the 2ac and in most subsequent speeches. (just make sure the line by line is developed enough to substantiate this work!)

• Clash rounds: i don't have a strong default for sequencing, so please argue what level of impact / implication comes first and why.

• Theory: enjoy it but cannot be blipped - i don’t vote on tagline theory debates, even if conceded; limited condo (reasonable # for any access requests by opponents) is probably good, as long as it doesn't force the aff into contradictory advocacies

• no automatic judge kick for cps: waiting for the neg to pick an advocacy and i’d prefer it by the neg block

• T / framework:

• • i default to competing interpretations / models with an eye on education unless given another method of evaluation

  • please offer distinct, warranted standards and voters, case lists, and descriptions of the quality of debate and other impacts those case lists create, plus the *importance* of the ground you've lost; no preference for potential abuse vs. in-round abuse arguments

  • a clean articulation of a counter-interp that hones in on one impact turn and how the counter-interp solves it is often pretty persuasive

  • Framework specifically: what does your model of debate do? why is it better? both sides can provide a lot of clarity by throwing down on a TVA and what it does and doesn't resolve.

  • perfectly willing to vote on old school T metrics like jurisdiction and justification if you tell me reasons that would be good in the debate space or in life; i’ve loved T debates forever including reading 1980s backfiles so do with that what you will…T theory is cool!

• Case debate - yes! offense is great but case defense can also be very helpful in the overall decision (assigning relative risk). yes, i will vote on presumption (if you tell me how & why i should)

• K affs and K v K: looking for a clear thesis, connection to the resolution, clear method or solvency, and a clear role of the judge and ballot; though i'm open to hearing K v K rounds, i wouldn't call them my wheelhouse. don’t assume i know your lit and give me strong sequencing arguments, please!

• Performance: be very specific in telling me how to evaluate it with the role of the ballot and judge; explain how your performance is uniquely valuable and effective

• Disads: yes zero risk exists; i heavily lean towards link strength + analysis ; love to hear about how the world of the disad implicates case claims and solvency; well-explained uniqueness + link specificity > long uniqueness walls & link walls

• Ks: excited to hear Ks but i'm not steeped in high theory lit, so you need to use overviews and analysis to develop those; the link story and overall position need to be clear, as well as your role of the judge & role of the ballot; please contextualize specific links to case / speech acts instead of relying on generic links alone; please separate sections (framework / perm / links / implications / alt); also, alt specificity matters and it's frustrating and unfair when debaters are evasive about their alts

• Counterplans: if your CP doesn't have a solvency card / advocate, you're way behind and probably have to justify that with how small the aff is + some reasonable indication of solvency based on facts in the round (e.g. aff evidence)...or exploiting a plan flaw…but in general, i think the playing field needs to be level and counterplans should have solvency, given that affs should have solvency

DEBATE EVENTS BESIDES POLICY:

i'll go w/ the standards the debaters set as opposed to judging your LD, PF, and Parli rounds "like a policy judge" unless you give me no guidance, in which case i default to being a critic of argument

for LD Debate:

• any style is fine unless your opponent requests a slow round based on access or comfort concerns

• i rely heavily on the criterion debate in assessing my decision, unless the debaters argue another approach

• will listen to theory arguments if they are substantiated and impacted

• will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. "no plans" / "no counterplans")as directed by debaters' objections or formal protest (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules) in those particular settings

• comfortable with traditional or progressive LD stylistically but let's be real about what's reasonable to cover with quality in a 1ar and not get too wild with the number of positions; i think depth is more important than breadth (see everything elsewhere in my paradigm about no blippy, unsubstantiated arguments)

for PF Debate:

• my ideal PF round has debaters setting a clear framework for the round and pointing their contentions and their impacts towards this goal

• conceded args / defense / whatever is NOT sticky - you need to say it in summary for it to be valid in final focus (i don't think it's fair for me to have to evaluate what was responded to or extended “enough” - requires too much subjectivity - so the objective standard for me is concrete extensions); rebuttal speeches don't have to cover their own side's case extension but it's often wise for them to do so at least at a top level or versus core opponent arguments, just based on the time to develop quality responses being at a premium later in the debate

• can you please just share your ev w/ one another before speeches rather than making everyone wait for these vague and lengthy specific card requests?

• crossfire / grand crossfire are important for argument testing and argument resolution - and i'm flowing them; however, debaters should apply cx concessions in speeches if they want crossfire to be part of the decision

• theory - fine if substantiated and impacted, though i think PF lacks adequate time for impacting theory without placing yourself significantly behind on clash, so choose wisely

• will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. "no plans" / "no counterplans") as directed by debaters' objections or formal protest (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules) in those particular settings

• cards, not links or vague paraphrasing - "[author name] says X in 2022" where X is not a direct quote or at least mentioning a very specific data point / argument rather than a broad claim is absolutely not evidence to me. i'm dismayed by the paraphrasing i've seen in PF lately: paraphrasing brief claims without warrants or drop quotes...or simply providing a pile of author names. These things truly aren't persuasive if there's no quoted evidence or warranted analysis based upon specific conclusions. I also often see PF debaters adding their OWN power-tagged claims to these paraphrases and this really seems unethical and superficial.

• this isn't to say you need giant paragraphs like policy evidence…but actually cite specific details and quotes with warrants for your claim if you want me to view that as a supported claim.

• i won't go through your separate evidence doc to find the support for you if you haven't read it into the round.

• you don't get to summarize a whole book or article w/o detail. NSDA rules (which apply to CHSSA & CFL tournaments as well as NSDA tournaments) are very clear on this point. See NSDA High School Unified Manual (March 2024 updated version) (command F "Evidence Rules for Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Big Questions Debate" and in particular, rule 7.2.B.3 on p. 30: "If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round.")

for Parli Debate:

• I can go larpy or K here but I hold the line on T

• mainly looking for clear warranting & impacting and a tight case debate linking plan provisions / your case thesis to advantages and the weighing standard for the round; willing to apply other frameworks based upon debaters' warranted advocacy

• theory is fine if substantiated and impacted; T / other theory / off-case positions are welcome if clearly warranted; either "dismiss the argument" or "drop the team" claims need to be very heavily substantiated and demonstrate clear potential or in-round abuse

Hi!

I am a lay parent judge. Please explain arguments thoroughly at a reasonable pace. My son has done PF for 2 years, so I am reasonably familiar with the round structure.

Hi, I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging. I am currently getting familiar with speech and debate terms/procedures so please speak slowly and explain your arguments very clearly so I can follow. Thanks!

HI, I am a parent judge. I have only judged for a little bit, so speaking clearly is important to me. Please explain your reasoning and I value main strong arguments over a bunch of small weaker ones. Last thing, have fun! Make sure you have a good time debating. Good luck!

Name: Priti Singh

Pronouns: she/her/hers

General Information: Please keep in mind that I am not a flow judge, so I may not remember every single argument you bring up during rounds! I will listen to CX, but I won't take the information/empirics shared in CX into account while deciding who wins. However, if anyone is disrespectful or blatantly rude during CX - I will deduct speaker points.

Along with what you present, how you present is equally important - clarity, pace and posture count.

reminder: PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD. If I cannot understand what you are saying I will just assume your opponent cannot either.

Hey! I'm a new judge (aka a rookie or in your language a noob). So, I'm figuring out what I deeply value in a winning argument. I'm looking for strong, simple, logical arguments and ideally with strong factual foundations.

Hello all, I am a parent judge and enjoy judging all formats.

Please speak clearly and to the point. I can handle speed but would prefer that you not rush as I might miss the most impactful argument. I will prefer that you have valid arguments along with being good debtors. My decision will evaluate all scopes of the debate: framework, reasoning, arguments, evidence, etc. Ensure to drive home the point why your impacts are better achieved over your opponent.

I like to see structure - lay a roadmap and get into the speech.

Stay civil, polite and courteous throughout the round, despite how the round is going for your opponent.

I do not like rudeness or snide remarks, we are all trying to learn together.

I am a parent judge, so please talk at a moderate speed. I flow somewhat and I value your speaking styles. I would like you be kind and nice to opponents.

I've judged PF before, but never any other event, so explain what the speeches are before you do them.

Please time yourselves and each other.

I am a parent judge. hungfw@yahoo.com

Please don't speak too fast and don't have any complicated debate jargon that is not explained.

Good luck!

I am a first year parent judge.

-Please be respectful of your opponents.

-Please provide me with your roadmap and guide me through your arguments.

-Well developed argument is more important than the number of arguments

-Speak at a moderate speed so I can follow all your points.

-Encourage to use cited evidence, examples and numeric values, if available.

Hope you enjoy the competition.

3rd year flay parent judge