I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, and explain your arguments thoroughly. I will judge based on logically constructed arguments that are supported by facts. Be respectful and courteous to your opponent. Please send me your cases before the round starts. Good luck and have fun!

Hello Debaters,

My name is Maria Olga. I'm from the Dominican Republic, currently studying philosophy and law in Spain. I have experience in MUN, PF, and now I'm trying parliamentary debate, but now I focus primarily on coaching and judging PF. Debate is a discipline I deeply respect, and I expect the same from you—toward both your opponents and the format itself. I know the rules well, and I take note when debaters bend or disregard them.

General Approach

I appreciate a good clash of arguments, provided it remains respectful. I value organized debates with a clear storyline. By the end of the round, I expect to see which arguments still stand and how they’ve been collapsed (or boiled down). Please do not revive dropped arguments. Also, while I dislike spreading, I expect you to maintain a reasonable pace—don't talk at 2 mph!

Weighing

I'm a tech>truth judge, but don’t rely too heavily on tech, I value both tech and truth. Remember, debaters win rounds, not just cases. I appreciate strong arguments supported by evidence and statistics. I expect you to do your own weighing throughout the round, although I’ll also do mine. Be clear about why you’ve won and where, so I can factor that into my decision.

Progressive arguments

I don’t favor Ks, theory or progressive arguments for that matter in PF, as they stray from what debaters prepare for. I won’t flow these arguments, and you’ll have a hard time convincing me to vote on them. I value arguments based on the resolution and the preparation debaters put into it. However, I'm open to listening to them.

Cross-Examination (CX)

I love a passionate CX and I flow it, and I'll take it into account if it’s brought up in speeches. CX aggression is fine, but don’t overdo it, disrespect will lower your speaker points.

Speeches

1. Weighing: I weigh the round based on what’s standing at the end (factoring in defense and frontlining) according to the framework (FW). If no FW is established, I’ll default to the one that wasn’t dropped.
2. Impacts: All impacts should be warranted, linked, and supported with in-text citations to matter on my ballot.
3. Dropped Arguments:Arguments dropped after the summary are considered dropped and won’t factor into my decision.
4. Summary: Should focus on weighing and identifying voting issues. Weighing done solely in the final focus won’t be considered.
5. Final Focus: This is where I expect to hear a clear explanation of why you’ve won the round. No new evidence, arguments, or weighing—just tell me how and why you’ve won.

General Guidelines

1. CX can be aggressive but respectful; disrespect will impact speaker points.
2. Time yourself.
3. If asked for evidence, present it quickly or acknowledge if you can’t find it. Don’t waste time looking for it.
4. Don’t add me to email chains or evidence links.
5. I know the rules—don’t try to exploit loopholes. Disregarding the rules will cost you the round.

I have been judging PF for four years and am now judging LD. I flow to capture and compare both arguments. I appreciate the value of speaking quickly, but also ask that competitors don't speak so fast, I can't understand them. Respect for other debaters during and after the rounds is very important. Be assertive, certainly, but rudeness is unnecessary. I appreciate debaters who have clearly prepared well and researched their topic sufficiently to be able to address unexpected ideas or approaches to a topic. I have a great deal of respect for the amount of time and effort that goes into researching and preparing for debate. Please bear in mind that I don't do this every day as you do, and may not follow all of the debate jargon and strategy ideologies, but I will always judge to the best of my ability.

Public Forum

Emphasize logic and flow, facts & evidences; value respect and professionalism. Manner, behavior and sincerity matters.

Judged in SCU & North Bay.

My background: Former attorney

What I look for in a Debate: Strong oral presentation, balance of evidence, analysis, application to the resolution and logic. Respectful sportsmanship. Prefer no spreading.

Thank you for participating in what I believe is the coolest and best of all high school activities....speech and debate! For debate rounds: I am a lay judge. My son is a PF debater and I will lightly flow your round. I do not enjoy progressive style debating; please do not spread. I enjoy clearly articulated arguments without lingo or jargon. I know you all will be kind and civil, because speech and debate kids are the best. Please keep participating in this awesome event. I always tell my kids that even when you lose a round, you are still winning at life! The skills are you are learning in speech and debate are perhaps the most useful skills you will acquire in high school. Great job choosing this amazing activity.

Don't spread. If you insist on it - at least make sure I can actually understand you. I consider myself a trad judge. Strike me for tricks/dense Phil/ theory/ Kritiks. Be topical.

In the event that you have me as a judge and you really reallycan't help but read something not trad, please slow down, I do not want to follow a doc (though I am more than capable of doing so).

I don't disclose speaker points but I will disclose the result of the round.

frasatc@gmail.com - I want to be on the email chain! Please do not send me emails regarding my final decisions.

I understand that I may be on panels with two circuit judges and the round will inevitably be a progressive LD round.

here is a list of circuit arguments I have voted off of

DAs (love these, basically circuit trad)

Ks (set col specific)

Determinism (I didn't want to vote on this either)

Rule following paradox (it was dropped, I do not want to vote on tricks :( )

Overall my "circuit" preferences are LARP (policy) and the K (identity K's think: set col)

If you slow down towards the end of your speech with some clear judge instruction (yes, even if you are spreading) I will figure it out--

Don't post round me- I voted the way I did and demanding I change it or concede that I was wrong is not productive for anyone.

Hi!

I debated LD in high school and am relatively well-versed in critical literature-

Do not spread I flow on paper.

Read whatever as long as you are able to make it Topical.

Please stop using buzzwords I do not know what they mean. Lowkey nuclear war links make no sense read it at your own risk but explain the link chain well.

Shortcuts:

1- trad

2- phil

2 - K

3/4 - larp (like nuke war extinction)

strike me if you read tricks/ theory

put me on the email chain: osmanghanic@gmail.com

I am a relatively experienced parent/lay judge; this will be my third season judging high school speech and debate tournaments. I was a high school debater in Hong Kong and was also active in speech and drama. (I won several inter-school debate and speech tournaments). I judged three novice Public Forum debates as a parent judge in 2022-23 (at Lincoln-Sudbury, Newton South and Harvard Forensics). For the 2023-2024 season, I judged all Speech categories at St. Nick Showdown plus varsity Public Forum at NSDA qualifiers, NCFL qualifiers, and Harvard Debate Tournament. I prefer no spreading (quick speaking is fine as long as it's comprehensible). I am starting to flow.

Greetings, by way of introduction, my name is Eric Emerson. eric.emerson@kinkaid.org (for speech docs).

I coach debate (policy, LD, World's, congress, oratory and public forum) at the Kinkaid school. I have actively served on the Board of the Houston Urban Debate League since 2008, the year of its inception, and have also directed the UTNIF.

As a judge, I evaluate arguments (claim, warrant, data and impact). I prefer arguments grounded in literature rather than regressive debate theory (take note LD). My preferences are flexible and can be overcome by persuasive, smart debaters.

I take notes, sometimes quite quickly. If I think you unclear, I will let you know in my facial expressions and on the occasion, hopefully rare, when I yell 'clear'.

If I find you/your arguments, unpleasant then your speaker points will reflect that. I disagree with judges who give out high speaker points to everyone. You gotta earn my points.

I am easily distracted and I prefer debaters to be both engaging and entertaining. If I appear distracted, it may be your fault.

Debate is a powerful educational tool that should be accessible to everyone. I try to approach all of my interactions with empathy and concern for others. I find unpleasant debates to be just that, unpleasant. I would ask that you avoid being unpleasant to your opponents, spectators, and me. Unpleasantness that threatens debate, to me, should be avoided.

Email : himali2712@gmail.com

Please be clear in your speech and talk at a pace that I can understand. This will help me follow your case and comprehend your arguments.

Support your positions with statistical data, numbers and warrants. Make sure you sign post and don't hop around cases. Logical flow of arguments will make your case easier to understand and hence strengthen your position.

In summary and final focus, be clear on what your impacts are and why they matter more than your opponents.

I update myself with the debate topics that I am judging, so be ready to comprehend your arguments well.

Please share the relevant docs pertaining to your case.

Please be kind to your competitors. Don't try to be rude or discriminatory otherwise points will be taken off.

Hello Everyone,

My Name is Andrew Garcia Chavez, I am a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley with a Bachelor's in Political Economy and a double minor in Public Policy and Education. I also received my Masters's degree in Education, with a specialization in Social Sciences.

I am typically a truth-over-tech judge, as I place value in the logic presented in the arguments. That being said if both sides have logical arguments then I will go into tech for my RFD. While World Schools is typically more forgiving when it comes to providing concrete evidence, I still place strong emphasis when it comes to providing strong evidence to back up your contentions. Make sure that you are extending your arguments in all speeches.

I tend to value teams that can debate strategically and know when it's a good time to accept POIs and when not to accept POIs. Quality of POIs are also very important and can make or break a teams overall score for me. I also expect competitors to treat each other with the respect they deserve.

Also make sure you are signposting throughout the round. Clear arguments are very important to me in terms of how I judge.

I'm the coach of the debate team at Horace Greeley High School in Chappaqua, New York, where I teach English and ENL. I value clear, structured argumentation. Here's what you need to know about how I judge:

FOCUS

Read the motion carefully. Debate the motion in front of you, not the motion you wish you'd been given.

CLARITY AND SPEED

Speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. I'm not a fan of spreading; if I can't understand it, I can't flow it. If you feel like you're going too fast, you probably are.

STRUCTURE

I appreciate a clear, concise roadmap at the start of your speech so I know where you're going. Signpost throughout your speech. It's to your benefit to help me flow each argument.

WEIGHING AND IMPACT CALCULATION

Weigh your impacts early and often. Don't leave it up to me to decide which impacts matter more. Comparative analysis is key; explain why your impacts outweigh your opponents'.

EVIDENCE AND WARRANTS

I care about well-warranted arguments. Repeating arguments forcefully without explaining how relevant evidence supports them will not help you. Be sure your evidence is accurate (while still following theNY Times rule) and is used logically. Don't expect me to buy into sketchy or contradictory arguments and definitions without good justification.

CLASH

Please do look for clash with your opponents, but make sure that your POI and POO have a purpose. Do not use these techniques merely to harass and obstruct your opponents' argument.

SPEAKER POINTS

I reward clarity, organization, and strategic thinking. Respect your opponents and stay professional. Being rude or condescending will cost you points.

My Experience: I teach English and have been coaching and judging speech and debate since September of 2014. My PF experience has mostly been confined to the beginning level. I was never a debater so most of what I know comes from coaching. I am definitely a lay judge.

I am a huge fan of specificity. The more detailed you can be in your args and evidence the easier it will be for me to flow and to vote on.

I lean tech over truth so make sure you refute your opponents’ args with the same specificity you construct your own.

I will flow the round but only at a reasonable speed. I believe spreading takes most of the educational value out of debate and, as such, I have a very difficult time judging it. That said, I will judge whatever you run, including Ks, theory, whatever you want. Just know, there is no substitute for a well-warranted, clash-heavy debate done at a reasonable speed.

I do not generally call for evidence and will only do so if my decision depends on it.

Be respectful to your opponents and demonstrate what you know.

I am a parent judge with limited exposure to Varsity LD Debate.

Please go slow to allow me to follow.

Email: knnmbd@yahoo.com

Hello, my name is Sireesha Koppula. I am a parent judge with 3-ish years of on-off expirience on the lay circut. I'm having my son help me write this.

Debate (I mostly judge this):

1. I am NOT a tech judge, but I will try my very best to take as many notes as possible. My kids have (sort of) explained flowing to me, I will try my best to keep track of dropped arguments, BUT BE VERY CLEAR and SIGNPOST.
2. I don't know most (or really any) of your jargon, if you are in Policy, explain things to me very clearly. No Ks or weird framing arguments, please, but if you want to have a really stock framing debate I will try my very best to evaluate it.
3. I care a lot about presentation/ courtesy. The content of the debate is important but the way you talk is just as important. If you are relatively clear, interesting, and respectful, this shouldn't be an issue. Try and talk at a normal-to-fast conversational speed. I'll say "clear" if I don't understand you.
4. Please add me to the email chain, I'm not going to scrutinize every card that is sent, but if the round comes down to 1-2 really important pieces of evidence, I will read them and it will impact my decision.
5. I try to walk into rounds with an open mind, if you are reading an argument with existential impact and a strong link chain, I will evaluate it. You can win with bad arguments, but my threshold for strong analytic responses against these arguments is really high, so run them at your own risk.

Speech:

1. I don't have much expirience, just try to be interesting, engaging and clear.

Most of all, have fun! You're here to learn, not only to win.

I am a lay debate judge that primarily works as a speech coach. Please don’t spread.

Make your arguments clear and concise in your constructives and make the winner of the debate clear in your rebuttals (voters, crystallization, weighing). I consider myself a rational person that values truth over tech in most cases.

I will not be favorable to anyone who makes any bigoted, harmful arguments (homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.).

I prefer speech drop for file sharing.

I am a parent judge, what varsity debaters would identify as lay. I have 2 children who debate at the high school level so I understand some of the basics but I am not familiar with the intricacies of different arguments.

Please go slow! I don't have an ear for fast debating so I won't be able to flow your arguments.

I am not very familiar with the IP topic so I value explanation and judge instruction. For context, the last time I judged was on the NATO topic so don't assume I know what the aff does or what the DA says. I have a loose understanding of how DAs and CPs work. Not familiar with T.

Hello debaters!

I'm a parent judge, I've judged more than tournaments, so I am ok.

I do not have much experience on the debate topic so please make sure to explain everything very thoroughly. Please do not use too much debate jargon as I do not understand most of them.

Please do not run any squirrely arguments, because I will have a hard time understanding them.

I will try to be a tech>truth judge but please don't make things too unbelievable.

English is not my first language, so please talk slowly and clearly so I can understand you. If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't be able to vote for you off of it. Also, please signpost and make it clear whether you are talking about your case or the opponents' arguments. Make your speech easy to follow. This will make it easier for me to understand your points and vote for you.

If you bring up sensitive topics, have a trigger warning. Please also avoid bringing up politics, religion, race, etc. if it is rude or derogatory.

If you talk very fast or unclear, I will take off speaker points.

Please be respectful to your opponents throughout the round and maintain a sense of seriousness.

Good luck everyone!

Hi there,

My name is Kara, and I am a parent judge entering my third year of judging. I mostly do speech events but have also judged a variety of debate events. Since I am a parent of a competitor, I know how hard you work, how much effort you put forth and how incredibly courageous you are for putting yourself out there! With this in mind, I am always going to be upbeat, welcoming and full of smiles and words of encouragement for you! Since I know how nerve wracking these competitions can be, please don't let my presence ever be a source of stress for you as I truly want to see you do well!!

So far as my style is concerned, I must put "more volume" in just about every ballot I have filled out. Since every room you are in is different, make sure you adjust so that everyone in that room can hear every word you say clearly. I also appreciate it when you make eye contact throughout.

For debate events, I prefer slower speaking so that I know what you're saying. I LOVE politics so I have watched my fair share of politicians who go around in circles and don't answer the question. This means I can spot that technique from a mile away (i.e. you have a canned answer and pull it out even if it isn't what was asked of you). Please also make sure your sources are solid and referenced clearly.

I always check my biases at the door and while I may be vehemently opposed to something you are arguing or speaking about, I will judge you on how well you made that argument.

I can't wait to see what amazing speeches and debates you have in store!

Sincerely,

Kara Mathews

Huntington Park '24

CSULB '28

CSULB OM

LAMDL x UDL 4eva <3

Coaching for Huntington Park.

Email Chain: dmedina1921@gmail.com (Feel free to reach out if you're from a UDL!)

----TLDR: Don't be problematic, do impact calculus, win the flow with technical debating, give judge instruction, and out frame the other team on whatever you think matters more or believe I should prioritize.

----Debate is a social and persuasive activity, not a soulless game. Many of us throw so much time into this activity. So with that being said DO NOT be anti-Black, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, or enact any other form of violence whether rhetorically or physically.

----Due to the state of the world I would like to keep my paradigm short BUT feel free to ask me any questions.

----Despite my argumentative style feel free to run what you like, I will decide the debate mostly based on the flow and technicality. Though, I am not a robot and believe bad arguments like animal wipeout are beaten by Truth level arguments.

----Specific/Contextual Links to the plan < Fiat causes heart attacks (never want to vote for this)

----Block reading < Line by line/Comparing and Contextualizing.

----Good analytics beat bad cards.

----Explaining the aff < one liner overviews about extinction and fiat go brr (seriously, teams should just say presumption because policy teams are just getting away with murder).

----Preferably no card docs, unless the debate is close/I am directed to a piece of evidence that must matter.

I have never judged nor debated before, therefore I don't have much of a paradigm to offer. I believe that debates should be fair, honest, and good-spirited. I am open to all arguments, but I believe it would be easier to judge a policy debate as opposed to a critique. Being a new judge, I am most concerned about being able to follow and understand your arguments. Quantity will not exceed quality. I plan to judge the debate on the merits of your arguments, not on how many arguments a team poses. Teams should respond to all arguments that the opposing team gives, however I think I would favor affirmatives or counterplans that have the bigger impacts. Being an inexperienced judge, your arguments have to be clear, concise, and connected. If a team does not provide roadmaps, it will make it nearly impossible for me to understand and consider all of their arguments. Speed will not help you with me. If I cannot understand what is being said, I cannot weigh the argument fairly. Run what you would like to run, I am open to any argument somebody presents. But, if it is against what I believe to be true, you will need to convince me that your argument is valid and I would need to reexamine my point of view. If you are able to do that, it is very possible that I would vote for your team. Being relatively new to debate, I will probably not reward teams that an experienced judge would. For example, if an argument is dropped, and experienced judge would likely notice, however, I may not. Therefore, the team that presents the best structured arguments, that are logical, and ring true with me, is most likely to get my vote.

Hi my name is Harinadh. I’m a flay judge and I’ve been judging public forum debate for four years. I’m pretty comfortable with speed but if I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your argument. Please warrant out all your responses in rebuttal and number them if possible. I don’t evaluate crossfire so if there is anything important you want me to consider, bring it up in one of your speeches. Make sure to summarize the round in your summary speech. I will be looking for weighing throughout your speeches. Don’t make new rebuttals in summary or final, just clearly explain to me why I should be voting for you. Overall, be respectful and have fun!

Novice parent judge

Speak at moderate speed and signpost please. Off time roadmaps are okay.

I am a lay parent judge. Please add me to email chain: Email: hitesh_rastogi@hotmail.com These are my preferences:

K Debaters: I am fine with Kritiks as long as they are topical to the resolution. Make sure to be very clear on your links and explain as to why it should be extended. If I am not clear on how you solve for your K, I will drop it.

Theory Debates: I don’t prefer theory debates. If you’re reading high theory, make sure to explain it as low theory so I can understand properly.

Speed: Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow. Make the argument, cite examples (warrants) and persuade me why your argument is superior to your opponents.

Signpost & crystallize. This is very important. I will be flowing with you, but be sure that you signpost elements that you want me to pay attention to. Please crystalize effectively. Please sum up your debate by addressing the most important arguments in a simple and clear manner.

Links & extensions: The link between each contention and its value/impact must be clear. Don't just cite cards, explain how the card is important and relevant in this round and to your value premise and towards the end towards addressing voting issues.

In general, focus more on why your arguments are more superior beyond just using the technicalities of dropped arguments, etc.

Finally, keeping up with the spirit of debate, be polite, courteous and follow the rules.

Enjoy yourself

I am an inexperienced parent / lay judge. Please articulate and explain all your points and speak clearly and persuasively. I start at 27.5 speaker points and go up or down based on your argumentation and persuasiveness. Please be nice to your opponents.

I have respect for you debaters as I have never been in a round as a debater. My high school did not have a team and I did not know about Debate as an activity until my second year of teaching when I was asked to Chaperone, Supervise and "Coach" the Huntington Park Debate Team. Therefore, I would appreciate you all if you treated me as an more experienced "Parent Judge." You may practice your Spreading but make sure that you are Clear. I follow the general rules of Policy Debate. Please treat every member in the room (and the physical space) with respect. Any form of personal disrespect or personal attacks (even amongst team mates) may result in immediate disqualification. Hurtful language and any form of hate speech will NOT be tolerated and any forms said during prep, during round, or post round will be reported to Tabroom and to team Coaches/ Supervisors. As a teacher, LAUSD employee and human being, the safety of all students/ debaters is my number one priority. My goal is to be a neutral judge, but I am human. Give me clear instruction and why my vote to the AFF/ NEG is needed. Whether you chose to strike me or put me high on your judge list is not my concern. Be safe, have fun, and practice these skills. They will take you far in your personal, education, and professional young careers. Only assign me to judge Rookie or Novice!

quest.sandel@ascendspeech.org for any and all questions. Please CC your coach if you reach out with a question. This paradigm is written for Congressional Debate.

Hey,

I am the Founder/Camp Director/Co-Owner at Ascend Speech & Debate, Director of Congressional Debate at James Logan High School, and former Director of Speech and Debate at John F. Kennedy High School in Sacramento, California.

First off, I believe this is a debate event before anything. That means you should be adapting to the round as it goes. Everyone from the sponsor to the closer has an equal shot at my one as long as they do their job. The job for the sponsor and first negative speaker is to set up the round for strong debate. The sponsor should state the problem, how this bill fixes the problem, give one or two impacts from solving it, and if you're a superstar give me a framework for the round moving forward. The first negative should give us the main idea of what we should expect from a strong negation argument. This should take the problem the sponsor laid out and then give us the negative thought process on whether or not this legislation fixes it. After that I should see an increasing amount of refutations mixed with original arguments as to why this legislation is good or bad. Once we are 3/4 of the way through I should be seeing a lot of extensions as the debate is coming to an end. Still give an original POV but keep it within the frame of the debate. At the end, I should see nothing but refutation and crystalized speeches. Once again I want your own original analysis but use it to end the debate through a refutation of the other side instead of individuals. No matter where you speak I want to see your personality/style shine through. Take risks and you'll likely be rewarded.

All effective argumentation is based around a solid understanding of the status quo. If you cant properly depict the status quo then I cant buy an argument from you. What's happening right now? Is the effect that this legislation has on it good or bad? How well you answer these questions will dictate your ranking from me.

Effective cross examination is when you attack the flaws in your opponents argument or set up refutations for your own. As long as you have a clear goal for your cross examination period, I'll appreciate your time. Overall, I tune out when both sides start over talking each other and I prefer a calmer style of cross x.

When it comes to speaking I don't have a preferred style. I can respect all styles as long as it suits you. Picking a speaking style is like picking a baseball batting stance in that there isn't a wrong way as long as you're doing what is best for you based on your natural voice, range, and variation. If you stick to that then I'll probably think you're a great speaker. DONT BE AFRAID TO TAKE RISKS.

I do rank presiding officers pretty well as a scorer and if I'm a parli it can serve as a tie breaker between two debaters. If you do it well then I'll boost you but if you don't then I'll drop you pretty far.

This next part should go without saying but your arguments need to be backed by evidence at all times and have clear logic behind them. Remember that your logic creates the argument then the evidence backs it up. Your evidence isn't your argument.

Lastly, be respectful and have fun. If you aren't having fun then you're doing this activity wrong. Best of luck!

## About Me
- Pronouns: He/Him
- BSBA Finance + AI+ Pre-law student at USC
- Experienced in Varsity Public Forum (Dougherty Valley SD) and Impromptu
- PF debater for over 5 years, 17 bids (11 gold)
- 2023-2024 Gold Bid leader

- 9th at NSDA Nationals 2024

- GTOC 3x, NSDA 2X, CA States 2X
- Championships: LCC, Jack Howe, etc; Finalist: Milpitas; Semis: Cal RR, Peninsula; Quarters: Berkeley, Presentation, etc

- Peaked #2

- Email: ivan.binds@gmail.com

## General Approach
- Tabula Rasa
- Tech over truth, 110%
- Will evaluate any argument run (I mean it)
- Prefer progressive debate. (Default: Theory > K > Case) But open to K > Theory, etc
- Experienced with current topics
- Fast rounds preferred

##TLDR: Similar views to Nethra

## Pre-Round Expectations
- Label email chains properly (e.g., "Nats 24 R3 F1 Email Chain Dougherty Valley DS V. Durham BH")
- Have pre-flows ready
- Be on time
- Wear what you want + Sit/Stand (No Preference)
- Be as assertive as you like

## Speed and Clarity
- Any speed is fine
- For online rounds: Will say "Clear" twice if needed
- Provide speech docs for spreading for opps. I've never had to flow of the doc in 4 years so we should be good

## Arguments and Structure
- Clash is important w/ warrents
- Weighing is crucial - helps determine ballot
- Collapsing/crystallizing is essential
- Don't go for every argument on the flow
- Signpost and use brief roadmaps (max 10 seconds)
- Meta-weighing (comparative weighing) appreciated
- Unique weighing early in the round preferred

- DO NOT READ DEFINITIONS

## Speech-Specific Expectations
### Rebuttal
- Read as much offense/DAs as desired
- Implicate arguments in line-by-line
- 2nd Rebuttal must frontline terminal defense and turns

- No need to extend shells, case, etc in Rebuttal (read as much new stuff as possible)

### Summary
- 1st Summary: Extend turns + Case, terminal defense if time allows
- 2nd Summary: Extend as much defense as possible with author names (case too)

### Final Focus
- 1st FF: New meta*weighing allowed if ops weighing was introduced in 2nd summary, no new implications unless responding to 2nd Summary
- 2nd FF: No new weighing or implications
- Summary/FF parallelism appreciated

## Cross
- Will listen but not flow arguments unless restated in speeches
- Be strategic and smart with questions
- Some sass and fun in cross is appreciated
- Don't be too uptight

## Evidence
- Fine with email chains for evidence exchange
- Don't ask for too much evidence (at that point just send entire docs)

- Don't steal prep (I won't care unless the ops call you out)
- 2-minute limit for pulling up cards
- Will only examine evidence if asked, seems dubious, or major clash occurs
- Send docs with cards before every speech for higher speaks

- If chosen to flash cards, time yourself + Ops when reading them

- It seems I have a high bar for Ev. Challenges/TKOs unless blatant Clipping, ellipses, distortion, etc. (Safer to just read a IVI?)

## Progressive Debate
- Experienced with Ks and theory
- Default: Theory > K > Case and Text > Spirit (but can be changed)
- For tricks: Win truth testing, don't default to comparing worlds obv.
- Don't just read tricks after defaulting to comparing worlds (considered a defaulted perf con)
- Enjoy prog rounds over substance ones, but don't be discouraged if you're new to it I'd love to help out after round

- No need to extend the shell in Rebuttal, or extend Default CI/Reasonability or no/yes RVIs if both teams agree.

- I've voted for anything, even friv theory (ie: water bottle theory)

## Speaks
- Generally high (above 29, 99.99% of the time)
- Docked for:
- Going 10 seconds over time (Time your ops please)
- Reading a shell you violate
- Humor is appreciated and can boost speaks

## Decision and Post-Round
- Will always provide oral decisions
- Post-round discussions welcomed
- Decision only changed if wrong button pressed on tab

## Bonus (for certain tournaments)
For default 29.9 speaks, provide me with water or some drink. (December Update*: I save 30s for immaculate performances)

Remember, I will evaluate every argument and keep rounds fast. I prefer progressive debate but can obv. handle any substance rounds as well. I presume first>neg>shorter speech times (or whoever gives good warrants) Feel free to contact me for any questions or clarifications. I had a longer paradigm before but ChatGPT has crystallized it pretty well :).

## Last thoughts: Have fun; you'll regret being too uptight after your last career round.

My email is tjdebate08@gmail.com

please label the email chain tournament name + round #

General Judging

I'm cool with tag teaming, though I think both speakers should do their best to answer individually

Spreading- I'm okayish with it tho I would appreciate it if there was an emphasis on taglines/main arguments (like slowing down during certain stuff, raising voice etc). Keep in mind I flow on paper,,

I will reference evidence documents for throughout the speech, but i will not be looking in depth at it unless im told to by debaters

Run what you like, I am familiar with the types of arguments you make however, I am not familiar with this topic specifics so if it's a niche argument don't assume I know it.

I will not do any work for you, make my life easy, simplify and tell me what im voting on.

I do consider cross ex as a type of speech in the way i am viewing and framing your arguments

(I will give higher speaks if you can provide clear judge instruction.)

Specific Policy Arguments

Policy sometimes overwhelms me so please try to simplify/slow down especially in rebuttal speeches.

On Condo bad: I'm more willing to vote, for it if the negative runs more than 5 or more off. I just prefer having in depth debates.

T: Not the best judge for policy t vs policy t however I do think that limits is a key component in debate because it does result in the type of education we recieve in round and certain arguments can affect a teams ground.

Tech over truth but keep in mind I'm more lenient toward the truth than most.

Counterplan- I like these most when the net benefits are weighed in the round, so not so much a one sentence counterplan with no evidence. A personal pet peeve is when that one sentence counter plan ends up dropped by the block

DA- impact calc pls make my decision easy also the LINKKK explain it

K/K Affs

Generally Im good with most k literature i've run racial cap k, set col, epistemic abolition/ anarchism . Though while I am familiar with most literature, high theory ks can still be really tricky to follow through so just try to explain please

For Negative Ks : Try to be familiar with your literature, and try to articulate how the aff links, not just generically. If you can label your links and impact them throughout the speech your chances of winning are higher. Also answer why the aff doesnt get a perm? Why is the aff a bad idea? Impact it out

For K affs specifically: I'm cool with you but please be ready to defend framework well because I want to understand why you think this approach is more beneficial to the debate space and why your education matters.

For both k/ k affs: Explain your alternative. Do not dodge around the question its okay not to be material and focus on education but explain the WHY and defend. Or if you are a material alt explain.

Fw= I value education and portable skills.

LD

No tricks, please.

Take a breath before you debate and do your best! you got this!

I have over 10 years of judging experience, primarily in Individual Events. While I have judged debate rounds, I do not judge debate often and may not be as familiar with highly technical or specialized debate strategies.

Debate Preferences:

• Clarity: I value clear communication. Please avoid spreading and aim to engage as though you are having a conversation. If I cannot understand your arguments due to speed or unclear delivery, I will not be able to evaluate them.
• Language: Reduce jargon as much as possible. While I understand general debate terms, excessive or overly technical language can detract from your persuasiveness.
• Engagement: Approach the debate with a focus on logical argumentation and respectful clash. Make your points accessible and easy to follow.

Evaluation Style:

• I will take notes on the key arguments presented by both sides and evaluate them holistically.
• Persuasiveness is key. Strong evidence, common sense reasoning, and connections that resonate with a broad audience will carry significant weight in my decision.
• Impact comparison is important. Clearly explain why your arguments matter in the context of the round and how they compare to your opponent's.

Overall:
My goal is to fairly and objectively assess the arguments presented. Please focus on clear communication, logical reasoning, and engaging delivery to make your case.

Debate is fun (although I don't have debate experience). I enjoy judging. Most of my judging experiences are PF followed by LD. I also judged limited rounds of parli, policy and congress. Except for PF, don't assume that I am familiar with the current topic. I usually disclose and give my RFD if it's allowed and time permits.

Add me to the email chain: cecilia.xi@gmail.com

I value clear warrants, explicit weighing and credible evidence. In general tech > truth, but not tech > > truth (which means that I have to think about the truth part if you read something ridiculous) if you read substance.

- Speed: talking fast is not a problem, but DON'T spread (less than 230 wpm works). Otherwise, I cannot keep up flowing (I only use the speech/rebuttal doc for reference sporadically - I need to be able to hear you clearly). If I miss anything, it's on you. If it's the first round early morning or the last round late night, slow down a little (maybe 200-210 wpm).

- Warrants: the most important thing is clear links to convince me with supporting evidence (no hypothesis or fake evidence - I will check your evidence links). Use cut card. Don't paraphrase. If you drop your warrants, I will drop you.

- Flow: I flow everything except for CX. Clear signposts help me flow.

- Rebuttals: I like quick thinking when attacking your opponents' arguments. Turns are better. Frontlines are expected in second rebuttal.

- CX: don't spend too much time calling cards (yes, a few cards are fine) or sticking on something trivial.

- Summary and FF: please collapse, extend and weigh.

- Weighing: it can be any weighing mechanism, but needs to be comparative. Bring up what you want me to vote on in both summary and FF and extend well.

- Timing: I don't typically time your speeches unless you ask me to do so (but if I do, the grace period is about 10 sec to finish your sentence but not to introduce new points). I often time your prep and CX.

Non-substance (prefer not to judge)

Theory: limited judging experience. Explain well to me why your impact values more and focus on meaningful violations. Don't assume an easy win by default reading theory, if you sacrifice educational value for the sake of winning.

Ks: no judging experience. I only spectated a few rounds. It's hard to understand those big hollow words unless you have enough warrants to support your ROB. If you really want to run Ks (which means you are at risks that I won't be able to understand well), run stock Ks.

Tricks: I personally don't like it - not aligned with the educational purpose of debate.

Finally, be respectful and enjoy your round!

I am a parent judge. Please do not spread and speak slowly. Also, please send me your speech docs before round to zhongxiong@gmail.com

I am a parent judge, but did policy debate in high school:
• It's fine to speak at a fairly fast pace if you speak clearly, but wouldn't recommend spreading. I will only vote on what I am able to flow. If you speak too fast or aren't clear, I can't flow it and hence won't vote on it. Feel free to do a 10 second speed test before the round starts.
• Be explicit/structured when calling out contentions/points, and some verbal cue ("next", etc.) before you start your next tag. Off-time roadmaps are also helpful.
• Give me clear voters and use framework to weigh your impacts. Your 2AR/2NR should be writing the RFD.
• I am *much* more likely to vote for traditional LD/policy-style arguments over debate theory/technicalities. CP/Perms are fine, but assume I'm a bit rusty there (so avoid CP jargon and take the time to explain how they connect back to why I should affirm/negate the resolution, if you want me to vote on them).

Make sure your placard is clear, so I know who you are. Otherwise, state and spell your name out loud before giving a speech.

I will rank those who show clear understanding of bills higher. That means understanding key terms and the purpose of the bill.

Thank you very much!