I am a parent with experience judging at league and invitational tournament events since 2016. I have no personal experience competing, but I appreciate creative and well-argued approaches to the resolutions. I frown upon cases that appear to be lifted from the internet since conventional and formulaic case presentations tend to sound more alike as the season progresses.

Please do not spread at the expense of diction. If you see me put down my pen, I am no longer following your argument. I judge based on clear logical flow of arguments and proper clash. While I try to follow the technical aspects of the debate (e.g. if contentions are addressed or not in the rebuttal), I do not appreciate when students argue that they win the debate based on technical principles alone.

Absent unethical behavior, I expect to award points in the 27-29 point range, holding 30 for exceptional and rare cases. I put a high value on professional demeanor and frown upon overly aggressive attacks on your opponent. I also frown upon asking opponents to repeat what they just said, with the exception of asking to see cards. Full points will not be awarded if a competitor's ultimate case is based on mass extinction or nuclear annihilation where I have to suspend my otherwise tabula rasa foundation.

I do not fit perfectly into one particular Paradigm, but rather tend toward a mix of the following:

Stock Issues - (WHAT YOU SAY) For the aff team to win, plan must refer to the stock issues (Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, and Significance). For the neg to win, they must prove that aff fails to meet the stock issues.

Speaking Skills/Communications (HOW YOU SAY IT)- Good presentation and persuasion skills are key. Do not speak fast. Do not yell. Do not bully or interrupt. Present your arguments in an articulate, respectful, and appealing way.

Games Player - (WHEN YOU SAY IT) The debate is a game! The flow is a game board and arguments are presented offensively and defensively. When you present and defend arguments is strategic to the game.

Avoid spreading and jargon, both are lazy. Focus on direct clash with opponent. While I expect you to time yourself, I will also time you. Anything said beyond time will be disregarded.

I primarily judge Congress. I am impressed by participants who treat rounds like actual debates on the floor of Congress. That means your speech should take into account arguments that were made before and make reference to what other Representatives/Senators said. If you're going to repeat an argument, you should at least say, "As Representative X said previously..." before making the argument. My number one pet peeve is asking long questions during Cross-Ex that take up most of the time allotted for the speaker to respond. I grade harshly for this behavior. I also downgrade for leading "questions" that are really statements posed in question form. Cross-Ex is supposed to be for asking tough questions and giving the speaker a chance to respond. Other than that, I look for good arguments, persuasively delivered, and backed by evidence. Good luck!

I am a parent judge but have judged for multiple years since 2016. I mostly judged PF but I also judged Congress and Parliamentary.

I am flay, meaning I take notes, but not in a flow style.

I like to focus on direct clashes and rebuttals of your opponent's arguments. Points need to be extended in every speech, and if one team brings up a point that is not extended, I will not consider it. It is also up to the opponent team to bring this to my attention.

I will always weigh impacts. I primarily weigh on the magnitude, but I will also consider timeframe and probability.

Do not spread. I want every speaker to give their speeches in a clear, systematic way and emphasize the main points they want to resonate with me.

Hi!

I am a parent judge who has judged parli debate for 6 years.

- Please make your arguments clear/logical.

- Use strong evidence and clearly explain your impacts. I highly take evidence and impacts into account, so this could really win you my vote!

- Be organized. Signpost! It is really helpful for me to flow your arguments if you tell me where you are on the flow. Off time roadmaps are also always helpful.

- No spreading. I need to be able to understand you if I am going to flow your arguments. I think speaking too fast is not only hard for me to understand but also completely unfair to your opponents who may have difficulty following your case as well.

- No theory, K, or other advanced debate strategies. I am not experienced in specific debate rules and I highly lean towards on case debate! If you run theory or K, I will still try and flow it but be warned that you will most likely lose the round.

- Please be respectful of your opponents.

Good Luck!

I am looking for a good understanding of the matter at issue and content that promotes healthy debate. I value well-structured and cogent arguments with relevant evidence. I prefer quality over quantity! So please lean towards clarity of delivery rather than the number of words you can get out. I am a lay judge, so if your content is not clear to me you will hurt your ranking. Feel free to do a roadmap for me (off time if allowed in the event rules).

Claim uniqueness is important and entering new evidence and unique perspectives always make for a more interesting debate, and scores points with me. How well you defend your arguments or how relevant and incisive your questions/refutations are will rank you higher in my book.

Overall, I am looking for erudite content as well as an effective speaking style. The speakers with an optimal combination of both will get the highest ranks in my judging.

I am a parent judge who has not judged LD at all.

Please do not talk fast or spread, and please do not use philosophy, tricks, or any references to things like non unique (explain if you do use it).

While I am not new to the Bay Area Speech and Debate scene with CFL, this is my second year judging Public Forum.

I look for thoughtfully reasoned ideas, the logical flow of the arguments, and the augmenting evidence presented to support the team's position. I also think a good use of time (running down the clock to take advantage of the allocated time) demonstrates a higher level of preparedness and comfort in dealing with the topic.

I have 6+ years of experience judging at many local tournaments, CHSSA and NSDA Nationals. Have judged all events (congress, all forms of debate, all forms of IE). I value both content and style. Do not particularly appreciate spreading.