Short version: I'm pretty chill with anything as long as you can justify it and not morally repugnant.

Key things: If you can, please add me to your email chain (hoden.abdiyusuf@gmail.com). Also, time yourselves and ask for pronouns before the round begins. If you feeling overwhelmed or things are getting to be too much, let me know! This round is a safe space for you and if you need to take a quick break or get some water - let me know.

Long version:

Topic Lingo: I haven't read up much on this topic so don't assume that I know what all the acronyms or anything. Be clear.

Extensions: I have a pretty high threshold on extensions. Be clear with your engagements, warrants and impacts on each arguments, and be clear where you are on the flow.

Speed: I'm good with any speed as long as you are clear. If I can't understand what you are saying, I will say clear out loud. Slow down on tags

Framing/Phil: I evaluate this first, and then I evaluate who is winning offense under the winning framing. If there is no framing, I'll assume util. I love a good phil debate but don't assume I've read the lit of your framework so be clear and careful w excessive jargon and such.

K/K Affs/Performance: Love them just be sure you aren't just regurgitating tags and can fully explain and warrant to me the links and impacts. Outline your alt and the meaning of the ballot.

T/Theory/Skep: Not really one for tricks (never really understand how everything functions) but if you slow down on standards and tags and are clear with your warrants, I'm ok with anything. I love a good theory and t debate but again slow down on the interpretation and the standard/impact names.

CPs/DA/PICs/LARP debate in general I guess: I love substantive debate but impact framing and weighing are so important please don't make my life hard. Warrant solvency & competitiveness, give me some explanation of a net benefit to your world.

If I forgot to mention something or if anything is confusing, just let me know before the round starts and I can clarify.

FAQ and Pet Peeves:

You can call me Judge or Ms. Adint.

I have about 2 years of judging experience thanks to my child having been into speech and debate just like you.

Please don’t shake my hand. "Hello, judge", will do to greet me.

On the big question of framework, I vote either way often.

All arguments are winnable, just provide me ample evidences with logical countering.

politeness is a plus.

Speed is good.

Overview:

I value reliable evidences and authenticity of each debater’s argument. I am open to any kind of strategy that will help you win, but round voice will not change my vote. Countering is the beauty of debate, so please counter your opponent with evidences and critical thinking skills. I will end the debate in favor of one proposition resolved only by the argument in the round. I want debaters speak their mind the way they see fit.

I am a lay/parent judge. I am not comfortable with spreading. I'd prefer you to speak at a moderate speed and clearly, so I can understand your argument. Please do not run K's, theories, or topicalities. Please include me in your email chains uma_adira@yahoo.com.

LD Paradigm

(made by his daughter)

I do LD, so my dad has a bit of experience with LD debate. That being said, this is his first tournament judging, so he is not very familiar with many arguments. DO NOT SPREAD. NO KRITIKS, NO THEORY, NO PLANS/COUNTERPLANS. He is a lay judge, so keep this in mind. Be very clear as to what your arguments mean. Like I said, this is his first tournament judging, meaning he doesn't have much experience with this topic in general. While he does know some things because I do debate, don't assume he knows anything past common knowledge. Weigh everything, and present voting issues. Other than that, be respectful to each other, and debate to the best of your ability! Good luck!

I'm an (experienced) mom judge from Denver, Colorado.

I competed for four years in speech and debate (Congress) in high school and two years in Parliamentary debate in college.

I am a flow judge - I make my decisions based not only on who is best able to answer the opponent's points but also who is able to effectively weigh arguments. I can handle speed, but I believe spreading outside of Policy is not a good tactic. It is more important to me that you effectively crystalize arguments and address the big picture rather than getting lost in the weeds.

I really enjoy theory, but not for its own sake. You'll need to convince me it's relevant to the discussion.

Civility is extremely important to me - rudeness profoundly goes against the spirit of debate, so please be respectful to each other.

Other than that, have fun, and may the best debater win!

I competed in LD from 2004-2009 and in NPDA College Parli from 2009-2013. I was a fairly successful debater, and qualified to the ToC several times, won bid tournaments, and enjoyed analogous success as a college debater. I also taught at various debate camps and coached students to ToC outrounds.

After college, I took a break from debate and went to law school, then worked as an attorney for a bit. Now I'm back in debate, and coach for Athens.

Generally speaking, I think debate right now:

1) Is largely unwarranted, which is sad.

2) Involves a lot of power tagged or miscut evidence, which is sad.

3) Is fairly technical and has the potential to resulted in nuanced, in-depth rounds, which is happy.

Here are my thoughts on some more specific issues:

Speed: When I was a debater, I went fast. But I've been out of the game for a long time, and I'm not able to flow as fast as I used to. Spreading is fine, but top top speeds are probably a little too fast for me.

Framework debate: I love framework debate--as long as it's good and warranted.

Role of the ballot: I start from the assumption that I should vote aff if the affirmative has proven the resolution true, and vote neg if the negative has proven the resolution false. I am open to arguments challenging that assumption, though the more you reject it, the more warranted those arguments have to be. In other words, if you tell me that the affirmative doesn't need to talk about the resolution at all, you can absolutely win on that argument, but you really need to explain to me why that's true and what your vision of debate/judging is.

LARPing/Plan texts: Totally fine, although I'm also open to reasons why I should vote against them.

CPs and PICS: Same as above.

Kritiks: Same as above, with two added notes. First, make sure you explicitly explain and warrant the role of the ballot. Second, if you're reading critical literature, make sure that your arguments are clear and warranted. I think there's a tendency in some critical literature to substitute reasoned argumentation with intentionally cryptic and opaque rhetoric, and that makes me sad.

Theory: I think that theory is usually run as just another argument--not as a legitimate objection to an opponent's practice. I have no problem with that, but it is also probably why I am, I think, slightly more open to RVIs than most other judges. I think that theory has the tendency to be blippy, which makes me sad, but also has the capacity to result in really interesting debates, which makes me happy.

How to get high speaks from me: Be smart. Be creative. Be clear. Explain the affirmative world and the negative world/weigh. Explain the story of the round and how your arguments interact.

I want you to be clear and direct, make known to me all your specific points. Signposting and off-time roadmaps would be much appreciated. I would prefer for debaters to articulate when moving onto to another contention, and to make clear when they go on to address their opponent's case. Please do not spread and be loud and clear. Good luck.

No circuit debate or spreading. Mostly judged LD for the last 7 years. I look at LD as a value-based debate, if participants are debating on totally different value/VC, I would expect debtors to clarify why their VC is better than the opponents. Also expect to weigh in how your contentions are reflecting on VC. In the final speech, please clarify, why should I vote for you. Please be polite and genuine. If you are making a statement of dropping arguments, please make sure you believe in it. Speaker points are based on how effectively you are articulating your arguments with out repeating/waisting any time/statements.

I have been judging LD debate for the past 3 years. I am a lay judge who does flow, but please make sure to be clear with your arguments to make sure I get everything you say (no spreading!).

The main things I take into consideration when judging are your clarity in speaking, confidence in your persuasion, and ability to prove why your arguments are stronger than your opponent's. Please make sure you weigh both sides to make it clear to me why you believe the world you are asking for is better. Also, I will not understand any circuit arguments and I will likely vote against you.

Furthermore, it is very important that you are respectful to your opponent. Failure to do so will likely result in a loss.

Happy Debating!

I am a parent and have recently started judging(only since this year).

I want contestants to be courteous and respectable. Its ok to be aggressive but not rude.

I want both sides to present with clear arguments with valid supporting evidence. Keep it simple. If I don't understand the argument, it will become hard to me to vote for it. Explain everything thoroughly and focus more on content and evidence.

i dont usually disclose the results immediately
Have fun at your rounds!

Im a lay judge with some experience miniature tournament like James Logan . I will buy into logical argumentation, and speaker points aren't necessarily how you talk rather what you mean and how you present your case. Remember, give me the logic in your arguments and explain the links and make sure your arguments make sense. I will write down notes but not fully flow, to the best of my abilities.

It is your job as a debater to slow down and make sure I understand your points, plus you will be awarded speaker points if you do this.

Weighing is important: If you don't tell why an argument is better than another, then I am forced to decide and practically intervene in order to make a decision, and that's a risk which can be avoided. Take this a step further and weigh between different types of weighing to make sure the round is even more clear. In short, write the RFDS for me.

Lastly, as a brief note don't be intimidated if your opponent is vastly a better speaker than you are. Again, debate is distinct because it is about arguments. If you can tell me why your arguments 1. Make sense 2. Are comparatively better than your opponents you will win.

Have fun and enjoy!

UPDATE FOR CAL 2021:

This is my first time judging this season— please define topic-specific abbreviations if you plan on using them frequently. Please record speeches locally and be ready to send them in the event that a tech issue should arise.

-

Hello!

I am a parent/lay judge.

If you have me as a judge, your best strategy is to read the most stock arguments your team has and do strong weighing in the 2NR/2AR.

Please explain arguments clearly— I will not vote on blips/arguments that I do not understand.

Be polite and respectful of your opponents.

Slow down when you read and be clear in the last speech.

It is in your best interest to not use buzzwords or jargon.

I am a parent judge with 3 years of judging experience with traditional LD. I do flow, granted that pacing is at an understandable level.

Do not spread, run kritiks, counterplans/plans, theory or topicality. I will not flow circuit arguments.

Here are simple things I value

- Be respectful to your opponent

- Structured and logical arguments

- Don't read cards for the sake of reading cards, I value intuitive arguments and logical extensions.

- Signpost, extend, and summarize voter issues. Impact calculus is appreciated.

I'm Andrew Chen and my son does LD debate. Although I don't require you to do these, it will make judging much easier and it will give you a bigger chance of winning. :-)

1. ABSOLUTELY NO SPREADING. If I cannot understand you, then I simply stop flowing and you'll probably lose.

2. Don't be too aggressive, or I'll have a bad impression of you.

3. Make sure to keep eye contact with me, especially during cross examination.

4. During cross examination, do not argue. If you want my ballot, you just need to prove your side is better than the other. There is no need to yell.

5. Make sure to cite your sources, or I'll think that you made them up.

6. I allow a 10-15 second grace period for the constructive and rebuttals. For cross examination, finish your question and I will allow the other person to answer that question.

7. At the end, you need to CLEARLY tell me why your side has won.

Make sure to shake hands with each other and me at the end of each debate.

IMPORTANT: DO NOT COME LATER THAN THE STARTING TIME UNLESS THERE IS A DELAY!!!

Having a well prepared case, being organized, and following these preferences will give you the biggest chance of winning!

I WILL NOT DISCLOSE!!!

GOOD LUCK! :)

I am a parent judge and have been judging since September 2019. I have primarily judged LD but in the last 2 years I have judged PF, Parli Policy and Congress too. I do flow and take copious notes. I am not comfortable with spreading, so please speak at moderate speed so that I can understand your arguments. Please make sure you are polite to your opponent. Please provide sufficient evidence to substantiate your contentions and be able to provide evidence when asked by your opponent. Do not introduce new evidence in your final speeches or lie that arguments were dropped when they weren't. It will definitely count against you as I do flow. Overall enjoy the debate and have fun!

I did debate in high school for 4 years (LD and PF), so I am a fairly experienced judge.

Speed is fine as long as you're not spreading and your opponent can understand you, I will tell you if I need you to slow down.

I do not like circuit arguments and would prefer arguments that are logically coherent. If I don't understand your argument I will not consider it in the flow even if your opponent doesn't respond to it. Chances are I will understand, but if you tell me civil disobedience causes nuclear war, I'm going to need a very strong link chain.

At the end of the round, I will look towards who best upholds the criterion that is best argued for, based off of the impacts left standing, so make that clear to me in your last speech.

I do count arguments made in cross as long as they are referenced at any point in the round and a good cross will add speaker points.

Don't be rude or disrespectful, but don't be afraid to attack the logic of your opponents case.

2022

Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

Stanford 2020 and 2021

Here are some preferences:

I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.

It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2019

Please put me on the email chain: hcorkery@eduhsd.k12.ca.us

English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!

Here are some preferences:

Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2018

Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.

I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."

For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).

Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.

I am a parent judge and this is only the second tournament I am participating in as a judge.
Please no spreading. Off-time roadmaps is helpful.
Please be respectful of your opponents.
At the end, please summarize clearly why your side has won

Please be concise and clear, stay on time and manage your pace so it is not too slow or too fast. If I don't understand it, I can't judge it. Thanks

I am a parent Judge and have been judging LD for the past three years .I have judged local and national tournaments.

Please go slow and explain your arguments well, so I can flow the round.

Please do not be racist or discriminatory and do not say anything that could offend anyone. Please warrant your arguments, and read lay arguments because I will not understand spreading.

I don't mind if you go fast but will ask you to slow down if needed.

Structure and Quality is what I usually look for.

Respect is very important and I will appreciate all rounds to be amicable.

"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it ...".

Above all I enjoy a good Debate!!

I am an experienced new judge, and I lean to more traditional debating. What I am looking for in a round is slower and clear speaking. No spreading. I will flow, but if you are speaking too quickly, then I cannot get it written down. I will look at the flow at the end and determine whose argument was still standing at the end of the round and/or which argument solves and has the proven impacts.

You must treat others with respect and dignity. While I will judge you on your arguments, I will mark down speaker points for those lacking decorum.

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

Not much prior experience in judging. Prefer clear and constructed debate, with emphasis on impacts and values.

I am a first year judge, please explain your arguments clearly. Provide logic, analysis and evidence for each of the arguments. Please be courteous and I am looking forward to judging your debate.

I am a lay/parent judge. I will flow your arguments to the best of my ability. Please do not spread. I prefer if you would speak at a moderate speed and clearly so that I can understand your argument.

1. I am new to judging, so I would appreciate if you speak in normal pace (marginal slow or fast is ok) and clearly.

2. I am a big believer in fact, so please be correct in your facts.

3. Please be respectful towards your opponents- no mockery or intimidation.

I was a policy and LD debater in high school in the 90s, qualifying for TOC and CA States my senior year. I also coached my high school team while I was in college.

My LD ballot will go to the debater who persuasively argues that their position maximizes the most important values. I'm looking for a clash of ideas; for critical thinking and evidence that backs it up, and for the arguments to be tied back to the values in the end. It's a big advantage to you to crystallize and weigh for me; if I have to decide for myself you're leaving it up for grabs.

I will hear out topicality and theory arguments, but they will only decide my ballot if I think one side has been abusive or off topic beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is important to me that debaters show respect and courtesy to their opponent, to me, and to the event and tournament organizers. Etiquette violations will show up in speaks (but not decide my ballot.)

If I judge students from the same program running word-for-word the same case, I will also deduct speaker points. I'm completely fine with pooling ideas, contentions, and evidence between teammates, but debaters should write their own cases.

I am a first-year judge and am not experienced with the technical debate. Key factors I will be assessing with and using to support my decisions are logic, evidence, and analysis for each argument made. So please state and explain your arguments very clearly. Also, please be polite and courteous. All in all, I am eager to see your debates!

Hi.

I'm new to judging and appreciate if you could talk slowly and elaborate on your arguments. It would be beneficial to make yourself clear during your off-time road map as well. I don't mind if you stand or sit as long as I can hear you and write notes on the topic. Again, I cannot emphasize how important it is for you to not rush yourself as I will not be able to judge you properly otherwise. Thank you, and I wish you the best of luck in the debate!

Gonna keep this short cuz I thought all judges with super long paradigms were very extra [when you are trying to persuade someone in real life, you don't get a two page doc of preferences].

BACKGROUND:

-study Math + Computer Science at Stanford

-did Public Forum in high school on both the local (Georgia) and national circuit [NSDA Nationals and the TOCs]

-I've also done a bit of APDA/BP in college.

PREFERENCES:-

-Don't go TOO Fast.

-Don't mis-cut or BS evidence -- I will likely call for cards each round.

-Please weigh -- it'll make my job easier. This is *key* to getting higher speaks AND winning rounds.

-I prefer solid analysis over rote card dumping [no need to have 5 responses to every warrant].

-I like intense cross-fires! Forces me to listen.

Hey!

This is my first year judging and I am not too experienced in technical debate, so please explain all of your arguments thoroughly and logically backed up by evidence.

I am looking forward to judging your debates!

I'm a parent judge, and my child is doing Lincoln Douglas debate since last year. I would love the participants to speak clearly and articulate their viewpoints well. I will pay close attention to CX and rebuttal. During CX, don't contend, demonstrate your side is better than the other. If needed, I can give 15-25 seconds grace period for rebuttal and summary.

Please be polite and respect each other. In the end, I would love to hear why your side has won.

Hello!

I am a parent judge. I prefer well-articulated arguments with clear impacts delivered at a moderate speed.

Please do not spread, or run kritiks, counterplans/plans, theory or topicality.

I have not done independent research on this topic, so make sure to impact your arguments and have clear tags and voting issues. I prefer a thoughtful, analytical rebuttal to a rapid evidence dump.

The biggest thing is to be respectful to your opponent. Yelling does not win you arguments, nor does it gain you many speaker points. Other than that, debate to the best of your ability! I look forward to judging your round!

hi! my name is ru hansen and i use she/her pronouns.

i'm familiar with most kinds of philosophy, identity politics, and debate formats. i've been in and out of debate for almost 8 years. i think debate is a communicative activity and i prefer debaters to speak slowly for that reason.

that being said, i'm completely tabula rasa and i encourage you to talk about whatever issues you find important and personally relevant. i have no argumentative pre-dispositions other than that i want to see you doing what you do best.

oh yeah, and do it politely! be nice to each other and remember that everyone is here to learn and have fun.

if there's some way i can make the debate more accessible to you, please let me know and i will do my best to make these accommodations.

Hi.

I'm new to judging and appreciate if you could talk slowly and elaborate on your arguments. It would be beneficial to make yourself clear during your off-time road map as well. I don't mind if you stand or sit as long as I can hear you and write notes on the topic. Again, I cannot emphasize how important it is for you to not rush yourself as I will not be able to judge you properly otherwise. I am a parent judge, so I will not understand any circuit arguments. If you run circuit arguments or something that I cannot understand, I will not evaluate this argument in the debate. Thank you, and I wish you the best of luck!

Traditional flow judge. No spreading. Keep it slow please. I like substantive debates.

Parent judge

I'm a parent judge. Don't spread or read any theory, ks, or other circuit arguments because I don't understand them. I'll evaluate all arguments objectively and based off my notes. Speaks won't go lower than 28.5 absent any racism/sexism/homophobia/general rudeness. Please send me speech documents at ramkaps@gmail.com. Good luck!

I am a lay/parent judge. I will flow your arguments to the best of my ability. I am not comfortable with spreading. I prefer you speak at a moderate speed and clearly so that I can understand your argument. Please do not run any K’s, theories, or topicalities. Structure your arguments practically and logically.

Lake Highland ’18

Stanford ’22

Email: muhammadykhattak@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Momo, I debated for Lake Highland for five years primarily in LD and dabbled (4 tournaments, 2 each) in PF and Policy. I've taught at NSD, TDC, and TDI. I was an assistant coach at FlexDebate and am now head coach at Bronx Science.

I believe the only essential feature of debate that I should uphold as a judge is that an argument is characterized by having a claim, warrant, and impact. You should read whatever style argument you’re most comfortable with and I’ll adjudicate the best I can. In that sense, I consider myself pretty tab, and I care about making the right decision. That's all to say, I think debate is a game so just play it how you see fit.

Whether it's phil framework, Ks, tricks, policy, theory, PF, traditional debate, or anything in between, I'm here for it. My aim is to always make the least interventionist decision as possible; so as long as you aim to justify why your model of debate is comparatively better than your opponent's and win offense linking back to that model, you will win.

Don't do anything blatantly offensive or actively aimed to make your opponent feel uncomfortable, could lose you the ballot or speaks.

Notes on online debate

1 - you should time each other ; if someone who is speaking gets kicked, most likely they are unaware of this and continue to speak. The person who is flowing, alternatively, should pause their timer at that moment and continue to flow under the assumption that their opponent is still reading their doc at the same rate.

Once the person who was kicked gets back, if they had already stopped because they realized they were kicked, time restarts at the time the other speaker paused their timer with, although generally you should try not to stop since you should have a local copy of your speech anyways (see 2). The reason why you should try not to stop is because either (a) you're reading cards off a doc in which case your opponent is already flowing anyways or (b) there were extempted arguments which should be confirmed in flex prep and the local copy will help your opponent and myself hear what exact arguments were made. If the person who is kicked rejoins and is still giving their speech, then the point at which the timer was stopped should serve as a timestamp for when to read listen to the recording.

2 - Record a local copy of your speech, either on your phone or QuickTime, so that if the speech cuts out you can send a copy of whatever we missed. I'm not too keen on letting you redo speeches since the wifi may just cut out again, having a local copy makes it easier to navigate these inconsistencies in connection.

3 - You should probably slow down a tad bit*, the bits and bops of Zoom always makes it tough for me to hear what you're saying, and I'm not one to religiously flow off the doc.
*slow down and build up in speed please please i'm a terrible flower

you can implement this method if you'd like - in constructive speeches, read taglines slower and glide through ev or long nondense ev; emphasize what needs emphasis for you to win and transition between flows with large overviews that compare layers. You can follow this up in speeches where you're pressed to collapse (2n/2a) the debate by giving an overview on how the layers of the debate interact, what layer you are collapsing to and then speed up once you get into the substance of winning each particular layer.

all of this is to say, try to go a bit slower in areas where you can. Also using efficient strategy and breaking down rounds in a discrete way that isolates all relevant voting issues or layers can help in later rebuttal speeches and be opportunities to slow down

PF PARADIGM:

Head Coach at George Washington in Denver

I have watched many rounds on the topic and am very familiar with the literature base.

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes. I am most happy when you guide my pen to the flow and tell me exactly where to write and what to write!

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!

Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments. This does not mean opponents can just say they are improbable and move on, work must still be done to explain why the arguments are flawed, but if it is close and the arguments have been discredited with evidence and analysis, I will err on the side of "truth".

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.

Views on Theory: Not a fan of it in PF. Run at your own risk.

Kritiks: See theory above

Views on Spreading: Do not spread! Reading quickly is not the same as a full out spread.

Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF or link and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.

I am not sure I am a fan of "sticky defense."

Pet Peeves

Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking.

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!

Avoid calling me "judge".

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

maryrosekohan@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

Head Coach George Washington High School.

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.

Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.

3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

LD Paradigm

Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.

I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.

As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.

Hello, I'm an Architect by profession and have been judging debate events fo the past 2 years. Please be clear and loud. Do not speak too fast.

Traditional judge - Ask me in round.

Competed on the team in the early 2010s and was placed in the impromptu speech semi-finals. I am looking for logic and well-supported evidence/facts behind statements. Currently, out of practice. Treat me as a parent judge.

This is my first year as a coach for our high school's Speech and Debate club. In high school I took a speech and debate class and as an AP Language and Composition teacher, I trained my students in PF in order to strengthen their argumentative skills.

I am also in my first year judging PF and LD at the novice and varsity levels. I appreciate arguments that are logical, sound, and easy to follow. I cannot follow when I speaker talks to fast because I am unable to process and write down the arguments.

I also appreciate when debaters clearly link evidence with argument. I find that sometimes those connection are never made or they don't seem to connect but are repeated.

I am a parent judge.

I will drop you if you spread or run theory. I cannot evaluate circuit LD.

Signpost so I know where you are on the flow. Make sure to impact your arguments well.

Be respectful and courteous to your opponent.

• I am a volunteer judge for Wilcox HS and this is my fourth year of judging. I have judged multiple formats at both the novice and JV levels.
• Please keep track of your time. I prefer organized speeches with emphasis on continuity.
• Please make sure to provide evidence and/or references where necessary.
• I do take notes throughout the round so emphasize your important contentions/points.
• Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

:D

I am a parent judge. I cannot understand when a contestant spreads so please don't spread as if I do not hear or understand your arguments you will not get credit for it.

Keep a calm poise / demeanor, and don't be aggressive towards other contestant.

pronouns: she/her

add me to an email chain: dnagaraj@stanford.edu

debated pf for four years, graduated in 2019

most important:

- respect pronouns and don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc

- do what you want, i'll (try to) evaluate anything. however, i mostly ran traditional arguments and don't like to vote on theory unless major abuse occurs (read: not a fan of disclosure theory).

- please have trigger warnings and get consent from everyone in the room before reading sensitive topics

also important:

- speed is fine, send speech doc

- signpost + limit off-time roadmaps, please avoid using the word "roadmap"

- presume first speaking team if no offense at the end

- respond to turns & frontline in second rebuttal (ideally respond to some defense too), first summary should extend turns

- weighing should start in summary especially for 2nd speaking team and be extended in ff, i don't consider new 2ff weighing

- args in ff should be in summary

- defense without responses is sticky, but do extend terminal defense in ff if opponents extend that argument through ink

- extensions should be fully warranted + include whole link chain and impact; extend arguments and include author names

- if you don't preflow + flip before round, i'll be sad

- i don't listen to cross so bring it up in a speech if important

- my speaks are usually 28-30, will decrease speaks for miscutting evidence, debater math, and new args in 2ff and increase for good strategy and consistency between summary/ff

- tell me to call for evidence if you think it'll change the decision

ask me if you have any other questions & let me know if i can do anything to make the room a more inclusive space!

I am a parent judge. who has judged few tournaments in the past. I appreciate well-spoken and confident debaters who can articulate their arguments well. Please be friendly and respectful to your opponent. Absolutely no spreading.

Please speak clearly and slowly. I will listen to all of your arguments thoroughly, and am more interested in policy-style arguments. I value authenticity in arguments so I don't have to listen to the same arguments throughout all the debates I judge. Also please be respectful to your opponent and good luck!

I am new in judging and still forming my own paradigm.

Here are something I value in your debate:

- be respectful to your opponent.

- clarity and logic in your reasoning

- evidence must be cited

Looking forward to seeing you at your debate.

Do your best!!!

I am a parent judge. You may talk at any speed you are comfortable with and just be yourself.

A good debate means both sides have strong, well researched cases with points that are supported with evidence and easy to follow. Debaters are respectful of each other and the spirit of the event.

I judge on framework and flow. The debater that wins will be the one who best defends their case with supported rebuttals and upholds their value through the end of the debate.

Erik Pielstick – Los Osos High School

(Former LD debater, long-time debate judge, Long-time high school debate coach)

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm

Parli is intended to be a limited preparation debate on topics of current events and/or common knowledge. Therefore I would view it as unfair for a team to present a case on either the Government or Opposition side which cannot be refuted by arguments drawn from common knowledge or arguments that one would have been expected to have done at least a minimal amount of research on during prep time if the topic is very specific.

The Government team has the responsibility of presenting a debatable case.

The opposition team needs to respond to the Government case. In most cases I would not accept kritik of the resolution as a response. DEBATE THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH!

Parli should not involve spreading because it is not a prepared event. You can speak quickly (180 - 220 wpm) but you should be clear. Speed should never be used as a strategy in the round. I will not tell you if you are going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.

Parli is not policy debate and it is not LD. Don't try to make it about reading evidence. I will vote based on the arguments presented in the round, and how effectively those arguments were upheld or refuted. Good refutation can be based on logic and reasoning. Out-think, out-argue, out-debate your opponent. So, yeah, I'm old-school.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm

I value cleverness, wit, and humor.

That said, your case can be unique and clever, but there is a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and between unique and abusive. I can’t say where that line is, but I know it when I see it.

Affirmative debater should establish a framework that makes sense. Most debaters go with the “value”/“value criterion” format, but it could probably be a cost-benefit debate, or some other standard for me to judge the debate. I want to see clash. The negative debater could establish the debate as a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own.

The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions. Arguments must be warranted, but in LD good philosophy can provide a warrant. Respond to everything. I will accept sound logic and reasoning as a response.

I listen well and can keep up aurally with a fast delivery (200wpm), but I have trouble flowing when someone is spreading. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless it is used as a strategy in the round against someone who is not able to keep up. Debate is a communicative activity - both debaters need to be able to understand each other, and I need to be able to understand the debate. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments. Ultimately, I’m old-school. I debated LD in the 80s and I prefer debaters who can win without spreading.

A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.

I generally don’t like theory arguments, but in rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.

I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.

Also, I HATE policy arguments in LD. LD was created as a value-based alternative to policy debate. The NSDA and CHSSA, still to this day, describe LD as a debate of values and/or questions of justice and morality. CHSSA actually went so far as to make it a violation of the rules to run a plan or counterplan in a CHSSA event. If someone wants to run a plan they should learn to get along better with others, find a partner, and do Policy Debate.

Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, I want to be entertained.

I am a lay judge. My scoring criteria are:

1) Arguments - how strong are arguments, how well they are developed and supported by evidence.

2) Delivery - how compelling, fluent and practiced it is vs. reading from a script.

3) Engagement - how engaged is a debater in taking and giving POIs, attacking weak points of opposition and defending own arguments.

I am a parent judge with little experience in judging.

Would be focusing on the argument data-points and how each of this are presented, argued and counter-argued. Also, would focus on presentation and interaction styles. I will not vote for anything I do not understand.

Looking forward to meet you all.

cheers!!

I'm a lay, parent judge. This is my third year judging Lincoln Douglas Debate. I have judged both Novice and Varsity: however, I do not understand spreading or progressive arguments. I prefer the typical conversational speed. The rate of delivery doesn't weigh heavily on my decision as long as I'm able to understand. Some tips that you might want to take into consideration are:

1. Being assertive is good, but please don't be offensive or overly aggressive.

2. I like a great Cross-Examination.

3. Having good evidence comparison is an added bonus, don't just take into account that evidence is right on face

4. Framework debate is good, but I don't understand complex philosophies, so you will have to explain it very well

5. Please talk clearly and slowly.

LD

This is my second year being a volunteer judge. I plan on volunteering often to build up this experience.

Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.

Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.

UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.

Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

A. I hate spreading.

A Case against Spreading in LD

B. I appreciate good turns.

What Exactly Is a Good Turn?

C. I judge you on 5 things.

5 Keys to Success

Hi! I'm Kam and I'm a freshman at Stanford. I'm a lay judge so please be explicit with your case and warrant everything. Good luck :)

1. I am not comfortable with spreading. Speaking fast is alright as long as clarity isn't sacrificed.

2. I expect respect between competitors. I also expect competitors to not involve any personal dealings during the debate.

3. When debating, please assume I don't know anything about the subject. So, a clear and focused presentation will always get my attention.

Background in Parli, LD, PF, and BP.

Spreading will be tolerated, but not encouraged. I will call out clear twice--if it is needed a third I'll put up my hands and stop flowing. If you see that then something has gone horribly wrong.

Run theory at your own risk. It's mostly done poorly and I don't do work for you.

Procedurals are fine, but make sure that you're not wasting my time and please run them correctly.

Please don't run things with the intent of dropping them later. You made me write it down -- use it.

If you ask a question during CX, you need to allow them time to actually answer the question. Being unpleasant during CX will definitely not win you any points with me.

PLEASE HAVE AND USE A WEIGHING MECHANISM/VALUE. Otherwise, you're leaving it up to me to decide what is important in the debate, and you probably won't like the result.

I am a somewhat experienced lay judge, who competed in policy debate in high school in the 1980s for three years and LD for one year. I have judged LD for 1.5 years.

I strongly prefer speakers who are not rude, are persuasive, and organized with a sense of humor. I do flow rounds and can keep up with fairly rapid speeds but not spreading. I do not like an attempt to "spread out" and opponent by winning by overwhelming an opponent by going fast.

In cross examination, answer presented questions and keep your answers brief. If you raise new arguments in rebuttal speeches, especially the last one, I will notice, drop that argument, and dock speaker points.

Speakers should stay on topic, clash with opponents, and present logical, compelling arguments.

I attempt to be a tabula rosa judge, within reason. However if you try to run extinction good, racism or sexism good, or other extreme arguments, you will lose.

I have judged HS and MS debate for 4 years now, so I have am familiar with the inner workings of Congress and PF. Some things I look for:

Clash and Refutations- As the round develops, there needs to be more refutations/analysis of the debate as a whole. I don’t want a repetition of points and want you to engage with other senators

Rhetoric/Speaking: I need to be able to hear you properly. Speak clearly and at a reasonable rate. I like emotion and rhetoric in speeches, but make sure your arguments are sound too

As always, be respectful of everyone, especially during cross-ex. Things can get a little tense in cross-ex, so just be professional you’ll be alright.

I am a parent judge and I love LD format of debate. I do flow during the round.

Framework: Please try to reinforce throughout your debate

Do's:

Speak at a moderate pace. Use a tight, strategic case delivered with elocution.

Listen carefully to your opponent.

Be very mindful of impact, including cost v. benefit.

Offer a framework that is narrow enough to be defensible, broad enough to have impact.

Use contentions that connect your philosophical framework to real examples and statistics.

Don'ts:

Don't sneer or shake your head at your opponent--stay poised and professional.

Don't make logical leaps, especially ones that distort your opponent's case or lead to ridiculous outcomes.

Don't debate "circuit" style: my opinion is that a firehose of words is both unnecessary and clutters up most cases.

Do NOT use the strawman technique, or misquote your opponent to present a distorted or weakened version of their case.

Don't spend too much time on weak or overly vague frameworks, such as "justice" or "morality." Whose justice? Whose morality?

I'm anti plagiarism- so it feels ethically wrong to do so without asking- but if I could copy Mike Bietz's paradigm word for word, I would (can be seen here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=4969) except I'm ok with flex prep. In addition to everything in here I have a few additional pieces of information.

Note: If you have any questions about how to interpret my paradigm, ask me pre-round. If any of the terminology is something you're unaware of or curious about, feel free to ask me either before or after the round. If you want to look anything up, wikipedia has surprisingly thorough indexes of debate terminology (especially when you're starting out!)

For all Debate:

• Disclosure is good and should be done. Sharing cases is good for fairness in debate. As someone who was in a small program during my high school debate career, the sense that the round was unwinnable because the opponent had 8 coaches giving them prep and resources to my none was incredibly frustrating, and while disclosure doesn't fully solve that, giving people from smaller programs access to evidence, cases and formats from bigger programs helps the health of the debate scene.
• General disclosure rules: Share case right before the speech (aff shares case before their first speech, neg shares case after the aff finishes speech)
• I flow the rounds, and catch what I can. If I don't catch it, it doesn't show up on my flow. Speaking quickly (and even spreading on a circut level) is fine, but you have to recognize your personal limits as a speaker when you do so. Intonation enables the spread, so training yourself as a speaker to be intelligible while spreading is on you.
• When sharing cards, please do so equitably and fairly. Ideally, include myself (and the other judges) on the document sharing doc to ensure that we know the documents are shared fairly, and to prevent frivolous fairness theory being read in the round.
• Debate is, in general, a format for education first and foremost. Fostering an environment that promotes education means that you must enter a round with empathy for your judge, opponent and audience. If a person is confused in a debate round, spend a moment to explain what you mean to them. Creating a debate environment that is inclusive and mindful of diversity gives people an opportunity to meet, learn from and grow with a diverse group of people.
• Related to this, people who push a "old boys club" mentality within debate round, who seek to bully out wins on newer debaters by reading fringe argumentation, or are excessively combative to people who are clearly not comfortable in it don't have a place in debate in my opinion. Remember, although competitive this should be an environment that values being collaborative as well. Debate isn't an environment to get your rocks off and feed your ego by bullying the less experienced, and people who treat it as such will get negative outcomes on ballots from me.
• Above all, remember that debate is an activity that is for fun more than it is anything else. That fun is not just your own; the priority to make everyone enjoy the experience to the best degree you can is important.

For Public Forum:

• PF is not meant to be theory heavy. Philosophy has a useful basis in backing an argument, but being topic-centric is the essence of the debate format.
• Exception: Any independent voters (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.) will be weighed heavily, and if any happen, it will result in an automatic loss.
• On Cross: Being aggressive is good (and encouraged), but you need to give your opponent space to speak. Cutting them off occasionally is reasonable to guide the conversation, but if you ask a question and don't give the opponent space to answer or attempt to railroad a CX by turning it into a soliloquy that will be noted for speaks.
• Impact calculus outweighs argument volume down the flow. If you seek to win on a line by line on argument volume, your opponent will win the debate (if you prove 9 different people will die in 9 arguments, you will lose to the person who proves 90000000 will die in one argument).
• I do flow Crossfire and weigh it as a speech, so cross matters to me as a judge. Don't assume a vote that will be cross-exclusionary. Someone can win in spite of a bad cross, but cross will be weighed in how the outcome is perceived.
• Dedicate summary to expressing Voting Issues and dropped arguments. Extend to why you are winning currently on the flow.
• Dedicate FF to weighing mechanisms and impact calculus.

For LD:

• On Theory: Theory is fine to read, and often makes debate better. One important thing about theory is that I view it as a "pact" that both debaters have to agree on.
• On RVIs: I believe in RVIs as a way to counteract frivolous theory. In general, especially on a circut level, I believe the anti-RVI stances a lot of judges hold on is a portion of what creates the neg skew on the circut. Beyond "fairness" I think that, conceptually, theory takes time and mandates a response and having theory's worst case be net neutral for the team that reads it lacks fairness.
• On Ks: Kritiks are good for debate, but I have a clear line in the sand:
• Topical Ks: Good, make debate better, force flexibility in thought and challenge our implicit biases. Topical Ks further education in round and create a space where we challenge our baseline assumptions in a way that challenges the way we look at the world.
• Non-topical Ks: The only context where I view non-topical Ks as a voter is if an independent voter manifests. Reading "debate is a male-skewed environment and societal burdens placed on women creates inherent unfairness in the debate environment" may be true, something I agree with, and something I prioritize in how I judge, but is not something that I will vote on unless the opponent is engaging in behavior that is exclusionary to that group. And as the debater, you must highlight the infringement.
• On Perms: Perming is good and should be done often. In order to successfully perm in round, you must demonstrate the lack of conflict between the counterplan and the aff.
• Advantages/Disadvantages: All disads and advantages need every plank in order to be considered (uniqueness, link and impact).
• NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE 2AR
• Tricks should be called out as tricks if ran against you. If a trick is identified and demonstrated to be a trick successfully, it will be treated as a voter.

The best way to win my vote is to be the one who provides the most compelling case, and to be a strong technical speaker.

Assume I know nothing, the burden of information is on you.

~Clear signposting, make sure I can keep up with your mode of speech as I try to follow along.

~Limit spreading, if I can't understand you I cant judge you.

~Please watch your tone, you don't need to shout.

~I tend to favor philosophical arguments.

*Please disclose if at all possible.

When you get into the zoom meeting, please send a message in the chat stating your code, school, preferred pronouns, and anything else you think I may need to know.

I graduated in 2019 competing in LD and have judged LD, PF, and Parli many times before. I am open to lay or circuit debating styles, however, please agree on a style with your opponent before the round begins. I don't like seeing circuit debaters rolling over lay debaters just because they can. It isn't educational; it isn't fun; don't do it. If you are going to spread, please send me and your opponent what you will be reading before your first speech. Especially over zoom, audio can drop out and I'd hate to miss something important.

For Parli, if you have a POI, please raize the zoom hand to (hopefully) be more clear.

I will do my best to stay on video, however, if the circumstances wherever you are debating from don't favor you being on camera, please do not be pressured to share your video - regardless of what the tournament rules are.

PLEASE COME PREPARED. I have linked a couple of resources below to aid you in your 2020 tournament preparation. This year has proved anything can happen so I'm open to whatever terminal impacts you have.

2020 end of the world prep:

What to do if there's an earthquake: https://www.tripsavvy.com/earthquake-safety-tips-in-los-angeles-1586562

What to do if there's a tsunami: https://www.worldnomads.com/travel-safety/worldwide/how-to-survive-a-tsunami

What to do if there's a raging wildfire: https://prevent-lss.com/blog/theres-wildfire-near-home/

What to do if an asteroid is headed towards the earth: https://anonhq.com/what-can-we-do-if-an-asteroid-hits-us/

What to do if you encounter aliens: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/xenology/appA.htm

I am a parent judge who has participated a few debate events previously. I prefer solid logic and clear presentation, and I believe the structure and quality of the arguments/evidence should be way more important than the quantity and density (i.e. talking speed) of the information conveyed.

I also like to see the debaters treat their opponents in a respectful manner. In my opinion, the debate process is a very good pathway to get the very best out of yourself and learn to think critically and efficiently, and from this perspective, the strong competition indeed benefits both sides greatly and they are actually helping each other, so why not feel grateful?

At the end of the day, I would enjoy seeing and listening to a passionate human with deep thinking on the debated issues, as well as open mind to recognize the balance of conflicting forces in almost everything. Choosing a side helps you think with focus , but is not meant to limit your thinking into a narrow bandwidth.

I am a lay judge who has judged at a few tournaments this year.

Most importantly, before all else, be kind and respectful to your opponents. Though this is a stressful activity, do your best to maintain a kind attitude towards your opponent.

As I am a lay judge, please simplify the round for me. Make it clear why you should win the round and present it to me consistently.

Please no spreading, kritiks, counterplans, plans, etc.

Speak slow and steady, do not rush yourself.

Most importantly do not stress yourself out, and try to enjoy the round

i did PF in high school (2014-18) and coached for ~2 years after.

i have not thought about debate in the past 4 years, i don't have topic knowledge, and am not comfy with technical/theory-ish things in PF. please treat me like a flay judge! i like seeing lots of impact calc, meta/weighing throughout the round along w/ a clean narrative — doing all of these well will mean i give u high speaks (29+). i will lower speaker points for teams that are mean :(

you can wear whatever is comfortable for you in rounds. i don't believe in having to wear a suit for tournaments.

more importantly, i hope you are having a good day :)

sanjim@berkeley.edu

I am a lay parent judge and have judged debates for two years. I prefer to see no spreading, civility in arguments, and clear and confident delivery.

TLDR: Tech over truth. Go as fast as you want, but be clear. Tell me how to weigh. Extensions should include the original warrant. I'm good for LARP & policy arguments, I can evaluate K debate, and I am probably not your pick for a performance/non-T aff. Don't be rude to your opponent.

Cheat sheet:
LARP: 1-2
Theory: 1-2
Phil: 1
K: 3
Other: 3-5

I'd like to be part of the email chain, if there is one: lindseywilliams411@gmail.com

GEN: I competed on the circuit for 4 years and went to the TOC in LD. I currently coach for Harker. I'm most comfortable with policy-style arguments and LARP fare, along with theory.

-I default to an offense-defense paradigm. This is the only way I've found to judge debates that both makes sense and is fair, so if you don't want me to use it, you'll have to explain how else I should approach the round.

-True evidence ethics claims are not theory arguments. If you genuinely believe that your opponent has committed an evidence ethics violation, you need to tell me in those terms. The debate will end, the claim will be evaluated, and if there are tournament procedures for EE disputes, I'll initiate them.

-Disclosure is good and should be encouraged. I debated for a small school. I attended multiple tournaments without teammates or a coach. I could talk at length about why this is the best practice for small schools and lone wolf debaters. (Also, disclosure theory is boring, as are debates that come down to it.)

LARP: This was most of my circuit repertoire. I'm extremely comfortable judging these debates. Notes:

-The perm is a test of competition, not a change in advocacy. If you're going to kick something, it should be clean (concede defense on the link).

-Not going for something is not the same as kicking it.

T: I like a good T interp. As with all theory, the abuse story should be tailored to the shell and the violation; hurling around generic blocks about limits and ground will always be less compelling than a cohesive explanation of how your interp specifically encourages substantive debate. Notes:

-I tend to believe that topicality is a true argument. Do with that what you will.

-Someday, in a better place, in a better time, I dream of a world where a debater correctly explains genericity.

Theory: I have a decently low threshold for theory, with the exception of obviously frivolous stuff (e.g. highlighting theory, font theory, etc. — but don't stress too much about what "frivolous" means here, trust your gut). Notes:

-I soft default to competing interps > reasonability, no RVIs > RVIs, and fairness > education. By "default" I mean that in a circumstance where neither debater says any of these words, this is where I fall. It's not a hard preference.

-I won't vote on spikes where the warrant only appears in the last speech. The abuse story has to be delineated in the actual shell.

-I'm a pretty hard sell on RVIs. For one thing, I think going for them is usually a bad strategic move; I'm also disposed against them on theoretical grounds. Still, I'll hear the argument.

-Specific articulations of the nature of the abuse strengthen the shell. The best carded standards in the world won't really help if you can't point to who or what component of debate is being injured by the violation.

-I will not vote on 2AR theory unless there is something truly reprehensible in the 2NR. To me, this is the same thing as judge intervention, and my threshold for it is accordingly high.

K: I've encountered most standard lit on the circuit. I appreciate a K that's well-written and well-researched, and not just the same literature being recut and recycled for the umpteenth time. Notes:

-I need a clear explanation of the alt. I have to know where the solvency is coming from, and to what extent it's working.

-Mindset shift alts probably aren't abusive so much as they make for an uphill solvency debate.

-The K can be leveled against theory, but I default to theory > K unless the debater tells me otherwise. This is another soft default.

Tricks: no

Performance/kritikal affs: Fine, but please give me explicit instructions on how you want me to weigh it in the round. I have a LARP brain and I think in terms of offense/defense, so telling me how your interpretive framework can fit into that paradigm will make both of our lives easier.

Speaks: I average around a 28.5 for any given tournament, and I go up or down from there. I tend to give points for good strategy and smart decision-making in the late speeches. I don't disclose speaks.

If you have any questions, shoot me an email or approach me before the round.

Do not like speeding or spreading unless debater is clear and concise with enunciating their words and there is evidence to support all point. I expect the value to support the case and carry throughout as this is a values debate. I do appreciate off time road maps and sign posting though they of course do not weigh in any decision and only stand to assist in helping keep up with the case.

Just be frank, I never did debate myself and I am not an experienced judge neither. But I will try my best to be fair by looking at few key points during the debating like logical presentation, evidence and data used to support the points as well as accuracy on responding opponent's argument, also I am looking for respect and politeness during the debating.