I am a parent judge so please talk clearly. I am fine if you speak fast as long as I understand you. I am a tabula rasa judge, but it is very important that you warrant your claims.

When weighing impacts, make sure that you emphasize why you win on time frame, magnitude, severity, and probability. It is important that you stress the importance of your impact by using warrants to back up your claims.

I award speaker points based on how you speak. If you are rude or offensive at any point during the debate, I will take points off.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at rajala01@gmail.com.

Good luck.

As an experienced judge I will flow all parts of the debate.

A few things I like to see in a debate:
-engaging cross-ex

-clash of arguments

-clear crystallization in summary and final-focus

Please speak clearly, not too fast, and be respectful of your opponents and me.

I am not an experienced judge, but I have judged a few rounds in the past, so please try to be patient with me, without assuming that I am understanding everything that you are saying.

I would like the debaters to be always on time and respect the opponents. Because of the time limit, many time debaters tend to go over their points very quickly and in the process lose the attention of the judge. It is very important to be clear and crisp while speaking.

I would also like the debaters to make sure to outweigh at the end of the round and to make it clear why I should vote for them.

1, Do not spread, or I won't keep up. Do not sacrifice your clarity, otherwise I will miss the main point of argument.

2, Always be respectful to your opponent.

3, Keep a clear and consistent narrative throughout the entire round.

I'm a parent judge, so please go slow. Be sure to weigh arguments to make the decision clear.

I am a parent judge. Talk slow.

Congress Paradigm for 2023 TOC:

Delivery: delivery will be a factor in my decision, but only a moderate one. Ideally, speakers adapt to their audience, have poise and confidence, and consider word choice carefully. Two notes I write for congressional speakers often are: 1) Stop yelling at me (please adjust your tone to be appropriate for this environment, and 2) please use a tone appropriate for the topic of debate.

Evidence usage: evidence weighs strongly in my decisions. I'm not only interested in the quality of the evidence, but I'm interested in how you use and analyze it. More is not always better.

Analysis: analysis may be the largest factor in my decisions for rankings in Congress. I really like to see debaters thinking critically, weighing arguments well, and finding nuanced ways to discuss legislation. Speakers who simply expand on arguments already made are going to struggle to do well on my ballot.

Decorum: be respectful, be kind, and follow the rules. I assume you will do this, but if you don't, that will not sit well with me.

I competed in CNDF and PF for four years in high school, and I have been coaching and judging debate since then.

Judging Criteria:

- Clear Organization (Signposting is preferred).

- Use evidence and logical analysis to support your arguments.

- Present clear impacts and weigh them.

- Have your evidence ready.

- Speak with clarity.

- Listen and respect your opponents.

Speak slow and clear. Be respectful to your opponents.

Thanks

I am a novice with respect to debating and judging. However, I do look forward to learning more and have expertise in public policy and applied economics.

In my limited experience with judging, I've learned to appreciate clarity of expression over speed.

I also appreciate arguments based on highly rigorous evidence and sources over those grounded in anecdote and conjecture.

Finally, I also value arguments motivated by explicit norms and goals that can include not only self or national interest but also ethical principles.

I am a new parent judge, with a background in theoretical linguistics and computer science.

I will be judging you on clarity, logic, depth of analysis and on how well you utilize your evidence.

I value eloquence and professional decorum, which means that you do not need to speak fast to impress me, I’d rather you speak clearly, and that I take into consideration how respectful you are towards your opponents and your audience.

My name is Frank Deng. It is my first time to be a judge. Please speak loudly and clearly. I will make decision on the logic and evidence to support your argument. The ability to answer others' questions and delivery are also important. Good luck and have fun, debaters.

Hi, I am a parent judge and here are some of the things about how I judge rounds:

1) Clarity.

Your arguments should be clear (and avoid any ambiguity).

2) Evidences/References/Logic

If you quote any data, back it by an evidence/reference/logic.

3 ) Content.

Be focused and adhere to the topic. You can throw anything, but if your opponent point it out I will take a note!

4) Cross

If you don't contest your opponent's argument, it will stay for me and will get the point.

If someone says sky is orange and you don't contest it; sky is orange for me!

5) Probable Impact

The argument having a larger impact (with greater probability of happening) will get the point.

An earthquake can have larger impact, but if the area is not earthquake prone, I won't buy it.

6) Speed.

You can be fast, but please avoid spreading. If you think you might be too fast - you are.

New volunteer parent judge, former HS debater. No spreading please.

My name is Svetlana and I have not been a judge of speech and debate tournament yet. This is my first tournament. Please speak clear, good pronunciation will help me understand you, not too fast, please. Make sure it is clear what's the main point of the argument is. If you use acronyms, please assume I don't know what they are, please explain all abbreviations in your speech. Assume I know nothing of the subject. Good luck young debaters.

I am fairly new to debate but after watching lot of practice debate rounds & judging few, enjoying the overall experience.

For a Public Forum round, what should you focus on:

- Make clear and concise argumentation. In general content over style will matter more to me.

- Evidence matters, but it's equally as important as logical and analytical arguments. The best teams can find warranted evidence to support their arguments. And don't make your argument solely based on evidence.

- Any concessions from the opponents should be brought up in crossfire. But please do not be rude, mean or offensive to your opponents

- Summary : Summarize with clarity on why you should win.

Other Important Points

1. Debate is academic & competitive but make it a fun experience for you & opponents.

2. Conversational speed is best. But do slow down when you're highlighting the main points.

If the topic is complicated and less in news, it is OK to spend a few moments educating the audience/me (judge). If providing context helps you build foundation for your arguments, go for it.

Quickly listing your position/arguments during the debate a few times is a good strategy. Ability to list, at a high level, your arguments and what you have covered helps the judge and you. It also reflects a methodical approach on your part.

If you have limited number of arguments, it is OK. You can explain why your argument(s) have the weight and why your argument(s) matter more than the number of arguments that the other side may be making.

If you notice that the other team introduced a new argument late in the debate and/or cited a source, when sources are not to be given credit for (say, in late rounds), I would notice that too. You are free to point out. I would prefer that you make your point quickly, and move to discussing substance. Also, you are free to tell me what arguments "flow" and what do not. As I am listening, I am making up my mind and such suggestions form the speaker do not generally make a difference in how I perceive the debate.

Above everything else, I look for:

* how you assign weight to your arguments,

* how critically you think about the impact of both side

* do you acknowledge obvious weaknesses and weigh them against the benefits

* how well you address what your opponents bring up

Many times, I do not know immediately at the end of the round who the winner is going to be. I take notes aggressively during each round. I review my notes after the round, some times agonize, and then decide. Regardless, of when I make up my mind, I do not prefer to share the results immediately after the round with the teams.

Please talk slowly for me. Have fun, communicate clearly, use valid and relevant evidence effectively, and be respectful of yourselves, your opponents, and the community.

Sourabh Goyal

Debate/Politics :
I really enjoy Political discussions or Debate topics.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 25.0.

I am old. I have been coaching and judging for over 35 years. This means that much/most of my experience predates the existence of Public Forum. I competed primarily in Policy, Lincoln Douglas (in its first year of existence), and Extemp. I have coached Policy (in the Dark Ages), Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, and assorted speech events.

Speed does not offend me. That said, I am OLD and have carpal tunnel syndrome, so my flow is sloooooow. I will not punish you with points if you are fast and clear, but there is a risk I may not get everything you want on my flow.

I do not like surprises, not even good surprises. I always peeked at my presents as a child. Arguments should be extended in the summary speech if you want to win on them in the final focus. I favor line by line until the final focus, which should crystalize the debate and provide clear impact calc.

I think topic wording is important and that it determines burdens. I like it when teams are explicit about what the topic wording demands. A kritik is just an argument. If you can explain how it affirms or negates the res, it's all good.

Plans and counterplans are not allowed. Don't blame me. I didn't make the rules. You chose this event, despite the rules. That said, I think it is fair (and even a good idea) to talk about how the resolution would be implemented (assuming it calls for action and is not simply a question of fact/value). One can do this by looking at real world, typical proposals for resolutional action. I also don't think that the affirmative should be stuck advocating the worst possible way to implement the resolutional policy.

Evidence is important. Cheating is bad. Read author and date cites. I will grudgingly allow paraphrased evidence, but the full text must be available and easily evaluable. By this I mean that it is not okay to paraphrase evidence and then, when asked to provide it, hand over a ten page document with no highlighting/underlining of the bits that you claim to be paraphrasing. If you cannot say, "this paraphrases these three lines of text in the original document," or something like that, I'm going to disregard this "evidence." Neither I nor your opponents should have to read through the entire document to assess whether your paraphrasing is accurate.

I hate crossfire, especially the Grand Cluster F*!k. Please don't yell or speak over each other. I recognize that this aspect of PF is conducive to chaos, and that you are not responsible for this design flaw. That said, I will punish you with speaker points if you make the crossfire worse than it has to be.

Argument > Style. This is debate. Style is reflected in speaker points.

Hello debate enthusiasts,

I am a parent judge who enjoys watching public forum debate. For the benefit of the community, I would like to use this passion and turn it into service as a debate judge.

Regarding speaking preferences, clarity is very important to me. I dislike spreading and prefer a more moderate pace.

Also, I value thoughtful and insightful debates with emphasis on impacts and command over topic literature. Make sure you effectively extend your claims in summary and crystalize your impacts in final focus.

In my book of judging, logic is as important as evidence.

Wishing good luck to all the competitors at the tournament!

Paradigm for Speech Events:

I value the following aspects during judging:

- In terms of content of the speech, a clear line of sight from [ the central theme to supporting arguments to reasoning and evidence] would help me follow the speech.

- Creativity and uniqueness of arguments

- In terms of style : Reasonable pace with thoughtfully inserted pauses.

I do take notes, as detailed as possible.

Paradigm for Debate Events:

This will be my 4th year judging PF. Parent judge, so nothing crazy/too tech. I do take copious notes, and I'm probably tech>truth to some extent. Anything outright false/offensive will not be considered.

Procedural fairness is quite important to me, so don't steal prep, go over time, miscut evidence, or bring up new things in later speeches.

A few things:

- Please extend warrants in back half speeches (if your link chain is conceded and fully extended in the back half it's GGs)

- Don't be rude in CX, but don't be boring either (stay professional)

- Warrant your evidence, contextualize everything to your arg

- Don't run trivial args, run something that actually matters or just introduce your weighing early on (case/rebuttal)

As always, ask me any questions you have before round. (my kid wrote this so clarify if needed)

I've been working in the software industry for more than 20 years as a technical lead managing a handful of software developers. I consider myself a novice as a judge with high school debates - but debating with customers/colleagues under the professional setting and making decisions by (pretty much) judging is major part of what I do on a daily basis. Here's the list of all my preferences that I can think of (and some of them are from my experience under professional setting.) - Prefer convincing argument/logical reasoning over speed or style. - Speed is ok as long as it's clear. - Claiming that the other party doesn't have a proof/evidence when there is no specific need for such evidence doesn't mean much to me. - Creativity in your argument/contention is a plus. I have seen many debaters coming up the same arguments/contentions that can be easily found on google search or YouTube. I too study the debate topic before the debate and hence I know what's commonly out there. I appreciate any debater bringing a different or new perspective as long as it's convincing.

I have judged quite a few PF rounds and prefer contestants to speak at a medium pace.

Prefer strong evidence but don’t want a lot facts just thrown in at a rapid pace.

More points will be awarded if I get the feeling that the contestant has

done thorough research and is open minded.

A good summary will go a long way!

Public Forum

Public Forum (where you’re most likely to encounter me)

I'd recommend treating me like a flay judge. You'll increase your chances for victory if you use rhetorical devices (pausing, inflection, etc.) to capture my attention for the most crucial aspects of your case; in other words, make me hear you.

Win/Loss

In my opinion, the Pro (Affirmative) has the burden to prove the resolution. I'm a blank slate as much as possible, so I don't know anything until you tell me; in addition, I ask that you point out any misinformation from your opponent. Overall, I base victory on the number and weight of arguments, and for me, contentions/arguments should carry through from start to finish (constructive to final focus).

I'm less likely to be concerned with cards until there is an actual point of contention. If you feel that your opponent is misrepresenting or misreading a card, please point that out to me; otherwise, it's very unlikely that I will ever ask to see any cards during round.

Speaker Scores

Students earn speaker points based up their argumentation, refutation, organization and presentation.I recommend using engaging speaking skills (eye contact, pausing, vocal inflection) and compete sentences and avoiding debate-specific jargon (without context).

Please Don’t

Rapid speaking

Hostile/snarky interactions with teammates/opponents

Off time roadmaps

Links to nuclear war (unless the resolution is specifically connected to nuclear disarmament)

Experience/Background (if you’re interested)

I participated in parliamentary debate during college. Currently, I coach primarily at the middle school and (sometimes high school) level (modified parliamentary and public forum) with over 20 years of coaching experience.

Education

B.A Government/Pre-Law (Claremont McKenna College)

M.A Education (San Diego State University)

California State Credentials: Social Studies/History, English Language Arts, School Administration

Current Employment

Director of P-8 Speech and Debate (Fairmont Private Schools, Anaheim CA)

Lead Instructor (New England Academy, Tustin CA)

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

I will give teams 1 extra speaker point per speaker if they properly use an email chain during the round. This means:

-Case writeup with the cards used in case below should be sent in a word/google document (like this) BEFORE your first constructive speech

-Any cards being planned on read after that should be sent in a word/google document (like this) right BEFORE it is read in speech.

This likely means you'll have to cut your cards BEFORE ROUND (I know, shocker!). Don't be spending 5 minutes cutting cards during the round to earn this point, you'll each lose half a point as a result if you do. Case docs should be ready to send the second you enter the call too

Email is adnan.m.ismail@berkeley.edu.

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

I'm a 4th year bioengineering student at UC Berkeley, and I've competed in PF for about 5 years in middle and high school.

Lets start with the obvious: DON'T BE RACIST TRANSPHOBIC HOMOPHOBIC SEXIST ABLEIST ELITIST OR EXCLUSIVE IN ANY WAY OR I WILL DROP YOU, GIVE YOU 0 SPEAKS, AND MAYBE MORE.

-Warrants in everything are especially important to me, and it's really important your warrants are clear. Lack of clarity will make me confused, drop your speaks and most likely drop you the round.

-Additionally, I look for the path of least resistance to the ballot. In other words, if you have an argument that's been clean dropped and you weigh that argument very well, 8/10 times I'm voting on that argument.

-The best way to create a clear-cut path to the ballot and follow the first two bullet points is by collapsing well on good arguments, especially in the second half of the round. Collapsing creates a much more narrowed/focused round that is easier to judge and follow, and it allows you to nuance and explain your arguments more fully. The more in-depth analysis you do when collapsing/as a result of collapsing, the more likely I'll vote for you.

-For the most part, anything that you say in final focus should be in summary. On the note of the second half of the round/frontlining in 2nd rebuttal or whatever,...I don't care. Just be consistent. Specifically:

----If you frontline in 2nd rebuttal, it's gonna be hard for me to accept new frontlines in 2nd summary. I'll give more leeway for defense that's not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal but almost impossible for turns.

----So long as the defense is untouched, first speaking teams can extend defense from first rebuttal to first final focus. But if the first speaking team extends defense in first summary, that defense is the only defense that can be extended into final focus.

-You can start your weighing whenever, even in final focus. But BIG weighing mechanisms (like those overviews that outline a certain argument/impact as the most important in the round for example) should arrive before second rebuttal. On that note, weigh! It's good to get the ballot. Not just buzz words. But like, actual weighing. Answer questions like these in your weighing: "How does your impact outweigh on magnitude?"

-Lastly on the note of the second half of the round, and I cannot stress this enough: YOU HAVE TO EXTEND EVERY PART OF THE ARGUMENT YOU WANT ME TO EVALUATE. THIS INCLUDES THE LINK, THE INTERNAL LINK(S), AND THE TERMINAL IMPACT OF YOUR ARGUMENT WITH THE WARRANTS FOR EACH PART OF THE ARGUMENT. NOTHING BLIPPY!!

-Don't spread please. I'm good with a brisk pace of talking (If you're confused, err on the side of slightly slower instead of slightly faster).

-I'm not extremely familiar with more technical argumentation (K's, theory, etc.). My philosophy is that while they look more "spooky" or "cool", all arguments share the same structure, where they require some sort of link, an explanation for why it matters (an impact) and warrants all throughout and in between. So just make sure to make the warranting for these arguments crystal clear.

-On that note for theory, the bar for whether or not a team is abusive is quite high. So run at your own risk. If you do think that your theory shell is very warranted and the abuse is substantial and you want to win off of it, I should expect it to dominate your speech time in the second half of the round. As in your entire FF should be dedicated to the shell that you read. Also if you read theory, I'm more inclined to listen to a well hashed shell compared to "paragraph theory." It's easier to flow and simply more clear for me. But I won't get angry at you if you read paragraph theory.

-And lastly don't know much, if anything, about the topic, and definitely not familiar with the topic lit at all. So clarity in warrant/impact analysis and extension of arguments and whatnot is esp key to pick up my ballot this tournament.

Good luck and have fun! Any questions email me at adnan.m.ismail@berkeley.edu

Background : Have judged on the local middle school circuit for the past 2 yearw. I have judged both PF and LD debates during that time.

Speaking : I can handle reasonably fast speed in talking as long as it is clear and if I find it too fast, I will let the debaters know to slow down. Try to focus on clarity over speed.

I expect teams to be civil and respectful during the crossfire and during the entire debating rounds. Similarly, be respectful to your team member as well and don't interrupt or whisper when anyone is speaking.

Substance: Have coherent arguments. Every argument should explain exactly how you win the debate. I love evidence and take note of arguments grounded in empirics. State your warrants and Impacts succinctly. Provide ample evidences during your responses and impacts. Also, make sure to cover all the opposing teams arguments during your responses. Please , do not bring any new facts or arguments during the final speech to ensure the opponent team has a chance to respond.

Use all three modes of persuasion as Aristotle mentioned - " Ethos, Pathos and Logos" to score a Win !

Have fun and enjoy the tournament !

I judge based primarily on matter and manner. This means I evaluate both the persuasive content and performative aspects of speeches. I have coached and competed in Parli, PF, and BP (World's Style). I find humor to be persuasive, and appreciate attempts to insert humor into speeches. While I am ok with speed, I discourage it in PF debate to allow every round to be accessible and understandable to an average person.

Berkeley elims update: elim rounds are open to the public, if you try to ask people to not watch the round I will be incredibly displeased.

About Me

Kyle (he/they), did circuit PF (and some policy and extemp on the state level) and coached for Fairmont. Studied math education at Cal, and didn't debate in college. Please use my first name and don't call me "judge", I promise I'm not much older than you.

I've judged rather infrequently over the past three years - I still keep a very good flow by PF standards (can still get cites for every card), but keep in mind my rust and don't speak too quickly. I can deal with cards being spread IF you are slow on tags and cites AND your cards are long enough that you're not spreading 12 words and going back to slow. I won't flow off a speech doc.

Email me at kylek@berkeley.edu if you have any questions or to add me to email chains.

You can make warrants in round about why I should change any the beliefs listed below unless you are advocating for exclusionary behavior or academic dishonesty.

General

Tabula rasa is a myth; the best a judge can do is explain the ways in which they are not tab before the round. So read this.

The best way to win in front of me is to win one piece of offense, properly extend it in each speech, and convince me it's the most important thing through weighing. I strongly prefer you going very in depth on one argument than trying to win every argument and undercovering everything.

Every claim you make should be warranted, and the team who does better comparative warrant analysis will almost always win. Empirics/evidence without warrants mean almost nothing to me.

Tech > truth but you'll find true arguments are very easy to warrant. Read above. You can (and maybe should) warrant to me why I should be truth > tech on theory or structural violence arguments.

Rebuttal

Neither side can read new independent offense in rebuttal (theory arguments where the violation occurred in the previous speech is an exception). Weighing and turns are obviously fine, but reading a new contention as an "overview" is not cool.

If you only read one section from this paradigm, make it this one: if you are the second speaking team, you need to respond to everything from the first rebuttal related to the arguments that you intend to go for in summary and final focus. If you want to go for a contention in your case, you better cleanly frontline at least one link and impact. Anything said in the first rebuttal that isn't addressed in the second is considered dropped.

Summary/Final Focus

Go for one thing and go for it hard. I love early collapse strategies (as early as the rebuttal speeches). Go for one of the six links into your case, go for a turn, concede defense against your own case to kick out of a turn, make smart decisions and be creative.

Three minute summaries are one minute too long. There's no excuse to not cleanly extend everything you want to go for. This means frontlining, and properly extending warrants and impacts. I need a full link chain extended to grant you offense on an argument.

Do meta weighing - why is your impact that wins on magnitude more important than your opponents' impact that wins on probability? Don't just use buzzwords. And saying "we read link defense, therefore we outweigh because their impact is nonexistent" is NOT WEIGHING. Assume both arguments are true and show why yours is better.

If it's not in summary, it better not be in final focus. This applies to both offense and defense. I have no tolerance for debaters who disrespect their partners, and one of the most common ways it appears in-round is when a second speaker's final focus is nothing like their partner's summary. Your speaker points will suffer greatly if this happens.

"Progressive" Arguments

Theory should be used to set norms and check against abuse. I'm not the person to read frivolous theory in front of.

Here are some of my general beliefs on theory arguments, but keep in mind that I can be (and have been) persuaded to vote against these beliefs. You should disclose and I'll vote for disclosure theory. I'm ambivalent on specific disclosure interps (ex: round reports), but please understand the inherent differences between PF and policy before you read these arguments. I don't have any predisposed leanings on paraphrasing, but misconstruction of evidence is academic dishonesty and will be treated as such. Even if you paraphrase you should have all your cut cards in one document and evidence exchanges should take less than a minute.

On RVIs: you shouldn't win just for following the rules, but you should also be able to argue that theory trades off with topic education and therefore is a voter. I've been told some folks disagree on whether that means I default yes or no RVIs, but that is my baseline stance. Again, I will not hack for/against any of these arguments, but I want to list my general dispositions here for full transparency's sake. Ask me before round if you have any questions.

I will vote for your K or policy argument with non-utilitarian kritikal framing. If you're reading the former, keep in mind I'm not super familiar with the literature so warrant and explain well. K vs. FW debates are among my favorite to watch and evaluate. Both teams in a K round should warrant why I should prefer their model of debate (i.e. have a good ROTB argument). I generally believe K's should have some link to the topic.

Things I would be a very good judge for: LARP vs. LARP, disclosure, K vs. FW, LARP with K framing

Things I would be a pretty good judge for: LARP vs. K, other theory, K vs. K

Things I would be a very bad judge for: non-topical K, frivolous theory, tricks (really any argument that doesn't have a claim, warrant, and impact at bare minimum)

Respect your opponents and your partner. Have fun.

Hello!

I am a lay judge and would just like to see a CLEAR and CLEAN debate.

CLEAR:

- Don't speak fast and don't be too aggressive

- Explain your arguments well and don't expect me to know everything you know about the topic

- Have an order to your speeches, don't jump back and forth between different parts of the debate and expect me to easily follow along

- Don't use technical debate terms. Keep everything simple.

CLEAN:

- Be respectful to your opponents

- Don't bring up new arguments late in the round

- Make sure to interact with your opponent's arguments instead of just listing off random ideas

At the end of the day, debate is an educational activity so have fun and be respectful.

I have experience in judging Lincoln Douglas debates for over 3 years.

It is vital to talk at a fast pace to allow you time to say what you want but slow enough to be easily understood.

I look for arguments which are both logically sound and supported by proper evidence.

I will pick a winner based on who best convinces me that his/her position is the correct one.

Have fun debating!

I have 8 years experience with WSDC and BP, around 3 coaching and judging PF. I understand all the jargon, so don't hesitate using it.

For PF rounds:

Off-time roadmaps are cool. Honestly anything as long as your speech has some sort of structure.

Enunciate when presenting evidence. Numbers help quantify impacts insofar as the numbers are clear

Logic is the easiest way to win me over, as long as it's paired with evidence

I'd rather you don't spread because it's generally hard to flow that, but if you do, make sure to share your speech doc with me and your opponent. IMO, spreading should be used to fit more material but not to confuse your opponent.

I generally don't love theory arguments, but if you run them, make sure to link them clearly to the motion.

Hello, I am a parent judge with some experience judging. I would prefer if you speak at a reasonable, calm pace. Extend the argument(s) you are going for throughout the debate into the last speech, and weigh your arguments against your opponents. Of course, be respectful during the round, especially during crossfire. I look forward to hearing your debate.

Always be respectful of your opponent. Use your knowledge, intellect and reasoning skills. Not intimidation or mockery.

If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Also, you will probably lose.

Things I am looking for:

* Speak clearly and slowly with no spreading

* Counter the arguments of your opponents

* Present a clash of ideas

* Display solid logic, reasoning and analysis

Gina Li is a strategy, merger and acquisition professional with 20+ years working experiences in various sectors. She was an expat working abroad for 15 years with global perspectives. She has been judging both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas since 2018 at various events, in addition to facilitate local student-run speech and debate volunteer activities in the bay area.

She requires all contestants to speak clearly, not necessarily faster the better, try to maximize the given time to rationalize the best data and evidences to support the key arguments. While majority of the contestants are well prepared on their contentions, the winner normally possess the abilities in better framework, effective arguments to counter opponents positions during rebuttal, crossfires and closing. Also please RESPECT your opponents, try not to cut them off if possible.

Knowing everyone is working very hard on each tournament, I wish each contestant the best luck!

I am a parent judge, so I appreciate it when teams speak at a reasonable pace. While I do weigh heavily on the facts, I will also try and consider how well the team delivered their speeches. I think eye contact and speaking with confidence during your speeches are important to being a good debater. Also, allowing the opponents adequate time to answer during crossfire is also important to be a good debater.

If you can incorporate a good joke, I will consider it as a plus.

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 new but enthusiastic judge. I would try to listen very carefully; if you could speak slowly and clearly, that would be great.

Also, when doing the crossfire round, I hope that you can be polite. Evidence is important in my opinion, a good analysis would also be great. But do not rush!

In the end, I would award points mostly based on your speaking skills and persuasiveness. This is my first judging experience, so good luck for both of us!

This is my second year of judging and my first time for Parli. Also I am lay judge.
Logic-
When Judging debates and presentations, my number one criteria is logic. I prefer logic driven arguments over well-delivered ones. If your points make reasonable and logical sense, I will be inclined to side with you. To me, content and reason matter the most during a debate. Regardless of how eloquent you are, if your logic and reasoning do not flow well, I will be hard pressed to vote for your side.

Evidence-
I find it a kind of joy to be able to examine the evidence presented by both sides of a debate. The integrity and quality of the evidence both come into consideration when I cast my vote, so please be honest and thorough with your evidence. Truthful and honest arguments from both sides will make the debate more enjoyable for all parties.

Have Fun!-
Prepare, speak slowly, but also relax and have fun! Take this as a great opportunity to work on some skills that will be useful in your life no matter what you do and be gracious!

Good luck participants!

I appreciate a logical argument that weighs both sides. I do research the topics a little, so please do not misconstrue evidence. You should be able to reasonably explain your argument, stating cards is not enough. Please do not get too aggressive, I will dock points if the debate is not respectful.

Barry University School of Law (2021 - Present)

American Heritage School, Head Debate Coach (2019 - 2021)

California State University, Fresno (2017-2019)

Contact Information: My email is nickbmirza95@gmail.com. I would like to be on the email chain.

Overview

Since I'm no longer coaching, my perspectives have changed and leave it up to you how I should confront the debate, regardless of argumentation style. My experience has almost exclusively dealt with running a plan text, disdadvantage/counterplan, and framework/cap (I can count on one hand the amount of times I went for cap though). I'm not against evaluating planless affirmatives when the debaters engage with the substance of their opponents arguments. I enjoy the clash between policy and kritikal teams.

Evidence Quality

I place a high value on evidence quality. I'll evaluate arguments that address a discrepancy between what is being said and what the evidence actually says. It's important to me that you know and understand the evidence you are bringing into the round.

Speed

I'm comfortable with speed, but my advice is too slow down on important arguments so I can make sure I flow it properly. This includes any prewritten analytics that are unloaded at me.

Topicality

I'm less persuaded by topicality in a policy throw down and would prefer a debate about the implications of the plan. I default to competing interpretations. Evidence should have an intent to define.

Framework

I enjoy framework debates. There needs to be an explanation of why your model of debate is better.

Disadvantages

My favorite. The link is the most important. Evidence that doesn't talk about the specific plan of the affirmative should be addressed, but I can be persuaded if the negative can thoroughly explain the application.

Counterplans

Eh. There needs to be a net benefit. I'm inclined to believe the status quo is a viable option, so in my adverse opinion, a counterplan is best when it's essential to alleviate a disadvantage. No opinion on judge kicking, but permutations need to be answered thoroughly. Lean negative on condo.

Kritiks

I'll vote for them. The alternative explanation is important and I listen/flow attentively to how it is conveyed. Generally, I have trouble understanding how alternatives function in the real world, so you need to do that explanation for me. I evaluate debate space impacts, but would prefer an analysis of outside of the round as well. I don't read the literature and my experience in debate is pretty much exclusively answering kritiks. My familiarity with literature leans toward identity. I don't understand post modernism or high theory whatsoever.

I am a lay judge. I have been judging PF for 4 years (since my daughter entered high school). Some things to keep in mind:

1. Please do not speak fast. If I do not catch your argument, I cannot vote on it.

2. Please do not assume I know everything about the topic. Define any relevant terms and don't use acronyms without telling me what they mean first.

3. Please be polite during round, especially during cross fire. I will drop you if you are excessively rude.

4. I will vote on clear impacts and a convincing narrative. Historical precedent and logical, simple arguments are effective.

Good luck!

I am fairly new judge. I pay attention to what each team is saying, slowing down will help me.

Points for you:

- point for you if you have good arguments, of course

- if your opponent does not have good rebuttal for your argument

- if you can summarize coherently at the end what your opponent missed to rebut

I am a parent judge who has no experience of judging before. In fact, I was a judge at James Logan HS (Martin Luther King Jr. invitation) last month but I did not have a chance to judge any round. However, I did research and understand the topic. I am listening and taking notes. I will try my best to be objective and positive to the speakers. Below are some preferences I prefer:

- Speak clear, not too fast, but eloquent.

- Crossfire in a polite, respectful manner but be a argumentative exchange.

- Judging criteria includes:

+ Evidences: Provide quality evidences, explain, support, and analyze clearly and logically.

+ Argumentation: Countering, convincing, persuasive, clear arguments, etc.

+ Presentation: Clear, organized, understandable communication as well as body language and presentation skills

+ Teamwork

Public Forum

I have coached PF for about 8 years so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the style and most likely the topic that is being debated as well. This means that you should not worry too much about speed or giving arguments that are too complex. I'm a lay judge :)

My comments after the round will usually involve RFD and how to improve some arguments. The "improvements" part has no impact whatsoever on my decision in the round and is only meant as something to take into your next round. I do not complete arguments for teams or refute them based on my own knowledge. I will judge the round only based on what was said in the round.

Email-fredrickni97@gmail.com

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name because I don't note down author names for cards (e.g. "John 18 or Smith 20") I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Content:

-No theory. I won't vote on it. See link for reasons

-Show me clear impacts and weigh them for me. This is super important in how I adjudicate rounds. Just proving a superior number of contention does not give you the round, proving why your contentions are more important wins you the round. Very rarely will there be a round where one side has no contentions standing at all, so I need some sort of metric to measure. This also means that I value a clear framework from both sides and potentially a debate about framework should that influence how I would adjudicate

-Crossfire is not super important to me unless either you go back to it in one of the speeches or something absolutely killer comes out of the exchange

Stylistic:

-Be courteous during cross-fire (ie. do not shout over each other) I will dock points if anyone is particularly rude

Misc:

-Have evidence ready; if the other team asks for it and you cannot give it to them in 1 min, it will be discounted from the round

-I will stop crossfire questions right at 3 minutes but I will allow for you to finish your sentence if the time is up during an answer

-I rarely write out RFD's on Tabroom ballots so my oral feedback after the round is where the majority of my RFD is explained

-I welcome questions or concerns about the round, and if you feel that I judged unfairly, please let me know after. While I cannot change the ballot, I will do my best to explain my RFD.

Parliamentary

I've done various parli-ish styles like BP and Worlds for about a decade now. I haven't judged much American Parli so there might be some rules I am not familiar with, but I'll catch on quickly.

I mostly judge based on content, with very little focus on style as long as I can understand you.

Please keep time for both yourself and your opponents. If you keep asking POIs during protected times I will deduct points. Obnoxious POOs will also lead me to dock you points.

I'm a parent judge with just a few tournaments' worth of experience.

I'm also a scientist, very used to following logical arguments and deciding whether they make sense within their own framework when supported by evidence.

Make it clear where you are going and go there. If I don't understand your jargon, I assume you don't either. Make sure I can hear and understand you. Act like you're enjoying the process.

Judging Recommendations: Don't be too loud. The clearer, the better.

Hi there! This is my first time judging but have experience with debate as a law school student. Looking forward to hearing your arguments. Please explain your links.

Coming from a dominantly PF/Parli background, I'm comfortable with most things so long as debaters let me know beforehand.

Want to spread?

A-okay, just let me know.

Off time roadmap?

A-okay, just let me know.

Self time prep?

A-okay, just let me know.

Anything else?

Just let me know and we can talk it out.

The only things that I'm nitpicky about are intelligibility when speaking and timing for crossfire. Otherwise, it'll be round-by-round what I'm looking for in the debaters. Don't worry about what you think I'll want to see as a judge, just do your thing.

This is my 3rd year as a parent debate judge.

I appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

I reward speakers - w/ higher points - who make a presentation effort - (eye contact, slowing down on impact work, grouping & weighing in final speeches vs. a line by line, some humor if you're actually funny) but will give high speaks to other kinds of debaters too.

Do not talk over your opponent. Follow up questions can be useful, but be courteous to your opponents' need to question you. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.sesss Dddt

I place a lot emphasis on eye contact and facial expression. Use your hand motions to express your self! Please talk to your audience, not to the computer screen or to your notes. Please don’t hold a computer in your hands- Instead, keep your hands free so that you can use them to express yourself. Please don’t keep looking at your computer screen and read straight off the screen with a monotone voice. You should know your facts well enough that you can make eye contact and only look once in a while at your notes. Please be courteous and kind to your opponent, and show good manners. Be honest in your facts and your sources. Present a well organized and convincing argument. Most of all, enjoy the debate !!!! I look forward to judging! Good work!!!

I am a parent judge for the last 4 years my kids have been competing in debate, and judge usually 3 times per season.

General

I don't favor jargon or technicalities, I prefer to be persuaded with logic and evidence, not theatrics, technical details or showmanship.

I’m fine with people watching the round as long as they are not a distraction. I would ask a spectator to leave if I felt they werent there to watch to debate politely and were distracting me or the debaters.

Speed: I rather you speak clearly and articulately. If I can follow you and your logic, then you cannot persuade me.

Speaker points: Things that will improve your speaker points are speaking clearly, responding effectively, making great eye contact. Speaking versus reading a script, and making your points easy to understand. Debating well is about making your points with logic and evidence, and performing well in the cross fires.

Evidence: If a team calls for a card you should be able to fairly promptly give it to them. If for some reason you don’t have a card I’m fine with you giving a PDF if you’ve already highlighted what you read in the PDF.

Please don’t hand an entire PDF over to your opponents and say you summarize like 5 pages of it because there is no way they can read that. In other words if you are reading a summary of a card and it’s 2 sentences you shouldn’t hand your opponents a card or PDF with three paragraphs highlighted.

If teams read a card and cannot produce it I will take it off my flow automatically. If their opponents then argue that not having cards you read is unethical and I should drop you I will definitely consider that argument.

Prep: Keep track of it.

Additionally: this shouldn't have to be said but of course don’t be rude, sexist, homophobic, offensive, etc

I'm a parent judge who is somewhat familiar with Public Forum Debate. As a lay Judge it is beneficial for me when the teams slow down a bit so that I can absorb the quality arguments being presented. My only advice is to speak clearly, have well-warranted arguments, and try to enjoy the activity while you're at it!

About me

I started judging in 2018 and waiting to judge more tournaments this year. I read a lot of articles on current affairs and watch a lot of news which should help me judge better.

Paradigm for PF Debates :

- I vote purely based on the arguments presented during the debate. My knowledge will be useful for judging the debates but my opinions never interfere. So debate with 100% confidence.

- I am happy to vote off of any argument (tech>truth) as long as it is substantiated by facts and numbers, well explained and warranted.

- Keep your evidences handy and present when asked to do so.

- Slow, crisp and polite presentation is important. Have a lot of respect for your competitors.

Paradigm for PF Speeches :

- I look for a proper voice modulation for your speech, Ideal pace of dissertation, logical flow of thoughts.

- Numbers to substantiate your statements,

- i come with open mind, no preconceived opinions whatsoever..

General rules by other judges which i shall follow :

- Please weigh the impacts!! I cannot overstate the importance of weighing. Otherwise it is hard as a judge to choose which impacts are the largest and I will be forced to interfere

- If links are not well explained in summary I will not vote off of it even if it is extended in final focus (basically don't blip any links in summary)

- no new args in second final focus. If something new is brought up in second summary, first final can respond but preferably by that time neither side is reading new args anyways

- first final can respond to new args from second summary but second summary shouldn’t be reading new offense anyways

I am a parent judge with no experience debating myself, but have been judging for the past few months. I understand and enjoy debates that are slow enough for me to follow all arguments. I prefer you present your case clearly and do not spread, as I cannot vote for someone I may not understand. It would be in your best interest to provide a clear, persuasive argument with a conversational feel.

I also request that you time each other, so I can stay focused on your topic. Handshakes don't really matter and will certainly not influence either way, nor will I bring any biases when judging. A quick thank you would be fine.

Bottom-line, my final decision will likely align with the whoever speaks clearly, convinces better and defends better with effective framework and arguments.

You are smart kids, be polite, be expressive and most importantly enjoy your debate.

Key focus on:

Sufficiency/Insufficiency

Advantages over disadvantages

Brink/Linearity

Impracticability

Impact or improvement quantified

Connect the dots to conclude

No hyperbolic or illogical inferences

Donts:

Don't jump or hop arguments

No racist, sexist, fascist or derogatory statements. Will not tolerate.

Do:

Articulate your arguments as concisely as possible

Speak clearly and enunciate correctly

Words matter, use them wisely

Just make sense

This is my first year judging public forum debate, please make sure your arguments and structure are easy to understand. Be respectful to your opponents and I judge for Redwood Middle School.

I am a lay judge. I have judged primarily for Public Forum but also LD, and Humorous Interpretation. I just recently completed a two-hour training on PuFo judging at my daughter's school. I'm also learning the flow method right now from my daughter who's a varsity debater at Quarry Lane school.

Finally, my preferences are as follows:

* sign post your debate so I can follow the logic and flow

* speak clearly and slow down a little so I can track (if you speak super fast then I won't understand your arguments and I'll dock points)

* be respectful of your opponent and follow the debate rules

BLAKE UPDATE: If you are reading this and in LD, full disclosure, it has been a minute since I have judged LD and I have yet to do so online! Just be mindful of speed so that you don't get cut off by the tech

if you're going to not read cards or you paraphrase , you should probably strike me. In addition, it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to find evidence. After 30 seconds, I will begin your prep. If it takes you longer than a minute and 30 seconds, all you can bring up is a 30 page PDF, or you cannot produce the evidence at all, you will lose the round. Please send the email chain to both cricks01@hamline.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

• TL;DR- I was primarily an LD debater in high school, debating for Whitefish Bay HS in Wisconsin. I am now an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minnesota. I have different paradigms for different events, so read for the event that pertains to you and all should be fine!

  LD

  Speed: Typically, I can understand most speeds. However, i have let to judge online LD, so going a bit below your top speed may be beneficial to you. Slow down for tags, CP/Plan Texts, and if you’re reading unusual kritiks or frameworks. I want to make sure I spend more time conceptualizing what you’re talking about as opposed to figuring out what you just said. I will say “clear” or “slow” three times before beginning to dock speaks.

  Plans and Counterplans: Follow your dreams. I find these debates to be very interesting and a great way for debaters to creatively attack the topic. Make sure to make your advocacy very clear though.

  Kritiks: While I do love a good Kritik, make sure you’re running it well. Understand your kritik, don’t just pull one out of your backfiles and hope for the best. Again, make your advocacy clear. If you’re kritik is weird, please explain it well.

  Theory: I will vote on theory, but I do have questions about frivolous theory. That said, use your best judgement within the context of the round.

  Philosophy: Yes please! Explain it well and you should be golden!

  PF

  • I will pretty much listen to, flow, and vote off of anything. Have fun :)

  • I do have a high threshold for extensions. Blippy extensions are not my favorite thing, so extend your warrants as well

  • The inability to produce a piece of evidence that you have introduced into the round ends the round in an L-25 for your team

  • theory is lovely. I genuinely believe disclosure is good and that paraphrasing is bad.
  • Provide impact calc throughout the round
  • I will not vote on arguments that are dropped in summary, even if you bring them up in final focus, be warned. I may consider them if the warranting is a little bit blippy in summary, and better explained in final focus, but it has to 1) have been in rebuttal as well and 2) basically the only clean place to vote
  • CLASH IS KEY

  • Please read cards. Paraphrasing is becoming a problem in debate and often leads to some kind of intellectual dishonesty. Let's just avoid that.

  • Try to avoid Grand Cross becoming Grand Chaos in which there's just yelling. It isn't at all productive.

  • 2nd rebuttal should rebuild!

  • extending over ink makes me very sad :(

• Miscellaneous:

  • Do not be a terrible person. Don’t be sexist/homophobic/racist etc. If I see this, not only will I be sad, but so will your speaker points

  • Please please please weigh your arguments.

  • Also- please please please give voters!! If you don’t tell me what you think is important in round, I’ll have to decide for myself and you may not enjoy that.

  • please please please time yourselves and your opponent. I do however have a 10 second grace period to finish arguments you are already in the process of making, but I won't evaluate entirely new args after the speech time

  • Yes- I want to be on the email chain. My email is cricks01@hamline.edu

I am a parent judge with experience judging PF for the past two years. I have very basic knowledge on this topic. Please be respectful.

I’m a lay, parent judge who has judged PF for past couple of years. Please speak clearly and not much faster than conversational speech so that I can follow you and make the right decision.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and enunciate. Your argument should be explained in a logical way and backed up by evidence. Be polite and respectful to your opponents throughout the round.

I employ a simple rubric when judging: (a) logical reasoning (b) strong evidence (c) effective rebuttal/refuting of opponent's claims (d) strong clash (e) clear articulation of argument and (e) respect. I'm a relatively inexperienced judge, so I'll ask debaters to inform me if I'm missing something regarding technicalities/protocol or could be doing something to enable a better debate.

Parent judge. Speak in a slow, clear and organized manner. I am not familiar with technical arguments, so refrain from reading these.

I have a couple main preferences:

- Do not talk too fast. Make sure I can clearly understand what you are saying, and slow down if you need to.

- Make sure you give reasoning/warranting for your claims along with evidence to back them up. Do not only read off cards.

Overall, I look for well-researched arguments that are preferably backed by data. Please avoid "proof by vigorous assertion" and ensure that any data presented is not mis-represented. Please ensure impacts are correlated clearly to the evidence presented.

While I look for balanced performance across all rounds, I do value the cross-fire and final focus rounds as a chance to evaluate participants' ability to synthesize and counter the opposing arguments in real time.

I prefer speakers who enunciate clearly, at a pace that is natural to them. Overly aggressive or dis-courteous behavior is discouraged and will result in speaker points being taken off, and possibly be held against the overall team performance.

I am a Lay judge for PF debates, but I do flow the debates. I try to come into every round with a blank slate, so whichever team can convince me on the solvency of their side will have a better chance of winning. Please do not speak very fast, so that I can understand and take note of your contentions. I enjoy a vigorous debate and healthy back and forth during crossfire rounds, but please try to be nice and courteous to the other team and have fun!

speak clearly

As a parent of a 3 year debater I am still new to judging. Please speak not too quickly make your arguments clear and stay away from too much nomenclature.

I am parent judge and new to judging. Provide objective arguments with logic. Defend the arguments.

I award speaker points based on how you speak. Please dont be rude or offensive. you can be firm and passionate but polite.

Hello Debaters,

I am a parent judge. I am fairly new to judging; I enjoy it every time I judge.

I learn along the way, so I ask you to please keep these few things in mind:

Please be courteous, Talk swiftly but clearly, do not be in a rush to put your point forward. Keep in mind that I come with a blank slate and I will listen to everything you throw at me. Do not Spread!

Help me understand you. I love to hear your point of view and I will let you go a few seconds or even a minute over if I feel your argument is valid.

Please be respectful of your opponents, especially during cross. I will judge you during cross for sure, about how respectful you have been towards your opponent and what is it that you are arguing about. Please let them finish. Keep a healthy debate going.

Happy Debating!! Good luck and Have fun

If you weigh your arguments (explain their importance in relation to your opponent's) you'll probably win the round.

Do not go for everything. Pick and choose your arguments as the round go, ideally I'd like to have only one or two arguments at the end of the round to evaluate.

All offense (arguments you want me to vote for you on) have to be in summary and final focus.

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

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

I would like to see debaters to speak clearly and explain the links and impacts.

I am a parent judge . This is my fourth year judging PF debates.

Speak clearly and articulate your points well. Please don’t spread.

I pay attention to cross-X sessions and how your are countering the opponent’s cases/arguments with proper evidences.

Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents.

Good luck!

This is my first year judging in Public Forum debate. Please make sure your arguments and your structure are clear and easy to understand. Be respectful to your opponents.

Overview: Value the flow, weigh your arguments, and be sportsmanlike

Bio: Former LD Debater for 3 years. Mostly traditional - occasionally circuit

Speed / Speaking Style: Conversational preferred; fast conversational allowed. It's in your best interest that I get all of your arguments on the flow. If you don't see me writing, that's probably bad. Signposting is very, very, encouraged for this purpose. 50% chance I'll understand PF jargon, so in the interest of the flow, please keep it minimal.

Summary Speeches / Final Evaluation: Please don't give a line by line rebuttal in summary speeches. More importantly, give key voting issues and... Weigh. Weigh. Weigh... (+ impacts and narrative). If there's one thing you take from this paradigm, it's weighing your arguments. Give a framework early in the round, have evidence and warrants that link back to that framework, and prioritize explaining why your impacts outweigh your opponent's over how many args they dropped. It's very possible for you or your opponent to drop 99 args and win off of the 1 that outweighs everything else.

Rebuttals: Ultimately I'll vote off of the flow. That means extend args, give line by line in rebuttals, set yourself up for good KVIs. Drops are important, but prioritize important args over enumerating drops.

Circuit Stuff: Large preference for traditional; i'll evaluate counter plans and kritiks but you probably don't have enough speech time to explain it at the level I'd need to vote it up

Most importantly: Be respectful; be honest. My #1 pet peeve is debaters lying about what was dropped/said. If there are disputes over evidence, I will call for it - cite honestly and accordingly. In general, I believe against intervention - meaning it's the other team's responsibility to call out suspicious evidence. Other than that, have fun!

Adapted from Alan Tannenwald

Things to up your speaking score:

- speak clearly and slowly

- an off-time road map (state your contentions)

- expand your arguments (I will be flowing)

- provide a printed script

Volunteer Parent Judge.

Framework/Standard - important

Signposting - helpful

Speed/Pacing - comfortable with pace but please make sure to speak clearly

About Me: I am a new judge and new to debate in general. I know very little about the topics you are discussing so make sure to clearly state your arguments.

General Philosophy: Feel free to run any argument you want as long as you have evidence to support it. I will remain open-minded.

Rules: I am not very accustomed to the general rules of a debate round or the rules laid out by the tournament guidelines. If your opponent violates a rule, please bring it up respectfully and show the rule on the NSDA website.

Speaking: Please stand when you speak and speak with a loud clear voice. If I can’t understand what you are saying, I won’t accept it as an argument. Signposting would be preferred. Please do not spread. Be polite to your opponents or you will lose speaker points.

I am a flay judge in that I have lots of experience judging, but I'm not an actual flow judge. I know how the debate process works, and I've judged in over 15 tournaments.

Good rhetoric and lay appeal and I will most likely vote for you. If you don't know something or are otherwise unsure/unready for something just fake it until you make it; I like seeing confidence.

I will not flow cross-ex but I will be paying attention. If you bring something up in cross-ex and want me to flow it, remember to say it in speech as well. Emphasize important points with speech inflections, as well as bring up things you want me to remember/write down several times. Don't put down your opponent (like in LD) and don't bully during cross-ex, although remember to be assertive and stand up for your partner (during grand) if you have to.

Speech

It doesn't matter to me what you do while you speak, as long as you make eye contact regularly. Sit, stand, meditate, doesn't matter to me. Please try to signpost as much as possible, it really helps, and it makes it a lot easier to follow what you're saying. It also helps your speaks (now you're listening, huh?). Gesticulate, use ethos, pathos, logos, talk loud, whatever you have to do to get my attention and my vote (and high speaks).

Kritik

Since I'm not a professionally trained judge, I don't have any specific policy against K's, but don't expect me to go with your point of view without strong rhetoric. I must need to know exactly WHY their view on a policy is wrong, and WHY your take matters more. If I were you, I would not run a kritik.

Etiquette

Insulting your opponent is DIFFERENT FROM arguing with them. You can say the same thing by yelling as you can by assertively speaking to your opponent. Please do not argue/yell/bully your opponent. That is a sure way to lose speaks and maybe the entire round.

Speed

I, like the vast majority of other judges, will have an easier time listening and understanding to you if you speak slower. Note: I prefer slower speaking, but I can handle faster speed to some degree. I may look confused/stop writing/not take note of important parts if you are going to slow; that means I do not understand you, and you may need to slow down.

Other

I can promise you that I will understand these issues more than most judges. Please make sure to time yourselves, if there is a discrepancy between the prep time, speech time, etc., try to work it out yourselves, although I will interfere if too much time is taken.

Thanks for reading this information, although I know it's long and boring. Good luck!

I flow, but you should consider me a lay-judge. Win with your arguments and your logic, not debate tactics. In PF rounds, please do not impact your arguments out to 'human extinction.' I do not believe this is a realistic consequence of any of the topics debated in PF. 

I also do not allow off-time roadmaps. I really like roadmaps and signposting, but you need to do it within the timeframe of your speech.

I am a new judge. Effectiveness of communication is very important for a new judge to be able to follow students' arguments. I will be as objective as possible. I am looking forward to the display of solid logic, reasoning and counter arguments.

Please state your opinions and evidence clearly.

I am looking for reasoning and evidence, particularly the analytical skills.

I am a parent and have judged LD and PF debate in the past. My judging will be based on presentation clarity, in depth analysis, and the use of solid evidence supporting your argument.

please start an email chain: syadavdebate@gmail.com

----------

I would call myself a fairly flow judge. "tech > truth" unless the evidence that is being read is very misrepresented.

Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in summary. There's no such this as sticky defense. Frontline in 2nd RB. Frontline, if applicable, and extend in summary.

You do not have to extend case in 1st RB.

I prefer the weighing done for me; as in a bunch of warrants, defense and turns will do nothing for me if they are not contextualized. I expect to hear why I should prefer your side with reference to warrants. I could maybe vote on something left off of FF, but I won't extend something from case/rebuttal to summary UNLESS it makes sense in the round (ie opponent brings it up again). Weighing should be comparative, doesn't help if both teams say they have a high probability without comparing to their opponent.

I do not flow cross-ex (but I do listen). if it's a new argument/warranting in CX, it should be in a speech. Be nice

As for mechanics, I am pretty flexible and should be comfortable with speed (unless it will be very fast/spreading) as long as you are clear. A speech doc will be well appreciated if you are speaking fast. I'm open to theory, as long as it is not frivolous (ex: no shoe theory). Ks and shells are both ok. I default to reasonability. Please note I am not an expert with theory, and again speech docs will help me understand more. (especially in online debate)

Have evidence ready, shouldn't take longer than 1-2 min to find it or send it out. Also, I will take it from your prep if you're prepping when your opponent is getting a card. I know online debate means I can't enforce this too well so honor system.

About paraphrasing: It takes away from the education of the debate, I do hate it, and while I won't drop you (on face) for it, I won't like you any better if you give me 40 one-lined "cards" in case or rebuttal. Plus it just takes away from the round when your opponent has to call for 10 cards because you read them too fast. (Anti) Paraphrasing theory will pretty easily win my ballot if done well.

..............................................................................................................................................

Overall, I try my best to make the right decision (but I'm nowhere near perfect). If you have ANY questions feel free to contact me (syadavno1@gmail.com) or ask me before/after the round. Thank you!

I am a new parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly if you want me to understand your arguments. Be nice to your fellow debaters.

I'm a parent judge. Have judged a few rounds in the past. Would like to see debaters showing respect to their opponents. Try to state your augurement clearly.

As a judge, I am looking for organization and clarity to help me flow your arguments through the round. Spreading is not helpful for me, while signposting (especially effective ones) and clear voter issues are highly recommended. I listen to crossfire but I don't flow it nor vote off of it.

Treat your partner and opponents with respect and kindness (we are all learning). Be fair (eg. keep to your time limit, allow opponents to ask questions during crossfire etc.). I will weigh all these in my decision.

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and slowly.

I appreciate your being respectful and courteous to your opponents.

Good luck!

I like when debaters respond to the specific warrants of their opponent's arguments/evidence. I see debaters respond to their opponent's case by reading many cards but without spending much time explaining the interaction between the new cards being read and the cards that are being responded to. I'd rather you read fewer responses and instead spend more time telling me why the answers you're making are better or more likely to be true than the original argument. I really like it when debaters isolate the warrant in their opponent's argument, isolate the warrant in their own response, and compare the two.

Slow down. Please pause between the tag of an argument, the author name, and the body of your card, as well as between individual cards. I have problems flowing the debate when there are no pauses.

I am not as well-read or well-informed as professional debate judges. I don't do as much background reading or as much topic-specific prep as I should. If I am your judge, please over-explain your arguments (though by over-explain, I don't mean repeat yourself).

For the last two speeches, make sure you prioritize weighing your arguments (both the size of the link and the size of the impact) and respond to your opponents' weighing.

I'm a second year judge. I prefer the participants to talk at normal speed.

Hi, I am Min Zhao. I was a teacher before, so I am very happy to be the judge here and enjoy watching the kids debate.

To the kids, please do speak clearly, although there is a strict time limit for your speech, you want to make people understand what you are talking about. And also, please be (at lease pretend to be) confident. You are brave enough to participate, so you should all be proud of yourselves.

Well, good luck to all of you, and let's have fun together!

I am entering my 4th year of judging so I am fairly familiar with the process.

Please speak clearly and please don't spread. I cannot vote for you if I cannot understand you.

I vote off clearly explained links and impacts. If your arguments don't make sense, I won't vote for you. Please extend arguments and warrants through the round and cite evidence properly and ethically.

Please stay polite and professional. I will not vote off cross but if you're rude or oppressive I will dock your speakers. I will drop you for racist, sexist, or xenophobic comments.

Average speaks are 28. Clear speeches and sound logical reasoning will increase your points. Preflow before the round begins. I would like the round to be as efficient as possible. Do not make me or the tournament wait.

I will not vote for K's or Theory in PF.

Lastly, have fun and make the round enjoyable.

My name is Xiaopeng Zhao. I am a parent judge. I have worked as a judge in Congressman and Public Forum. I will always weigh a clear and consistent narrative given to me throughout the round. I can handle speed, I would discourage you from spreading if it sacrifices your clarity.Always be respectful of your opponent.

I don't have speech and debate experience by myself. This is the second time I am selected as judge in a tournament. I knew some basic of judging and still need learn more. Please respect the other team.

I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.

Speak clearly, get to the point, logic, organize

I am a Debate coach at Loyola High School. I primarily coach LD debate.

I see debate as a game of strategy. The debaters are responsible to define the rules of the game during the debate.

This means that debaters can run any argument (i.e. frameworks, theory, kritiks, disadvantages). I will assess how well the debaters frame the arguments, weigh the impacts, and compare the worlds of the Aff and Neg.

However, I am not a blank slate judge. I do come into the round with the assumption of weighing the offense and defense and determining which world had the more comparatively better way of looking at the round.

As for Speakers' points, I assess those issues based upon:

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

2. I also look for the creativity of the argument and strategy.

High Speaker Points will be awarded to students who excel in both of these areas.

Debaters are always welcome to ask me more questions about my paradigm before a round begins. The purpose of debate is educational as well as competition. So, debaters should feel comfortable to interact with me before and after the round about how to do well in the round and after.