I am a parent judge.  I understand debate and have been judging at and attending tournaments for years.  That said, please don't get too technical when debating because I am not experienced as a debater myself.  I'd prefer that you signpost so I'm clear about your points and where you are in speaking about them.  I also prefer that you speak slowly enough for me to follow your arguments and logic.  When debating, do what you think is most appropriate for the debate and I will judge accordingly.  I definitely prefer debates where each team/person directly addresses the points/arguments of his/her opponent and weighs impacts for me.

Most importantly, enjoy your debates.

My Background:

I have experience judging varsity Parliamentary Debates in the past.

My Judging Preferences:

I like to judge on content, delivery and resolution. Delivery should be slow and clear, also I am not familiar with debate theory so prefer to keep things simple.

Competed in Varsity LD five years ago (no PuFo debate experience), and okay with spreading but prefers if you try to avoid spreading and just speak fast instead (lay is welcome too). Looking for solid argumentation — respond to your opponent's contentions; building Ks or general arguments on Topicality will not fly unless they are well founded. If you can respond to your opponent's contentions with at least two counters to each, then feel free to add a layer of philosophy to the debate. If you are unable to do so, do not fall back on a K. I will see that as a weakness in your case, not some sort of philosophical superiority. Really important that you DO NOT ask me if I'm ready for the next speech during the round. Once the debate starts, I'm always ready and you don't need to waste your time asking if I am. If I'm not ready, I'll tell you that.

That being said, do not dumb down the debate. I expect for your arguments to be complex and multi-faceted. Oh, and be respectful and humble. That matters to me, it matters to your opponent, and most importantly, it matters in the real world.

One more thing: I am extremely strict about going over time. If the timer goes off, you will be cut off in the middle of your sentence. No "completing my thought" — it's only fair that both sides receive the exact same amount of time. I do appreciate off-time road maps, but make them brief.

Updated for CPS 2018: This update is to mostly reflect how I've been judging rounds lately.

Background:
I debated for four years for Loyola high. I broke at multiple tournaments and had a 4-3 record at the TOC.

I am more familiar with policy arguments, philosophy, and theory, and am less familiar with kritiques. However, I am not really a fan of how most philosophy and theory debates are done today, and thus my familiarity does not always correspond to what arguments I vote on.

Specifically, I think that moral philosophy positions that involves tricks are doing a disservice to the literature. Further, theory debates are often frivolous, although what I may consider frivolous may be different than what others consider frivolous. Some examples of what I consider frivolous theory are the following: font-size theory, must spec status in speech theory, some spec shells, etc. My litmus test for frivolous theory might be the following: does the theory shell isolate an issue of fairness that has actual educational implications on the debate round?

Kritiques usually have good explanations attached to them, so I've voted on them in the past and will probably continue to vote on them in the future.

Overview:
I evaluate the round via an offense/defense paradigm. Thus, I will vote for the debater who provides comparatively more offense back to the framework that has been won in the round, lest there are other issues (theory or kritiques) that precede this evaluation. Beyond this, I will try to evaluate the round in the most objective way possible. However, as all judges do, I have certain basic preferences that it would help to conform to.

First, when there is a clash on an issue or position, I tend to default to the more thorough and comprehensive explanation that makes sense to me. While technical drops are important, I don't think they automatically preclude good analysis. Strong weighing matters more to me than a dropped blippy argument on the flow.

Granted, this threshold only exists when there is clash on a position (and maybe sometimes across positions). If a position is totally conceded, or mostly conceded except for a couple of weaker arguments, my threshold for explanation and extensions becomes much lower (if totally conceded, it approaches zero).

Second, I flow CX, both because of theoretical implications of answers, and because I think your position is only as well warranted as your CX answers indicate. If I don't think there's a warrant after a particularly devastating CX on a position, you're going to have an uphill battle to convince me of the argument. (This is true only if the other debater brings up the flaws they pointed out in CX during a speech. CX by itself is not a rebuttal and thus cannot be the sole basis for my decision).

Third, I heavily favor debater's original analysis and arguments in later rebuttals (2NR and 2AR) as opposed to cards. While cards are good at setting up a position in constructive speeches, I heavily prefer debate styles that can go beyond cards with good explanations.

Theory defaults:
I default competing interpretations. I default no-RVI's. Topicality is a voter. All other issues must be justified by the debater.

Random Notes:

I like numbered responses to arguments, and clear distinction between line-by-line analysis and overviews.

I will only vote on arguments that I have flowed. During rebuttals, I mostly flow from what you're saying, rather than from the speech doc, so adjust accordingly.

While debate is a game, it is an educational game that brings lots of enjoyment to many of our lives. Please treat other debaters and it with respect.

Hi everyboday! I'll be judging CPS this weekend, and it'll be great to re-visit the debate community! I haven't made any real updates since I judged JV at Berkeley this February, but nothing has changed in particular. Since I'm judging varsity this time, I would like to point out that some of you are probably much more advanced debaters than I was (I only did a few circuit tournaments and never broke to elims). The point I want to make is that my job as a judge is to do everything I can to make a logical decision based on the conventions of debate, and your job as a debater is to respect my judgment and understand that it is final and well-intentioned if imperfect. Long story short, if you're consistently getting winning records, I might not keep up well with your style, so don't pref me high; if you're still developing skills as a circuit debater, I'm probably a fine judge for you. See below for details, and best of luck!

General Debate Experience/Philosophy: I did LD for four years and was never particularly good at it, but I have experience with both circuit and lay styles and consider myself fairly competent at evaluating flows. Expect the round to be judged primarily in the style of a circuit round (i.e. by the flow, little intervention), except for a couple things.

1) I've listened to speed, but I'm terrible at understanding it, and while I feel bad about that, if you speak at 400 wpm and I don't understand you, I'm not going to call your cards to read them because that's unfair to your opponent and defeats the purpose of delivering speeches. This also means that I will not read along with cases from my computer. I'll do my best to understand, and say "Clear" if you aren't, but if I don't understand, it's not on my flow.

2) If you want to make a super semantic a priori win or something of the sort, I'll of course be willing to vote on it, but I have pretty high standards for those arguments, and while I try to be unbiased, I might tend to accept weak responses to a hasty, sneakily hidden a priori argument at the top of your AC or something of the sort.

Concessions: I'm not totally sure whether this is the debate norm or not, but I don't believe you can put an a priori in your AC without explaining the impact thoroughly, extend it in the 1AR and say your opponent conceded the a priori and therefore can only respond to the weighing you do in the 1AR rather than the a priori itself. If something has no clear impact, it is not a full argument. E.g. if you have a definition that makes you win a priori but don't mention that it's an a priori win until the 1AR, your opponent should be able to respond to the definition itself in the NR. That might be quirky, but it's probably my only significantly unusual debate paradigm and it makes sense.

Extensions: An extension tells me what you're extending and why it's important. You don't need to read the whole contention again. Your summary of the warrant can even be slim or nonexistent UNLESS your opponent responded to part of your warrant, in which case you need to tell me why the warrant still stands/which part your opponent didn't respond too.

Plans: LD is a debate of values. It is NOT policy. You are welcome to run a plan, but it must either satisfy the entirety of the resolution (prove it generally true) or contain a good argument that it shouldn't have to.

Theory: Similar to a prioris and stuff. Definitely acceptable, but I tend to get a tad biased against stupid theory.

Kritiks: I don't have much experience with them and might not fully understand the structure, but I can and will still consider and evaluate them equally (unless, once again, they are super semantic or irrelevant to the topic, e.g. the word ___ isn't feminist enough so my opponent loses, in which case it better be very well argued and/or very poorly responded too).

Getting high speaks: Speak clearly, have well constructed arguments (strong philosophy is a plus, frivolous semantics are not but won't ding you if they're well written), sign post really really well, treat your opponent like the intelligent person he/she/ze/etc is, weigh your impacts, and provide a story for why you're winning. Some of these will obviously also help you win.

Hello,

To start off with, I am mainly a flay judge. First off, if you want to start an email chain, then feel free to at anil_dixit@yahoo.com. I would appreciate it if you don't spread in round. Please speak in a clear speed and tone with enunciation. Also try not to run theory. Ks, or any types of tricks or other circuit positions. I will have a hard time understanding them and it may result in me interpreting your positions in the wrong way. However, if you do choose to run circuit positions, spend a little more time explaining them. For example, in theory, clearly explain your opponent's violations in round and explain the voters thoroughly. In general, I am fine with you running circuit positions and I will not vote you down for it solely, but you should spend some more time explaining them.

Try to go with your traditional lay positions and cases that you have (Framework + Contentions). The only circuit positions that I am comfortable with are advantages and disadvantages.

I vote based on framework, impact calculus/weighing, speaking style/speed, and argumentation/articulation. Prove to me how your impacts outweigh your opponents and how they follow with the framework debate. Connect your voting issues with the framework, as it is the criterion towards which the judge evaluates the round.

Finally, please don't go about personally insulting your opponents or swearing in round. This will result in an automatic loss if done.

Thank you and good luck with your rounds. Have fun!

About me/TL;DR:
I'm a third year Econ/Stats major with a minor in Human Rights, which means I think analytically and care about the world. It also means I have a lot of things to do, so don't waste my time; make the debate interesting and conclusive.

I competed in circuit LD for two years with Presentation High School in San Jose, CA. I was almost exclusively a util debater, but I can follow other philosophies if they are commonly known or explained clearly. Make the round resolvable if you want to be happy with the decision. That means weighing, clear extensions, and a conclusive framework/theory debate. The more you weigh, the more likely I agree with your view of the round.

Don't be rude. Debate is a forum for intellectual argumentation, not a place for you to expel your anger. I've seen a lot of sexist rounds in my time, and I'm not here for it. Have a good time, learn stuff while you debate, and we'll all be happy with the outcome of the round.

+0.5 speaks if you show up to the round early. -1 speaks if you're late.

Sharing cases:
Using e-mail chains to share cases is faster and has fewer technical issues than flashing. If you e-mail evidence in round prior to speeches I'll give you +0.5 speaks.
Flashing is part of prep time. I don't like prep stealing. Your prep doesn't end until you hand your opponent the flash drive.

Speaker points:
i) I heavily weight to incentivize clash and punish unethical actions in round (at my discretion)
ii) I’ll tank your speaks if you read things you didn't share with your opponent pre-speech and will probably not evaluate the arguments.

Theory:
I have a high threshold for the links between interp, violation, and standards. If you read standards cut from an old block I’m probably not voting on them. Theory is always competing interps unless you either explain how I evaluate reasonability and/or win intervention good. 1AC theory pre-empts need to be re-contextualized in the 1AR based on the exact nature of the violation in the 1N. These are my starting points and thresholds on some interps. I’m free to add interps to the list at any time. I'll only vote on an RVI if you're also winning the theory debate or justify why you shouldn't have to be IN THIS ROUND.
I have a VERY high threshold on these interps:
- Neg must read competing ethic
- Affirmative Ethic Choice (AEC)
- Neg interps must be checked in CX
- Aff may not defend implementation
- Neg must defend squo
I have a fairly low threshold on these interps:
- Aff must defend a topical action
- Neg must clash with the aff in some way (rejoinder)

Speed:

I have seldom come across JV debaters who spread too fast for me to understand; however, I have been off the circuit for a few years, so things might have changed and y'all might be incredible now. I highly doubt it. If you do choose to spread, do it clearly and send me your case so I can follow along (that does not mean that I will flow everything in your doc; if I don't hear it being said, I won't flow it). I will say clear a maximum of 2 times per speech, but if I've already said clear and you go back to being incoherent, I'm tanking your speaks. It's in your interest to make sure I catch all your arguments, so chose quality over quantity (you should do this anyway, but it rarely happens).

If I say clear, I've probably already missed an argument and I'm not going to struggle to find it. Even if I have your case, I need to distinctly hear at least a few keywords/taglines from each card to flow it.

I believe content should dictate speed. You can probably read util at top speed in front of me, continental philosophy at 75%, and analytic philosophy only slightly faster than conversational pace. If your position is based on many short links you need to slow down so I don't miss or misunderstand any of them.

Extensions:
My threshold for extensions is fairly high; clearly say "extend x" or talk about x for a really significant portion of your speech (I prefer the former). You don't need to extend dropped arguments in front of me. You only need to weigh the impact of the dropped argument against other impacts in the round. If you don't bring the impact up to weigh it in your final speech, I won't evaluate it for my ballot.

Evidence:
The only time I typically call for evidence is if there is a dispute about the evidence itself (what it says). This means one debater challenges the content of a piece of evidence and it is defended. As above, if I miss something from your evidence I will not help you by looking for it.

Paradigm

I don’t vote on arguments I don’t understand or that aren't warranted. That said, I prefer util or K debates (with specific links and impacts) as I both understand them better and find them more resolvable. I start the round evaluating comparative worlds as a policy-maker post-fiat and an educator pre-fiat. There is some wiggle room on how I evaluate impacts here, but you shouldn't be reading truth testing in front of me. It will be very hard to win both because I'm not compelled by the paradigm and I don't think LD is the right forum for analytic philosophy.

Presumption:
I presume a lot. A LOT. This is not because I like presumption arguments, but because I so seldom watch rounds that I feel are resolvable. Here is a guide to how I evaluate arguments, which typically terminates in presumption:
- if there are qualitatively different impacts under the same FW that are not weighed I won't evaluate any of them
- if there is an impact that is only quantitatively different between the two sides, I will evaluate the bigger/smaller one based on what the impact is
- I don't do qualitative weighing because it's intervention, but I feel the ability to count is a reasonable task for a judge.
- if each debater is winning one impact calc metrics and they are not compared I won't evaluate either
- if there is a warrant and counter-warrant to the same argument without comparative weighing I won't evaluate the argument
- Same rules for FW, if each person is winning some arguments and they are not compared, I probably presume
- I start off presuming neg for positively worded "ought" resolutions. If the negative reads an unconditional CP or alt then presumption flips aff.

Please don't do these:
- calling defense turns
- claiming your opponent dropped something he/she didn't
- asking me my preferences and then choosing to not adapt
- Claiming a single issue is sufficient to vote when it isn't (I won't vote just because you won the value debate)
- claiming there are rules in LD, and that your opponent is breaking them (this is what theory is for)
- abuse claims (theory) without warrants (standards) and impacts (voters)
- being shifty in CX to avoid clash

I debated 4 years of policy in High school for Bellarmine and 1 in college for UT Dallas. I coach Policy and LD currently at Presentation High School. I have been there for 7 years. If quals matter I was in CEDA octas as a frosh in college.

brandon.garrett@gmail.com for the email chain.


General/CP/DA
Despite being mostly a T/K debater in high school, my team in Dallas was a very straight-up oriented team and as a result I am familiar with and accepting of those types of arguments as well. I read plenty of counterplans and disads in college and high school. I have had and judged tons of politics debate and states counterplan debates and soft vs hard power debates. I don't dislike these debates on face, I just dislike when they lack substance in the sense that theres no analysis happening. I am pretty okayish at flowing so prolly can get you at near top speed but will yell clearer from time to time. As with anything, if you cannot clearly articulate your argument or position, I will not vote for it.

That being said, I definitely havent judged these debates much lately bc most people think I am a K hack, but I actually find them easier to adjudicate and enjoy them a lot when they are good. In a policy v policy style round, I think I am generally a pretty good judge for these debates despite preferring to judge the more left debates.

T/K affs/Fwk
I am relatively familiar with most critical literature but thinks like schlag and heidegger and baudrillard need a lot of link work analysis and alt explanation as do other dense kritiks. this type of explanation will help you in the long run anyways.

I have been told I don't get preffed because my paradigm may be a bit strongly worded. I definitely feel very strongly about use of framework as a way to silence teams with a legitimate gripe against institutional and systemic injustice that is relevant both to this activity and students autonomy. I think there are certain schools that are obviously uninterested in engaging with the substance of these types of arguments because it doesn't benefit their hegemonic structure that is self reinforcing or because it puts coaches outside their comfort zone. I think these arguments are intrinsic goods to the future of the activity and I would tend to think the trend of the community voting patterns and explosion of identity and performance arguments corroborate this direction and opinion.

I am highly inclined to believe that T-USFG is very problematic against certain types of Ks or performance affs. Debate isnt just a game, but certainly has gamelike attributes. I think entirely gamelike views on debate ensure hegemony of opinions.
True procedural fairness doesn't really exist because of structural issues, judge bias, and humans being humans and not robots. Education in some form is inevitable - its just a question of how open you are to learning something and what you are contributing.

This activity matters, what we say in it matters, and if you feel like you have no answer to a K or performance argument then go through the following thought process real quick:
1) Am I more concerned with winning than understanding the arguments of my opponent (if you answered yes you prolly wont win my ballot)
2) Do I want to win and engage the substance of my opponents arguments (If you answered yes then you can proceed)
3) Do I have anything to actually engage with the probably true argument that people of color and women and other disadvantaged people are set up to fail and the institutions of the state and debate have failed them? (If the answer is no you can still potentially win this debate: contribute to the discourse or attack thiers/create your own methodology, and tell me why you think that should enable you to win my ballot. That or cut more cards and prep better answers)

Most people who read these arguments do it to discuss real issues that really matter to them and to our community. The norm of the community to try and avoid these conversations with theory spikes or T arguments that are unspecific and poorly developed is depressing and most definitely not a strategy i support.

To clarify: I think its fine to read Policymaking good / framing against a security K or cap K - but when the debate is about an individuals autonomy and recognition in the debate space (for example - a survival strategy for a PoC) that neccesitates an entirely different discussion.

I think T-usfg/fwk (its pretty much the same thing dont lie) is a competing interpretations debate and there is pretty much no convincing me otherwise. If you cant explain what your version of debate looks like then why should you win? I love a good fiat/framing debate and can vote either way on it.

Voting
I tend to favor the team that does more analysis and explanation of warrants. If you are extending your tag and cite but not explaining the warrants of your evidence your opponents will probably win. I also dont typically look for the easiest way out. You all put a lot into this activity and I want to make sure I consider every avenue.

I definitely think that extending a dropped argument is pretty impactful - many judges will tell you just because its dropped doesn't mean its true, but until your opponents make a reasonable refutation, I will evaluate dropped arguments with a high degree of weight. I will NOT, however, give you huge impacts for dropped arguments that are extended in a blippy manner.

I feel like the biggest thing I am lacking in most rounds is impact comparison across layers. I often find myself doing unnecessary intervention because no one tells me how their impacts interact with their opponents. If you want me to vote for you make the path to the ballot really clear, and I will follow your line of thinking. When there are a bunch of open ended questions at the end of the round and doors that are not closed there is always going to be a gap of understanding between my decision and your interpretation of the round. It is definitely your responsibility to minimize that gap as much as possible.

Theory and T
In terms of theory I don't really like to pull the trigger on reject the team unless there is proof of in round abuse. I could vote on a reject the team argument but they would have to be setting a pretty uniquely bad standard for debate. I think things like "must read a trigger warning" or "condo bad" definitely fall within this description. I have a very low tolerance for frivolous theory and am definitely not your judge if you like that style or tricks. There are winnable theory arguments in front of me but stuff like 'new affs bad' or 'plans bad' that dont make realistic sense arent gonna fly. Lookin at you LD community.

Speaks
I will take away speaks if you tell me to judge kick things. Do your job as a debater.

Speaks are about ethos, pathos, and logos. If you are lacking in presence or your arguments dont make logical sense it will be hard to get perfect speaks. The best technical debater in the world is probably only a 29.5 without ethos.

I don't really give 30s and a bunch of 29s and 29.5 is really for an amazing debater. 30 for me is perfect. That being said, I also don't really give 26 or 26.5 unless you are doing really poorly. If you got a 26.9 or lower you were probably very offensive towards me or your opponents. 27 range is you messed up some fundamentals like dropped an important argument, made a contradiction that was obvious, were uneducated on your own positions, etc.

PF specific:

I favor evidence far more heavily than other judges in this event. I am SO TIRED of kids not giving dates or cites to your evidence. There are NSDA evidence rules for a reason. I am gonna start docking a speaker point for each member of each team that doesn't properly cite your evidence. If I wanted to I could not evaluate any cards you dont read author and date for because of these rules.

You force me to intervene when you read 1 liner pieces of evidence. Just stop misrepresenting and paraphrasing cards and we will get along.

Arguments in Final Focus need to be in the summary or second rebuttal. I prefer if you are second rebuttal you respond to the first rebuttal but wont hold it against you. Its just the correct strategic choice.
Extending cards by name will help you win my ballot. Weighing is huge and matters a bunch. I think you should probably use cross ex for clarification and understanding rather than making arguments. Im not flowing cross-ex.

Debate is a performance and is about communication. Even when you debate stock issues you are still performing within the round and you are accountable for how you present yourself and act. Don't just read - provide analysis and evidence. I am a speech pathologist, if you read so fast I cannot understand you, I cannot vote your way. I won't vote on points that are not clearly articulated. Write my ballot for me in the final speech.

My paradigm as a public forum debate judge is based on the following criteria:

1. Clarity: I value debaters who are able to articulate their arguments in a clear and concise manner. I expect debaters to explain their arguments thoroughly and avoid overly complex language or jargon.

2. Evidence: I value debaters who use relevant and credible evidence to support their arguments. I will evaluate the quality and relevance of evidence presented and consider how well it supports the argument being made.

3. Clash: I value debaters who engage in substantive back-and-forth argumentation with their opponents. I will evaluate the quality and depth of the debaters' responses to the arguments presented by the other team.

4. Persuasiveness: Ultimately, I will decide which team has persuaded me that their arguments are the most compelling. I will evaluate how well debaters have made their case and used evidence to support their position.

5. Rules: I expect debaters to comply with the rules of the debate, including time limits, cross-examination rules, and other procedures. I may deduct points or disqualify a team for violations of the rules.

6. Decorum: I expect debaters to maintain a professional and respectful demeanor throughout the debate. I may deduct points for disrespectful or uncivil behavior.

I will use these criteria to evaluate the arguments presented by each team and make a decision on which team has won the debate. I encourage debaters to ask questions before or after the debate if they have any concerns about my paradigm or the criteria I will be using to judge the debate.

I have judged high school debate in LD and PF before so I am experienced, but I am still parent judge. This is my second year judging high school competitive debate.
I prefer no spreading and it is likely in your best interest to not spread because I can't vote for someone I don't understand.
I am ok with policy arguments as long as their function in the debate is clearly explained. If you read a counterplan, tell me why it negates the resolution, and if you make a permutation tell me why that means the aff wins.
Kritiks are also alright as long as they are well explained and not too complex.
I would advise against T and theory unless your opponent clearly deserves to lose. (Even so, if T and theory is really necessary I would have voted against the violator anyway so its just a waste of time). 
Crystalization in the last few speeches is very helpful.
I give speaker points on who I think did the better speaking. I won't give lower than a 26 unless you are unecessarily rude.
I will not vote for blantantly offensive debaters.

I will not disclose unless required by the tournament.

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

1. Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
2. Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
4. Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
5. Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure/Organization:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.

A few exceptions to this rule:

• Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
• Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
• Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

1. No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

I will vote for arguments that are explained thoroughly.

Presentation skills will be a major part of speaks.

Make sure to speak clearly and not too fast, as I will not vote for an argument if I understand or hear it.

I like stock arguments and case defense.

 

My name is Ritesh Kumar, I am a lay judge from Dougherty Valley Speech and Debate. 
I like clarity, structure and logic. I will remember things if you emphasize them, things like slowing down and extending work well. If you are consistent with that expect good speaks. I cannot tolerate profanity, racism and other such inappropriate comments. 
I have judged in a couple of novice tournaments last season. I'm not too tolerant of jargon, and only weigh what I understand. If you tell me to consider something more than others,then I will.
I might take notes, I can't flow, 
Good luck!  

Traditional judge - Ask me in round.

I have been judging for three years, in ld, policy, and public forum.

I am comfortable with any type of argument, but please do not spread. I will flow only what I hear. Do not be rude, and make your impacts clear.

I am a parent judge, I do not like spreading, CP, DA, and theory Shells. I have a great understanding of this topic. I prefer traditional LD, and I will typically go for the case that is most reasonable, but if you are able to defend your case very well I might vote for you. Pref me if you are a traditional LD debater.

I want debaters to present their case clearly. I don't like it when debaters spread. I do not give points to debaters who say things that don't make sense, every single sentence of your case needs to prove a point.

I am a parent of an LD debater, so I have no experience in debating myself. However, I have judged many rounds at league tournaments and the Cal Invitational 2016. I am definitely a lay judge, and prefer if you can provide a clear, persuasive argument that has a conversational feel, so no spreading please. I try my best not to bring any biases into the round so my judgment can be solely based on whoever has persuaded me with their framework and arguments the best.

i will not be timing, so please time each other. 

Handshakes are fine, don't really mind either way; definitely will not influence anything in anyway. Just a quick thank you will be fine and appreciated. 

Overall, my final decision is based on whoever best convinced me. If I hear anything that may be technically correct but doesn't convince me or make sense to me, I will not vote on it.

I give speaker points mainly for encouragement, especially in JV, so will RARELY give anything less than 25 unless blatantly rude or impolite. More points for good presentation: delivery, body language, enunciation. 

I am a mother of a debater, so I have no debate experience.  I have judged a few tournaments.  English is not my native language, so I will definitely understand you better if you speak slower, but if you must go faster, I will try my best to keep up--I understand you are under a time limit.  Please do not spread.  I do not understand theory or K's, so do not run those.  I do not flow cross-ex, but I will listen in.  You must repeat any points you make in cross-ex in speech, or I will not count it.  I do not find weighing or crystallization to be very helpful because I feel like I can make my own judgements, but you can go ahead and do it anyway.  If you say things that are untrue in crystallization (or anywhere, really), I will definitely mark you down for it.

In terms of standard judging paradigms, I consider myself a policy maker judge. Clearly explain how your plan solves and my vote is yours. That being said, if you decide to run a kritik, please understand it in its entirety. If you don’t understand your kritik, don’t run it; it wastes everyone’s time. Although I don’t prefer to hear topicality debates, I understand that there are times when you encounter an affirmative case where you have no answers. If you can prove that they are truly not affirming the resolution, I will vote on topicality. Use your rebuttals wisely. Don’t repeat arguments from your constructives; take them one step further and tell me why you deserve my vote. Make smart arguments, be logical and don’t bullshit.

I do not prefer speed because I believe that debate should be clear and open to all. I am okay with counter plans and Disads as long as you explain them well. In addition I am okay with critics as long as you have other arguments which have a clear impact. I love framework debate because it tells me what I should weigh the debate on. I recommend candidates to link all arguments back to framework and do lots of impact calculus. I can follow easily but please do not speak too fast to just complete your write up. 

Hey there!

Cross-ex: I judge cross-ex heavily and take into a big part when it comes to making my final decision. I look for you being able to successfully defend your case confidently along with pointing out flaws for your opponents case. Be confident but do not be rude as that really looks bad in my eyes. Be demanding but don't be aggressive. Keep your cool and do not ever put down your opponent.

Arguments: I should be able to understand the vast majority of arguments that you guys present to me. Please do not run theory or kritiks as those are hard to follow along with. I will listen to all disadvantages and counterplans and should be able to understand them easily. I love it when you weigh your arguments and it's how I determine a tie-breaker if a round is closer. Tell me why your argument's impact matters more than your opponents and why your opponents impact is less likely to occur. I also wish to see you actually explaining the arguments in your own words and using logic rather than you reading a bunch of evidence cards to prove your point. After each card give a little explanation of it so I am able to follow along easier. I also would prefer that you provide an overview in the beginning of your speeches since that is important to me. I do listen to the framework debate but I don't use it to make my decision as much as I would use the arguments itself.

Presentation: Please do not spread! If you think you are speaking to fast, then you probably are. Talk clearly and fluently and confidently. There's nothing that upsets me more than a debater who I can not understand.

Other than that, debate fairly and don't try to be sketchy. Don't bring up new arguments in the last speeches as I will not actually put them on my flow and use them to weigh the round. Good luck!

I enjoy a well-structured debate in which each side clearly addresses the others' contentions and can prove their framework well. In particular, I enjoy a good clash between the neg and the aff, a debate in which both sides clearly engage with one another. In terms of determining the winner, I tend to favor content over speaking abilities, and look for who is consistently ahead on impact calculus. 

Good luck to competitors!

I'm not a big fan of speed as I believe debate should be a listening activity. I'm not very familiar with theory but if you break it down for me as a regular argument that would be great. K's should be explained thoroughly. I have Four years of experience judging Lincoln Douglas but it has been in the JV , PF division. Be respectful with your opponent when you raise your point.The bottom line is if I don't understand it, I'm not voting off it. Your job as the debater is to explain the arguments you make.

I have been judging mostly LD and Policy events and have been judging for 4 years

In a round, I prefer loud, clear, concise speech. I appreciate arguments that get to the point and spoken relatively slowly and clearly. Empirics are extremely important.

I would consider the following when I award speaker points

-how you speak

- if you are courteous and would let opponent complete their thought

- how you conduct during cross-ex

Name: Sathiya Rajagopal

Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School

 

Judging Experience: Son's Lincoln Douglas debate events and tournaments. I prefer topical arguments over technical moves. 

Speaker Points: Speaker points will be awarded for clarity and pace of speech (do not spread).

Voting: I will vote based on the topicality of the debaters' arguments, and the clarity and impact of said arguments in the long run.

Hello, my name is Tori Sandoval.

I competed in Speech and Debate all four years in high school and I am a two-time national qualifier. I have been judging any and all NSDA events for almost 6 years now.

As far as speed goes I can keep up no problem, but you have to be clear. If you are mumbling into your laptop and tapping your foot so I can't hear you then I will probably not catch much of what you say and I will drop your speaks like they are hot.

I don't flow author names so when you say extend paul Newman in 2013 or whatever I have little to no idea what you are talking about.

I don't like it when speed is used to exclude other competitors or members of the debate community. I believe that debate should be an inclusive event rather than exclusive so if your opponent can not keep up with speed don't try to "spread them out".

I try to be tabula rasa[blank slate] to the best of my abilities.

I like clear voting issues given at the end the debate with some solid impact analysis. I tend to vote for larger impacts if the debaters don't make a big deal of how they are winning an impact analysis through the value debate. So if you show me how you achieve your value you win (assuming you've won that your value is the best value in the round), but if you ignore the value debate, which tends to happen most of the time I default to a net benefit evaluation of the round because that minimizes judge intervention. I hope that makes sense.

In general, I'm open-minded and tend to be more holistic in my evaluation. In my mind, debate is about convincing and influencing, not about attacking or being mean or rude. I like well-researched evidence and well-organized arguments. Arguments should be delivered in a concise, effective, and respectful way.  Interpret the debate for me and give me a clear justification for voting.

 

Things you should know:

·        Information source should be credible;

·        Avoid factual, moral, or logical flaws if possible;

·        Engage with your opponent's case. Avoid purely definition-based debates.

·        Being  gamesmanship should be kept to an absolute minimum.

·        Speaking fast is not necessarily effective. I will intervene when you speak too fast;

·        Utilize your time to the maximum;

·        Be confident, but not arrogant;

·        Be polite to your opponent and to me.

 

 

Things I don’t like:

·        Misappropriating literature / evidence;

·        Disingenuous or theoretical argumentation;

·        Arguing with me after the round. Feel free to disagree with my vote, but don’t expect me to change my mind.

 

 

speak clearly

There are three major things to keep in mind for my paradigm

First, I'll keep track of what is and isn't extended, including any part of framework, so extend.

Second, You have to win on a clear value and value criterion, and if neither side is able to, I go neg on presumption.

Third, use impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame) Magnitude being the most important as long as its probability is more likely than not. An argument needs to be well rooted for me to consider it, so I won't vote on a weak extinction argument.

Ask me anything else you'd like to know before the round starts!

I am a new parent judge for varsity LD debate. Please email me your case before the round starts in case I miss something during the round. Also please do not spread.

Updated for: NSDA 2021

Monte Vista High School (Danville) '16

2021 Update

I haven’t judged much in the last couple years, so my capacity to follow crazier positions is probably a bit lower. My preferences below are still essentially up-to-date, but I’ll probably have (1) a higher standard for clarity when explaining your arguments and (2) a slightly lower threshold for telling you that you’re going too fast.

Also, most of what's below is somewhat LD-specific, but if I'm judging you for PuFo:

• Try to be as clear as possible with extensions. My flowing is decent, but please reference specific card names / warrants and not just "extend so and so impact."
• On evidence: if a card is crucial to the round and heavily contested, I'll call for it. I have a background in statistics, so I (1) really like nuanced debate on methodologies of particular studies and (2) really hate it when the results of empirical studies are misrepresented / clearly not well-understood.
• Also, be organized and fast with exchanging evidence. (Anything more than a minute for sending a card seems unreasonable to me.)
• I find evaluating / doing my own weighing to be much harder when judging PF than LD, so please make things easier for me and weigh very explicitly in summary/FF. I really can’t emphasize enough that I’m more used to a debate format where a specific weighing mechanism is decided on during the round, and am thus much worse at comparing arguments when no such mechanism is provided compared to other judges you might have.
• I really don't like it when teams don't coordinate their summary/FF. I feel like it's really obvious when you and your partner don't have a cohesive strategy for your last two speeches, and it usually makes it harder to figure out what I should vote on. (Your speaks will also suffer.)
• In particular, no extensions of anything in FF that wasn't in summary.
• I actually really enjoy good/interactive cross, and I'd specifically like to ask that you don't ask questions of the form "If we win X, do we win the round?" where X is either (1) literally the resolution reworded or (2) some crazy abusive burden.

If I'm judging you for CX, I‘ve only watched/judged a few policy rounds in my life, so I don’t think I can really formulate a clear paradigm here. Please still feel free to ask questions before the round starts.

Old (mostly for LD)

Short Version

Did four years of LD in high school, make whatever arguments you want as long as they’re explained well. As long as you're good with flashing prep / email chains and structure, go as fast as you want.

Long Version

Background

I competed primarily in LD for 4 years in high school, though I also did quite a bit of Foreign Extemp, Congress, and PuFo. I was a lay debater in high school, but I've judged a pretty good amount of LD on the circuit since then, so feel free to do (mostly, see below) whatever you want in round.

Speaking Preferences

I've never been the best at understanding spreading. That being said, feel free to go fast, but be strategic about it. Slow down for things that are actually important (emphasize things like taglines, weighing, etc.). If you're utterly unintelligible I will yell "clear" as needed, though if you keep going back up you'll lose speaks. Feel free to ask me after each speech if your speed was okay or not.

For refutation speeches, I really like good structure when you make your responses, i.e. numbering your responses when you make multiple ones, giving a clear tagline for each response, clear (and concise) road map, etc.

Also, just to be clear on this before round, putting docs on a flash / sending your email DOES NOT COUNT as prep time for me.

Argument Preferences

• In general, you can make any arguments you like. I generally try not to intervene on arguments (outside of the most wildly inappropriate / discriminatory ones). If an arg is “bad” or otherwise silly, I’m probably still willing to vote on it if you properly weigh it and the opponent can’t defeat whatever weird logic you have, since if it’s so bad, the opponent should be able to contest it easily anyways.
• Theory: probably won't be receptive to frivolous theory, but okay with anything else. My defaults are competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the argument, but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
• Ks are cool too—can't say I ran them as a debater myself, but I've judged enough rounds to be somewhat familiar with judging them and some common literature. Just make sure they have a clearly linked alternative, and PLEASE make sure the alt isn't some blippy one-liner that no one talks about for the rest of the round.
• I really, really like good T debates—a lot of my favorite debates as a competitor, judge, and observer have been decided on it.
• Plans and counterplans are fine, but I've often found that they constrain debate in a way that isn't particularly strategically interesting. Of course, I don't judge debates based on how interested / entertained I am, but I do really appreciate cool strategies in round! (PICs are okay too, but I'm pretty receptive to theory against them)
• All in all, don't make any absolutely absurd or discriminatory arguments, and I'll listen to whatever you have to say, as long as it is explained well and articulated reasonably clearly.