If you're being judged by me you're in trouble, I retired from debate in 2018. Good luck!

I'm a parent judge, my preferences are standard across the board.

Speak clearly and persuasively, NO spreading. You can speak fast or slow, but I prefer Quality over Quantity.

I'll weigh everything throughout the round. Public Forum should encourage well-rounded, persuasive debating.

I judge on your preparation, ideas, evidences, logics, impacts, arguments and summary. My final decision comes down to all of them on both sides.

Be respectful throughout the round. If not, I'll deduct your speaking point or even lose the round.

Have fun!

 Here are the things you can do to receive my ballot:

1. Talking slow and clearly but not too slow

2. Clarity in thoughts

3. Backing up your thoughts with data

4. Extend all of your arguments through summary... citations must be read aloud. If not, you will get DROPPED!

5 I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't. 

and please be nice ;) 

PF preferences: 

1. No spreading. I will flow the round. If I can't understand or miss something, I can't evaluate it. 

2.  I'm a lawyer, so please make your arguments logical and provide strong evidence.

3. If you're speaking first, I do not require that you extend defense in your summary. However, second summary needs to extend defense. 

4. Both teams should weigh the debate. 

5. Please keep crossfires civil. 

6. Make all of your link stories clear and show how they lead to your impacts. If the link chain doesn't make sense, I won't evaluate the impact.

7. I won't evaluate arguments that are dropped. You don't need to respond to a dropped argument or extend any responses on this.

8. It shouldn't take you more than a minute to find a card. 

9. Unless it's critical for the debate, keep theory out. Your arguments should be about the topic itself. 

I have more than 3 years judging experience.

I prefer speakers not speak too fast and use understandable talk speed.

Hey, note that my daughter debater wrote this based on info I provided.

Occupation: mechanical engineer/product designer

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley

Years of judging and types of events: 2ish years in circuit PF

Speaker points scale:

30 - best speaker I've seen

29 - better than average

28 - average

27 - below average

26 - incoherent

25 - You've said or done something atrocious

Help me make a decision with:

analytics beyond empty stats and sticking with arguments from constructive. Don't drop case and go for the blippy arg in rebuttal. Repeat what you are going for in summary and final focus. However, know that repeating "85%" over and over again won't get you my ballot. Contextualize please.

I take notes, I don't flow. The most extensive ones are from constructive. Know your case well enough that you can reiterate the general impacts and don't exaggerate or change args drastically. I will also take notes from later speeches, know they are not as in depth.

rubric for importance:

1 - not at all

5 - somewhat

10- weighed heavily

Clothing/appearance: 7 (avoid dandruff, comb hair, dress formal)

Use of evidence: 5

Real World Impacts: 4 (be reasonable, this is PF)

Cross Ex: 7

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 9 (I won't intervene on false args unless your opponents call you out)

side note: If I say I'm flow, for the love of pf don't start spreading

I am a lay judge, so I don't know all the technical aspects of debate, but I am quite capable of following an argument and seeing holes in logic. In a close debate/tossup, I will give the win to the team that demonstrates a deeper understanding of the topic, not to the team that throws in super tangential arguments. It is helpful if you give verbal "signposts" so I know you are countering a point, or offering a new one, etc. I can follow quick speaking, but not insanely quick speaking. I'd prefer you don't spread. I try to give you public speaking feedback in my judging notes, but that doesn't mean I am basing the decision on speaking skills.

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 am a parent judge. Please try and keep the debate at a conversational speed. I prefer logic and persuasion more than just evidence and an illogical argument. Those who speak the most powerfully and have the best arguments will win the round.

My paradigm was too long. Here is a good one that should make preffing easier.

“If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose.” - Calum Matheson

Email for chain: adam.martin707@gmail.com

First: Qualifications

• Competing: St Vincent ‘16, UC Berkeley ‘20

• 3x TOC, 14 bids, coach’s poll, tournament wins, speaker trophies, etc

• Coaching: South Eugene 16-18, Analy 22-23, Sonoma Academy 2023-Present

Second: Argument Preferences

• I try very hard to be a judging robot. I will vote for any argument with a warrant. ASPEC, Process CPs, Death K, Set Col, Time-Cube - they are all as good as the warrant you give.

• I read a kritik on the aff and went for framework on the neg. I truly don’t have any emotional attachment to a particular argument.

• While I don’t have argument preferences, there are things I know more or less about.

• Debate things I know a lot about: Baudrillard, Deleuze, Bifo, Set Col, Queerness, Afropess, Framework debates, really any K

• Life things I know about: Philosophy, politics, tech, mushrooms!

• Debate things I don’t know a lot about: Most topics, competition theory norms, process CPs, general policy tricks. By don’t know “a lot” I just mean I’m not an expert - I still have a pretty solid understanding of all of this, but I generally prefer you explain more on competition shells rather than just reading 30 definitions and expecting me to know the norms of how to interpret them

• My lack of argument preferences applies to theory, meaning I’m more likely to vote for straight up “condo bad” than most judges. Just as I’m willing to listen to any arg, I’m equally willing to hear that an arg is unfair.

Third: Notes on How I Judge

• I flow what you say, not what I read in your doc. For the most part, I do not open speech docs during the round. I will not read your doc to understand something that didn’t make sense in your speech. This means you need to slow down on theory arguments and counterplan texts. I am a techy judge so if I don’t understand the CP because you went too fast, you don’t have a CP.

• Arguments need warrants. I will very quickly vote on 0 risk if you don't say "because" in your arguments and instead just extend author names. I am very strict about this so don't be surprised when my RFD says "you had no reason for this claim".

• Do not try and bring up anything that happened outside of the round. I cannot verify any claim about something external to the round. The only exception is disclosure. I will check the wiki to see if you disclosed if that is relevant to the round.

• Normal means is a thing and you should know how that works. If you write a vague plan text, you don’t get to define what it means. I assume that congress will pass the most likely interpretation of what your plan text says. You do not get to read a generic “federal jobs guarantee” plan text then say it just means bunny daycare jobs on Mars.

• New arguments in rebuttals are becoming the norm. I now hold the line for you in the 2nr and 2ar, but it is up to the 2nr to point out how certain 1ar args were completely new and explain why that means I should reject them. Flagging “no new 1ar args” in the block can help get ahead of this.

• Until an argument is made to the contrary, I think of voting for an advocacy as me signifying that that thing would be a good thing if done, not that the negative or affirmative has actually performed said advocacy.

• I will kick the CP for you if condo is never mentioned or won by the neg and I decide that the aff is a bad idea. This is something I am going to think about a lot but as of now, I will presume judge kick.

• Cross-applications are not new arguments. If the 1ar says reasonability on one T violation, and the 2nr goes for a different one, the 2ar can cross-apply it legitimately. However, this does assume that there was a reason why their c/i is reasonable in the 1ar.

• You can have my flow: I always wished that it wasn't awkward to ask the judge for their flow, so this is me telling you that it is not awkward for you to ask me for mine. I think that reading someone's flow of your speech is incredibly educational and so I will happily send you a copy.

• I may be standing for some or all of your speech. Yeah I know it’s weird, but sitting sucks. I promise I am paying better attention than the half-asleep judge sitting comfortably in their chair.

• Contradictions are only abusive if the negative asserts two opposing truth claims neither of which did the affirmative explicitly defend. This standard usually means it is more strategic to just cross-apply one of their claims to take out the other then spend your time no-linking the first position. To give an example, I do not think that it is abusive for a team to read a death reps K and then read a disad that has death impacts if your affirmative also had death impacts. I just can't conceive of how that could be abusive. There is no functional distinction between '1nc - Death K, DA, Case' and '1nc - Disease Reps K, DA, Case' in terms of abusing the affirmative. However, reading the cap K and then a DA that says the aff hurts cap and cap is good against an aff that is about emission reduction and doesn't mention capitalism is obviously abusive. The negative has made two competing truth claims, neither of which did the affirmative defend. HOWEVER, this rant is just my thoughts, and can be used by either team in the round but it does not mean that I won't vote for con if the neg reads a Death K and an extinction-level DA, I'll still evaluate it like any other round.

• Always send cards in docs, not in the body of the email. Otherwise it's hard for me to steal them.

• You can ask for a marked copy outside of cx, but any question about which arguments were read is cx.

Speaker Points – (I inflate/curve points depending upon the difficulty of the tournament)

To me, speaker points are where I get to reward quality debating. Quality debating means the following: understanding of your argument, clear speaking, smart choices, and kindness. My speaks may surprise you. A team who is less technical but clearly communicates their argument may get a 29.5, while a highly technical team who shadow-extends arguments without warrants may get a 28.5. I heavily punish being mean - there is no reason for it.

- Above 29.5: I will spend tonight crying about how beautifully you debated

- 29.5: I will tell my friends about you

- 29 – 29.5: You should get a top 5 speaker award

- 28.7 – 29: You should probably break

- 28.5 – 28.7: You gave solid speeches

- 28 – 28.5: You are a good debater, some strategic errors

- 27.5 – 28: You are decent, but made many errors

- 27 – 27.5: You made many mistakes, and probably lost the debate for your team

- 26.5 – 27: You made many errors and should end 1-5 or 0-6

- 26 – 26.5: You shouldn’t be in whatever level of debate you are

- Under 26: You were literally incomprehensible or offensive

 

I debated for Oakwood (not the one in LA) in California.
Short Version:

• I don't judge often, so I'm not familiar with topic lit
• It is in your best interest to not go your fastest
• Theory is not my forte

Speed: I can handle spreading, but please don’t go full blitz at me. I will yell clear 3 times before I start dropping speaks. Also, if you’re spreading just to scare your opponent and refuse to explain your case, I’ll drop speaks.
Extensions: I have a high threshold for extensions, so please extend your arguments fully or I won’t consider them extended.
Theory: I’m not a giant fan of theory, but just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean I won’t vote for it. The way I see it, theory should be run as a check on abuse or somewhat obvious potential abuse. I'm pretty much in tune with the norm on how most people view theory.
That is:
-I default to competing interps unless told otherwise
-I default to drop the arg not the drop the debater
-I like to see specific interpretations/violations/whatnot. If you're extemping a theory shell, make it as clear as possible.
-I meet with some sort of reason is a perfectly reasonable response to a shell
That being said, if you're a theory debater, I'm not the judge for you.
Skep: why
Kritiks: I really enjoy kritiks! As long as your prove a clear link to resolution, I’ll be a happy judge.
Framework: I default to a utilitarian worldview if nobody tells me differently. I enjoy engaging framework debates and philosophical discussions. Judging util-deont deadlocks in which each debater is reading generic dumps is not my favorite thing. Make it exciting.
Intervention: I honestly prefer not to intervene. However, I will intervene if neither debater has done enough work to warrant a vote. Also, I won't blindly vote on an unwarranted argument (even if it goes conceded).
Speaks: I won’t give less than a 26 unless your argument was offensive or you were incredibly rude during the round. Most debaters will fall in the 27-29 range.

Lots of weighing is a great way to get my ballot. I believe in voting on the flow. That being said, please be organized as you debate. Few things frustrate me more than debaters who don't signpost or tell me where they're going.
Most importantly, have fun! Feel free to ask me any questions      

I am a parent judge. I have judged LD and PF in the past years and like both formats.

Please email me your cases so that I can better understand what you are speaking in a virtual round: manumishra@yahoo.com

I appreciate well constructed arguments and clear speaking. There is no need to show over aggression in your speeches. Please don't spread but if you do that there is a chance I may not hear you and flow. Yes, I do flow a little though if it is in the context. I consider cross-X sessions also in my evaluation, so be clear when you answer and respectful when you question. Do not interrupt your opponent excessively and let them speak. If I am unable to hear clearly I will not be able to give any credits.

Please respond to all of your opponents arguments with proper justifications. Have proper evidences in support. Be truthful. If I find any indication of falsifying any evidence, that's a disqualification.

Off-time roadmaps are OK. Please stay within the time limits for your speeches.

Be well behaved and respectful to your opponent(s) and enjoy the debate rounds, good luck!

I am a parent judge. I will be taking notes during the round.

Please speak clearly and a fast conversational pace is fine

Please be courteous to your opponent.

Background in IT and finance

I'm a parent judge for Fairmont Prep that's been judging for a year and a half on the circuit. I have a son that's been doing this for 2 years and I most likely have a small amount of knowledge about each topic.

Preferences:

Lay judge

I take notes but please speak slowly if you want me to get everything down.

No theory or kritiks

truth>tech; don't have crazy impacts like nuke war

Condense at the end of the round and make it clear what I'm voting for

If you want a circuit judge, you should probably strike me. I'm a very traditional LD judge.

Talking Speed:

- I do not like spreading; please keep speeches at a traditional pace.

- If you spread, I probably won't flow your arguments.

Arguments and Cards:

- I will call for evidence if I am asked to.

- All arguments should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact.

- All cards should be tagged.

Theory/T:

- I do not like theory debates.

- I will absolutely not vote on theory/T.

Plans:

- I generally do not like to weigh offense from plans, but I will if I have to...

- Try and keep the resolution as broad as possible.

Framework:

- I am not well-versed in philosophy so keep it simple for me.

- Tell me why you win framework, and how your arguments link into it.

- I try to be tabula rasa with framework, but I do generally vote util.

I competed in PF for 3 years in high school and am familiar with the event/ debate in general. My threshold for speed is decent, but if you’re going too fast I’ll let you know.

I like when overviews and frameworks are stated outright- I think they keep the round organized and provide a good roadmap for me to evaluate your team’s performance. On this note, I also appreciate signposting in summary and FF. I also need to hear author name/year for all evidence, and may call for cards if necessary. I will drop arguments brought up in FF that weren’t in summary.

I award speaker points based on clarity through all speeches and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are offensive, sexist, racist, etc at any point in round, I will likely vote you down and dock your speaker points.

Good luck!

i flow the round but i'm not tech and i can handle some speed (be safe and just go slow). i'm pretty well-read on most topics, especially economic ones, but i'm tech over truth. logic > evidence w/o warranting. if the tournament allows me to i'll disclose w/ a detailed rfd

Milpitas High Speech and Debate 2010-2014

Mostly did Parli, Extemp and Congress.

Capable of flowing including moderate speed with clear headings but not the best.

Hello, I am Vasanthi, I have judged Public Forum debate for five years now. I am a flay judge.

Speaking: Please don't spread and be respectful during cross-ex (I will tank speaker points for rude behavior).

Cards: Don't drop cards (I need warrants and impacts for all important/collapsed on impacts), I don't care if you don't extend author name all the way to Final Focus, I just need the impacts and warrants extended. I may call for cards if serious disputes arise during the round.

Weighing: Both sides should weigh in Summary and extend all impacts. Any impacts and/or points dropped will be dropped from my flow. The second speaking team must respond to the first speaking team’s weighing or it will go conceded and I will weigh the round on the first speaking team’s weighing.

In General: Second speaking team must frontline briefly at least in rebuttal. First speaking team should frontline during summary. I will flow during cross if something really important comes up, but otherwise, it should be extended to other speeches.

I am a parent judge

speak slowly

I am a lay parent judge.

Please slow down and make you sure enunciate, and explain all your points thoroughly. English is not my first language so if you speak too quickly or use jargon, I will not be able to follow you clearly. In addition, please make your speeches as organized as possible to make it easier to judge.

I award speaker points based off of how well you speak, but I vote according to how well I think the arguments are made and responded to. Evidence is important, but I often also prefer logic.

I am not by any means a flow judge. I don't even really know what a paradigm is (my daughter wrote this for me).

Best of luck to both teams!

*** Note: Instead of an email chain, I prefer you create a public Google doc (that anyone can access) to share your evidence this avoids the delays of email. Please post the doc link in the chat before the round; Be prepared to post evidence requested in a very timely manner and be selective of what you ask for. If you're reading evidence, you are expected to produce the card as soon as you're asked. Recently, rounds have been taking too long, and it seems like some teams are turning evidence sharing into extra prep time!

---------------------------------------------

I'm a parent judge. Been judging for the last 6 years. My kids did/do Public Forum. I was a policy debater in high school, and judged a few tournaments in college. Keep in mind that was several decades ago.

So far, my judging experience has been mostly Public Forum, some Parli, less Policy, and even less LD.

1) Have fun. Enjoy every round. Make friends between rounds. I met my best friends from high school on the team.

2) Assume that I'm new to the topic because I AM new to the topic. Take time to convince me of your side of the resolution. If you use topic specific acronyms, make sure to define them first before using them. I will come to the round with a clean slate and judge based on what I flow

3) You can speak faster than conversational, but you NEED to be clear and articulate. Don't go faster than your ability to speak clearly and persuasively. Make eye contact with me to make sure that you can assess whether I'm keeping up with you and understanding your arguments. If I don't understand an argument, I can't vote on it

4) Whenever you can, establish frameworks to help me weigh the round

5) Help me by giving me a short roadmap before your speech. It's not required, but it can help me (and I think, you) know what you will be doing. It also helps if you are effective in signposting during your speech.

6) Be cordial and polite to each other during cross-ex and throughout the round. Being rude, offensive, or arrogant is no fun and doesn't earn you speaker points. Being polite, smart, inquisitive, and strategic does. I don't believe rounds are won/lost in cross-ex alone, but I do think that cross-ex is great place to setup your arguments through strategic questioning.

7) Help me weigh the arguments in your final speeches. Tell me why I should vote a certain way. The side that makes it easiest for the judge to evaluate why they're winning the round is often times the clearest winner.

8) I don't really care much for arguments revolving around debate theory as I'm not familiar with it, so try to avoid it if you can. I much prefer the clash over either side of the resolution.

9) Read #1 again. :-)