I have judged many tournaments before. Nonetheless, you should speak slowly and clearly and explain all your arguments well. If you have complicated link chains make sure you explain them thoroughly and impact them out. At the end of the round, I shouldn't have to do work for any of the teams in order to vote; towards the final speeches I expect you to weigh and tell me why your arguments matter and are winning you the round. Please keep debate jargon out of the round as I likely won't understand. Also, please be respectful towards one another.

I've debated Public Forum for four years as of now.

I am a parent judge and have judged over 50 PF rounds. I am a lay judge, but will try to flow arguments. You can view me as a knowledgable member of the public who has an open mind.

I believe that spreading has no value, educational or otherwise. If you spread, you are very likely to lose my ballot.

I do not look kindly on theory unless you are using it to check some form of abuse that your opponents are exhibiting in the current round.

I am usually knowledgeable on the topic and will be able to understand/know your arguments. I highly highly highly value logic. Support the logic with evidence.

I value the presentation of a well articulated top-level world-view from which your arguments flow. I prefer a small number of well thought out arguments as opposed to a large number of them.

I would like you to engage with your opponents and respond in a coherent and logical manner to the arguments that they bring up as opposed to just re-stating your position. Do not be two ships passing in the night.

Speaker points are based on how you appeal to a lay judge. If you give a good speech that has solid logic and is understandable by a lay person, you will get good speaks.

Stand up straight, don't slouch, make eye-contact and smile once in a way.

Act like you are winning and don't give up till the debate is over even if matters look dire. If your posture indicates that you think that you are losing, I will probably think the same.

I was once a policy debater so there is a reasonable chance that I will keep up on my flow. If I don't, that means there is a good chance you are talking like a policy debater yourself (or like an auctioneer, and I won't feel so bad if I miss something).

I will go where you take me. I will rely on your arguments rather than my own domain knowledge.

I do appreciate when debaters spell it out for me, not just why you should win the argument but how that argument should contribute to the decision. I look for clear links and impacts for the pivotal arguments. I understand that jargon is useful shorthand, but I will understand you better if the jargon does not become excessive.

I will tolerate kritiks but set a high bar for arguments that do not attempt to relate to the resolution, or that could be used regardless of the topic at hand (i.e. meta-arguments like that debate is pointless because we live in a flawed society). I appreciate clash delivered with a level of sportsmanship and manners.

"Persuasion is all about the tools and techniques of changing people’s minds, with or without facts and reason." -Scott Adams, "Dilbert" cartoonist.

Just keep me entertained, don't bore me with the details (just kidding). (But actually, keep it simple and straight forward. I don't like debate jargon.)

Speak slowly, clearly, and emphatically, but don't SHOUT. I don't flow cross, but I like speakers who bring up arguments from the cross. To me that says you are listening to your opponent and thinking.

Thank you, and good luck. May the coin flip be with you.

I am a lay parent judge! Please speak clearly, explain your arguments, and be kind.

Any type of racism, sexism, or other discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated.

I am a lay judge (debate parent) and have done parli judging at several tournaments. Don't spread, don't give me k's or t's or whatever - I don't understand any of it. Instead, follow the debate rules, make good arguments and show your speaking skills - have fun! Ask before the round if you have any questions.

I competed in parli in college and I currently coach Public Forum Debate. I understand stock issues and I look for them to be used during the round. I am big on the structure of arguments and expect the entire round to follow NSDA rules. With that being said I pay close attention to the quality of the arguments, not the quantity, so to me, it is more important to make good arguments than to make a lot. On the subject of arguments, while they are allowed, I do not prefer debates about evidence or debates about a debate. I would prefer that T arguments and evidence questioning be limited during the round. I think a debate is supposed to be educational and I prefer debates that are exactly that. So have fun, make good arguments and do not get caught up in the details. 

I am a parent judge. If I am judging your round, here are some things to keep in mind:

• Talk at a reasonable pace. I do not like spreading.
• Clarity is really important for speaker points
• Make sure your contentions are well backed up with evidence to convince me that your side is what I should vote for
• Be respectful to your opponent

Overall, have fun and enjoy the debate

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

Hi, I'm Hema! Here are my judging preferences.

- Please speak slowly and enunciate clearly.

- Keep your own time.

- Don't bring up new evidence in the final focus.

- If you want me to check a piece of evidence for validity, let me know and I will take a look at it after the round.

- I don't want to weigh arguments for you. Make sure to tell me why they matter more than your opponent's arguments.

- Be respectful during the debate, don't shout or interrupt each other or roll your eyes or anything like that.

- If I think it's a tie or there aren't any clear offensive arguments, I will vote based on strength of cross fire

- I won't give you visual cues like nodding whether or not I like your points.

- If it comes down to empirics vs theories, I will vote on empirics.

Just go with your preparation and keep it relevant to your topic and do your best. You'll be judged by each of the judging criteria outlined for each event. I'm given equal weights for each criteria at this time (may do weighting in near future).  

Flay judge

pepperomint@gmail.com for email chain

• do not spread!
• weigh impacts

I have judged PF for more than 2 years and 4-5 times per year. I value clear speaking. Please be polite and respectful to each other during rounds.

Please weigh your arguments and spell out my ballot.

I'm a lay judge. I have kids who debates, so I've judged some local circuit tournaments, but that's it. Please do not speak too quickly. Please be clear and nice to your opponent.

Please don't use too much debate jargon.

Otherwise, have fun in the round, make me laugh, and let's debate!

I am a parent judge and I have judged few tournaments.

I will be judging on the framework and team spirit.

Have fun debating!

1. Debaters can speak as fast as they can … but remember if I don’t understand the debater’s point I don’t give debater a point, given that I can understand fast speaking but not ultra-fast speaking;
2. I don’t give a win just because someone is better speaker; I look at how good the case is and how well it is supported throughout the debate.
3. I take Cross X Q/A (and clash) seriously and how debaters use them to attack opponent case or support their own case.
4. If case or argument doesn’t support Value and Value Criterion debater lose. Establish the connection between case and V/VC, don’t assume that it is self-explanatory.
5. Confidence is good but arrogance is no go; a strong attack on the opponent case is expected without crossing the arrogance line.

I have been a PF judge for 2 years and LD judge for 6 months. I am a lay judge. I would like LD participants to not do speed talk and use normal speed to make their points.

I have more than 3 years judging experience.

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

I am a parent judge. Talk so everybody can understand it.

I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.

Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.

PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND PLEASE

I did pf for 4 years completed on the national circuit.

Warrant every argument you make, and don’t expect your opponents/judge to take it at face value.

Weigh the round so I don’t have to, by the end of the second final focus it should be pretty clear who I am voting for because the debaters evaluated the round and condensed it for me. You don’t want to be in the position where I am left at the end of the round weighing arguments for you and putting the decision in my hands.

If you’re gonna spend 30+ seconds of your speech on framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what u gain/opponents lose. Speeches in public forum are too short for you to waste your time debating framework if winning it makes no difference on the overall decision.

Debate style: I am open to anything. If you’re going to talk fast you need to be clear and sign post properly or it will work against you. Be respectful to one another, you can be assertive and make points without being rude.

My name is Narender Enduri. I prefer candidates speaking slowly, clearly. They should respect each other during cross examination and don't take anything personal. I would like everyone to present proper evidence to back up any of their arguments, and the arguments should be logical and explained thoroughly. If you have any doubts before the round begins, feel free to ask me any questions.

Last updated: 2/7/20 for Berkeley 2020

Affiliation: Harker (2016 - present)

I debated for four years for Foothill (Pleasanton, Calif.) and competed pretty heavily on the national circuit, but never left California except for NDF (two summers) and the ToC (4-3, 2015). To that end, if you’re looking for a short paradigm read, you can assume I’m pretty similar to other first-year outs who make decisions largely based on the flow. Go as fast as you want (I'm good with anything below spreading level!), but look out for cues if I can’t understand what you’re saying (tl;dr: please enunciate clearly). I’ll also disclose and give oral feedback after the round as long as all debaters are okay with that. Additionally, please do not flip for sides/position until I'm in the room.

First and foremost, be kind to one another: to your opponents in CX, to your partner during prep time (don't yell at them! We're all out here trying our best), to any spectators, to the equipment in the room we're using, and to me. If I don't think you're being respectful, it will be reflected both in your speaks and my post-round comments to you.

My most important caveat is I will not evaluate an argument if you don't warrant it. For example, you cannot tell me “Vote Pro because we save ten thousand lives” if you do not actually spend enough time explaining to me *why* that’s the case. This means a handful of things:

1. Every argument / voter in the round should follow claim-warrant-impact. Given that I value warranting the most, I will not give you access to your impact unless you give me a warrant.
2. If the debate is a wash on the impact level, I will vote for the team that has superior warranting. This can be accomplished either through quantity (two warrants vs one), or quality (a particular warrant seems much more intuitive, and is backed by empirics). It all depends on how you weigh for me!
3. While I’d like to say I’m tab / a believer in tech over truth, I am much more likely to vote for intuitive arguments. That said, I ran some pretty sketchy stuff as a debater myself though, so if you have good, carded warrants for WW3 or human extinction, hit me with your best shot — but be cognizant that I will evaluate these arguments with a degree of skepticism.
4. If you run theory, I’ll make my best attempt to listen, but there’s a 99% chance I’m going to have significant difficulty understanding your advocacy. That means you should probably only run theory in the case of serious and obvious abuse.
5. It is impossible to warrant a bigoted argument. That means any racism, homophobia, sexism, elitism, etc. will not be tolerated if I'm sitting in the back of the room -- that stuff has no place in a community as wonderful as ours.
6. It is difficult to give five well-warranted responses to an argument your opponent runs. Quality > quantity.
7. I am much more likely to give you higher speaks if you and your partner do a superior job warranting.

Other random stuff:

No need for an off time roadmap before starting your rebuttal. Please just tell me which side of the flow you're starting on (i.e. whose side of the flow you want me to put the framework debate on).

I’m a big fan of creative frameworks that go beyond “lives are #1” or “net benefits,” such as trend arguments or weighing ST v. LT (or anything that helps to mitigates your opponents’ offense from the get-go).

I hate voting off of buzz words like “economic benefits” and “increased security” — give me good, quantified impacts and empirics to weigh. If you do not weigh for me, then I cannot guarantee I will weigh the way you want me to.

I strongly prefer that the second rebuttal address the 1st rebuttal -- especially if your opponents are reading turns -- but at the end of the day, make the strategic choice you think is best for you and your partner.

I flow old school, with a piece of paper paper and two Pilot G2 pens. I like to think I'm decent at getting everything you say down on the flow, but if something is super important, you might want to slightly slow down (for both the aforementioned reason and rhetorical effect).

I will call for cards if either you/your opponents explicitly tell me to do so in a speech, or if anything sounds exceptionally sketchy. If I think you're misrepresenting your evidence, I reserve the right to drop that card when making my decision.

If you're taking free prep time while your opponents are looking for evidence that you asked for, I will ask you to stop. Similarly, you shouldn't take too long finding evidence for your opponents.

The best summaries / final foci require minimal work on the flow. That means you should feel pretty good about your speech if you just see me drawing extensions for the whole two minutes.

TL;DR — I vote for the team with the better, cleaner narrative. The best way to do that is by weighing and giving me strong warrants.

Lastly, I believe that any spectator should be allowed in the room. Debate is an educational event at heart, and I learned so much by watching varsity teams back in the day. In prelims, I'm happy to ask that spectators not flow / take notes while watching (you can learn a lot by just listening), but in Elims, it's all a part of the game. I will be very disappointed in you if you choose to turn any spectator away, including parents! If you also have an issue with a spectator being distracting in the room during one of your speeches, you should tell me ASAP.

Of course, the most important thing is to have fun. High school debate doesn’t last forever, so enjoy it while you can! Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

Just convince me. Less debate jargon preferred. Be courteous. Don't give up easily.

No spreading -- Speech and Debate should be focused on oral presentations that can be heard and understood. When a speaker spreads, IMO, he or she simply regurgitates every bit of information discovered during research with the hope that something in the spew will address an opponent's points in debate or will somehow connect with the judge in speech. Think about elegant and effective speakers like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malala Yousafzai or even Mr. Rodgers. They touch the heart with their words, make listeners want to hear what they have to say, or convince them their point of view is correct. All of those should be a speaker's goal.

Do not be rude to other speakers--including those you are paired with on a team. In one PubFo debate I judged, one team member kept calling the other one "stupid," rolling his eyes, and demonstrating in every possible way that he did not want to be teamed with the other person. It was completely inappropriate and distracted me to the point that I couldn't even focus on that team's arguments. The rude team member received the lowest score I have ever given. Whatever flaws his team member may have had were completely overshadowed by the other's rudeness. If you cannot conduct yourself professionally with consideration and proper decorum, you are not a winning speaker.

In addition, do not talk while another speaker is performing during speech events (this also has happened numerous times), turn off your cell phone and other noise producing distractions (also a frequent and inexcusable occurrence), do not leave the room while a competitor is speaking--wait until the speaker finished, and leave all negative or positive comments about the speaker or the speech outside the competition room.

Debate is a two- or four-person event -- Make sure everyone has time to speak--as the rules require. Don't try to shut down an opponent (or your partner) by being overly loud or interrupting. It may be a permissible tactic in some forums--or with some coaches--to aggressively talk over someone or ask questions without giving time for response, but I think that shows weakness in addition to rudeness. If you have to rely on tricks or intimidation to win, that may be because you are unable to think quickly enough to organize an effective answer and use it to win the point. At any rate, if best option to win is using a trick or intimidation, you haven't really won, IMO.

Moderate the volume of your voice in accordance with the room - - Speaking too loudly in a small room is unnerving and makes it hard to focus on a presentation. Speaking too softly in a large room or when there is lots of ambient noise is also distracting and frustrating.

I know a lot about the topic and since I have been judging for the past almost two years, I do flow properly. Also, I believe that during cross-ex is when each side reveals their weaknesses and how well they have an understanding of the topic. So, I do closely look at cross fire.

Also, be nice and respectful to your opponents if you want high speaks from me.

In your summary, there can be new evidence but not any new arguments. In your final focus, there should not be any new arguments nor any new evidence.

Lastly, have fun!!

Email: gupta.arunav@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background: I debated PF for 4 years on the national circuit for Mission San Jose HS in California. I’m currently a freshman at UC San Diego.

Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize that with what my obligation as a judge is. That said, please let me know if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible for you.

———

General Things: I understand that every region has a different way of debating, so these are just my preferences. By all means, do whatever works for you.

(a) Good logic beats good evidence 90% of the time.

(b) Frontline/rebuild case in 2nd rebuttal

(c) No new arguments in final focus (unless first final focus is answering something new in second summary). If you want me to vote for an argument, make sure it's in summary and final focus.

(d) I will call for cards if there is a dispute over them, a debater tells me to call for them, or it sounds too good to be true and I'm curious.

(e) Please provide brightlines. Even vague ones are better than none. You aren't going to solve for millions of lives or entire degrees of global temperature unless you have the best cards on this topic we have ever seen. Be reasonable with your points of access or give me risk analysis to say otherwise.

(f) Defense is NOT sticky from rebuttal to final focus. If you make a response in rebuttal that goes unaddressed for the rest of the debate, you should still bring it up in summary if you’re going for that argument. This is especially true now with the 3-minute summary, or the second speaking team just gets too much of an advantage.

(g) If there is no offense remaining at the end of the round, I'll presume first speaking team, not con. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage.

Speaks: I start at a 28 for speaks. Points go up for good strategic decisions on the flow. Points go down for miscut cards, forgetting extensions, and rudeness in round.

Weigh!! I can't discern which of ten poorly weighed arguments is more important, but I can easily vote on one argument that is presented as the most important in the round. Most importantly, give me some sort of impact framing/standard if there is a clash between two competing values. If I am not presented with a way to weigh, I would default to my own intuitions (probably something like: lives > environment > economy), but for your sake, you should do the weighing for me so you don't leave the round vehemently disagreeing with my decision (which, to be clear, would be because of your absence of weighing).

Jargon: If you have to ask about using it, you’re probably using it incorrectly. Just don’t.

Theory/Ks: Proceed with caution. I understand that sometimes there are abuses or messages that transcend the round and thus need to be addressed, so I don’t want to deter the reading of it. But, I absolutely will not vote for theory or Ks that I think are used purely to win my ballot or that are not fully fleshed out (if you want to run it, commit to it)

Speed: I am okay with some speed, but I reserve the right to shout “CLEAR!” if you’re going too fast. I don’t have experience judging Policy/LD, so try not to spread.

Crossfire: I don’t flow crossfire, so if there’s something important brought up that you think I should know about, please mention it in a speech. 90% of the time I’ll be using CX to flesh out my feedback/comments.

(Stolen from Hebron Daniel's paradigm) #WORLDSTAR

If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being douchey) you are expected to yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and you're partner each get 1.0 added to your speaks. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get deducted 0.3 speaks for interrupting cross.

———

Finally, have fun, or there’s no value to this activity. Run cool shit, it’s fun. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

I am a parents judge. I will try to flow to the best of my ability.

Judging Criteria

Case Analysis: How well the debater develops a case in response to the resolution

Organization: How well the debater organizes both the constructive and rebuttal speeches

Value Clash: How clearly the debater emphasizes the value being supported by his side and how that value is being measured

Evidence: Although value debating emphasizes logic and persuasion, evidence should be used to supporting arguments.

Refutation: How thoroughly the debater refutes the opposing side and rebuilds his own case

Courtesy: How well the debater demonstrates respect to his opponent

I am a lay judge, a parent of a current competitor, who has judged for approximately 3 years in public forum and 1 year in lincoln douglas.

Please do not be disrespectful to other competitors and don't interrupt each other during cross-ex, or else I will deduct your speaker points.

I highly value logical reasoning and will vote based on my understanding of your argument.

I am a lay judge but I have 8 years experience judging League debates.

General Stuff:

Just speak at conversational pace and tone and use all your time.

Only go for topicality if its a glaring violation

Try to avoid using terminology-heavy debates.

If aff, focus on defending your policies and answer all of the negs points effectively and clearly

If neg, focus on finding gaps in the policy proposal and carry only the most contested and strongest negative stock issues into the 2NR.

Cross ex is the most important focus area for me in the debate.This is the only part of debate where neg/aff actively clash with each other. I look for teams to use the that time effectively.Don't cut off responses, unless they are stretching the time limit.

Don't give up in round, I keep an open mind throughout the debate, even the last speech.

I am a parent judge. Used to judge for public forum until my daughter recently shifted to LD. Please stick to traditional arguments that are clear and warranted. Your last speech (on aff) and part of your last speech on the neg should spell out very clearly what I should be evaluating in this round and why.

I judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round throughout the speeches and how each argument is weighed by each team. I prefer that you speak clearly so I can understand.

Hello, I am Sudhakar Jilla and I have judged for various schools over the last 5-6 years. I'm an average lay judge with no significant biases. nor am I ideologically opposed to voting for any argument. I think there's a side to be heard on everything - no hard and fast rules.

I am not a flow judge and I try to weigh arguments in terms of how convincing they are, do they back up with concrete evidence, defend their point of view and so on. Speed talking, being rude, condescending attitude, lack of clarity, not being respectful are definite turn-offs. If I can't hear or understand something important, it is your loss. I also don't appreciate misconstruing of evidence; if the card does not make sense to me, I will call for it and check to see if it states what you claim it says. I also expect opponents to call for evidence as well.

I don't understand all the debate jargon and would appreciate if you create clear link chains and explain them clearly. Interact with your opponents argument and tell me why I should prefer your argument over theirs.

Happy Debating !

Hi,

I am a flow judge and I judge purely based on participants arguments.

Here are few things that will get you winning points

- Clearly state the framework.

- I encourage creative cases. However, if someone is presenting an overreaching argument (or absurd), I expect the other side to call it out.

- Do not email your cases. This is a debate and we are not here to read documents.

- Do not spread. You need to articulate your case in a clear manner.

- Be courteous to your opponents. Argue the case and not the person. Any personal aggression will lead to loss of points.

- Present your arguments confidently and clearly. You need to believe in your arguments.

- Present multiple pieces of evidence to back up your arguments. If it is not provided, the opponent should call it out and I will drop your argument.

- Stick to the allotted time and do not run over time. However, you may finish your sentence that you started already without me dropping that argument. Arguments made after the clock will be ignored and will lower your score.

I will not disclose and all feedback will be provided in the ballot.

I have judged Lincoln Douglas Debate for a few years now. I am a lay judge, I do not understand spreading or progressive arguments. Some tips that you might want to take into consideration:

1. Please don't say or do anything that is offensive

2. I like a great Cross-Examination

3. Having good evidence comparison is really good

4. dont cross examine for the sake of examination, have some depth to it

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

6. Most importantly, I cant process your arguments at the speed of light, so please please speak slowly

Overall, have fun, it's your debate.

My son does debate at Gunn High School. I have had about 45 years of real-world experience. As a judge, my job is to keep an open mind, be an attentive listener, and let each team persuade me which way to vote.

- max wpm 100

- please respect yourself, your partner, and especially your opponents; cross-fire shouldn't be a lot of bickering but productive, even assertive, countering of arguments.

- please be nice

I am a parent judge. I have over a year of experience judging debate, mostly public forum. I can handle speedy or slow, disputatious or genteel, conventional or unorthodox. I am aspiring to be more effective at judging flow so don't feel that you must pander to me as a parent who has no understanding of the inner logics of debate. What I have little tolerance for is (1) condescension or other forms of blatant rudeness toward opponents, (2) insertion of the word "like" into every clause of every sentence, (3) spreading, and (4) fawning behavior toward judges. Have fun, try new tactics, make eye contact with your audience, deliver a cogent case with a tight set of arguments, and, oh yeah, have fun. Did I already say that?

I am a parent judge. I value truth over tech. Please go slow and be engaging. Never judged ld before.

Public Forum (See below for LD Specifics)

I debated for Mission San Jose High School from 2013-2017 and was relatively active on the Public Forum circuit in my junior and senior years.

I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered below, ask them before the round begins.

- I evaluate arguments on the flow.

- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

- I do not take notes during crossfire and will only be paying attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech.

- I will typically only vote on arguments if they are extended in both the summary and the final focus.

- No new evidence is permitted in the second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from an initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses and criticisms of evidence are fine.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly.

- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it is never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to steal your evidence.

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate.

- I will evaluate theory and Kritiks, as long as they are well warranted.

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm. This does not mean you can wave away your opponent's defensive responses by saying "a risk of offense always outweighs defense," because terminal and mitigatory defense are not the same thing. Terminal defense points out flaws in the logic of an argument while mitigatory defense accepts an argument as a logical possibility and attacks its probability or magnitude. I personally dislike 'risk of offense' type arguments because I think they encourage lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity. Some things are more important than winning a debate round.

- If you plan to discuss sensitive issues such as suicides, depression, sexual assault, etc., please issue trigger warnings at the top of your case.

- Please be nice.

P.S. It's true, I stole this from Max (my better half)

LD Stuff:

- I have not watched circuit LD in years, so please don't go faster than ~225 wpm while speaking extemporaneously. If you are reading off of a speech doc, I really don't care.

- I love a good K debate, but many K debates tend to not be good ones. If you cannot conversationally explain your K to someone you know outside of debate, then you probably don't understand it and aren't using it in a compelling way in the round.

- That being said, I am still a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. Don't shy away from running anything in front of me, but if you go for it, it must be clearly explained and implicated in your last rebuttal.

If you have concerns, you can reach me at keshavkundassery99@gmail.com

I am a parent judge with approximately 3 years of judging experience in PF and LD. I maintain a light flow but I am closer to a LAY judge than to a flow judge. Please NO SPREADING - please speak at a slow to medium pace so we can follow you along.

Also, I ask that you be respectful to opponents and not interrupt them during their time to talk. Please allow them to finish their point before you ask questions. Please do not shout or be too aggressive because that will lower you speaker points.

I am not a fan of Kritik or theory arguments, but will allow it if you take extra time to walk through your points slowly.

If there is a clear winner in the round, I will disclose. But more often I will take necessary time after the round to decide and then submit RFD and feedback through Tabroom.

Thanks for checking my paradigm if you happened to check.

Firstly and importantly disclosed, I am an immigrant (moving to US only after 30) and English is not my first language. Please consider it and set your tactic right for ESL (English as a Second Language) as a judge, if you're a debater.

Please listen carefully what opponent says and please construct your turn more relevant to what other says, rather than only speaking what you 've prepared or repeating what you've already told.

Please refrain from just insisting or repeating lots of evidences as to support your claim, as they won't mostly buy me, cause I can't verify them whether they are true or not while I am listening to your debate. Right ?

I hope you will use more common sense than sci-fi articles, researches, newspapers, which requires lots of pre-knowledge. I won't even remember what you said after the debate. Right ?

To me, the debate is not whose claim is right or wrong, but whose appeal is more compelling to vote for.

You will earn my vote by the way you speak, listen, or gestures, and how you invalidate others claim or support your points well ...etc
(balance of all) and your consideration to ESL as a judge.

I have enjoyed serving as a judge for middle school/high school debates. On one side, I am looking for a presentation with clear contention, consistent logic and concrete supporting materials. On the other hand, debate is full of dynamical interactions between players, I pay a lot of attention to approaches of responding and countering the other side.

I competed in PF for four years at Harker and am now a sophomore at Stanford. I'll flow all speeches in the round.

I evaluate framework and overviews first. I like it when debaters tell me what types of impacts are most important and how I should evaluate impacts. It helps you organize and helps me better understand where you’re going. It also improves your narrative.

I’ll only vote on voters and issues that are in the final focus. Don’t extend through ink (and if your opponents do that, please extend defense). I don't need the first summary to extend defense if it is not covered by the second rebuttal. Ideally, every voter at the end of the round should be packaged with three things: frontlines, extension of impacts, and weighing of those impacts. Please extend warrants where they are logically required for the impacts you are going for. Be strategic and don't go for everything.

I award speaker points based on how you speak in speeches and how you conduct crossfire, but content trumps style (rigorous argumentation beats pretty speaking). Speed is maybe ok if you’re clear and look out for non-verbal cues. Only do speed if you can manage to avoid sacrificing clarity and quality of argumentation. I also like getting an off-time road map (think about including things like where I should flow overview arguments, which contentions you might frontline in second rebuttal, or breaking down how you’ll attack a one-contention case).

Here are some situations in which I'll intervene:

1. I'll call for evidence if it is disputed in-round, or if there are 2 clashing pieces of evidence that are both extended and not weighed. Don't misrepresent evidence; I may drop the debater if I think the offense is grave.

2. If you don't weigh your impacts against your opponents', then I'm free to make my own conclusions about which ones matter more.

3. If you are blatantly offensive, I'll drop your speaker points and may drop you.

4. Theory is ok to check egregious abuse, though I've noticed that I usually have to do a decent amount of work to vote on it.

5. I'm never entirely sure what to do when critically important internal contradictions arise... so just avoid it

As a side note, regardless of the tournament rules, I will be a bit annoyed if you insist on no spectators in the room (or take any other action that shamelessly puts competition and education at odds). The educational value of watching others debate is immense. We come to exchange ideas, not to withhold them, and this is the part of the activity I have always loved.

Finally, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. If you're confused about my RFD after the round, I would rather you discuss it with me than to leave feeling dissatisfied; I always grew the most as a debater when I lost rounds.

Good luck!

I have been doing PF judging for two years, in both preliminary rounds and elimination rounds. I pay more attention to rebuttal and how each side picks the other side's weak points and respond during cross fire.

Name: Charles Ray Miskelley

School Affiliation: Miramonte High School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 4

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 4 (LD)

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? N/A

What is your current occupation?

Lawyer

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: Slow and understandable

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Line by line

Role of the Final Focus: Tell me why you are winning, weigh your impacts or I will not vote on them — most important part!

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Extend everything you want to weight on and have a clear narrative throughout the entire debate.

Topicality

Plans: no

Kritiks: No

Flowing/note-taking: I will flow the best that I can

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?: Argument over style!!!

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?: must be extended in summary, not necessarily in rebuttal unless you are frontlining

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?: no

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?: absolutely not. Must bring up arguments before grand cross for them to be weighed in the debate.

I am a parent judge who has experience since 2017. For speaker evaluations, I pay attention to basic skills like enunciation, intonation, volume, pacing, eye contact, facial expression, and gestures. For debate, I keep track of arguments and logic presented by each side, as well as whether counter-arguments were persuasive. If appropriate to the debate form, I also consider the strength of the evidence presented by each side. The winner of the debate is the side with the most clearly communicated and defended arguments. I strongly dislike spreading.

I generally take a tabula rasa approach to judging. However, having experience as a former debater, I will not evaluate arguments that are blatantly incorrect or offensive. I will normally disclose but If you want a good oral critique, then be willing to get roasted.

In the round:

• I need impact calculus with comparative analysis in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will likely not be as favorable for you.
• Don’t extend through ink.
• I only weigh arguments in the final focus if they were also in your summary.
• Don’t go for everything past the rebuttal. Employ strategic issue selection and tell me what the important voters are and why you are winning them.

 Arguments:

• I’m fine with most arguments but if you choose to go progressive (kritiks, theory, etc.) do it right, don’t butcher it, and stick to the procedurals.
• Framework is not an essential part of public forum. That being said if you choose to read a framework, utilize it because I will vote off it.

Delivery:

• I’ll give extra speaks for a tastefully savage remark. This is NOT an invitation to be rude which I have no tolerance for.
• When it comes to your rate of delivery, I’m fine with whatever but be sure not to sacrifice clarity for speed.
• I don’t flow cross so don’t get upset if I’m not writing while you and your opponent compete to talk over each other. This means that if you want me to account for an argument, you need to bring it up in a speech.

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

Hello,

My name is Hugo and I’ve been a lay judge for hire for 3 years. I do not have any experience competing as a speaker/debater. Please do not spread or I won’t be able to keep up. Speaking quickly is alright though, but if I can't follow along then I might miss the main point of an argument. Assume I know nothing of the subject. Good luck young debaters.

The best speaker always wins. Be nice. Be respectful. Be kind. Be professional. Be better than Max Wu. 

I am a lay judge. I have been judging (lay) PF, LD, and Policy for 3 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 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!

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

This is my first time judging and i am very excited. 

I am a parent judge and participating in PF events since last 2.5 years.

I value qualitative evidences, their relevance to the contention being made and how well candidates are countering their opponents’ arguments to support the overall case.

Some points for contestants to note:

- I will drop brand new argument or front-lining evidence brought fresh in 2nd Summary speech, only if Pro team brings it to my notice in their 1st Final Focus speech

- I will not weigh brand new argument or front-line evidence brought fresh in 1st Final Focus speech

- I will drop speaker points for bringing in brand new argument/front-line evidence in 2nd Final Focus speech and also will not consider such evidence / argument

- Please note it's okay to disagree with opponent's views but do every effort not to ridicule them

- One would like to keep check on language and emotions

Though I am a parent judge, I have judged several tournaments of Public Forum before this. However, I would suggest to speak at a slower pace.

I am a graduate of MIT and Stanford Law School. I practiced patent litigation for over 20 years, and am now retired.

I focus heavily on the strength of the positions you decide to take and how you formulate those positions. Having been a litigator for so long, I not only will understand your arguments, I will also independently evaluate their robustness.

Speed does not bother me. However, if you use speed to make or address a weak argument, you will be graded down. Real lawyers deal with time limits by focusing on their strongest arguments, not by talking more quickly.

When you are under cross-examination, directly answer the question being posed. If your answer is evasive, I will know immediately and you will be graded down.

Real lawyers do not shout. Shouting is a distraction for a listener that is impossible to ignore. It also causes the listener to wonder if you are attempting to compensate for a weak position. While I will not grade you down solely for shouting, I cannot guarantee that it will not negatively affect my perception of your arguments.

I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 4 years.

I will be flowing.

Good luck !

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

i am a parent but i have been judging for a long time (over 6 years) now. i want to see everyone in the round signposting.

for public forum, i want to see you guys weighing impacts in the last 2 speeches. i will do my best to flow and keep track of the debate. mild to moderate speaking speed is ok.

above all, be respectful and polite to each other and have fun. you will get higher speaker points for making me laugh. there is a fine line between being aggressive and rude, and if i feel that you are being disrespectful, i will not hesitate to drop you.

I've been judging for 3 years. I will be flowing your evidence and arguments. Speak at a reasonable pace and be respectful during crossfire. Arguments brought up during summary and after will be dropped. Clearly weigh the round and state why I should vote for your side.

I am a parent judge and I have been judging for the last 3.5 years.

I have judged 3.5 years of Policy, 2 years of Parli, and a very little bit of PF.

I will protect the flow and have experience judging fast debate, but I strongly dislike it when debaters spread and/or introduce excessive off-case arguments. Do not run Kritiks. Theories and Topicality are acceptable only if thoroughly explained. Avoid running anything more complex than that.

I will not default toward any side and I try to judge every round with no prior knowledge or biases.

Be nice to each other. Don't go fast. Make extensions and weighing clear. If your argument doesn't flow through cleanly, I'm not going to do work for you. Quality of arguments > quantity. Frontline in second rebuttal.

Blueface references are +1 speaks. If you can fit an entire verse in one of your speeches, I'll probably give you a 30. Don't be abusive. I don't evaluate Theory or Kritiks.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for one year.

I have only judged for PF.

Please go slow, enunciate, and speak loudly.

I do not judge often so please keep debate jargon to the minimum.

I am parent and have minimal judging experience.  I judged two debate rounds in the past. I have a decent knowledge of the current topic.

I will very closely adhere to whatever framework you use. In a similar vein, I'm going to rely on you to weigh your impacts against your opponent's. Therefore, you should weigh impacts.

Your best strategy is to do a really good job developing a few arguments. A) It's a lot more convincing to reason me through why you're right than to dump 18 cards, and B) I can't write nearly as quickly as I can understand your argument (I speak quickly but write really, really poorly). You can do some fairly complex analysis talking quicker than most people would like (don't spread though) and I'll probably be able to follow you. If you give me 10 separate simple arguments, I'm not going to be as enthusiastic about voting on them and there's a decent chance I'll miss the argument and not write it down.

Don't be rude. Seriously. It's really obvious when you're rude and I won't want you to win. I'll still vote for you if you do, but I'm going to be very bitter while clicking that button. Also, it almost never helps, so don't be rude.

You can ask me to call for evidence.

You can finish your sentence after 2 minutes on summary/final focus (and you can probably get away with starting and very quickly finishing a broad sentence), but I'm not flowing anything after 2 minutes.

I am a lay judge. Don't spread.

Truth > Tech

Please do not just hand me 80 cards and say look we have evidence. Make sure you explain your evidence.

Anything in final focus must be in summary.

It's fine if you are passionate in crossfire but yelling will result in lower speaker points. Also do not laugh at your opponents or I will lower your speaker points. Doing well in crossfire is important to me as well.

Also Theory and K cases are not appreciated.

I do not disclose (in prelims) unless required.

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 lay parent judge and have judged very few PF rounds before.

I prefer a normal speaking pace during speeches and crossfire.

I would also like speakers to provide an off-time roadmap before speeches and signpost during speeches.

I do not know much debate jargon.

Be courteous to each other throughout the round.

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

Enjoy your debate!

Volunteer Parent Judge.

Framework/Standard - important

Signposting - helpful

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

I have never competed in Speech or debate. I have judged public forum for three years and Lincoln - Douglas for one. But according to my child, I am still a lay judge. I do take notes in the debate however. I need you all to evaluate the impacts for me. Please make the round clear for me. I want you to signpost everything, so I know where to take notes. Furthermore, don't be mean and rude in the round.

Teams must respectful of eachother.

Facts and evidence are the most important in a round.

I am a parent. This is my fourth year judging debates, and third year judging public forum. Refer to my judging record to gauge my judging experience.

I know some debate jargon, but am still learning. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most experienced judge, I would rate myself as a 6. I prefer to watch a debate as a civil and intelligent professional exchange of opinions. Be courteous to everyone. Do not mis-interpret any evidences and have your cards ready in case I call them. (Mis-representing a piece of evidence is enough reason to lose a round. So be careful here. )

On speaking style, I prefer well organized and clearly articulated speeches.

Good luck and have fun!

P.S. I don't disclose in prelim rounds unless it is required by a tournament.

P.S. When judging, I base my decision on information presented to me in the round and how it is presented. Use your judgement when deciding how to engage me in conversations.

I debated for Loyola High School for 4 years (policy), Wake Forest University for a semester (policy), and El Camino College for two years (parli). I now coach PF at the Harker School.

I've debated both traditional and nontraditional forms of debate. There really isn't an argument that I won't hear. I have a higher threshold for theory, and rarely vote on potential abuse. But beyond that I do not have any serious predisposition to any arguments you read. Or at least I shouldn't... Blatantly offensive arguments, like impact turning racism or etc, probably will lose you the round though. Just be smart.

Speaker point break down - I'm pretty fair about speaker points (though I don't think there will be a judge who will tell you they aren't fair about speaker points) but I'm quick to catch on to things on general impoliteness vs sass (love sass). Just be a good person and speak well etc etc. Y'all should be mature enough to know what that means.

PF -- "paraphrasing" your evidence is not evidence and will result in a loss.

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.

Do not speak rapidly.

I believe spreading in debate has no educational value so I am extremely prejudiced against it.

Please state your opinions and evidence clearly.

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

Name: Joy Yang

School Affiliation: Monta Vista High School, Cupertino, CA

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 4

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: reasonable speed so that the audience can understand. Spreading doesn't help.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Big picture

Role of the Final Focus: I am looking for a great summary so that even if I might have missed something during the debate, I can still be reminded of the major points here.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Fine but make sure I can follow the logic and can remember everything.

Topicality

Plans

Kritiks

Flowing/note-taking

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? - I am leaning more towards argument

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? - Both

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? - Depends. Debate, in my opinion, is a 2-way conversation, hence it should be fluid and adaptive, rather than being restricted to a pre-defined pattern.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? - Depends on which one is stronger and delivered in a more convincing manner

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

I am not that concerned about if one side answers all of the questions raised by their opponents or not, rather I am more interested in the big picture, overall how strong the evidences are, and how the evidences are being delivered to convince me one way or the other.

*** 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. :-)