I am a lay judge. I prefer traditional arguments. Please try not to run theory, Ks, or any other circuit arguments. I will have a hard time understanding them. However, if you do choose to run circuit arguments, spend a little more time explaining them.

These are my preferences:

Speed: I can not judge speed. It is still a challenge for me. Slowing down makes it much easier to follow your arguments.

Signpost: Signposting is important.

Links: The links between each contention and its value must be clear.

Extensions: Try just not to extend the tag and the date, explain how the card is important and relevant in this round.

Crystallization: A very crucial technique. You should be able to sum up your debate by addressing the most important arguments in a simple and clear manner.

Final notes: Be polite, courteous and follow the rules.

Good Luck!

I have been judging LD for 3 years. Not many rules:

1. I appreciate a good clash but don't be rude. I will deduct points for rudeness to your opponents.

2. Don't spread. Make the argument, cite examples (warrants) and persuade me why your argument is superior to your opponents.

3. Signpost & Crystallize. I will be flowing with you, but be sure that you signpost elements that you want me to pay attention and try and crystallize.

4. Don't make up spurious facts. If your opponent catches you and points that out ~ that is automatic deductions.

Apart from that, enjoy yourself.

I am a parent judge who has two years of experience judging primarily traditional debate in the Coastal Forensic League. I have judged some circuit debate in the past, but my experience and knowledge of it is very limited.

On spreading, I discourage it, but if you choose to do so anyway you must disclose with both me and your opponent. If I say "clear" more than 3 times I will stop flowing you.

I have no experience on theory/T, so if you decide to run it signpost everything and please speak slowly.

K's are similar to my experience on theory/T, so be sure to go slowly and signpost.

I have limited experience on meta-ethics and those types of frameworks, so if you want to be creative with framing be sure to explain it clearly enough for me to understand, otherwise I will not know how to evaluate your arguments and will default on your opponent's framework.

Plans and counterplans are fine, just be clear with your text and net benefits.

What I want to see you do in the round is clearly link your impacts back to your framework.

I am parent/lay judge with a couple of years of experience. I believe in the values aspect of LD and will look to your V + VC and how you tie back your contentions to the values.

I pay special attention to cross ex as that provides a good insight into your knowledge and understanding of the topic. It also provides a way for you to expose or set traps for the opponent or emphasize your position.

LD is a debate between you and your opponent. If your opponent states a fallacy or is illogical in their approach, I expect you to attack them and point them out for me. I will not make the connection or use my own bias for determining the winner of the round. Please make sure that you have the evidence to back up your claims - this is important for me.

Speaking: Please do not rush through your speech - a fast conversational pace is OK. Spreading is not OK with me - I cannot offer my opinion if I do not understand you.I don't like when debaters are rude to one another and will take speaker points off so please keep the rounds civil and courteous.

Note taking: I write down key contentions and notes during the round - usually on my laptop or tablet.

Voting issues: Not entirely necessary but helpful where you can provide.

I am a parent judge with approximately two years of judging experience in both novice and varsity LD. I prefer concise speaking, and want clear signposting when refuting arguments. Don’t spread. Flush out your impacts and show me why everything you say matters in the larger scheme of the debate. You won’t get the vote if you only read pieces of evidence but don’t show me how they matter. Most importantly, be courteous to each other.

I started judging in 2017 and don't have any personal experience with speech or debate. I consider myself on the novice end of the spectrum. In addition to the tournaments in which I judged, I have spent a fair amount of time trying to understand how I can be a better judge in hopes I can give constructive feedback understanding all of you have put in so much time. With debate, I prefer a slower pace and like an off-time road map. Please no spreading.

Cheers

I am a lay judge, so no spreading, k's and theory please.

Overall, I want to see clash, but please be polite in round. I will buy your arguments if they are logical and make sense even if you don't have evidence to back it up. That being said, use evidence when you can.

Please do impact calculus when possible, but explain ideas thoroughly, I will not make connections for you.

Most importantly, speak clearly, explain your ideas well and have fun!

I am a LD judge and have been judged for 4 years. I weigh the round of value and value criterion. Please link back to framework. Also make sure all arguements are topical.

I am a parent judge, so please don't run anything fancy as I will probably not understand so I will probably not vote off of it.

Please NO SPREADING. I will not be able to understand what you say and it's a lose-lose scenario for both of us.

If you are nice and respectful, I will be sure to give you high speaks.

Assistant Debate coach at Grapevine HS, TX
Coaching since 2010 - primarily LD, Congress, Public Forum
Competed in LD as a high school student

Speed: You can speak at the pace that you prefer, but I will yell clear if you're going too fast.

Evidence: Full citations, with a clear explanation of your evidence. Please signpost.

Flex prep: I don't like it.

Theory: Not my favorite, but I have voted on it and at times it was quite relevant to the round.

Philosophy: If it is really esoteric, make sure you explain the importance of it. Personally, I like hearing Philosophy in LD rounds.

Crystallization: The last speech should be purely crystallization (no line by line). Make sure you're weighing and tell me why you won the round.

Value: I weigh value and criterion clash HEAVILY in the debate round.

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

I am a first year LD parent judge. However, I have participated in speech & debate tournaments myself in high school.

As a new judge, I prefer standard speech/moderate speed, and will follow critical arguments. Also, I like well constructed arguments, that are to the point and not repetitive. No heavy LD/debate jargon please. I am learning flow techniques, and will track value points, evidences and rebuttal arguments.

Cards: I prefer quality over quantity in general. Therefore, lesser number of cards but with more powerful, precise and relevant information/data is preferred over a multitude of loosely connected evidences.

Be courteous and enjoy the debate.

Lay Judge

Please don't spread. thanks.

Argumentation

Basic policy arguments and stock cases are preferred. Plans are fine as long as the focus doesn't come down to a T debate.

On neg

Preferably stock negs with a VC. No Ks. No Theory. CPs and Pics are ok.

Like every other lay judge, be nice to each other and have fun.

-This is written by the debater if there are any questions go email cf51888@gmail.com

ABOUT ME: 

I’m a Computer Science major at UCLA, and debated LD at Milpitas High School for 3 years. Two of those years were on the circuit. My senior year, I cleared at most of the bid tournaments I attended and ended up bidding once. I can 100% guarantee you that I’m not going to be able to cover every single question you have in this paradigm, so feel free to message me on Facebook or email me at raks.garg@gmail.com for any questions you might have. 

SCU SPECIFIC:

It's been 3 years since I've done any kind of judging or competing. Don't expect me to know new tricks and don't assume a baseline understanding of the resolution. It's also been a while since I've flowed, so feel free to spread but PLEASE start slow and be organized for the sake of my flow and your speaker points. I'll probably ask to borrow paper, just FYI. 

The rest of this paradigm is specific to how I judge LD, but can be extended to all forms of debate. 

DEFAULTS:

Drop the arg on theory/T 

No RVI’s on theory/T

Presumption flows aff

Remember that these are just defaults and I can be persuaded for or against them. 

STYLISTIC THINGS: 

Tech > truth

Flash whatever you read! If flashing isn’t an option, pass pages or let your opponent read over your shoulder. (As a general rule, good disclosure practices are good.) 

Extensions need claim, warrants, and implications

2AR Extensions don’t have to be perfect

I don’t see the point in extending the interpretation or plan/CP text

Big picture analysis is good. Very good. 

Pls crystallize by the end of your last speech.

CX is binding

I like when debates are about the topic

SPEAKS:

Speaker points are a reflection of your strat choices, not how well you speak. I will yell clear, slow, loud, etc. as needed. I give pretty inflated speaks. I love watching funny debaters, so if you make me smile or laugh, expect a slight raise. Good strategies are always fun to watch. If I think you deserve to clear, you're easily looking at 28.5+

SPREAD:

Haven’t spread/flowed spread in a while -- start slow and build up. Slow down on the important stuff—theory interps, plan texts, some 1 sentence a-priori that you think is going to be hot stuff in the 2AR, basically anything you think i should pay extra attention to. It wouldn’t hurt to even say, “Rak, pay attention, this is important” 

THEORY:

I’ll vote on any shell, any interp, no matter how unconventional it is, but expect your speaker points to be inversely proportional to the frivolousness of your interp. If its “A: Interpretation: Must wear blue ties,” I’m going H.A.M. on your speaks and not in the good way. I presume aff on theory, and I’m not afraid to presume if the flow gets messy, so be smart about how y’all handle yourselves. 

TOPICALITY: 

I love T debate. I will vote on T debate. I will boost speaks for good T debate. I presume neg on T. 

RVI:

I think the RVI is illogical but I can see that it does have a place in competitive debate. I can be persuaded for either RVIs good or bad as long as its well handled (on both T and Theory). 

KRITIKS: 

If they’re simple enough that you can explain them to me without me giving you a “help me I’m lost” face, go for it. If not, it might be in your best interests to avoid it. I don’t have anything against K’s, its just that I’m probably not the best person to read them in front of, especially if you’re spreading. I’ll do my best to keep a tidy flow and keep everything organized, but I might be a better judge to read traditional plans/disads/t/theory in front of. 

DISADS/COUNTERPLANS/PLANS

Go for it.

FRAMEWORKS:

I found myself running a lot of util + a dash of determinism my senior year. Feel free to read whatever you want as long as its well warranted. Just make sure you keep your list of 14 reasons why your ethic is true organized (ESPECIALLY if you’re gonna extend a random justification in the 2AR/2NR and expect me to vote off it). 

MORALLY ATROCIOUS ARGUMENTS:

As much as I believe that debate should be an unrestricted space for free speech, I’m going to have a very hard time voting on your arguments if they create a hostile atmosphere for me or anyone else in the room. I know this sounds really arbitrary, but just ask me before the round if I’d be down for an argument you think you might end up reading. You probably know who you are if this applies to you.

DISCLAIMER: I’m perfectly okay with Extinction Good/Overpopulation turns/disads.

I am a LAY JUDGE. I have been judging Public Forum and Lincoln - Douglas for the past two years. You will need to speak slowly for me to understand your arguments. Signpost and weigh your arguments clearly. I expect you to know your speech times and keep track of them yourself. Please do not use unnecessary jargon, this means no Kritiks, Theory, or Topicality. If you believe there has been a rule violation, please bring it up after the round while your opponent is still present. Do not be aggressive or rude, otherwise it will hurt your speaks. No shouting or raising your voice, emphasizing words and phrases is fine. Please be civil.

Parent Judge of a LD debater. Flay: understand FW arguments.

I have been judging speech and debate for couple of years. I love to hear good debates with good use of language and arguments related to the topic. I take copious notes. My expectations is that the debaters will have mutual respect for one another.
At the end of the debate we all should leave the debate learning and gaining something new from one another.

My name is Sandeep Gopisetty and I am a parent of a former LD contestant and now currently a parent of an IE contestant.

Although I prefer a traditional Lincoln Douglas debate, I am open to flow as long as the arguments are at a speed that I can understand the points being made. My evaluations are always based on the debate and not on the loudest or even the best speaker. Historically, I have provided feedback to the candidates right after the debate based on arguments, its evidences and cross-examinations with suggestions to improve.

Prefer debaters to speak not too fast. Standard news reader speed <= 150 wpm preferred.

I have been judging for 3 years now. I judged 2 years for PF and 1 year LD.

paradigm written by my son (leon huang)

don't read china bad (he will hack against)

Pays attention. Likes logic. If something doesn't make sense to him he won't like the argument (and might drop you). In other words, read warrants and slow explanations.

Ways to get higher speaks/make a better impression/probably win the round:

1. Be confident and assertive, but don't be rude.

2. Crossfire is cool.

3. Be confident during speeches.

If the tournament allows, I can provide you disclosure if you reach out.

Speak clearly, SLOWLY and to the point. Make sure to clearly explain your arguments and support them with credible evidence. In rebuttals, clearly reference the argument you are refuting, and be sure to give a quick overview, or off-time road map, before your speech for clarity.

I am an experienced parent judge. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments. I will decide based on the arguments' quality and how well you articulate it.

I am a parent judge, and my recent judging experience is limited to Lincoln Douglas last year. Prior to that, many years ago, I judged strictly policy debate. My personal debate experience consists of policy debate throughout high school and parliamentary debate in college. Likely many former debaters, I honestly believe that I learned more in debate than in any other aspect of my formal education.

If I am judging you, you should know the following about my preferences:

-You can speak fast, but you do need to speak clearly and with sufficient volume. Ultimately, debate is about communicating an argument. If I can't hear you or understand you, then that really isn't communication.

-Don't drop arguments. If an argument is patently illogical, please simply point that out.

-If an argument is specious, and if logic is sufficient to demonstrate the fallacy of the argument, then a coherent counter argument without evidence is superior to presenting evidence without logic.

-Quality of your arguments will almost always trump quantity.

-Since this is my first year judging PF, and I have no personal experience doing PF, I am fairly open minded about technical aspects of debate.

-I do have a pet peeve. This should go without saying, if you are using someone else's case or briefs, please make sure you know how to correctly pronounce the words that you are saying and please make sure that you do understand what you are saying.

Please realize that I value debate, and I truly enjoy judging debate rounds. I am not judging because I need to fulfill a judging obligation, and when I will am judging you, I will be having fun listening to you debate regardless of what my face says. I also respect that you are spending your weekends debating, because I know that there are plenty of other things you could be doing instead.

I judge on how well you are organized, how well you support your points, how well you refute your opponent's points, and your speaking skills.

In general:

-I’m Tabula Rasa.

-I’m probably not informed on the topic so don’t assume I know anything.

-Being rude inside or outside of the debate round will give you 20 speaks

-Cards must be cut to NSDA standards

-I’ll flow, but not if you begin spreading.

-When citing evidence in case, please cite the author’s LAST NAME and YEAR. I don’t like hearing “According to Alternet...”.

-Paraphrasing is okay, but if an opponent challenges it, I need to see the card.

-You must weigh everything and collapse; impact calculus is great.

-I won’t flow Cross-Ex, so if anything important is brought up, mention it in your next speech (Cross-Ex is important for speaks though.)

-I don’t require the neg rebuttal to do defense, but I want everything (offense and defense) in both summary

-No new evidence/arguments in Final Focus

Public Forum

-I think PF is the wrong place to run a K

Speed:  Does not matter as long as delivery does not suffer.  However, extreme speed makes it hard to find signposts in your arguments.

Signposts: Signposting is important for clarity and makes it easy to follow the flow.

Links between contentions:  The logic between linking contentions must be clear.

Summation:  You should be able to re-state your position by addressing the most important arguments in a concise and clear manner.

Overall:  Politeness, courtesy and respect for all participants is paramount. May the best debater win.

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

Speak slowly! Articulate your verbiage with great diction. Please present as few contentions as possible to allow both the affirmative and negative teams to have a quality debate. Always have excellent eye contact with the judge. Take pauses occasionally to allow everyone a break from the intensity of the argumentation. Use wit from time to time to lighten the moment. Never, never be sarcastic against your opponent! Be as passionate as possible no matter what side of the debate you are on.

I am a lay judge

Creative Construction (Start / End )

Stay within Context even while Cross Ex.

Exhibit Confidence

Logical Flow

Right Intentions

Content over Speed

Quality over Quantity

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Rangnekar%2C+Rajesh

I am a parent judge and have enjoyed judging many LD debates. I appreciate structure and clarity in presenting the contentions and look for logical arguments supported by evidence where possible. I do not follow spreading which may lead to a disadvantage in my allocation of speaker points and assessment of overall performance. I appreciate engaging debates that are done in a mutually respectful manner and without exaggeration. Feel free to ask me questions at the time of the debate.

Overview:

Type of Judge: “Lay”

Speed? - Yes

Judge Disclosure - No

Can I read (X argument)? Yes, if it's not offensive.

Want to be on the email chain? - Yes, my tab email: a_v_rao@yahoo.com

LD: If you are a typical circuit debater, do us both a favor and strike me. If, however, you run cogent, warranted, impacted, and meaningful arguments that you understand, I'm your judge. I can flow/understand relatively fast debate, so that's not an issue as long as your diction is clear. Theory arguments should be a rare exception in rounds and only if one side does something so egregious (like having a standard that the other side has no way of accessing) that the debate can't logically proceed in a fair manner. I will not vote on offensive theory and if your opponent runs an education voter against you if you do, I'll vote for your opponent. I'm not a solely "traditional" judge in the sense that I'm fine with Ks and alternative debating, and I believe that the value/criterion structure muddles more rounds than it clears up but I'm OK with it and most of the rounds I judge have V/Cs in them.

Congress: I was a legislative staffer in the US House of Representatives and believe that Congressional Debate should be a good training ground for future public servants. Thus, I take the event seriously and consider it more of a debate than a speech event. I flow and I look for clash, and both analytical and empirical warrants. It's about quality of presentation over quantity for me, so don't feel obligated to get in the maximum number of speeches unless they're good. Decorum, integrity, and leadership are important to your gaining high ranking on my ballot.

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

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

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

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

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

I debated policy in the 1980's. At this time, spreading and counterplans were common, but Theory, K's, and other progressive approaches to debate were still on the horizon. That said, I look forward to judging rounds which provide creative and well-argued approaches to the resolutions, since conventional and formulaic case presentations tend to sound more and more alike, especially as the season progresses.

Although I am okay with speed, be sure to slow down or vary your tone for tags and sources.

If you run a K, I do not have a background in philosophy or some of the areas that are the basis of K's. If you take this tack, be sure to explain how your sources support your argument.

On framework be sure to set up the weighing mechanism for the round - I don't want to be an interventionist.

I do my best to be tabula rasa, even when I cringe at the incorrect application of evidence to arguments. It is up to your opponent to note this and bring it to my attention. That said, the one place where I find it hard to be completely open is in the case of education or fairness theory. Unless the competition has been sketchy (e.g. disclosing one case and running another), I think theory is a distraction from the part of the debate I look forward to - the clash of arguments related to the resolution.

Speaks: Absent unethical behavior, I expect to award points in the 27-29 point range, holding 30 for exceptional and rare cases.

Background: I debated policy back in high school, but it's been years since then so I would slow down (speed).

K's: OK but it needs to be VERY clearly explained.

T: if you're going for T or theory then voters need to be extended and your case of abuse/potential abuse needs to be articulated.

Flash time counts as prep (policy). Please don't shake my hand.

Don't spread. I'd prefer if you spoke slowly and clearly with logical arguments. 

have been judging LD, some PF, and the odd Policy round for the past nine years or so.

Have been coaching mainly PF (lay) for three years.

The main gist:

Show be a good debate: clash, clarity, and respect, and we'll be good.

More details below:

-Not speed friendly. that being said, if you're brisk but clear, we're good. If you see my pen go down, what was being said doesn't go down on my flow.

-(LD) Value Debate:

I won't judge you poorly if you accept your opponent's value as long as you argue why your way and argument still achieves that value.

-(All) Other notes
-I get that you're debating but that is no reason to be excessively rude or obnoxious.

-Don't expect me to make connections between arguments. Tell me where there's cross-application and what that implies.What I mean by this specifically is that if you're going to use evidence to argue something, read the evidence, then make the analysis to follow(2022 update, upon further reflection I'm like, 80% sure I'm saying give me warrants)

I have a strong preference for debating down the flow.

TL;DR for all forms of debate:

I'm somewhere between a lay judge and a technical judge--I can handle a brisk pace but don't spread, and that means don't baby spread either. (2024 update: I have been in tab at tournaments on a more regular basis for 2 years now, my judging is very rusty. Please be kind, don't speak quickly).

I drop points for rudeness.

I am a sixth year parent judge who enjoys judging (especially LD). I appreciate debaters who speak clearly and make it easier for the judges to follow their roadmap.

I am an ex-LD debater with an emphasis on framework arguments. I do not like theory. If this is an LD round, I want a values debate, with persuasive, coherent, and eloquent arguments. Sign-posting is important! If you don't sign-post, it is very easy for the debate to get muddy very quickly. We don't want that. I can't be as fair and as effective of a judge if that happens. Also, please come prepared, be professional, and you'll perform well. So let's make this a great round: sign-post, weigh, crystallize, win. Looking forward to evaluating your round and good luck!

I am a lay parent judge and have judged at multiple local tournaments. I prefer understandable argumentation, with clear crystallization, weighing, and connected logic. I also prefer clear speaking over spreading, as I do not have much experience in judging circuit debate. Please be polite to your opponent during your round, and don't forget that debate is a learning experience!

Background:

I am a coach of the Davis High School Debate team.  I took on the position without experience but have gained quite a bit by following my team around and judging everything from local, to private school, to state and national tournaments.  I have judged LD and Policy on the national level as a result of their tenacity.  I am thankful for these experiences and have really enjoyed judging and learning as I go.  I now teach the speech and debate class at the school.

I can give you generally how I vote and what I am looking for.

Speed: Go any speed you want but make sure you are clear. Make sure you road-map and signpost very clearly.  Although I can follow the spread just fine, I want your points to be clear and I want to be able to understand what you are saying. slow down when you tag and cite if it is a new source.

Evaluation: I will judge based mainly on the flow.  I want to see organization of your arguments and clear clash.  I will  base my decision on flow, but also good solid adherence to your argument and value criterion.  Set up a strong framework.  This will be the ultimate basis of the case and the flow will prove whether your framework is solid

Theory: I am familiar with theory and philosophical debates and have judged quite of few of these.  Just make sure you support it and don't have it be just fluff to distract from the debate.  I will definitely entertain the idea of a good K if you really explain it and handle the cross x of that idea.

Lastly, I like good decorum.  I like you to treat your opponents with respect and keep the debate about the issues so no ad hominem.  Win on good debate skills and not bullying.  

Have fun 

Adrian Youngquist (they/them)

I have been coaching LD for Palo Alto for 5 years, and before that, I was an LD debater there.
Email: adrian.youngquist@gmail.com

For lay tournaments: I believe that lay tournaments should be lay–flay. I am capable of judging a fast round, but I really do not want to. I will drop speaks if you instigate a fast round. Debate flay—you can speak like a fast newscaster but don't sound like an auctioneer.

For non-LD debate events: I've judged them, I know the format (most familiar with PF, less so with others), all of the below applies, except I will not be at all familiar with the topic lit.

I will vote on pretty much anything unless it is offensive, but if your case is strategically abusive, your speaks will suffer.

Impact your arguments. If your argument has no explicit impacts and solid links to those impacts, I won't vote on it. Have a clear ballot story, and do plenty of weighing. I won't weigh, extend, or cross-apply for you, and if you don't tell me how to evaluate the round, you probably won't like how I do evaluate the round. If your opponent does weighing and impacting and you don't, even if their weighing and impacting is poor, they will almost surely win. Debate clearly with well-explained links.

In general, I'm well-read in the topic literature (for LD). I'll probably know when you're making things up or misusing your evidence. I will vote on bad evidence if your opponent doesn't call you on it as long as it's not blatant cheating, but I won't be happy about it, and your speaks will suffer.

I was not a circuit debater, but I have experience with circuit arguments, and I will vote on them. I'm not comfortable with fast spreading, but some speed is okay. If you're extremely clear, 300 wpm is okay. Otherwise stick to a little above 200 max. If you see me stop writing, you are unclear, too fast, or saying something that doesn't merit writing down. (Also see my note on lay tournaments.)

LARP debate is fine. Exception: I hate extinction link chains. Unless the topic is explicitly about something like nuclear weapons, climate change, or a similarly large threat, I don't want to hear it. If there are more than two–three links, I don't want to hear it. These arguments usually just get in the way of substantive debate. Cards are almost always power tagged. I lower speaks significantly for any bad link chain that just attempts to inflate impacts.

If you are running something complicated like a nuanced K, explain it well, slow down on the analytics, and run it at your own risk—be warned that I don't have experience with the literature or this type of debate. I will vote on it, but don't expect me to understand something if you don't clearly explain it. The same goes for complicated FWs, though to a lesser degree. Explain things well and don't expect me to vote for you/believe your arguments just because you use big, fancy words.
I prefer topical debate, so if you want me to vote on a non-topical K, performative case, or other non-topical argument, you need to explain your ROB extremely well. Know that this is not my preferred type of debate, and as above, run it at your own risk.

I'll vote on theory/topicality, but I strongly dislike frivolous/abusive theory. I default to competing interps, but in cases of frivolous theory I am very receptive to arguments for reasonability. Don't run theory just for the fun of it.

Speaker points: I believe that speaker points are meant to encourage and discourage norms in debate. Your strategic decisions, argument quality, weighing, and round framing, as well as the way you treat your opponent, will determine your speaks. I don't assign speaks based on perceived speaking ability.

- Abusive arguments will severely lower your speaks.
- It should be a given, but do not be offensive. If you are lucky, only your speaks will suffer. If it is bad enough, it will lose you the round.
- Be polite and don't be a bully.
- Don't force a circuit round at a lay tournament, especially if your opponent is clearly uncomfortable with it
- Stay within the time limits. Go ahead and finish your (short) sentence after time, and it is okay to answer a question after time runs out in CX (you don't need to ask me, please). Past that, I will not flow anything you say, and your speaks will suffer.
- My pet peeve is misused statistics. Analyze statistics well or point out your opponent's misanalyzed statistics and I will give you bonus speaker points. Egregiously misuse statistics and your speaks will drop.

On email chains: Your adding me to an email chain and giving me a copy of your case does NOT give you license to read less clearly or skip parts. If I do not catch something during your speech, I will not put it on my flow. I use your case for technological difficulties and informational purposes only—referring back to evidence when specific parts are disputed, exact wording of tag lines, plan texts, and interpretations, etc.

2024- 2/4/2024

I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old.

General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.

World Crafting:

Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.

Argument Framing:

Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.

The K:

I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afropress, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.

Theory:

Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory most of the time, but it is your round, so do you.

Tech vs. Truth:

Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.

Rudeness is a No-Go:

Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. For real

Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:

Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.

Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:

Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.

Voting Issues:

Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal

TL;DR

Be clear

Weigh

Impact calculus

liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com

>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions

I would like to see logical reasoning applied to debates not just evidence battles