Hello! I am a parent judge supporting my oldest son's speech aspirations. Now in my 7th year as a speech parent, judge, and sorta coach I have judged 100+ rounds and hundreds of presentations across middle school and high school competitions - primarily in OO, HI, DI, Duo and more. I judged the NSDA nationals DI finals in 2022 which was an incredible round and experience. I also judged the middle school NSDA final round for storytelling in 2019 along with plenty of state and nat quals through the years. Across various events, here are my thoughts as applicable for your event...

I hope to be persuaded by your thesis or argument

I want to be engaged and moved by your presentation

Your characters should be fully developed and come through clearly and distinctly

Use sources responsibly to complement your work without overwhelming with stats and figures

Show creativity and something novel relative to other competitors

Most of all, own your work, have fun, and know that you are a winner just by competing. Thank you!

Hello everyone! I'm a relatively new judge so please bear with me.   :)

Parli Debate:

Please refrain from the use of speed/spreading (I can handle a faster paced speech but not too fast)

Please do not present K-theories

It would be preferred if you kept your voices to a medium/low tone (don't shout)

Avoided to many POIs (I don't mind the use of them, but don't abuse them)

If you can, please use a source or two (although you don't have to)

Organization is key! (I judge primary on flow)

Impromptu:

No canned speeches! 

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

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

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

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).  

I'm a parent judge with over four years of experiencing judging speech and debate. For debate, I value argumentation more than delivery, but please signpost and make your arguments relatively easy to understand. I don't understand theory, Ks, topicality, or any of that, so please don't run that. Above all, be respectful and have fun!

I am a parent judge. I appreciate well-spoken and confident debaters. Speak slowly and be logical. Signpost your evidence clearly. Tell me exactly what I'm voting on. Keep your arguments simple. Ask me any further questions about my judging preferences right before the round begins.

I'm a parent judge that cares, though I have no experience judging Varsity LD at circuit tournaments. Please don't spread in front of me, and if you are going faster than conversation speed, send out a doc. I won't vote on extinction scenarios.

Otherwise, I'm not very interventionist so I won't vote on arguments that weren't made in the round and won't use my own opinions in the decision. The exception to that rule [of course] is if you make sexist, racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic, or otherwise exclusionary arguments, then I will drop you and give you awful speaks.

If you persaude me of a good link scenario, and have a good understanding of your evidence, I'll give you better speaks and probably will vote for you.

Please don't read K's or theory in front of me, and my kids say if you like to read 'tricks' you're going to want to strike me.

Happy debating! :)

School Affiliation: Leland High

Years of experience: 1 year

Events: PF, extemp

PF paradigm:

1. I am a parent judge with a son who is relatively active on the national circuit

2. Lay judge, do not yet know how to flow so cross is important

3. Please do not spread/throw around random jargon without explanations

(written by son Benson Fang)

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

I have been judging various Speech events for the last 4+ years and familiar with most formats of speech. Enjoy speech & debate very much and happy to be a judge. I want this to be an enjoyable activity for all involved so expect the participants to be courteous to the judges, organizers and to each other.

I judge on:

1. Content organization: cutting, easy to follow story line, structure, Attention Grabbing Intro/closing that connect the story together. Memorization of your speech is table stakes !!

2. Delivery Style: Your overall energy, blocking voice modulation, use of space , conveying the emotion of your piece. Try to speak at a pace that someone who is going to listen to your speech only once can still follow along and understand.

Wish you the very best of S&D Experience !!

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 am a lay parent judge.

Please speak slowly and enunciate your words.

I am a parent judge

I will like if you go slow . Rest I am fine with anything else.

I am a parent of an LD debater. This is my third year judging LD debate. I judged varsity LD on several invitational tournaments and NCFL/NSDA nationals.

If you're a progressive LD debate, I will be better for me if you can run you case in traditional LD way.

I consider myself a tabula rasa judge, and will vote on anything if given a proper rationale and justification. However, please do not make sexist, racist, or ablest arguments I will drop you.

I take judging seriously and most time showing a poker face so don’t try to get feedback from me during the round. You can expect that I will have a solid understanding of the subject(s) being debated.

What I won't have is a pre-determined way of thinking based on my individual beliefs on any topic.

Preferences:

Speed: It is ok to go faster than normal, but please no spreading. If you aren't clear, then I can't understand your arguments. And if I can't understand your arguments, I can't vote for you. Vary speed, tone, volume, or something else to differentiate between tags and cards. Emphasize transitions, present important analysis, signposts, etc.

Plans: I am ok with plans, just have solvency.

Counterplans: I am ok with counterplans, but please don't run abusive counterplans, I won't vote on them. Pics are okay, but not word pics.

Kritiks: I will not vote off a Kritik.

Philosophy: I like value/value criterion debates.

Theory: No theory.

Topicality: Only argue about topicality if your opponent is being blatantly non-topical.

Decorum: Please be polite and respectful towards your opponent. Do not be overly aggressive.

I am an amateur parent judger with a few years of occasional judging experience. I usually make a decision based on who addressed all the points sufficiently, either by logic or fact. A good speaker will win points but not necessarily the debate itself. I don't like spreading because I can't catch all the points if you speak too fast.

Hello,

I am lay judge with no recent judging experience.

I will not bring other knowledge into the round, which means that it is your job to explain all your warrants and their importance in the round to me. Please be slow and clear when you speak- you can't win a round if you've made it inaccessible for your judge. I am not familiar with any tech debate (so no Theory or no Ks). I have a very basic understanding of the structure of debate, so overly complicated case structures and link chains only risk losing me. Regarding Counter-Plans, please explain why your counterplan is competitive with the plan- otherwise, the counterplan is effectively useless in the debate. If you are Perm-ing the CounterPlan, clearly articulate how and why the perm works, and why the perm means I shouldn't consider the CP. In the Rebuttal speeches, please clearly weigh and tell me why you are winning the round. Solid weighing is probably the easiest way to guarantee your path to the ballot.

If someone is clearly problematic and disrespectful in the round, then I will drop them. Debate should be a safe space accessible to all who participate in it. Be kind and respectful of everyone, and have fun!

I used to judge many speech events. Here are a few things important for speakers in speech events: Effective voice modulation (exaggerated voice is okay too), a bit slower pace (slower & faster mixed pace works better), Use of articulation a few times, gestures (not necessarily all the time), and bigger excitement.

I am new to PF debate judging. I feel better when debaters present enough evidences with confidence and logical justifications for their arguments.
Good luck!

Please speak clearly and do not go too fast. I am a parent judge, but I do understand content well as long as it is explained well in all of your speeches.

Please specify your contentions and impacts very clearly in your constructives and make sure to explain the entire argument that you are going for in summary/final focus.

Please do not go for all of your arguments in later speeches. Also, do not make claims without giving a reason as to why it may be true.

Do not make any responses to your opponents’ case if it is not explained properly.

Do not misconstrue your evidence or your speaker points will be deducted.

Have a good round!

I have been judging LD and Speech events at different Bay Area competitions including Santa Clara and UoP, over past 2 years.  

My philosophy is very straight-forward:  

1. Participants can ask Judges their preferences before the debate starts.
2. Debaters need to be courteous to and respectful of their opponents - no personal attacks.
3. I am OK if debaters want to spread, though am not a big fan. Participants are free to ask this question before start of competition.
4. Debaters can make any relevant points substantiated with evidence to support their argument, within the guidelines stipulated by the competition organizers.
5. I always look at the impact made by the debaters.     Prefer debaters to summarize their viewpoints supporting their AFF/NEG stand, before concluding their argument.
6. I do follow their debate flows, and monitor dropped lines of thought. Will not readmit dropped flows, in accordance with contest rules.

I'd vote for students who are knowledgeable and have researched well and speak in relevance to the discussion, instead of simply reading out from a paper. Please try to ensure that I understand what you are saying.

Please speak at a moderate pace. Please say your speeches as though you are explaining something to me about a topic that I am not much aware of. Honestly, I have very little experience on the topic and I have not researched on the topic like a debater. So, please explain to me with evidence and name it clearly. If I cannot understand you then it will be difficult for me to vote you.

For speaker points, strong assertive voice, clarity of speech are important. All the best,

I am a parent judge but have judged for multiple years since 2016. I mostly judged PF but I also judged Congress and Parliamentary.

I am flay, meaning I take notes, but not in a flow style.

I like to focus on direct clashes and rebuttals of your opponent's arguments. Points need to be extended in every speech, and if one team brings up a point that is not extended, I will not consider it. It is also up to the opponent team to bring this to my attention.

I will always weigh impacts. I primarily weigh on the magnitude, but I will also consider timeframe and probability.

Do not spread. I want every speaker to give their speeches in a clear, systematic way and emphasize the main points they want to resonate with me.

Please go slow and clearly call out your contentions. I expect clear arguments with supporting factors. Reinforced contentions with additional supporting factors in each speech to further provide clarity. No personal attacks and no spreading please.

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.

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

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.

UC Berkeley Haas School of Business 02'

USC Law 07'

LARP/Policy - 1

K's/Phil/Tricks - Strike

Debate is first and foremost a game. This means that the affirmative must defend a topical plan and the neg has to prove the plan is a bad idea. I don't think people believe it when I say that I am not voting for a k or a non-topical affirmative - please don't test this. I default to util, it will be hard to win any other frameworks in front of me. Tricks are not real arguments and will not be evaluated - the reading of these will result in very low speaker points.

Quick Thoughts:

One conditional advocacy is not bad - anything else is up for debate

I will not vote off an RVI

Death is always bad

If you split the 2nr you will not get above a 28.5

Speed is not a problem - that being said please be clear and understandable (distinguish between tags and the card, go slower on analytics etc.) - I will not be able to understand 500 wpm of gibberish and your speaks will suffer greatly

The role of the ballot/judge is to vote for the better debater - this is non-negotiable

Disclosure is good - show me your wiki after the round and if it is nice I will boost your speaks

Flow please - show me your flows after the round for a speaks boost

Theory:

I default to using competing interpretations - reasonability will be hard to win in front of me. Please do comparative weighing and contextualize the abuse to this specific round rather than reading generic abuse stories.

Speaker Points:

30 - you are the best debater I have ever seen

29 - you will likely make late elimination rounds

28 - average - may clear

27 - below average

26 - you have a lot of work to do

I used to be a parliamentary debater and went to nationals in public forum. I am well versed in all forms of debate and don't have any particular grievances that anyone should worry about except for the fact that I don't like spreading. You can speak fast but if you start to spread then I wont write anything down and you'll subsequently lose the round. Stick to good ol fashioned debate and you'll probably be fine. Please ask me any specific questions you have before the round and I will be happy to answer or clarify anything.

Lay parent; but former high school debater and current professional lobbyist. If I had a general approach, it would be tech over truth. It's not about my ideology . . . And please don't try to tailor your approach to what you assume my background and leanings are. (I didn't always drive a minivan). It's about your ability to make an argument with links, analysis and evidence. Please don't read me a bunch of cards and expect me to work out the arguments for you. I am not a believer in judge intervention. I'm high on organization, so give me the line by line. It also probably benefits you to slow down for high theory argumentation -- I don't live and breathe it like you do. No major preferences on argument or framework (i.e., don't steer away from K's or speed because I'm someone's mom . . . I actually enjoy a good K). Having a said all of that, I'm not a fan of RVI's, which I find to be counter-logical. If you go that route, it will cost you more time in analysis and persuasive argumentation than you were striving to save. On disads and CP's: make some effort to get beyond a generic disad shell or boilerplate CP and tailor your arguments and analysis to the specific aff presented. On K's: I have and will vote on these. I enjoy a good K, but -- again -- I don't live and breathe this. I am relatively unfamiliar with the literature base, so be sure to articulate your arguments well and do not assume I know any of the terms you are using. Identity politics arguments are a much more familiar cell (and a more natural orientation) for me than postmodernism. I don't preclude these arguments, but work overtime to make sure you have a deeper more thorough explanation and analysis if you choose to run them in front of me. Niemela@npalobby.com

I'm a parent judge.  I expect clear logical arguments presented in a precise, courteous manner.  I do not appreciate the spreading, as it takes away from the actual debating.  Be passionate in your presentation, but do not let your emotions substitute the arguments, evidence and logic.  For the same reason, please, limit the case kritik.  The tournament is a place to debate the resolution, not your personal views and affinities.

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

I am the head speech and debate coach for my school. I keep a rigorous flow, but I'd still consider myself a traditional judge. Speed for its own sake is something I disdain, but I can follow it somewhat. I would only vote for theory on topicality grounds or for actual abuse. Theory breaks debate, so you will need to convince me that the debate is impossible because of a real violation. Just because your opponent drops or mishandles your thin T shell does not mean a concession has occurred: tread carefully. I suppose I'd vote for a K but you will need to explain it very well. Your opponent dropping a poorly linked K is not an auto-victory.

In LD the Negative must refute the Affirmative case in the first speech. An unaddressed argument in this first speech is a drop/concession. I would allow Neg to cross-apply arguments from the NC in later speeches if they naturally clash with the aff case.

P.S. I have decided that most circuit-style debate is pretty embarrassing from a performance standpoint. I think it gives competitive debate a silly aspect that undermines its credibility and therefore undermines the value of the activity. I would probably say linking into this argument would get my ballot most of the time so long as one side is not also engaging in silly debate stuff. If both sides are super silly in performance and/or argumentation. I will decide based on the most outrageous dropped argument.

lay judge, dont go fast and be respectful.

I care about argumentation and analysis more than most all else. I emphasize the flow, and care about the credibility of evidence. I'm not the biggest fan of theory debate for the sake of theory debate. I prefer topic centric debate.

I have about 10 years of experience in the speech and debate world. I primarily exist in speech land, but I have judged a lot of debate and love a strong argument and good links. That being said, I enjoy when a speaker can clearly articulate their arguments, and use delivery based methods of persuasion to help sway the ballot.

I am always hopeful for a debate where there is a lot of clash, and a clear path to the ballot.

I love when debaters give me voters and a clear articulation of why they believe that they have won the ballot.

-Parent judge. Both of my children did LD debate so I have over 4 years of experience in judging LD

-I love interesting and unique arguments and philosophy

-Clearly articulated arguments without spreading or rushing through are preferred

-I love literature as I am an author myself

-I don't really understand circuit but if you explain your argument properly I can follow along

-Strong speakers usually win my ballot over others

-Please don't be rude or aggressive to your opponents

-I try my best to flow speeches

-Passion for the topic goes a long way. Do debate because you enjoy it don't seem forced :/

-I'm not strict I will go along with what you say but just please be mature and kind towards your opponents and please don't interrupt especially in cx.

Happy Debating !

-

I am looking for a good understanding of the matter at issue and content that promotes healthy debate. I value well-structured and cogent arguments with relevant evidence. I prefer quality over quantity! So please lean towards clarity of delivery rather than the number of words you can get out. I am a lay judge, so if your content is not clear to me you will hurt your ranking. Feel free to do a roadmap for me (off time if allowed in the event rules).

Claim uniqueness is important and entering new evidence and unique perspectives always make for a more interesting debate, and scores points with me. How well you defend your arguments or how relevant and incisive your questions/refutations are will rank you higher in my book.

Overall, I am looking for erudite content as well as an effective speaking style. The speakers with an optimal combination of both will get the highest ranks in my judging.

Tl;dr Debate is a game, so have fun. Just please don’t have fun by pushing other people out of the space.

Background

I competed in parli and policy for Ashland High during all four years of high school. I was pretty active in both the Oregon circuit and the NorCal parli circuit.

Approach to Judging

I don’t believe debate occurs in a vacuum. One of my least favorite paradigms I heard in high school was “If you tell me the sky is yellow, I’ll believe you unless your opponents dispute it.” I know the sky is not yellow; please don’t flat out lie to me in round and hope your opponents miss it. That being said, I will not answer or extend arguments for you, or make cross applications for you.

Also

If you want me to vote for you, make it easy. That means final speeches should include impact calculus and weighing.

General

Please don’t shake my hand. Nothing personal, I just don’t want to get sick and I don’t know where your hands have been.

If I don’t give you feedback in round for whatever reason, you can find me after and I’ll probably be willing to discuss the round with you.

I’m fine with tag teaming, but if it gets excessive then it may be reflected in your speaker points.

Use questions wisely.

Be respectful to your opponents. You’re trying to beat them in a debate round, not verbally abuse them. If someone is startlingly rude or offensive, I’m open to hearing rhetoric turns but would rather avoid this situation altogether.

Krtiks

I will listen to whatever you want to run as long as you can justify its relevance to the round. I was pretty into kritiks in high school. I mostly ran cap, neolib, and absurdity, but I read and heard all sorts of other stuff. That being said, the thing I hated most about the circuit towards the end of high school was that teams started to get away with assuming that the judge knew the argument. Just because I know the argument it doesn’t mean that I will warrant the claim for you. Performance is super fun; I read parts of FDT by YG in a couple rounds last year. If you’re performing something or rejecting the resolution and you don’t have good framework blocks, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Theory/Topicality

I dig crazy theory rounds as long as they’re well structured and warranted. I defer to competing interpretations but if you can prove that reasonability is better for a specific instance, that’s cool too.

Counterplans

If you have one, justify why.

Condo?

Fine.

Speed

I can understand most speed pretty well, but in my experience in high school I only met a handful of people who could actually spread clearly. If you trade speed for clarity it’s gonna be tough to vote for you. If you use it to push your opponents out of round, it will be reflected heavily in your speaker points, but probably won’t lose you the round because I have yet to hear a convincing speed theory interpretation. Please don’t do that though.

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.

Everyone has to be clear. I do not take notes so I am a typical lay judge. be nice to eachother.

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.

Teams must respectful of eachother.

Facts and evidence are the most important in a round.

Hello, I am a parent judge.

LD:

I look for debaters who are the most calm in the round. Also, I see how the debaters are during their rebuttals and their cross-examination. These are the periods of time I see most important because, the debaters are not reading their cases. They are using their speaking skills to convince and persuade, their background knowledge to debate and refute, and they are showing me as the judge who they are as people.

Dislike fast speak. If I cannot understand, then the point is lost.

I like when you have enough evidence to support your argument.

I also like when debaters speak clearly and confidently.