Hi,

I am an intermediate judge ( flay) . It would be nice if you kept communications easy and straightforward (avoid using jargons).

Please be respectful to all participants. Most importantly.. have fun !!

nathan.gong@utexas.edu / I prefer tabroom fileshare though

I qualified to the TOC three times for LD, debated twice, and cleared once (as Plano East and Plano Independent)

Read good quality evidence, be clear, compare arguments, and ballot paint!

Stop talking early when possible - I don't want to hear a 6 minute speech when a theory shell was conceded.

I can tell you speaker points after round if you want

Don't read evaluate after X

Hello everybody, I'm Eva Grover. I'm a lay/parent judge with some former debate experience.

What matters most: For me, the most important thing in a round is cleanliness. You could give me the best evidence and case in the world, but if I can't understand your arguments, it doesn't do anything for you as a debater or for me as a judge. Throwing around fancy terms that don't add any value or purpose to the round means nothing to me, and I won't buy it. Simply put, clarity is key.

Speech preferences: Even though I will be taking notes in the round, i'd like it if you don't read fast pls. If I can't comprehend what you're saying, then I can't write it down, and there will be no way for me to remember what you said when it's time to decide the verdict of the round.

(Side note: As a judge, I won't be keeping track of time. Competitors should keep track of time and prevent each other from going overtime.)

Speaker Points: I would say that I'm decently generous in terms of speaker points. As long as I can hear you properly, you aren't mumbling, and you sound confident, I will give you good speaks.

Argumentation: While this should go without saying, I'm looking for an argument that is clean and well- written with reliable sources. Your contentions and rebuttals should be backed with good evidence, and more importantly, good logic.

Don't make me connect the dots. I want you all, as debaters, to put the pieces together and prove to me why you win.

My email address is eva.grover@gmail.com

Lay judge, have judged few rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

I am a parent judge with little experience judging PF, LD or Speech events. I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread- I need to be able to understand what you are saying in order to judge it's merits.

I will take a lot of notes and try to judge on the flow. For PF, please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. I don't fully flow Crossfire or Cross-Ex, so anything important that you want noted, please extend in your next speech and make it clear why it's important to your case or detracts from you opponent's. Please don't run progressive debate unless something extreme has happened in the round; I will not know how to evaluate it.

By your final focus or your last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value outweigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round or they will be disregarded.

Good luck and have fun!

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

Hi,

As a first-time judge, I enthusiastically approach this role and commit to fairness. While I may lack experience in judging, I bring an open mind, a willingness to learn, and a dedication to providing constructive feedback to participants.

I believe in giving each participant an equal opportunity to present their arguments or speeches. Based on the criteria provided, I will evaluate and ensure that personal biases do not influence my decisions. I value clear communication and well-structured arguments. Participants should articulate their points effectively, use evidence to support their claims and organize their speeches logically. I will assess participants' ability to connect with the audience, use appropriate gestures and tone, and maintain a confident demeanor throughout their presentations.

My goal as a judge is not only to evaluate performances but also to provide valuable feedback for improvement. I will offer constructive criticism, highlight strengths, and suggest areas for development to help participants grow in their skills.

As a first-time judge, I approach this role with a commitment to fairness, clarity, engagement, and constructive feedback. I look forward to a rewarding experience of learning and contributing to participants' success in speech and debate.

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

I am a Parent judge. My notes focus on (1) argumentation, (2) supporting evidence. I highly value credible evidence.

Most of all, I appreciate a respectful and fun debate!

BACKGROUND:

• HS (4 years) Speech/Congress/Parli/PF. College (1 year). Speech coach (5+ years). Worked with multiple flow debate programs. Debate is fun! 

• DEBATE PHILOSOPHY:

• Debate provides students an opportunity to be passionate advocates on any given topic by means of using clear communication. Utilize unforgettable rhetoric, teach me something new, and always play by the rules. Most importantly, make sure to be extremely respectful of one another!

MY JUDGING CRITERIA:

I am heavy on flow. I love responsiveness and crystalization. Make it easy for me to follow you.

• Jargon: I’d prefer students not use it for purposes of clarity. I’m sure audience members, your judge, and your opponents would appreciate this as well. One of the main ways to receive good speaker points from me is to always treat each other with respect.

• Value: You should always link your arguments to value. Otherwise, your arguments don’t have as much weight from my view. If you can also demonstrate how your arguments work under your opponent's value, that’s a bonus.

• I appreciate off-time roadmaps. I don’t mind “spreading” (fast speaking), but make sure to slow down and enunciate tags and citations. Also, if I find the entirety of your speech to be filled with unnecessary diction, I will frown. Why? Word economy. Lastly, you will note that I stop flowing as soon as the following occurs: information previously stated is being brought up once more, I cannot understand the speaker or your argument is not making sense to me.

• Theory: Not a huge fan of T. If you decide to run theory in your case, do know that I will always make my decision based off of what I feel is most important in debate; the educational experience. I avoid making a decision based off of my own personal beliefs or experiences.

• If you decide to run a Kritik (should the tournament allow it) I would appreciate your case most if it still acknowledges the round. Stressing a K without continuing to be a part of the entire debate is too dull. Not only should you be clear as towards why the other team is diminishing the value of the debate by means of what they are communicating, but you should also demonstrate that you care about the entirety of the debate.

• Throughout the debate, you should aim for pinpointing weak arguments and fallacies. Make it easy for me to flow arguments and be specific. Refer to the flow when covering your opponent's case in rebuttals. More specifically, you should cover all sub-points mentioned in each contention.

• Often times, competitors do not cover an entire contention and generally cover an argument - no. Simplify the process of me disregarding an argument entirely. In rebuttal speeches, cover something that has not been covered before. Do not present old news to the table.

Hi everyone,

I'm a parent judge getting acquainted with various debate formats. I try my best to listen to every word you have to say and that would be a lot easier when there is evenly paced speaking. I appreciate a good use of time and adherence to the time limits prescribed for formats. I strongly believe that one can be kind and firm and believe that opposing points of view can be conveyed respectfully and value that the most.

I look forward to hearing various points of view and learning more through this experience.

All the very best!

Chitkala

Dear debaters,

Welcome to this debate round! As the judge, my role is to evaluate the arguments presented by both teams and determine the winner based on the quality of those arguments. Here are some key points that will guide my evaluation:

1. Clarity and Communication:

• Clear articulation and effective communication of ideas are crucial. Make sure your arguments are easy to follow and understand.

2. Content and Substance:

• Focus on providing strong, well-researched content. Cite sources where necessary to support your claims.

3. Relevance and Significance:

• Arguments should be directly relevant to the resolution and should contribute significantly to the debate.

4. Logic and Reasoning:

• Your arguments should be logically sound. Avoid fallacious reasoning and ensure your points are well-structured.

5. Clash and Refutation:

• Engage with your opponents' arguments. Address their points directly and provide strong counterarguments.

6. Fairness and Sportsmanship:

• Treat your opponents with respect and maintain a courteous tone throughout the debate. Avoid personal attacks.

7. Time Management:

• Keep track of your speaking time and use it wisely. Be sure to allocate time for crossfire and rebuttals.

8. Adaptability:

• Be prepared to adjust your arguments based on how the debate unfolds. Flexibility can be a powerful asset.

9. Impact and Weighing:

• Explain the broader implications of your arguments and how they relate to the overall resolution.

10. Final Focus:

• In your final speech, crystallize the key issues of the round and explain why they lead to your team winning.

Remember, the goal of this debate is to engage in a constructive and informative exchange of ideas. Best of luck to both teams, and let's have a great debate!

Paige Stapleton (she/her)

BACKGROUND

Juris Doctor - Santa Clara University School of Law; B.A. - Political Science - University of California, Merced

Competed in LD, PF, Parli, WSD, Impromptu in High School;WSD @ Nationals June 2017 (Birmingham, AL)

CRITERIA

• No spreading. I need to be able to understand what you are saying and I appreciate hearing the passion behind your argument as well.
• I am heavy on flow. My notes focus on (1) argumentation; and (2) supporting evidence. I highly value credible evidence.
• I appreciate a persuasive argument where evidence is not on one's side.
• Arguments should be structured as claim - warrant - impact.
• Value: Always link your arguments to value.
• Offtime roadmaps: Very much appreciated!
• Throughout the debate, you should aim for pinpointing weak arguments and fallacies. Make it easy for me to flow arguments and see where your opponent drops contentions.
• Respect during Cross-Ex is key. Remain professional. Channel your attitude into passion and confidence.
• Final focus speech: Make a convincing case as to why your impacts/value outweigh that of your opponent's.

Most of all, I appreciate a respectful and fun debate!

I will provide personal feedback if requested. Email: paigeleighstapleton@gmail.com

Hi, nice to meet you. My name's Lena ! I have a background in medical, business, and tech. I've been judging debate for 7 years working with Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA.

Judging Preferences:

- I appreciate a strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I prefer when an argument is backed up with factual evidences through cited sources and quantitative data. If there's no real evidence, then it's just an opinion at this point.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for - Please DO NOT repeat the entire debate.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Can't win if I can't hear your arguments properly.

info:

i did 3 years of public forum debate in high school; 3x national pf champion in china
yangivy@sas.upenn.edu

but to reiterate, for pf, i:

• will flow
• tech>truth
• accept spreading (send case if >350wpm)
• accept t/k (not my favorite if you cant execute it properly)
• ask that all new offense is presented in the first half of the debate (before summary)
• want you to have fun (if you make the debate fun for me too, ill give you rly high speaks...im so serious give me some fun arguments please please please) with the assumption that its actually a smart arg

as for ld, i evaluate trad rounds the same as pf; for progressive rounds, im mildly familiar with the common fws/ts/ks and ill try my best to follow but you should probably try to treat me as a lay judge oops

Hi. My name is Jessie, and I am standing in for a parent judge. I'm currently a senior at University of Florida finishing up my Business Pre-Law degree. While I have not judged a debate like this before and am unfamiliar with a lot of advanced debate terms, I do have experience presenting in legal/moot court type debates. I will judge in an objective manner and look forward to hearing your arguments.

1. General Notes:

   1. Please be respectful of others. No attacks on opponents that are outside the substance of the debate content will be allowed.

   2. Use a loud, clear voice to speak and present. Confidence makes for a better argument, and no part of the argument will count if I can't hear you.

   3. Make sure your arguments have structure and flow. Present your ideas coherently and clearly.

   4. I would advise against fast talking in order to get all your points/ideas said. Be present, analyze your opponent's arguments, and use it to build off your own arguments.

   5. No sensitive, hateful, or racial remarks please. I would hate to mark off for any of those reasons.

   6. Of the three modes of persuasion, logos will be the most beneficial to use, followed by ethos and then pathos. Basing your argument off of facts and logical reasoning will be the most solid method to use.

   7. Any argument mentioned that does not allow the other team to rebut will not be considered in my evaluation, as it would just be unfair.

   8. Finally, have fun, and best of luck to all teams.

Email: jessieyu.us@gmail.com

Parent judge.

I am a parent judge, so please refrain from spreading too much. Thank you!