I am a traditional judge.

Please introduce yourself clearly.

I don't flow speed. Speaking clearly is a great way to earn my ballot. I like structured presentation with lesser words, well separated arguments that are punctuated with sufficient silent spacing rather than excessive content being squeezed into the allotted time to articulate your position.

Hi Everyone,

I am parent judge with a high schooler who started debate this year. I am a traditional judge.

Have competed in LD, PF, Policy, and Extemp; have coached LD, PF, Policy, and Parliamentary Debate. Will flow all debates. Hate spreading in all events.

LD: Stats and empirical data are fine but without strong philosophical backing, it will be hard for me to give a win. Prefer applications of philosophical framework that show some level of thought and intuition (I think a Value of Morality is fairly weak and needs an extremely strong VC to be successful).

PF & Parli: Nothing major, but again, no spreading. Require credible sources with actual data — opinion pieces are fine, but much weaker than empirical data. If you try to extrapolate data from a source like multiplying stats incorrectly, then quote them as part of the source, I will give you the loss automatically. It must be very clear what is your own mathematical extrapolation (which is more than likely incorrect), and what is actually part of the original source. If you do not have a piece of evidence cited in your case, you will also automatically receive a loss.

Policy: Do whatever you want.

Hi, I'm a parent judge with a high schooler who has done debate for a couple of years. I have judged a bit before, but do not know all the ins and outs of debate rules. Don't run theory or use jargon because I won't understand it.

Things that will be important to win a round when I am judging:

Speak clearly so I can understand you. This is the most important thing because if I can't hear you, I won't be able to give you points for your arguments. Try to make eye contact with me, especially on virtual tournaments.

Truth>tech for me. If the logic of the argument is very far-fetched, it will not win.

Intro/Affiliations

Email: zachlim804@gmail.com

- Former student at New Trier HS (2015-2019) and the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022).

- Experience: 6 years as a policy debater, no TOC bids, & NDT doubles (NDT '21) in college. I have been coaching for 2 years and judging for 4 years, albeit the past year and a half has been PF heavy.

**PF Stuff at the bottom

Online Debate

Cameras on preferably, slow down, and I don't know why this happens but wait until you know 100% that I am present before you give an order or start your speech. A black screen with my name means I am not there/ready unless I say otherwise.

Important/Relevant Thoughts

- For this specific topic, I am not familiar with the trends and arguments being made on the circuit, specifically the subsets, but I am knowledgeable on NATO as an organization from a previous college topic.

- My experience is policy-heavy, but in college, I strayed away from strict policy debating to more critical debating on both sides, mostly reading iterations of racial security and racial capitalism kritiks and critical affs with a plan. I am most comfortable adjudicating DA v. case, CP/DA v. case, and K v. case; it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.

- I find debate enjoyable and I truly appreciated judges who gave a full effort in paying attention and offering an understandable RFD so I will attempt to emulate that in every round that I judge. With that, the best thing you can do for yourself is, up to you how you go about this, to orient your debating around "making my job easy". Whether you lean critical or policy, be more reliant on explanation and spin rather than being solely reliant on what your evidence says. Show me the big picture and within that picture, point out any fine details that are important for me to evaluate. Be explicit, get straight to the point, and avoid unnecessary speak/fillers. Judge instruction is key.

- A judge is never going to be unbiased when listening to different types of arguments. However, pre-conceptions are malleable and good debating (lbl, explanation, etc.) can supersede argument bias, but given my varying degrees of knowledge/expertise in different arguments, adaptation will matter in how "good debating" is performed in round.

- Continuity in argumentation and explanation will be scrutinized. Having been on both sides as a 2N and 2A, I believe many final rebuttals get away with a lot of new spin/explanation, so as I have throughout judging debates, I will hold a higher standard for extensions and such.

- Absolutely do not read morally reprehensible arguments such as death good, racism good, homophobia good, etc. There is no room for that in debates, and it is not courteous to your judge or opponents. You will be dropped and receive a zero.

- The link below will take you to a doc that I wrote many years ago, containing specific thoughts I have about specific types of arguments. I honestly do not think it's as relevant as it was when I was a first year out, but if you aren't familiar with what I think of certain arguments, then feel free to check it out to gain some more clarity. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d5pO-KRsf90F5Y-9Hfc1RlzRxsu21KCSxV9aVZFcRH0/edit?usp=sharing

- Don't hesitate to ask me any questions about my college debate experience as well as my time at Pitt. Feel free to email me or ask after the round!

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

Public Forum

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk". Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

I am a parent judge. I have been judging for this year.

Hi, my name is Stefani and I am parent judge. During my work life I am a CEO which means I give speeches, engage in debate, and value clearly defined, well articulated arguments. You will lose me with spreading — I want to understand your points and be able to follow them.

Please address your opponents’ contentions and make logical connections between your points. I don’t like a wash — I love a good clash.

I am looking forward to judging you…. speak clearly and have fun.

I participated in PF, Policy, and Extemp throughout high school and also did a couple tournaments in parli, congress, and impromptu. I've also judged LD, PF, and now policy events, so I could be described as either a journeyman or well-rounded, whatever you prefer. As of now (5/2021 NCFL National Tournament), I don't judge too often, but I can certainly follow arguments and a flow sheet is my best friend.

That being said, for debate events (will update as I'm asked to judge different events):

Policy Debate

While I competed in policy several years ago, I have not judged in policy recently nor have I kept up with the latest arguments and trends in policy.

That being said, feel free to run anything - I won't hold any of my preferences or experiences with certain arguments against you. The most important thing for me is that you do the work for me on the flow - give me the most important voting issues and do impact calculus on those points. I REALLY do not want to decide that for you. More specifically, several key points:

Ks / Critical affs: Several years ago, these were only starting to become more popular in the circuits I was debating. Therefore, I don't have a lot of experience with critical stuff. In this case you should both clearly explain the arguments AND link it to the resolution or case debate - I'm more likely to buy it when you do the work on these flows.

Stock issues and case debate: I love myself a good case debate and think that a solvency debate is very important for accessing impacts at the end of the round, but this comes with limits. For example, I really don't want to have to vote on T or inherency arguments so neg, please try to complement those flows with some offense flows.

DAs/off-case: Again, given that I haven't been judging this topic this year, do the work and clearly link these issues to the case debate. But I probably would understand these at first glance better than K debates.

Speed: Haven't judged fast rounds much, so if anything, be clear and especially keep your tags clear. As I understand it, we now share speech docs for the constructive speeches, so this shouldn't be an issue for me to follow that. But I would rather you be clear and have quality over quantity, especially in the rebuttals.

CX: Probably won't flow this, but anything in CX is liable to be put in future speeches that I will indeed flow. Corollary to that is that the teams should reference anything in CX they want to be remembered in the round.

Miscellaneous: If opponents drop an argument, I WILL NOT automatically extend it - the teams must tell me to extend it and why it matters. I don't want to have to do the work at the end of the round. You are also responsible for telling me when to start and stop prep time.

If you have any other questions, just let me know and I'll try to answer them as best I can. Overall, this is meant to be fun and educational so bring that spirit into the round. Good luck!

Also, if you have questions after the round, feel free to email me at wizworld97@gmail.com and I'll try to give you some helpful answers or feedback!

Public Forum

I know that speed is now more prevalent than it was when I debated, so make sure you're speaking clearly. If anything, emphasize your evidence tags so I get them on my flow. I don't know if critical arguments have become popular in PF or not - I will listen to them but I am not well-versed in critical theories, so make sure you really do the work for me on those types of arguments.

Crossfire: I won't flow it, but I will write down important questions or answers for reference. That being said, whatever is in the crossfires doesn't stand alone, so if there's something important in there you NEED to mention that in the next speech. Two big things:

- Do not interrupt your partner or your opponents.

- You MUST be asking questions. Do not use this as an opportunity to extend your own arguments. I won't drop you for it but I will be annoyed.

Final Focus: No new arguments in the Final Focus speeches - I won't flow them. If it's something egregious in the Grand Crossfire then sure, bring it up, but this should be rare. If you're not doing the work for me in the FF and stating voting issues, impacts, and why you're winning them, then you likely won't get my vote. The last thing you want is for me to disregard an issue that you find important, or vice versa.

Miscellaneous: Don't abuse prep time, and you are responsible for telling me when to start and stop prep. Also, you must actively point out and extend a dropped argument - I won't do anything with that argument unless you tell me to extend it across the flow.

If you have any other questions, just let me know and I'll try to answer them as best I can. Overall, this is meant to be fun and educational so bring that spirit into the round. Good luck!

Also, if you have questions after the round, feel free to email me at wizworld97@gmail.com and I'll try to give you some helpful answers or feedback!