I am a parent judge and I mostly judge PF but am familiar with debate structure and have been judging for a while. Please keep your own time.

I will flow everything in round except cross, so if something significant happens bring it up in the round and I will add it to my flow. Off time roadmaps are helpful, but please keep it brief.

I sometimes think the evidence read is weak or unrelated but if your opponent doesn’t challenge it, I likely won’t either. If evidence conflicts I will typically believe whichever one is more more convincing to a reasonable individual.

Two of the most important things to me as a judge are dropped arguments and impacts.

Please be nice, everyone is doing their best, if you are rude you will lose points. I appreciate kindness to your competitors especially in novice. It doesn’t matter to me if you sit or stand, nor does it matter how you dress. Be comfortable and have fun.

Good luck :)

hi!

I am a parent judge so please do not do anything that you wouldn’t do for a parent judge, and I have a few rules of thumb.

1. Please do not speak too fast and make sure you are clear while you speak.
2. I listen to everything during the round, and I will judge based off whose argument is more convincing.
3. Please be respectful and kind to both me and your opponent's.
4. Please have fun and try your best and good luck to both of you guys!

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! This is my first-year judging debate events. Please adapt to me as a newer judge, at the same time I will do my best to follow what you say and take notes. Please speak slowly and explain everything that you are saying very clearly. Do not skip any steps in your logical chains - things that are intuitive to you might not seem that way to me. If you see me lift up my pen or not write anything for a while, it means you are going too fast for me. Slow down and speak at an understandable pace. I will do my best to judge the round fairly as long as you do your best to convince me why you should win. Please speak in a conversational tone - don't yell - and be as persuasive as you can.

I consider myself alayjudge, but I will attempt to flow during the round. Here are a few of my preferences to keep in mind:

• Please be clear and concise. You should be explaining your arguments (and context) in-depth. Give me a clear link that I can follow. As always, I need to hear good warranting in case AND hear it be extended.

• Please no spreading.If I don’t understand an argument, I’m not voting for it.

• Organization matters, please signpost.

• Do comparative weighing. Give me something tangible to vote for. Tell me what is most important, and why I should be valuing this over everything else.

• Finally, the best debate rounds are inclusive and respectful. Be a good, kind person. You can be skilled and assertive without being rude.

• Add me to the email chain, dmdawson413@gmail.com

Best of luck everyone!

E-mail kaareanna74@gmail.com

About me:

• I am a Judge for Peninsula High School. Admittedly, I am more in my element judging IE, but I also thoroughly enjoy judging debate. I may know some basic concepts, but I’m still learning and possibly am unfamiliar with more specific terminology.

• I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.

• Style: Please speak slowly and clearly. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.

• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified sources, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.

• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.

• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact why that outweighs your opponents main points. I will limit my decision to solely arguments extended in the last two speeches. Completely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.

• Have fun, do your thing! Please treat each other with respect. 

During debate, I value argumentation and delivery equally. As an extemporaneous speaker, I believe that both debate and speech are communication events. If I don't understand what you're saying (either because of logical issues or because of speaking flubs), I can't judge what you're saying. As far as argumentation goes, I'll buy mostly anything as long as the logic chain is clear and there is plenty of evidence. Impacts are very important to me, so emphasize those and be sure to weigh. Be respectful and have fun!

I am a parent

Please speak loud and clear. Also, please be civil towards your opponent(s).

Specifically for LD: I'm fine with Progressive Arguments (Counter plans, Disadvantages, Kritiks, theory, etc.), just be reasonable and explain it clearly so that I can understand what you are saying. For theory, please make sure it is an actual abuse in the round.

PF paradigm: I judge based on the flow. I don't judge off of my pre-existing ideas or what I believe to be true in the real world. I judge based off of the arguments presented and the rebuttals to those arguments. If your opponent says something stupid or makes wild leaps in logic and you don't call them on it, it's not my job to enter the debate as a third party and call them on it through the ballot. That's your job. I don't flow cross, so if you want me to weigh something said in cross, put it in a speech.

My preferences:

I can handle speed, but don't spread. If I can't flow it, I'm not considering it in the final judging.

Extend your arguments. Make it clear. Explain. If I don't know much about the topic, I should still be able to understand.

Be civil.

Be ethical with evidence. Don't paraphrase things that aren't actually supported by the evidence or leave out key information that changes the interpretation of the evidence.

I don't like K's in PF.

Weigh the impacts. Give me voters.

Policy paradigm: I'm pretty traditional. I'm fine with progressive arguments-- I'll weigh any arguments you want to make-- but they can't be sloppy. You have to be able to explain it to me effectively, not just read a bunch of cards and expect me to figure out how it links. If you're running something squirrelly and your opponent responds with logic, I'm probably going to prefer logic. Again, I'm pretty traditional.

If the aff makes a logical argument and the neg counters with philosophy, why should I prefer philosophy over real world impacts? Explain it to me.

I don't really love role of the ballot arguments that I have some obligation to vote for you so we can change the world. That I have an obligation to vote for you so we can send a message. My obligation is to vote for the best debaters.

I like K alts that solve. There's that traditional thing again.

Spreading is fine.

For DEBATE events, I focus on:

(1) Content - focus on topic; arguments organized; factual accuracy; point of view supported; references; support is germane to topic; counters arguments presented by opposing team.

(2) Delivery - confidence; appropriate/professional tone; eye contact; volume; speaking rate (absolutely no speaking at lightspeed); time management.

Special Note - A well-delivered argument with good use of the performative aspects of speech is ultimately more persuasive than the same argument delivered poorly. If you are reading specific text from authors as evidence is expected, be mindful of your speed, lightspeed recitation of evidence will not win your arguments for you. Rather, your analysis and discussion of evidence will be necessary. Also, aggressive questioning during cross is expected, but unnecessary facial expressions/eye rolling/noise making/negative demeanors are absolutely not okay.

++++++

For SPEECH events, I focus on:

(1) Content - entertaining; piece choice challenging and appropriate for competitions.

(2) Delivery - eye contact; volume; speaking rate; confidence.

Special Note - A well-delivered speech with good use of performative aspects is the key to breaking. Believe in your piece, let the judges feel you believe in your own piece.

++++++

You are all here to showcase your pieces, I look forward to enjoying them. Be respectful to each other and other teams, I value that greatly. I will mark you down for disrespectful, unprofessional, and inappropriate behaviors toward your competitors, and if you do that more than once, I will drop you.

My background: A former defense attorney with extensive litigation experience; and I am currently a senior corporate counsel with a local architecture engineering consulting company, together I have more than 20 years of legal experience.

For me Academic Speech & Debate is all about learning. I am a parent volunteer judge. I have judged a couple of speech tournaments for past 2 years. In a debate I am looking for significant and relevant arguments that stand to fact checking. Please do not spread. This is very important. Speak at conversational pace so that I can follow your arguments. I have very basic understanding of debate jargons so avoid them. I want to focus on your debate round so each team should keep their own time. Please be extremely polite and respectful to everyone in the room. Good luck and have fun!

My Background:

Undergraduate degree in Business Administration (Berkeley Haas).

I'm a program manager for a speech and debate program.

I have little to no experience judging debate.

What I look for:

Be respectful. Confidence without attitude.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear.

I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

Speech and Debate Assistant  coach for Palo Verde High School since 2015

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. My email is chriskj@nv.ccsd.net. I cannot overemphasize the necessity of doing this – it will help keep me focused and generally just make me happier. Using the file share feature on online platforms is also OK. (Let me know that you've sent me your case.)

Spreading…fine if you've given me the speech before the debate and follow it (or make it clear where you deviate). 

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Some debaters have asked me for "time signals" (like in extemp?) - this will result in my not taking notes. If you want this, be aware that I won't be taking notes and you'll risk me forgetting the content of your speeches.

Debate:

Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.)

I do not prefer theory. I find it unnecessarily complicated and usually designed to make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. 

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Similarly, there isn’t much that is “off limits” (other than that which is listed above…pay attention to that). Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of poorly cut and equally poorly organized evidence minus warrants, you probably be sad at the end of the round.

World Schools:

I'm the coach for Team AZ Amaranth and Periwinkle. While this is my first year coaching World Schools, I've been competing in and coaching Congress and Extemp for 6 years. I'd say I'm a fairly traditional WSD judge. While I will understand you if you use more "tech" debate language, I expect you to adapt to the more conversational style of WSD. The best speakers will make sophisticated arguments while also maintaining a good pace, fluency, and including variety in tone to emphasize emotional appeal. I also value weighing; tell me why your impacts are most important and why!

For all forms of debate, I am basically a flow judge. That being said if you spread too fast I will not be able to get parts of your case on to my flow. In the end, be logical, make good cases and be respectful.

I don't time off time road maps as long as they are quick and efficient.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and a NIETOC final in Informative. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

I have judged all events, but when it comes to debate most of my experience stems from LD and Congress. I value clash and enjoy watching strategies unfold. Framework is important and so is strong evidence. If you ask me in person what do I like in a debate, I say show me the best you can do and impress me. I don’t mind spreading (especially in CX where it is expected) or traditional and/or progressive debate as long your arguments are sound and adapt to your opponents’ points. Be respectful, professional, and have fun.

Me as a judge- I like to take notes. Please keep your own time as well. I did debate in high school, but I was firmly in impromptu.

Spreading- not too fast, please!

Standing is your choice.

You may call me Bree, or judge.

I am a lay parent judge, but have been invoIved with Congressional Debate for the past several years with our High School. I value lively debating/clash that keeps its momentem moving forward. Avoid rehashing an issue, as this trends towards stalling, and for a judge, is rather boring!

I look for speeches that are given with confidence, solid evidence, clear diction, lively emotion, and occocaional humor is appreciated. I also look for debators that can research and construct evidence "on the fly" as the debate flows. In addidion, the impact factor needs to be clear.

Finally, it is of utmost importance to me as a parent (and as a judge) that there is mutual respect in the language and actions of the debators. This experience should spark thought and genuine goodness in everyone who attends. Thank you!

Argumentation and logic are far more important to me than gamesmanship. I realize that Debate has technique and rules and conventions, but the bill of sale was to teach students how to craft cohesive arguments and deliver them articulately. If your strategy is to exploit rules or score enough cheap points to win I will be unlikely to vote for you. If you spread, be sure you are good at it so that I can hear and understand you— my deep dark secret is that I am not great at hearing spreading, so if it's not coherent, I might miss your points. And I prefer to listen instead of reading your cards. If you run a K, it better be an extremely interesting one, or I will almost certainly vote it down.

I want to see real arguments being made in a passionate, logical, civil, and coherent manner. I will not tolerate ad hominem attacks. You can be fierce and aggressive, but attacking your opponent personally is not aggressive debate. And being passionate doesn't mean shouting (necessarily; I have seen shouting that was effective, but it's a subtle skill!). Arguments before cards, please. If your "case" is just reading a bunch of cards at me, I won't be very impressed.

We aren't here to play games, IMO. I want to see you tackling these issues for reals and using your voice to make good debate.

This is my third year judging and mostly have experience with speech events. I just ask for you to speak at normal pace as I have some slower processing issues and I want to understand and follow your piece!

FOR EVERYONE:

Do NOT bring up victims of police brutality just for your intros or as an additional piece of evidence you immediately move on from. people's lives should not be used as a piece of 'gotcha' evidence or a card to win a judge. if you are ignoring people's humanity to win a round you are not doing this activity correctly.

For Congress:

40% presentation, 60% content. There MUST be refutation in every speech after the authorship. your job as the author/sponsor is to explain how the mechanisms of your legislation work, not just give the first aff speech-explain what your legislation does and how it solves the problems in the status quo. If you speak twice on the same bill I will drop you. If you refer to male presenting competitors as 'representative/senator' and female presenting competitors as 'Ms.' I will drop you. If you are aggressive in direct cross I will want to drop you. Please give me clear impacts and ask questions often. I also coach extemp, so I don't want to see you just reading a prewritten speech off your legal pad. I love good POs and I will rank you high for it!

For PF:

I'm not going to time you. I'm not going to flow cross. As long as you're not an LD or Policy debater turned PF debater, I'll be fine with your speed (as long as your constructive is under 900 words you're probably fine). I need impacts and clear taglines. Organization is a huge thing for me. It is not my job to weigh the round for you, so you need to be doing impact calculus and giving me key voters all the way through. SIGNPOST. If you are rude in cross I will give you low speaks and I will want to drop you. If you run a K I will drop you. Also I do not flow the authors of your cards are so if you refer to cards by the author only I am not going to be able to find it on my ballot-give me a source name, a key word or phrase, something.

For IEs:

Your Infos/Oratories should all have quality cited evidence. Your Infos should give me impacts, and your Oratories should have solutions. For Interp, you should not be performing a character with a disability piece if you do not have that disability. In Humor ESPECIALLY, if you do a racist caricature/accent, I will drop you. Please use good judgement.

Email: erinmguiney@gmail.com

LD - I am a traditional judge, I do not favor progressive LD. I look for clash and a good morality debate. I also favor good communication. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

PF - I am a traditional judge, do not favor progressive PF. See above.

I value the quality of the contentions over quantity. Low to no spread. Value contentions weighing humanities longevity, environmental balance and bottom up solutions most heavily.

Hi, I competed in speech for all four years of high school. I've now judged/coached for about 5 years! :) Here's what I have (in terms of my rules) to say about speech and debate:

For everyone: please don't try to shake my hand (it wont affect your score, i get its for being nice and thanking me for judging your round) but idk where your hands have been.

SPEECH: Have fun, don't be nervous, and do you best. I judge fully based off the performance. If you go over the grace period of your performance, cool, but like, know you can't be ranked the 1. I love topics of public health, healthcare, child/maternal health, and health equity.

DEBATE: I am a lay judge, however I've now been judging traditional debate for 3 years (mostly PF and LD, BQ, but I know it's not traditional debate lol). Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. If you want me to disclose, I can. However, I will not disclose during elimination/outrounds!

Please make sure you can take your own times! I will be taking my time from now on to make sure the round runs as fairly and efficiently.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I can understand your sources (Name, Date) plzzz

Have your cards ready and set to go, in case I want to see them!

Checking and reading cards is not a part of prep time, but if you go over like 2 1/2 min or more, I'll start counting it towards your prep time.

Have fun, be cool, make me laugh, you could get extra pts, idk (life is short, yolo). Also, no sexism, racism, or any kind of hatred because it will lead you into an auto-drop. ALSO, yes to the email chain! abhern12@asu.edu

CONGRESS: I love clash! Speak eloquently and loudly please! Answer all of your questions succinctly as you can during CX! If you make me laugh in the round, that could possibly help lol. Please keep the debate as creative and interesting towards the bills you want to pass. Repeating arguments are irrelevant, please always add a new/interesting point during your speeches :) Have fun too! :) (if u talk about public health, delivery of healthcare systems, access/utilization of healthcare, child/maternal health, or health inequity and disparities, maybe you might catch my eye and get ranked idk) ((public health is cool))

I am mostly experienced in collegiate IPDA and NPDA which are both limited prep formats of debate. I do have experience coaching high school PF and so I am able to judge that pretty well. LD and Policy are the two formats I am more wary of judging due to my lack of experience in those formats either competitively or coaching-wise. I will say, I am a flow heavy judge and need to see adequate responses to each point and counterpoints your opponent makes. If you make any derogatory or hateful comments at any point in the debate, I don't care how good your case is, I'm voting you down.

I am a speech judge and used to compete and mentor in speech events. As a result, I will do my best to give as helpful feedback as I can.

Overall, I am looking for the following, in order of importance:

PREPAREDNESS: This is a basic. Preparedness means you come to the round memorized. Fluency is a must in both platform and interpretation.

CHARACTERIZATION/TONE: For interp events, I should be able to see the thought you have put into each character. Think: tone and physicality. For platform events, you should have vocal variety in tone and pacing.

MEANING: Speech is a type of forensics, which means every piece should investigate something about the human condition. Your piece does have to be revolutionary, but it should be apparent that you understand why you are doing the piece you are doing.

Graduated from McClintock High School in 2021.

Pronouns: he/him

Email Chain: logan.kraver@gmail.com

Quick Prefs:

K/K affs: 1

Trad: 1

Theory/T: 3

LARP: 2

Tricks: Strike

Phil: 2

General: For some general things, I spread all throughout my debating career, but it has been a few months, since I have done anything related to debate, so be as clear as possible and try to not start at max speed at the beginning of your speech. I am pretty generous about speaks, because I find them super arbitrary; unless you are being rude or super incoherent in your debate, then you are likely to lose speaks. On that note, I don't tolerate any form of discrimination and will autodrop you if you are being racist, sexist, ableist, etc.

Detailed Paradigm:

K: For context, I was a K debater for most of my years in high school, where I primarily debated the cap k and biopower; however, I have general understandings of most other K args. As long as you are able to explain your theory of power or overall premise of your K well enough I will most likely understand. For any type of argument clarity is best, so label the sections of your K or be specific of what the purpose of each card/arg is for. Another thing that will definitely net you better speaks with any K is being very coherent to what the alternative entails and actually explaining what the K methodology looks like. Feel free to read your non-T K affs, just be ready to argue against T or explain why you don't have to be topical.

Trad: I also like trad debates a lot, as I debated quite a bit on the Arizona local circuit. In many of these debates, I look to framework quite a bit and enjoy clashing frameworks. I am completely comfortable judging a util v util debate; usually, its just not that interesting, but go for args you are comfortable with. Be sure to extend your contentions and stuff and do impact weighing and that'll usually secure the win for most trad debates in AZ I feel.

Theory/T: I have a high threshold for theory, so avoid friv theory at all costs. I don't like using theory as a solely strategic play, but I will still evaluate any argument, if the abuse was legitimate. I default to competing interps, but am completely fine with reasonability (even with reasonability I highly recommend you have some type of CI). I don't automatically layer, so be sure to explain why theory/T comes first.

LARP: I have very little experience running LARP positions myself, but have heard/debated against some very good LARP arguments in the past. For a lot of these types of positions, weighing is super important to help me understand how your plan/CP is better than your opponent's position and being very clear of what your advocacy actually does.

Tricks: Don't read tricks, I didn't like them high school, and still don't see the point.

Phil: I really like phil; the only major thing is to be clear how to weigh impacts under your framing and to explain how your philosophy functions within the debate. I don't have a lot of experience with niche arguments in this realm, but still with common continental philosophers like Kant and Hobbes, I highly recommend clear explanation of your argument.

Misc: Overall, just be very clear about your argument and do quite a bit of impact weighing + extensions. I don't like complex arguments for the sake of being complex, so be sure to have clear explanations of your case/offs.

I am super chill and am down to answer any questions related to debate/my paradigms before or after the round! I will also be disclosing at the end of the round.

I'd like to start out by stating that I used to have a paradigm and now it appears to have fled. Please know that that paradigm was much better and more comprehensive than this paradigm, but this will have to do for now. Don't let this paradigm be a reflection on me as a person.

PF

Rate- As long as you enunciate and I can understand you, have at it.

Content- Some philosophy and broad application is fine, but your arguments should be grounded in real life context and specifics.

I'm a teacher-coach, in that order. Your content and the flow matters but so does your clarity, organization, tone, and decorum. If both teams have sensational arguments and it's close I have no problem giving the win to who I think are the better speakers.

Consider myself a flay judge. The RFD is going to read more like a narrative and less like you won at argument Tetris.

Please have fun. I promise I will or, at the very least, if it's late and we're worn out, I'm still going to look like I'm having fun, and I'm going to do the best I can to give you something to work with and a clear reason for my decision.

To be clear, I'm a speech coach. I am proficient enough in flowing rounds and can effectively keep up with the debate. However, if spreading is utilized, you run the risk of losing me entirely. Additionally, strategies such as running theory or K's are unlikely to lead to a winning outcome in my view. I prefer debates that are grounded in linking arguments back to a value or standard set during the rounds. Please signpost clearly so I can follow the flow more effectively. I don't want to direct the debate in any particular direction; structure it as you see fit, keeping my background and preferences in mind.

I am a parent judge, speak slowly and clearly and explain all your arguments efficiently. Avoid using debate jargon.

Hello everyone, my name is Emilian Lobodanescu. I have about a year and a half experience judging speech, and a little bit less in debate.

For Speech: I will judge off of the performance of your speech more so than the content. There are some exceptions, but I am looking to judge you off of passion and personal connection, as well as blocking, more so than the topic. Be kind and respectful, and my same disclaimer in debate goes for speech— hateful targeted content in your speech or in the room itself will not be tolerated.

For Debate:

As I am a lay judge, please refrain from spreading (if you must, be very loud and clear-- I will not take your points into consideration if you rush through them). Limit debate jargon, and if you use any, please define it.

Send me your cases/block files before the round begins to my email: emilmari99@cox.net

Things I judge on/ General Tips:

1. Again, please speak clearly (and slowly if possible).
2. Signpost: make sure your contentions AND impacts are very apparent to me (e.g. "Contention 1 is ____" or "Our impact is ___")
3. Give me an off-time roadmap before your begin Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus.
4. I prefer organized cases and clear chains of evidence.
5. Assertive, not agressive.
6. I enjoy quantifiable impacts (statistics, numbers, etc.), and a particularly effective way for you to convince me of your argument is to really double down on your impacts in Summary and Final Focus.
7. I will not give comments after the round (you will find those in your RDF's once ballots come out), but I will disclose if you ask me to

Other:

*****Any kind of racist, sexist, or in any way discriminatory comments will not be tolerated. Immediate 0 speaks, and I will be very inclined to drop you. Please be respectful to each other, and do not be rude to your fellow competitors.******

Hey y'all my name is Mia! (pronouns she/her)

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions/clarification/definitions about my paradigm! (back as a novice pfer my judge started throwing around the word "frontlining" and my partner and I were too nervous to ask what that even meant)

tldr: how to win my ballot? give me a convincing story about why your side matters more (key voters and world comparison are rly helpful tools to do this). I need important arguments that you think are key to you winning to be extended through the entire round to the last speech if you want me to consider them. 3 key things: extensions, evidence comparison, impact weighing. Lay out how I should be voting, so that the final decision is clear.

Background: One year of pf, 3 years of ld. I've debated on more traditional circuits (nsda nats), more progressive nat circ, and regular locals, so I am familiar with most styles of debating.

General Things:

-Evidence exchange is one of the most important parts of keeping debate fair, I'm all for asking for evidence off prep as long as it doesn't take a huge amount of time. Debaters sometimes drastically or incorrectly change the meaning of a card through paraphrasing or cutting, so if you're suspicious of a piece of evidence, you can ask me to call for it in a speech, or I may call to see it myself. If I find the evidence to be misconstrued, I won't consider it in the round. If your opponent can't produce the evidence, you can ask me to not consider it in the round.

-Extensions: these are pretty important to me in the flow; if you dont know what an extension is, it is the author, tag, and a bare minimum warrant/summary of an argument. Don't waste a really good case by not extending it through the round.

-Equity: i will not tolerate debaters making arguments that are very clearly problematic/offensive to a marginalized identity. If this happens in round, please call it out. I am willing to buy independent voters based off of this, however don't attempt to abuse or manipulate that stance.

Offense/Defense- ideally balance both. Offense to show how your opponent's world is worse than yours. Defense so you still have your own case by the end of the round to stand on

PF:

-good organization is much appreciated

-i like believable arguments over crazy exaggerated link chains, but as long as you can warrant it I’ll consider it

Policy:

-have done a bit of college policy, but not super familiar with the structure so bear with me, I am pretty familiar with this topic lit though, you can read ld paradigm for other things

LD:

quick prefs (in what I feel comfortable evaluating) :

1-trad/k affs/performance k

2-stock k, phil, t, theory

3-larp

4-pomo

5-tricks, skep triggers

In a trad round, I will first look at who wins on framework to see how I evaluate. If one person clearly wins the fw debate, I evaluate all impacts on the flow under that fw, (ie util), so fw debate matters. If the fw debate is a wash, then I'll just go to weighing impacts with ambiguous framing, if you don't go for fw especially do the impact weighing and key voter work for me. (You don't need to go for framework if you both agree on it).

I do not default to debate is a game, debate is anything you want it to be, *except* a space to be violent

I will vote for any argument even if it's out there, but arguments need warrants. I was a k debater myself, but mostly idpol (fem, border k etc), so that and traditional debate is what I'm most familiar with. I understand the concepts of most phil and theory but make sure I actually understand what you're saying, and don't be intentionally confusing.

I don't like tricks, frivolous theory, or super abusive multiple offs/spreading against people who very clearly can't handle it. I will not vote on you for this if this is all you have going for you. If I am your judge, you can ask me I consider your opponent to be doing any of these at any point in the debate for clarification/if you're confused what's going on.

I'm cool with flex prep. I'm heavily down with reps/discursive voters. Independent voters are fine. But most of all, I'm looking for clash, world comparison, and impact weighing. Each speech is a SPEECH, not a race to overwhelm your opponent, so tell me a convincing story of why your side wins and I'll probably vote for you.

Notes on spreading:

-if you're spreading without a doc, be very careful, I'm not the best at picking up things without a doc, I'll warn you with "slow" once or twice, even a doc with an outline/summary of what your analytics will be is helpful to follow

-that being said, I heavily prefer having a doc for everything if you'll be speaking fast

-even if i do have a doc, slow down on tags/analytics

notes from asu:

-quality>quantity arguments, much easier to buy something if it's well developed and actually makes sense

-please give me voters, u don't have to say "key voter" but ideally i should not be picking out what to vote on myself

-whatever happened to good analytics as rebuttals?

-extensions! pls!

-u have to try respond to ur opp's answers to the 1AC/NC, or else ur gonna be left without much of a case

-yes, add me to the chain (mlupica.debate@gmail.com)

Hello, I am a parent judge who is not experienced in judging debate; I primarily judge in speech.

Please do not flow, and please do not run non-topical arguments such as Ks and theories.

This is what I would like: Please state your claims clearly and meaningfully. If you use jargon please clarify. Explain clearly why your claim is relevant. Explain why your claims supersede over your competitors, or in other words show a grasp of your competitor's claims. I appreciate the proper evidence behind your claims. Please paste your cards into the chat when requested by your competitor. Please stay within these bounds to maximize points.

I have judged in a few events before. Don't spread because you will loose my attention for sure. I have to be able to clearly hear you and understand your argument. Try to avoid talking over other person. You should be able to convince me with your arguments. I care more about persuasion and confidence vs. facts. If you use an acronym, at least explain it once. I am a bullet point person. So in this case, I would love to see Signpost. It will convey your points to me much more clearly.

I am a lay judge from Arizona with three years experience judging Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas debate.

I base my decisions on the cases, cross examinations and rebuttals presented by the competitors. I do not finish cases, refute evidence or drop points for you. I rarely ask for evidence unless I suspect shenanigans. Please make your own, complete, cohesive case and clash with your opponent. Keep in mind, the farther you stretch your links, the more likely you are to lose me. I prefer elegance over cleverness.

I enjoy LD as the best forum to engage value-based debate without a presumed burden or the need for detailed plans. As such, I feel many of the progressive strategies of Policy debate often become unnecessary tricks and gimmicks in LD. I'll accept theory and kritics, but I still expect topical clash. A debater using a K accepts the burden that comes with an a priori discussion, handicapped by the lack of speaking time allowed in Policy. It's a gamble.

I accept speed. However, I find it lacks elegance and it's unpleasant. Please don't speak faster, just speak less. Economize. Using speed won't hurt your case, (unless I miss something), but it will hurt your speaker points.

To me debate is an intellectual expression and exchange of arguments to express your ideas, research, views, thoughts, experience and facts about a topic. And the individuals who are able to most effectively make those arguments and support his/her positions, wins the round.

I have judged BQ in debate annd in speech I have judged Extemporaneous, Impromptu, Dramatic Interpretation, Original Oratory, Informative before. I encourage the participants to make their arguments clearly at a reasonable conversational speed so that everyone is able to understand what is being said and can respond accordingly. That way I am able to do justice to your speech, arguments and debate positions and everyone involved in this exercise can have a fun positive experience at the same time.

Looking forward to hearing your arguments and speeches.

Speak slowly and clearly.

For all debate events and especially policy debate:

I have coached all the events at the national level and I have been coaching for 20 years. I spent the first 10 of those years coaching college policy debate. I like all forms of argumentation except cheap theory tricks. What I like is less important than what you are good at. I would like to see what you are best at.

There are two things that I despise about how debate has evolved:

1) I despise the emphasis on the speech doc: this is a speaking activity. I value persuasive speaking. I will be flowing on paper and I will not be looking at a speech doc while you talk. I will be looking at you, listening to your voice, and flowing. I also call for very few cards after the round so as to put the emphasis on the round that happened not the one in your coaches' heads. Persuasion matters. Pathos matters. Nuanced Evidence comparison in the round matters. Tactical ability matters. Style matters.

2) I despise the lack of creativity that I observe in the arguments: I am especially bored by the way that jargon flattens our characterization of things to ready made labels so that everyone speaks and thinks the same. My favorite DA debaters I have ever watched have their own singular ways of characterizing impacts and even their 1NC shells have unique structure and emphasize different internal links than the standard form. My favorite Kritik debaters of all time see the connection between the content that they are presenting and the form that they use to communicate. They try to do something new and they take some risks.

One last note: I understand that debates can get heated but when the debate gets personal I get cynical and I wonder why I am still giving time to the activity.

For speech events:

Exaggeration seems fake to me. Realness and subtlety draw me in. When a student puts an emphasis on the ideas and the scholarship of the activity they get extra points from me. Polish and perfection are not everything. I would rather see a speaker with some rough elements of their delivery who is taking a chance to express something of meaning than a perfectly rehearsed speaker delivering a safe speech without a lot of conceptual depth.

I am a lay judge but I have experience judging LD. I became involved with debate because I wanted to support my daughter and my teaching colleagues. I appreciate slow, logical debating with good warrant comparison. Explain your arguments clearly in your summary and final focus and signpost clearly. Please be polite to each other and have fun!

“Please speak slowly and clearly because if I can't understand then I can't vote for you"

I am a 6th year coach who did not compete in Speech and Debate as a student. I am more experienced in speech events than debate events, though I have coached the basics in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Big Questions. While I understand the conventions and some theory of debate, I judge as an educated member of the public. I want to hear a good story that proves to me why your side of the case makes the most sense. I listen first to understand, then to decide. Therefore, it is crucial that you speak clearly and naturally. I do not appreciate spreading. I am listening for the links between evidence and claim and decide based on which side presents and maintains the strongest arguments. I do not disclose, but am happy to give objective feedback if you ask.

For platform speaking events, I am interested more in structure than in style. A well-organized, well-supported performance will win my vote over a flashy presentation style. That being said, an overall effect in interpretation and platform events that brings me on an emotional or intellectual journey will always rank highest.

I have some experience as a parent judge! I enjoy debate sessions and am looking forward to a good debate.

Hi! I’m Maddie, I was a competitor all through high school. I have done PF, interp, but mainly info. Although I’ve done debate I’m not really a flow judge, so please make sure your arguments are clear, that is very important to me. If I’m confused on a point because it was not made clear I most likely won’t weigh it. Talk at a normal speed please, that always helps confusion! Thanks for reading and good luck!

Hello!

Below, you will find my paradigms for debate events. I will do speech paradigms in round, if necessary.

Best of luck to all :)

CONGRESS

1. Do not give empty claims. That is, do not say a point and no evidence! If you do, I cannot say it was a good speech or point if I have 0 cards or sources to back up what you're saying. Moreover, I really like quantitative data. Numbers in relation to your argument is really helpful to see real-life impacts of what you're arguing.

2. Be respectful in debate, questioning, etc. Don't be rude to your fellow debaters and do not address people in the chamber by last name. It is Rep. or Senator whatever. If you say Mr. or Ms. or address by last name, I will drop you immediately!

3. Don't give a speech for the sake of speaking. Always try to give lesser participants chances to speak. For me, I prefer quality over quantity. Thus, just because you give 3 or 4 speeches doesn't mean I will rank you top 8. Additionally, don't spend an hour and a half on a bill if you're just going in circles.

LD/PF

These paradigms apply to both LD and PF:

1. Provide evidence for all your contentions/arguments. I need to hear you clearly state your card sources as well as dates. This is extremely important when I review my flow at the end. Moreover, I really like numerical data when speakers are presenting because it gives real-time evidence on how the issues are affecting us.

2. I ran traditional debate because I preferred the clean and organized layout, however, I'm okay with you running K, theory, counter-plans, etc., as long as your case ties into the resolution.

3. NO SPREADING!!! First, if I can't understand what you are saying, I will not vote for your side. Moreover, if you spread, I will put my pen down and your arguments mean nothing. That is a visual indication to slow down. Please don't abuse the rule or I will immediately end the round!

4. Please be respectful to your fellow competitors. Don't interrupt or insult your opponents. You will lose speaker points and could cost you the round.

In general, my judging will emphasize how well you explain your value, how well you weigh your value against your opponent’s, how well you link your arguments to your value, etc. I am not likely to pick you up if you don’t spend any time on impact analysis; I would much prefer three solid cards with excellent analysis to thirty cards without any analysis. I like to hear voters and signposting-if I don’t know where you are on the flow, it’s as if you aren’t making the argument.

Values/ Criteria: I strongly prefer a framework that allows me to clearly pick one position over another. If your value is “morality," make sure you can give me a good sense of what is more moral and what is less. You should have cards in your framework.

Speed: The extent to which you use speed should not interfere with your ability to communicate intelligibly. If you want me to put your arguments/cards on the flow, slow down. You’ll know you’re speaking too fast if I stop flowing.

Cross-ex: If your opponent is abusing your cross-ex by taking too long to answer a question, you may politely interrupt; I will not consider you rude. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to ask for an explanation. Responses should answer the question, not respond with substantive questions.

Blatantly offensive arguments: I will drop debaters for arguing (within either frameworks or contentions) that something we all agree is horrible is actually a good thing (e.g. slavery, rape, etc.).

Dear Congress and Speech Candidates,

I am excited to be judging your Congress session or Speech round. I now have three full years judging Congress and Speech categories. Please indicate what time signals you would like when you enter the room. I usually like to write down the title of your speech if applicable. Kindly work with me if questions arise. Let us make this a great, productive session.

I have had one full year judging at Nationals in '22, Emory, the TOC, and multiple AZ local tournaments. I have learned a lot as a judge and hopefully can bring to you useful information to propel you forward... to the next round!

Good luck, godspeed, and please enjoy yourselves.

EVERYONE:

Be respectful, be kind, be engaged. Everyone is here to learn.

IE:

Hopefully you've practiced this piece or event to the point where you aren't changing your style every round. I want the same performance you give everyone else (unless you're in limited prep, obv). That said, if you promote racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc., I will write "Don't be bigoted." on your ballot, give you the 6, and put my pen down.

PF/LD/CX:

While I'm technically a lay judge, I used to teach argumentative style. I expect full arguments: claim, backing/evidence, warrant, and impact. I prefer if you time yourselves. I don't have the best ears, so spread at your own risk. If I can't understand what you're saying, that's on you.

Congress:

I'm super lay when it comes to Congress, to the point where I might ask you to explain the rules to me. Good luck.

In terms of experience, I was a high school debater, and have also helped coach teams as a college volunteer. While I competed in LD debate, I am familiar with all styles. I can also follow both lay and flow style debates.

General Points

1) Please include me in all email chains. My email is: neha_sethi@msn.com

2) I don't mind spreading for the most part, but please don't go overboard. I can't vote for you if I don't know what you are saying. If you spread to the point where I can't understand you, you will also lose speaks.

3) I do my best to treat all evidence presented as the truth until it is refuted by the opposing team. However, if I feel that you are lying or misconstruing the truth excessively, I will generally dock speaker points even if I have to give the win to your team. If your opponent is lying, you have to point it out to me, otherwise, I will note that they win the point by default.

4) If you want me to evaluate something, a card or tagline generally isn't enough. You should be warranting your argument thoroughly. I find it valuable if you tell me why your evidence is of higher value than your opponent's, especially if it directly contradicts their evidence.

5) Signposting is great. I don't necessarily need a full off-time roadmap, but I can follow along better if you let me know during your speech where you're going.

6) As you head to your last few speeches, do your best to write my ballot for me. If you don't tell me how the round should be evaluated, how the arguments should be weighed, and how you win the round then I may not give you the win.

7) Lastly, feel free to ask me any clarifying questions about my paradigm or otherwise before the round starts (if time permits it). Please just be respectful about it.

Lincoln-Douglas:

1) I am not a fan of pre-fiat Kritiks, especially since they're usually just a way to exclude the affirmation from the round. Ensure you have role of the ballot which will warrant why my vote has an impact on the real world.

2) A role of the ballot only influences how I vote on pre-fiat argumentation. It is not a replacement for framework unless your entire case is pre-fiat. Also, make sure that you provide evidence on how the ballot will cause change.

3) Please try and reserve theory for arguments that are generally abusive of positions that leave one side without any ground. I'll vote on RVIs (reverse voting issues) if they are made, but I don't usually vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "vote against the opposition for violation x..."

4) For post-fiat Kritiks feel free to run anything you want. However, I prefer alts to be more fleshed out than a simple "reject the resolution..."

5) I have no issues with topicality as long as the impact of the topicality on the round is specified.

6) Generally, I value framework and impact analysis over everything else. Skipping one will make me less likely to vote for you, as I either won't know how to evaluate the impacts of the round or because I won't know how to compare them.

Public Forum:

1) For the most part, I don't really flow crossfire, but if something significant is mentioned I will take note.

2)I would recommend weighing arguments in the context of magnitude/probability/time frame. I also appreciate impact calculus.

3) Your Final Focus should not have 3-4 different arguments. It should be focused as you have to implicate your argument against every other argument in the debate.

4) I'm not a huge fan of theory in public forum, but if there is substantial abuse and the theory is not just a way to get out of debating I'm open to it. If you run theory you need to explicitly tell me how to evaluate.

Policy

1) If you throw extremely topic-specific acronyms at me I may be confused, I don't know the topic as well as you do. For the most part, I'm fine as long as you don't go overboard with the acronyms in a sentence.

2) Kritik is ok if you can tie it to the topic at hand. Please do not use an arbitrary Kritik that has no relation to the topic.

3) I usually value engagement and clash over anything else. In order to win, you should address what your opponent is saying, as this should not be a debate where two teams are talking about two completely different worlds.

Hello,

My name is Vinay Singhania. I am a lay judge. A couple of things to keep in mind:

- I would appreciate really clear arguments so I can understand what you are saying and in the end can vote for the winner.

- No Spreading.

- Be civil and respectful towards your opponents. Please don't be rude or overly aggressive, especially in cross.

I have been debating and doing IE's as a competitor and judge since the 1970's with a long break in the 90's and 2000's while working in the private sector. I have been coaching a team that does primarily Oregon-style parli and Public Forum debate, but I did NDT and CEDA as a college competitor and understand all formats.

I judge as a policy maker looking for justification to adopt the resolution, and will accept well-justified arguments on both substance (the issues of the resolution) and procedure (framework, theory). In policy rounds I have a bias against affirmative K's, because I believe the Aff prima facie burden requires that I be given a reason to adopt the resolution by the end of the first Aff constructive in order to give the Aff the ballot. Arguments founded in social justice approaches are fine as long as they lead to a justification for adopting the resolution and changing the status quo.

I can handle speed but remember I'm not seeing your documentation--a warrant read 600 words a minute at the pitch of a piece of lawn equipment might as well not be read from the judge's seat. You flash each other, but not me, so make sure I understand why your evidence supports your argument. I won't debate for you, and I don't flow cross-ex/crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument, introduce it during one of your speeches. In formats other than policy, particularly in Public Forum, I expect a slower rate and more emphasis on persuasion with your argumentation as befits the purpose of those other formats. In LD, I expect arguments to be grounded in values, not "imitation policy."

I will automatically drop any debater who engages in ad hominem attacks--arguments may be claimed to have, for example, racist impacts, but if you call your opponents "racists," you lose--we have too much of that in the contemporary world now, and we are trying to teach you better approaches to argument and critical thinking.

Above all else, I like good argumentation, clash, and respectful conduct. No personal attacks, no snark. Humor welcome. Let's have some fun.

Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA

I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for nine years, judging it for fifteen. I like it. I also coach PuFo and have coached Parli. I have judge two rounds of Policy as an adult and am not a fan.

LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.

Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.

Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.

In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.

Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.

I coach Extemp and Congress at Bellarmine and also have experience with Policy and Original Advocacy.

If I am your judge in an Interp round: I'm sorry. I don't know much about the events and honestly, much of the way I judge simply has to do with whether I am interested in the story you are telling. I am not good at evaluating blocking and so forth. It does seem to me that having multiple characters adds a degree of difficulty, so that tends to go a long way with me.

For INFO/Expos: I really want to LEARN something from your speech. You might have kind of a run-of-the-mill topic with lovely VA's and dynamic delivery, but if the content is pretty bland and I am not learning anything, then I will rank you low. I tend not to get too snowed by nice VA's. Some kids come from more money than others and if a student has a really original idea with strong research behind it, I don't want to penalize them for not having the money or access to a program that can help them get great VA's. I will say, though, that you really should not have a speech of nothing but content. That is HARD to sit through for 10 minutes. Aim to inject some humor or levity where you can.

When it comes to things like Oratory and Advocacy, I like to see RESEARCH and EVIDENCE. Your OO or OA should not be like a DI or HI. I am interested in your reasoning and analysis. Please don't try to cover for lack of empirics and analytical rigor by resorting to excessive pathos.

The event with which I have the most experience is Extemp. I love Extemp. However, I deplore the manner in which final rounds of Extemp at Nats have devolved into stand-up comedy routines. I find that more and more students say very little, they just say it in a very entertaining way. Extemp is an event where you should have an argument, you should have evidence, you should rely upon a range of sources. Students should have a sophisticated argument based upon multiple sources (1 per point...um, no) that are accurately cited. Don't say that the Washington Post had an article on something. Tell me WHEN it had the article. In addition, I am quite pleased to see students stretch beyond standard sources like the NYT, WSJ, Economist, etc. When you show me that you are relying upon sources beyond those that everyone uses, I think that reflects well upon you. Bear in mind: the topics you are speaking about are by and large serious. So students who are smarmy and pleased with themselves and their puns really rub me the wrong way. Finally, I fundamentally reject the movement to enable competitors to bring a notecard or the outline into the room with them to rely upon when delivering. This a tough event. It has many moving parts. The best extempers can handle all of them, including memorization, well. I will in all likelihood not rank you in the top half of the room if you are using a notecard or your outline.

If I am judging you in Policy debate, you should know that I rarely vote on T. I don't mind a good K, but you need to understand the author. If you are just reading cards that your coach cut for you, the round is not terribly interesting because you don't understand what you are talking about. I can handle medium speed, largely because I find spreading to be really unpleasant to listen to. Plus, if debate is an academic activity, then I am not sure what the value of talking crazy fast is. Please, please, please: do not make me listen to multiple speeches about whether or not the round is educational. That is my nightmare. You have a resolution, you have a topic. ENGAGE WITH IT. But when you dance around with T too much or go nuts about the round not being educational, I truly feel like my time is being wasted. Also, I get that there is often the incentive to go to extinction and nuclear holocaust, etc. But I encourage you to consider whether that always makes any sense. Sometimes debaters go from zero to extinction so quickly as to be farcical. I don't mind CP, framework or generic DA's, not a big fan of conditionality. If I think of anything else, I'll add to this. Basically, I want to see the students wrestle with ideas and do so in a mature, polite manner. Finally, if you and your partner are clearly crushing the other team, there is no need to be arrogant about it. I have no problem with low point wins if you are incapable of showing respect.

Affiliation: Torrey Pines High School

I am a first year college student at UC Berkeley and this is my first time judging.

I like debates that are honest and coherent, and I appreciate a well thought out and solidly-backed argument.

I do not tolerate any form of racism or other such discrimination.

Other than this, I'm interested in what everyone has to say. My number one priority is to have fun.

Hi. I am a lay judge.

• Please speak clearly and avoid spreading.
• Have strong and defensible arguments.
• Be respectful towards your opponents.

1. I'm a community judge (used to be parent judge, but all my kids are in college now).

2. I've judged a Debate round once (LD Quarters, 2022-23 AZ State Championships)

3. I've judged Congress once (2021-22 AZ State Championships)

4. So that leaves IE/Speech, which I started judging in 2018.

I have judged Speech at all levels, from the local AZ circuit, to National tournaments, to breakout rounds at Nationals.

What I'm looking for:

SHORT VERSION: Be prepared. Be confident. Be good. Make it easy for me to rank you higher instead of lower.

LONG VERSION below...

OO/INFO:

IMPORTANCE: Is the topic significant? Is the thesis clearly established? Does the delivery assist in establishing the importance of the topic?

RELATABILITY: Can the audience relate to the topic? Is the delivery personable? Does the speaker establish how others are impacted by their topic? (OO) Is the rhetoric of the speech inclusive? (INFO) Does the speaker do a good job informing?

ORIGINALITY: Does the speaker address the topic in a unique, inventive way? Are the supporting examples new and interesting?

POI:

PROGRAMMING: Were at least two of the three genres of literature (Poetry/Prose/Drama) used in the program? Did all of the literature contribute to the theme or argument? Did the flow of the performance make sense? Was there a balance among genres in the performance?

BLOCKING: Can you tell what the performer was doing in each scene? Was it clear what selection the performer was using in each section? Did the performer maintain control of the manuscript at all times? Was the movement motivated in the performance?

CHARACTERIZATION: Did each selection have distinct and engaging characters? Did the performance match the genre (e.g., did the performer emphasize poetic elements when performing a Poetry selection)? Was the performance dynamic?

DI/HI/DUO:

CHARACTERIZATION: Is each character well-developed? Is each character relatable? Does a character’s response seem believable given the situation being portrayed?

BLOCKING: Can you tell what the performer is doing in the scene? Is it clear what character(s) they are playing? Is the movement motivated?

CUTTING: Do you understand what is happening? Is the story line easy to follow? Does the sequence of events make sense?

PROSE/POETRY:

PERFORMANCE: Is the presenter comfortable and commanding in the space? Does the presenter’s use of physicality, facial expression, and gestures enhance the performance?

VOCALIZATION: Does the presenter bring the words to life? In Prose: does the presenter’s use of vocal qualities like diction, pausing, and volume advance the narrative? In Poetry: does the presenter’s use of vocal qualities like rhythm, pacing, and volume advance the performance?

CUTTING: Is the theme or narrative easy to follow throughout the selection of literature? Does the selection flow well and make sense in terms of how it’s developed?

STORYTELLING:

TONE: Does the performer's voice align with the type of story they've chosen to tell? Is it clear this story would be suitable for children to hear?

EXPRESSIVENESS: Does the presenter bring the words to life using effective techniques to convey appropriate emotion? Do the presenter’s facial expressions aid the overall delivery of the presentation? Does the presenter seem engaged in the literature?

RELATABILITY: Is the presenter delivering the story in a manner that would engage young children? Does the presenter effectively establish a connection to the audience? Is eye contact used to engage the audience?

I rank competitors based off of substance and presentation. A solid argument without tact is better than an eloquent piece of fluff, but if two competitors are equally matched as far as substance is concerned, their speaking and presentation skills will be the tiebreaker. That being said, etiquette and sportsmanship are equally - if not more - important. You don’t have to be a jerk to be effective, and I will not hesitate to give you a lower rank if your argumentative style revolves around bullying or otherwise disrespecting your opponent. Be mature, be honest, and have a little fun and we’ll all have a good time.

Please speak slowly and clearly. I will not vote for you if I can't understand what you are arguing for.

Style - Be nice!!! Don't address me as "Judge". Please engage in good faith. This means: avoid misinformation or exaggeration, don't put words in others' mouths, etc. In LD, spreading is okay but give me a heads up and be clear, especially during tags. In PF, don't talk too fast or I'll put my pen down and stop flowing. Please signpost!!

Content - I'm open to any kind of argument (unless it's problematic or offensive), but it must have a clear explanation with strong links and impacts. Tell me beforehand if you're running a K or theory. I'm not the biggest fan of framework debate but I'll listen and flow; just make sure you explain your philosophy well!

***If no one mentions impacts or does any impact weighing, I will flip a coin to decide the winner.

If you have any questions, don't be scared to ask before the round!

I prefer that you time yourself. Be civil and collegial. I will not tolerate disrespectful language or behavior in a round. Your judge does not shake hands.

I am certainly not a tech judge, but I wouldn't say I'm exactly a lay judge either. I'm experienced enough to know how the events work, but I am no expert. That said, my greatest emphasis in a round is on the content of the arguments. I do not spend as much time thinking about technicalities as some judges; I prefer to focus on what is actually being said. Please look to the quality of your contentions and debate. That said, I'm not fluent in all the rules, so if your opponent violates a rule and I don't say something, please point it out.

It would be advisable to avoid spreading when I am judging. I can pick up most of what's being said (depending on your enunciation), but most is not enough to focus on the argumentation. Please rely on fundamentals and avoid cramming as much into your speaking as possible--go for quality, not quantity.

Finally, I am a stickler for respecting one's competitors. Keep things civil, and especially stay calm and treat your opponent like you would like to be spoken to. We are here to debate, after all, and not to argue.

Side note: I prefer not to disclose--my typed comments are a better representation of my feedback, and I don't like you as a debater to be focused on your wins and losses instead of your performance in rounds.

Beyond these relatively simple expectations, I am mostly here to see you do what you do well. Relax, have fun, and do your best.

Competitors should hold themselves to a high standard of etiquette.

Reasonable arguments are the best kind of arguments.

Social justice is favored.

Your judge does not shake hands.

I am a parent lay judge. This is my 3rd year judging PF. Please be polite and respectful to judges and your opponents, and display good sportsmanship.

Make sure you explain your link chain properly and tell me why your contentions or responses make sense.

I would also appreciate it if you tell me why your contentions are more important than your opponents'.

Please speak slow enough so I can understand you and take notes.

Enjoy your debate!

My paradigm is long, but I will break it down by category to hopefully save you some time. TLDR version is: I love forensics. It is intended to change, not stay the same. So show me something that makes me believe in the future of the activity just a little more, and I will do what I can to ensure it gets the recognition it deserves.

My Background

My background ranges across debate, speech, and congress. I completed for 8 years, with four years in High School mostly focused on debate and interp, and then four years in college mainly focused on limited prep, interp, and public address. I've won two state championships in Arizona (Public Forum Debate in 2013 and Duo in 2014) and I'm a three time AFA-NIET finalist on the college circuit (Informative in 2016, with Informative and Persuasion in 2018). I coached for UT Austin's speech team after finishing out my competition years, and I'm currently the head coach at Brophy College Preparatory in Phoenix where I've been serving since the fall of 2019. At this point in my career, I have either coached or done every event but Policy. Nothing against Policy, just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Individual Events Paradigms

Drama

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Presentation of a consistent and grounded environment

3. Control of movement to blocking in your environment

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Duo

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Articulation of a clear relationship which develops across the performance

2. Clarity of subtextual meaning

3. Showcase of coordinated blocking that helps suspend disbelief

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Extemp

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Provided a definitive answer to the question

2. Used structure and substructure that put forth unified analysis

3. Provided supporting arguments that consistently linked back to and proved your answer

4. Showcased strength in poised, confident delivery

5. Gave unique impacts that challenged our understanding of the subject

Humor, Prose, & Storytelling

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Articulation of differentiation between characters through voice, gestures, and facial expressions

3. Control of movement to articulate the images of the story

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Impromptu

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Provided a definitive thesis to the prompt

2. Used structure and substructure that put forth unified analysis

3. Provided supporting arguments that consistently linked back to and proved your thesis

4. Showcased strength in poised, confident delivery

5. Gave unique impacts that challenged our understanding of the subject

Informative

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Presence of structure couched in significance and relevance of the topic

2. Clearly defined topic scope

3. Analysis that continually punctuates the urgency of the argument

4. Engaging visuals to showcase significant details within the speech

5. Conversational, poised, and confident delivery

Original Oratory

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of urgency behind the solutions presented

2. Quality of consistent structure

3. Uniqueness of the topic

4. Tangibility of solutions

5. Showcase of controlled, poised, confident delivery

Poetry & POI

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Articulation of a clear build and climax within the performance

3. Control of movement to articulate the images of the text

4. Clear differentiation of characters (Poetry specific: if multi-voice program)

5. Organization of the narrative to create a dramatic arc

Pro/Con Challenge

In this round, I ranked you according to the following qualities in rank order of significance:

1. Adherence to the Resolution in Argumentation

2. Balance between Affirmative and Negative Sides (i.e. not Straw-manning yourself)

3. Organizational Structure of Cases

4. Sophistication of Rhetoric

5. Showcase of Confident, Conversational Delivery

Debate Paradigms

Debate General

Biggest items for me in debate are that I'm a flow judge who will make very few value judgements without you asking me to within the scope of the round, and I have a few admittedly petty grievances around time. So...

• Be sure to signpost
• Weigh and identify clearly your weighing mechanisms
• I'll say "clear" twice, and then I'm dropping my pen if I still can't tell what you're saying.
• Good debate requires good diction. Do a pen drill. Take prep and do it in the middle of the round if you have to. But please speak with the intention to be understood.
• I control the clock, so: 1) The time starts when you start talking and 2) When that time is up, I'm putting down my pen.
• I think off-time roadmaps are kinda a waste of time. I get why they happen and that I'm on the losing side of this argument. But if you're reading this and would like me to appreciate your style of debate slightly more, don't do off-time roadmaps.
• If you call for many cards in a debate, I do expect that you are going to use that for something in the round. Please do not call for cards frivolously, as I would like to keep the schedule running on time.

Auto-drops for me are pretty limited, but mostly pertain to saying or doing anything particularly derogatory towards your opponent. Forensics in general should be a space where everyone feels comfortable, and is not limited from feeling so because of their identity. It therefore really doesn't much matter to me if you just clearly won the round. If you are rude to your opponent, I will drop you.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Specific

• Tech. Though I come predominantly from a PF background, I'm perfectly fine with you running more technical arguments. You just need to give me 1) The educational purpose of the ballot backed by a warrant and 2) The ability to take large portions of the debate outside the scope of the round without ignoring your opponents arguments or straw manning them. A K isn't a cop-out to repeat the same argument over and over again. You need to prove to us why your Kritik of the resolution is worth more than the resolution itself.
• Framework. If you concede framework, you need to own it and carry it to the end of the debate. I would advise against switching gears midway through and deciding you'd like the round to value a new framework right when you start weighing.

Public Forum Debate Specific

• Impacts. Vital in this event is your ability to properly link (and that does mean really warranting them, don't just read off 8 cards and call it a day) your impacts and terminalize them as early as possible within the round. It's very difficult to be on the winning side of a PF round with any ambiguity around your impacts and how you access them.
• Weighing. Actually do this. Summary and FF to me are not best used for additional front lining. Summary should be no more than 50% front lining, and FF shouldn't include much at all. 2 Worlds is probably my favorite to listen to in order to best crystalize the round, but feel free to show me something cooler and I will probably like it.

Congressional Debate Specific

• Repetitive Debate. My favorite part of this event is actually watching a debate advance over the course of the session. So rather than repeating after each other, do summaries, respond directly to others, and build on prior arguments, especially if you're the one keeping us on this piece of legislation by asking others to vote against moving the previous question.

I currently serve as the head coach for Park City High School.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Collapse.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Because I coach, I am very familiar with the resolution you are debating.
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.
• A sense of humor is always appreciated. Have fun. Don't take yourselves too seriously. Please do not be condescending to your opponent during cross.
• Weigh.
• I am an experienced coach and judge. I know the rules. Win the round fairly (because your arguments/analytics are better). It's that simple.

• I have been involved in debate with Park City High School since 2017. I respect and admire students who are committed to learning about and engaging in academic conversations. Thank you for being a part of debate.

Make this your best round possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

Finally, should I judge something other than PF: In terms of theory, I don't like it. If you insist upon running it, I will listen/judge begrudgingly and choose truth over tech. I hate frivolous or abusive theory - only run it if it's a true violation.

My email (for questions): awilliams@pcschools.us

i debated pf for 4 years in high school and am now a senior at villanova university.

how to win my ballot:

- weigh.

- i'm fine with speed. if you're losing clarity because of it, i'll call "clear".

- collapse!

here is how i think i’m like every other pf judge:

- don't just say that things are true, i want to hear some warrants. i won't vote on an argument i don't understand.

- if your offense is in ff, it should be in summary.

- hit the line-by-line hard.

- i know as close to nothing as possible about kritiks and theory. nonetheless, i'm not ideologically opposed to their use in public forum, so go for it if you can explain it in a way that a person who knows nothing can understand.

- a dropped argument is a true argument, but that doesn't mean it matters. you've still gotta weigh it to win the round on it.

- impact calculus is a waste of time if it isn't comparative and contextualized to your opponents' offense.

here is how i differ from community norms:

- in my rfds, great analytics beat a poorly-cut card 9/10 times. evidence quality matters, but quality argumentation matters a lot more.

- impact turn anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story and it can pay off to advance an uncommon perspective.

- if the off-time roadmap is more than five seconds, i will be very sad

- please don't steal prep!

- there's an over-reliance on stats in pf. tell me a story and explain why it matters.

- i will not drop a team for misconstruing evidence. the most i'll do is choose not to evaluate the evidence as part of the argument *if* it's indicted. if you realize that your opponent is misconstruing evidence, ask me to call for the card and i gladly will before making my decision.

speaker points: this is about what you say, not only how you say it. if you deserve to win rounds, you'll get high speaks.

the best piece of advice i ever heard during my 4 years debating came from my coach, gavin serr (our paradigm preferences are practically identical, so take a look if you'd like to learn more about my judging style):

debate in a way that you can be proud of, and always remember that your integrity is the most valuable thing that can be won or lost in a round.

questions? you can contact me at ngwilliams19@gmail.com.

Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you
Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you












Paradigm for LD, Public Form, Parliamentary Debate, & Congress:

Participants will be scored on a rubric

8 Student demonstrates a complex understanding of the subject with a wide range of statistics from reliable sources and journals. Student cites academic authors in the respective field of study who examine the issue critically. Student demonstrates understanding of information peers examine and provides additional citation material for their reasoning.

4. Student demonstrates a complex understanding of the subject and provides some citations. These citations are from web sources or media. Student demonstrates some understanding of peer arguments and provides commentary on what the students state.

1. Student demonstrates an understanding of the subject at hand.

0. Student pontificates and makes an emotional argument. Student provides no citations to support their claim. Or, the student does not speak at all. Or, the student makes an argument that is confused/irrelevant.

I am a beginner judge. My background is participating in Speech Tournaments and taking Speech/Debate classes. I look forward to hearing your speech!

I am a parent lay judge. This is my third year judging PF.

Please speak slowly and clearly. Clearly express your side and argument. Be polite and respectful to judges and your opponents, and display good sportsmanship.

The following is written by my son but he just rephrased my opinions in a more understandable way

This is my 3rd year judging debate so not a lot of experience

State your sources, evidence, impacts, harms, etc in a clear and understandable way

Pretend I do not know anything about any topic, so explain everything!

Go slow and focus on getting your message out in a clear way

No K's or Theory, I do not understand them (sorry)

Be nice and polite, you are here to debate an educational round, not to dog fight with each other

Don't interrupt unless it is a clarification/POI

Overall have fun and enjoy the round!