Hi!

Some quick context: I did public forum debate in high school and was the PF Captain for a year as well. I know what's going on in a round but judge in a "lay style" with no thorough notes.

When the round starts approaching final focus, please narrow things down and make it clear for me. Lay out both worlds and pick your top arguments. I always tell people, make the decision simple and obvious for the judge.

Excited to watch you debate :)

My name isAlan Oto Acker. I would like to applaud you first and foremost for dedicating the time to such a useful and enriching activity. I am a proud member of the Baby Boomer generation,and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I started my career as a Union Electrician, but have reinvented myself several times including time as Manager of electrical design and fabrication departments for an international Wastewater OEM and serving on their Board of Directors. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spent the time to prepare and put in the hard work to have a successful round.

2-Passion. I want to be moved to feel why your point of view is relevant and valid whether you face opposition or not.

3-Decorum. It’s important people are treated with respect even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective. For me there is a fine line between passion & decorum. I put an emphasis on civility. I will be a blank slate, with no bias. You need to sell your perspective. Convince me you’re right, don’t try to dictate your position.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be), I’m not a fan of spreading or spewing. I am looking for you to be confident and rhetorical not trying to baffle me with blather.

5- Politics. It is not important to me what political slant you bring into your topic. As stated earlier I want to sense your passion and energy from your presentation. My assessment of you is not swayed by your political views and this does not factor into my evaluation. However I am very interested to learn & become informed from your perspective. Please do not alter your words or content by compromising yourself on the grounds of trying to pick up points by appealing to what political lenses you believe I want to hear.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have worked so hard to prepare and eager to be a part of your adventure in your next round.

This will be my 1st academic speech and debate judging. My values are centered in open mindedness and respectful exchange of ideas and opinions.

My background is in sales and management, where I have learned the importance of clear and concise, well thought out communications.

Background: I did PF for the majority of my 5 years in competitive S&D, along with Extemp, Parli, and Impromptu. I was overall S&D captain at Westridge and I currently teach S&D to elementary and middle schoolers across the Bay Area. I final-ed at states and competed in nats, so I can handle tech, but I strongly prefer rounds that are more lay (slow down and don't use abbreviations) to increase accessibility for more novice opponents or spectators.

Basics: You can be assertive, but don’t be exclusive, disrespectful, or mean. (No eye rolling, laughing, etc. during an opponent’s speech). Pre-flow before round and stand during your speeches. Introduce yourself and your side before each speech. I will tell you if I cannot understand you. I will disclose and feel free to ask me questions. Let me know if you have any questions/concerns before the round begins. This paradigm is in order of importance.

To win: Signpost clearly. Extend your link chains with warrants. Weigh. If it’s not in summary, it won’t count in your final focus. Please weigh and use impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc). Make my life easy, by telling me where to vote and why. Make your life easier by collapsing; you can’t and shouldn’t go for everything. Tech > truth, but don't abuse it please.

Timing: I can take speed, but I have my limits so proceed carefully, enunciate, and still sound interesting. If you are monotonously flying through your speech, I won’t flow much. Time yourselves and hold up a fist if your opponent’s time is up. Give a brief offtime roadmap and assume time starts on your first word. Announce when your prep time is starting/ending. State how much prep time you used after each time so everyone is on the same page.

Evidence: Don’t just read author names, remind me what the card said and why it matters. Use prep time for reading your opponent’s evidence. If you take more than 2-3 min to get your cards, we’ll assume you don’t have it and move on. I don’t mind paraphrasing but do not misconstrue. I expect all evidence to be fully carded, not just a link. Tell me in your speech if and why I should call for a misconstrued card and move on; I don’t want an evidence debate. I will call for cards if they may largely impact the vote or sound sketchy.

Crossfire: Since cross isn’t on the flow, as soon as time is up, please stop talking and start the next speech.

Theory: I am not well versed in theory and would strongly prefer it if you did not run it, so I would proceed with caution and explain clearly if it is definitely the route you want to take.

Remember, we're here to have fun and enjoy the art of debate. Best of luck and I look forward to being your judge! :)

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.

I am a parent judge.

Hi my name is Nolan.

Background

- I compete in PF and thats basically the debate event i've done so if you run theory I will vote based off of my personal opinion rather than the flow cause I have no idea how that works. It only works in THEORY.

Etiquette

- Anything flies as long as its topical and not racist or sexist. With this in mind it generally makes for a more fulfilling round for the debaters if you get along. Jokes are cool too.

Tech Stuff

- Everything needs to be in Summary and Final Focus if you want me to vote on it.

- I like main voters. But you cannot just do impact calc without warrants. If you drop the link and extend the impact I will just ignore what you are saying so make sure to extend those warrants.

- Authors are nice, but a lot of times I have a hard time flowing all of them so if you just extend just the author don't count on me knowing the card.

-Tech over truth

Miscellaneous

- This is where judges put jokes and stuff to make themselves seem relatable, but sometimes it gets lame and nobody actually brings in a [insert artist here] lyric in round so ill spare you.

- Please don't shake my hand I presumably like you guys but I like my health more.

- I disclose.

You have reached the end.

PF: Focus on framework building + topicality (aff) and examining exclusivity + counterplan burden (neg). Weighing on impacts, uniqueness of cons, and magnitude. Speak clearly, slow to medium fast, do not spread. Signpost as you go through your case. Crossfire should be prepared and effective at asking/answering clarifying and combative questions.

LD/CX: Tabula Rasa + Hypothesis Tester: view resolution as hypothesis that the affirmative team tests through their plan. Heavy focus on resolution debate instead of plan-focused debate, and open to non-standard options for negative teams to use against the affirmative. Generic topic attacks, inherency arguments, counterplans, counter-warrants, and conditional arguments are generally all accepted.

WSD: Content, style, strategy. Content on prepared motions should be a given and of high priority. Less so on impromptu (but never unimportant). Tend to put heavier weight toward strategy: For example, if prop mentions a solution but does not fully address/explain and that it is a potential argument that works in opps favor, does that mean prop side made a mistake, or is that a tactic to further that particular argument opp addresses in order to show prop was aware and prepared for opp taking the bait? This would be an example or steering the debate using hidden counterplans or subtext to "force the hand" of the other team.

While reply speech is important, it is helpful to be more than just summative. Ask the audience to think more about the world you have created vs the world the other team has created (clash). Ensure the judge leaves with a strong sense you are right/better/more efficient/inclusive/utilitarian/ethical/whatever, and give the reason(s) why.

Hi my name is Charlene, but please refer to me as judge during your round.

Background

This is my second time judging a debate (or any Speech and Debate competition at all)

Preferences

-Please do not spread or talk fast during your speeches

-Please keep it respectful no talking over each other or using any hateful language

-Tell me why you win the round (weigh your impacts and extend arguments cleanly)

- I have little familiarity with the topic explain your side eloquently and reasonably

pronouns: they/she

I participated in high school speech and debate for three years and am a former captain from Crescenta Valley. Currently, I'm coaching at Berkeley High School and am a sophomore at UC Berkeley majoring in Geography and Urban Studies. In high school I predominantly competed in parliamentary debate and extemporaneous speaking. I competed and broke at states, nationals, and NPDL TOC so I am familiar with both lay and tech styles (prefer the former). If any part of my paradigm doesn't make sense PLEASE ASK ME before the round. I'm here to make your speech and debate experience better.

Debate: The biggest priority in debate should be ensuring that the space is safe and inclusive to all debaters. I will drop you for making it unsafe or exclusive (e.g. racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). Clearly explained warrants, links, and impacts will always be to your advantage. Signposting makes the entire round run smoother and comparative weighing makes the round far more engaging and easier to judge, so I highly recommend doing both. See speech section for info on speaks.

Theory/Kritiks: I don't have the most background or experience with them, probably not the best judge to run these arguments with, especially if they're frivolous. That said, I can flow them if they are well constructed and clearly explained and if you feel like they are necessary please run them. Ks and theory are pretty exclusive arguments, and many debaters don't have the resources to use or respond to them, don't use these arguments solely to flow your opponents out of the round.

Speech: If you want time signals let me know before the round and I'll happily give them. Speaks start at 27.5 for my base or average and go up/down from there. Novices will automatically get a one point bump. The main ways to boost your speaker rank and speaker points are by having engaging content, utilizing body language, having tonal and vocal inflection, and by adding humor and personality to the speech. I will give 15-30 seconds of grace time unless told not to (if it's an incredibly short event like spar that number is more like 10 seconds, don't abuse it).

I am a new judge. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. I will follow the guidelines laid out in the new judge training.

Hi , I am lay Judge, I would like Contestants to speak slowly and use simple words when they speak. I prefer debators to be respectful to other team at all times and let others speak. Even though I try to flow the debate but at the end my decision is based on if you can convince me based on your arguments on why should I vote for you.

coaching (LD/Worlds/Speech) for Harvard-Westlake (2023-present)

coached (PF/LD/Policy/Parli/Speech) at Flintridge Prep and Westridge School from 2018 - 2023

competed in NPDA and Speech at LAVC

competed in Policy at southwestern cc and USC

email chain —-> trojandebateteam@gmail.com,

*ask me about debating at USC*

(I try to change my paradigm up a little bc I coach and judge a lot of things and it can be overwhelming if you think im a worlds person when I do policy or when you think you have an LD judge in the back of your congress rd)

for Worlds TOC (-- 4/20/24)

ask questions, I’m happy to answer things. Above all, I love good spirited debate, strong refutations, collapsing down of arguments, strategic concessions, comparative weighing and framing. Tell me how I should be seeing the round so I don’t have to intervene and frame it myself and your rfd will likely follow suit! I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story to resolve things and tend not to to have the energy to weigh alternative ways in which the round could’ve gone, but I’ll give you recommendations of what might’ve gotten my ballot or where I felt I could’ve been persuaded.

• content — good presentation of information, structure,
• strategy — good debate tech, answering of questions, taking questions, etc
• style — in depth analysis of said content and its implications, your aesthetic representations of this

Quick thoughts for pref sheets (usually for LD/policy)

general debate thoughts

1) I don't tell you how to debate but I do have preferences. That's just because I want everyone to see my ballot as accessible and within reach, not because I'll drop you if you challenge my preferences. I often rewrite my paradigm bc of how talented and exceptional debaters are. As such, I will vote on anything except:

• RVIs on T,
• friv theory (I think you can justify good practices and make them into args on the flow, disclosure is not friv)
• Tricks (these should be impact framing args imo),
• and I will not vote on arguments that implicate something that has happened out of round that I have not witnessed or been a part of. Screenshots are fine but I give a lot of defense bc I personally have no context

2) I think debate is super fun when there is an embodied or critical element to it -- if you read plans and defend us heg, just be passionate about it and tell me why I should care and I'm certain you can snag a 29 or higher otherwise disembodied debates tend to be super stale and you should definitely disconnect from the document and make the debate feel real for me. I am not a drone and I like debates to feel like I'm not an ai robot

3) I have a pretty low evidentiary standard (LD background sorry), but I do have a research background and would like you to do some work with your evidence. I am a strong proponent of doing more with less. I will read along as it happens. That being said, my contemporaries are considerably better card people, I did a lot of performance. (translation: pls dont put me in a 2nr/2ar debate about competition theory about the counterplan)

4) I prefer people tell me how to evaluate their debates, framing included, what matters, what doesn't -- filtering / sequencing etc

5) debates are simplest and imo best executed when people reduce the number of args and clarify their argumentation and spend more time discussing the relation to the other teams args / participation in relation to their args, as well as making the link -> impact story more persuasive.

Lastly, I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story possible. Please collapse and make a choice. I think thats the beauty of debate is winning your argument rather than forcing me to have to do the evaluation of a number of sheets in the 2nr. Basically, if you go into the 2nr with 4 off case and expect me to vote on one of them, I'm going to be really upset.

I'll do my best to explain the world you've laid out for me in the debate and how I came to my decision in my RFD but I will not likely explain the the entire world of the debate in relation to implication of (x) unless it helps me vote differently.

keep reading below for specific preferences or how I think about things

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stuff for Strikes/Prefs:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

debates about debate / pre-fiat: truth > tech

debates about warrants and information / post-fiat: tech > truth; but if you drop a DA, that usually means you lose if the impact o/ws the aff. if it doesn't, I'm just gonna be like wow you really let case o/w that's tough

t/fw: have voted on it but I've been labelled a K hack because of the args I read. I often feel like people should implicate the world view of the framework page more and tell me what their model of debate creates and impact that out. makes life a lot easier for everyone involved imo

Nebel T: boy, I don't get this and I'm too afraid to ask questions now, so pls explain what an up-ward tailed test is or we will both be lost

Theory threshold: kinda high actually, umm LD debaters need impacts to theory and clash is not an impact, it's a standard or an internal link to something -.- in policy, condo is cool. I will vote on condo but I have a high threshold for why you couldn't read the perm and a da to the alt

Critical Non T Affs: I love these, I've even been inspired to write specific positions by 2 debaters I've judged so I guess there's your spillover warrant -- pls have your fw answers and i'm super down to learn some new stuff!

"debatably" T/NonT Affs: really big fan, win your stuff

Tricks: pls don't thx ~~

Cheater CPs: love a smart counterpane debate, I had some fun reading some cheater CPs but I am not a counterplan competition maximalist -- please treat me like I'm a child in this debate, I will not be patronized

High Phil theory: pls strike me ; I genuinely do not enjoy the process of linking offense to a FW in which two things feel very similar and struggle to eval these debates unless there is a comparative advantage / cp / k format. I will judge them if I have to, but its a debate I don't enjoy.

high Phil Ks: I read a good amount of psychoanalysis (Lacan/freud), D&G and some others for classes as well as for leisure reading. That being said, please dont just assume we have mutual understandings of order words or the real x symbolic x the imaginary.

Args like Warming good / Recession good / death good; if warming is good bc it’s great for that one species of phytoplankton, tell me why that phytoplankton is key in comparison to the climate conditions of others; i.e., incremental warming is what's happening now, incrementalism is good) Same for like death good; it's gotta be like "we need to reorient how we see death" otherwise, you're gonna be in for a rough time

K v K debates: probably my preferred debate, as long as you explain what's going on, I'm here to let you run your round and evaluate it how you want me to. These are really fun debates for me to become engaged in and one I love watching.

Case Debate / Turns: yee these are cool

I am a former high school policy/LD debater. I also competed in many individual events. Now, I am a trial lawyer. I seek to reward the speaking that connects most directly with the professional and personal activities that high school debaters will be performing in just a few short years.

For policy debaters: Debate is a game. And, in my opinion, policy is a place where (almost) anything goes. You can spread, you can run K, you can read a poem. If you've signed up for policy, you know the world you have signed up for. But, note the following: If I can't understand you or write/type/think fast enough, I might miss your brilliant argument. The stranger or more counterintuitive your argument is, the more proof I will need for it. Style and persuasion still mean something to me in policy debate, so if you can spread while being persuasive (yelling is not persuasive), you will have an advantage. Those who abandon speed altogether AND who make a good argument for why they should win even if they can't cover everything -- those people might very well win. As I say, debate is a game.

Public forum: If (almost) anything goes in policy debate, then public forum is its more constrained, conversational, and accessible cousin. My understanding is that it was created as an alternative to what policy has become, and therefore I am less receptive to spreading and absurdist styles in PF. As a result, I will not necessarily vote on dropped arguments. Two minutes is simply not enough time to cover everything in a debate, so it is entirely possible to pick an argument to the exclusion of others and win -- just tell me if that is what you're doing, and tell me why that argument is the winner. Please consider whether your tone, your speed, and your use of jargon are at all applicable to: a class presentation, a conversation with a professor, an informal discussion with friends or colleagues, a courtroom, a pitch to a boss, etc. These are the places in which your debate skills will be applicable.

For all debaters: If you are rude in any way (prematurely cutting opponents off in crossfire, ad homs in speeches, gesturing from your chair while others speak), you will lose speaker points, and possibly the round. Aggressiveness is fine, but I can't abide jerks.

Hello! This is my first time judging Public Forum. I reviewed the training materials and videos, and I am excited to be a part of your experience today. Best of luck to all of you!

Basically, I judge by the overall evaluation. I will weigh both style and arguments. I would like you to ask relevant and effective questions during the crossfire and don't waste time by repeating the same question. I weigh both evidence and analytics. I also would like to see you extend your arguments in either your rebuttal or summary speeches. I will flow the round so I can tell if you drop any arguments.

From my perspective, here is the key to winning a round of debate: smooth flow, confident and clear speech, and well-organized arguments supported by both evidence and analytics.

This is my 4th year as a parent judge. I do flow the rounds.

Speak clearly and reasonably paced. Extend arguments in your speeches. If opponent concedes, do call it out for me to count it

All the best!

Please speak at moderate speed and be very clear on contentions and subpoints.

Please be respectful during CX

I'm a parent judge as my daughter participates in debate.

kindly please send me your case before the round starts.

jysjin@yahoo.com

Don't Speak too fast but clearly. Definitely no mumbling. If I can't get your arguments down and fully understand what you're saying, then you have lost the round.

Be specific with your contention, warrants and impacts as I'll vote my ballot based on those.

I will not flow everything, but take notes.

Be polite, respectful and patient to the other.

I am a parent judge.

First and foremost please be respectful to one another.

Please time yourselves and your opponent's speeches and prep time.

PLEASE speak at a normal pace, if you speed read then I will dock points from your speaker points. Also, signposting would be very helpful.

The side I will vote on will be the side which has the least contested argument.

Other than that good luck and wish you and your team best of luck! :)

Delivery

Prefer debaters to use a moderate rate of speech, to enable comprehension of content.

Please let me know of your name and the team you are representing at the beginning the session.

Don't rush through your materials. It's better to state one fact clearly and have it heard and understood, than throwing a hundred statements at me that are going to be glossed over and ignored.

Don't use reference data from 5+ years ago (they are obsolete), unless you can provide clear proof that nothing has changed since.

Speak to your audience (your opponents, your judge), not your laptop.

Don't "argue" with your opposing team, debate. Respect everyone at the table.

Hello! I'm Peri (she/her) and I debated for Mount Vernon HS in Washington doing LD for 3 years in high school. I am also a part-time, de-facto assistant coach for the Mount Vernon team, and I'm starting my own at the school I currently teach at-- I've never really left the debate community, so I know a bit of the norms and I know what's going on. I have my Bachelor's in International Studies focused on Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa, and my Master's in International Relations (meaning I know more about the Middle East than the average person) Here is my email if you need it... periannakb@gmail.com

Congress:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

Substance > Style

Don't rehash, bring up new points prevalent to the debate. I love to see refutation particularly after the first two speeches. Please, lets move on if we are just going to say the same thing over and over.

Every time you speak in a session, it gives me more reasons to rank you at the end of the round. Fight to give those speeches and use questions! Don't let any of that direct questioning time go to waste!!!

LD:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I did traditional LD in high school. I am a traditional LD judge. You can run some arguments but disguise them as more traditional and focus on that style to keep me a happy judge. Take that into account. Don't spread I won't understand. Explain your arguments clearly and you'll be fine. No Meta-Ethics or trix.

Side note: Please make sure you are educated on the 2024 Jan/Feb LD topic... I don't want to hear arguments that are factually untrue, and I'm excited for well-informed debates that get into the depths of this subject! I've written articles on this topic that you could use as a card-- I know it well.

PF:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I'm judging more and more pufo these days. I like clear, well organized constructives. Don't just read everything one note. I appreciate that public forum is supposed to be different than LD and Policy. Keep it that way.

Random framework arguments about the intent of the topic aren't going to work for me. If things change in the status quo, you need to be prepared to discuss them.

About Me: I'm currently a Junior at UC Berkeley studying Legal Studies and Public Policy. I competed in Public Forum debate for four years in high school, captaining my junior and senior year.

Paradigm: Make sure to roadmap so that I can follow your arguments and rebuttals. Make sure to explain what your evidence says and why it's better than your opponents evidence. Tell me why your argument makes sense and should be preferred over your opponents. You can run whatever you would like as long as you follow the above preferences. I'm fine with speed, but make sure you over pronunciation main points and focus on roadmapping.

PLEASE be respectful to one another. If you aren't respectful, I will automatically vote for the opponents ballot, regardless of arguments.

Please time yourselves and your opponent's speeches and prep time. It is up to you to self monitor.

PLEASE speak at a normal pace, if you spread(speed reading), then I will automatically vote for the opponents ballot, regardless of arguments. Also, signposting would be very helpful, so it's easier for me to follow along.

PLEASE clarify your arguments, and be clear on who is on which side, since this topic is a bit confusing. DO NOT run K's, theory shells, or anything else insane. I won't be able to understand the argument, and will have to vote for the opponent.

I wish you the best of luck!

Please speak coherently. I will be looking for the most significant arguments and then logical responses. I look for good and thoughtful delivery.

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 new judge for debating. Please use a moderate pace while keeping your words comprehensible. Please signpost with roadmaps too. Don’t expect me to understand your cards and contentions without you explaining them throughly.

Analysis>cards

I hope we can have great debates!

Please speak coherently and at an average speed. Try not to use jargon but provide sound analyses, syntheses, and summaries. Please be respectful to each other and communicate clearly and with passion.

I am a parent judge with a PhD in humanities. I am interested in various topics and areas, but especially in the cross-section of technology and humanities and how such an interdisciplinary approach to knowledge benefits our society and contributes to the well-being and flourishing of human life.

I'm a parent judge. I'm an engineer with science background.

I like clear and articulate speeches. I like arguments supported by evidences. I don't have any pre-existing stance with pro or con. I make my final decisions primarily based on how well and strongly the teams support their contentions with evidences and convincing reasoning. Also I count how well the teams ask and answer all kinds of challenging questions for attacking and defensing purposes.

Show respect and be nice to each other. I will automatically vote for the other team if your team do the following,

1. show obvious disrespect for your opponent;

2. consistently interrupt your opponent when they are speaking.

Quality>quantity, extend your link chain, weigh.

1. Collapsing is absolutely necessary; do not try to extend everything in case and win every argument. Pick and choose 1 or 2 arguments to go for.

2. I expect you to extend your link chain in both summary and final focus. Walk me through your warrants and impacts again, or I won't be willing to evaluate your argument in the end. Don't just frontline and entirely skip over your link story.

3. Defense does not need to be extended into the first summary, unless 2nd rebuttal chooses to respond to defense from first rebuttal. However, it might be good to extend important terminal defense into the first summary for the sake of emphasis (up to you).

4. **Weigh, weigh, weigh**. Don't forget to also weigh turns (too many teams don't do this). My decisions very often come down to whichever team did the better job weighing, especially when the link debate becomes messy. If you are speaking 2nd, don't wait until FF to weigh (I will default to this if no other weighing is done).

5. If you want to read an actual warranted framework, that needs to come no later than 1st rebuttal. This means if you are speaking 2nd, you will need to introduce any framework starting in case (not 2nd rebuttal).

7. I have minimal experience with progressive argumentation, but would not be opposed to voting for well constructed and warranted ideas. Not a fan of tricks.

8. I don't flow CX. I definitely pay attention for concessions, but reading cards or impact calculus will not be flowed.

Feel free to post-round/ask questions until you are satisfied.

I am a parent judge, with 10 years of experience.

Important:

Please speak clearly, avoid over speed, and explain your points thoroughly.

Online Debate:

For online debates, prefer cameras on and you are fully visible.

Relevant Thoughts:

• Evidence quality is important. Good data and analytics can beat bad cards.
• My experience is policy-heavy, and 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.
• You as the competitor should be clear in your thought while asking questions or answering them.
• In rounds just make sure to tell me where you are going in your speech.
• Speed is fine with me in beginning speeches but make sure your speed doesn't affect the quality of the argument.
• Don't hesitate to ask me any questions.

I am looking for organized clear communication, logical argument content , compelling evidence and refutation. I am expecting confident and persuasive body language .

Stick to the key topic and no excessive spreading please .

Good luck to all participants!

I am a lay judge, but I have judged a reasonable number of rounds. You may speak fast, as long as you are understandable. Cite your sources as much as possible. If you call for evidence outside of cross-ex, you will be using your prep time. Also, please avoid asking really long questions during cross-ex, andactually let the other team answer. I give speaker points based on strategy and presentation. I may dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, please start an email chain and add me at subashri.r@gmail.com.

Debate is about having fun, so enjoy it!!

Hello there,

I'm a religious studies teacher at St. Ignatius College Prep in San Francisco, CA. Thank you for taking the time to look at my paradigm.

When I judge Lincoln-Douglas debates, I look for a number of things, especially:

-Value and Criterion. I prize a competitor's ability to connect their arguments back to a sound value and criterion. I seek logical consistency. An opponent would do well to highlight inconsistencies in the construction and application of the value(s) and criterion. Framework is key to any good debate.

-Civility. I look to see if you are treating your opponent with civility and respect. I most certainly welcome lively and passionate debate as long as it stays clear from rudeness, haranguing, or mean-spiritedness. You are debating a real human person and they should be treated with dignity and respect.

-Attentive listening. Demonstrate to me that you have listened to your opponent's arguments and are willing to engage in thoughtful dialogue with them. Avoiding their arguments indicates to me that you may not have listened attentively to your opponent. Respond to your opponent and demonstrate how your argument is better.

-Measured speech (no spreading). This often comes across as a disingenuous tactic that inhibits your opponents from being able to actually address the merits of your case. I should not have to have a copy of your case in front of me to help me decipher what you are trying to say. Your public presentation skills are important to me as your judge.

When I judge Public Forum Debates debates, I look for the civility, attentive listening, and measured speech mentioned above as well as:

-Solid constructions. Set the foundation for the rest of your debate with strong contentions that have a clear connection to the rest of your debate. Framework is important for me as a judge.

-Appeals to ethics or values. As a religious studies teacher, I greatly appreciate seeing a common philosophical throughline in argumentation. Similar to the above point, values, frameworks, and ethics set a solid foundation for the rest of the debate.

-No frivolous asks for cards. If you do not plan on directly referencing something in your opponents' cards or raising a legitimate concern with me as the judge, please do not waste time asking for them. This often appears to be a sly way of taking off-time prep.

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

*TLDR FOR NSDA NATS*

35 years of LD competition, coaching and judging

TRADITIONAL LD, WHOLE REZ, If someone proves the aff side true, I vote aff. Follow NSDA RULES.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Parent judge.

Be respectful to each other and talk clearly in a comprehensible, easy-to-follow manner.

Look at my good friend Gabe's paradigm. It is pretty much the same as mine and he managed to express it quite eloquently.

Here is a link to it.

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=gabe&search_last=rusk

Hello, my name is Suzanna Sinapyan. I graduated from Woodbury University with a Masters in Business Administration.

I've judged several PF rounds and have some preferences when it comes to rounds.

1. Please be respectful towards your teammates and judges - I do not and will not tolerate disrespect towards anyone in a round. Please have manners when speaking to opponents and refrain from acting aggressively or rudely.
2. Please make sure you're speaking at a volume that is audible for both your opponents and judges. Try not to mumble, especially if you're spreading. Do not purposefully speak low to hurt your opponents. If I cannot understand you, speaker points might be docked. If you choose to spread, keep it at an understandable pace and if you know you're going to go very fast, offer to share cases.
3. I judge based on your ability to defend your points. Being able to successfully make me believe that your points are stronger and better than your opponents will lead to you winning my ballot.

Hello all!

I have experience judging middle school debates and judging PF for the past two years. A few things to note as far as how I judge:

1) Please be respectful to your opponents!

2) Please casedrop or email me your cases so I can have them open while you speak. I would like to be included in any email chains you create. Email:laviananth@gmail.com

3) Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate a good summary of arguments and clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

4) I expect the second half of the round to be filled with clear extension of impacts (tell me why it matters). I will make my final decision based on what impacts have been addressed AND how big you can prove they are.

Good luck!

I like to see the overall presentation and confidence of the competitor.

A key attribute is being passionate about the topic and modulate the voice according to what is being said or presented.

Cultural Competency Certificate

Please make your contention loud and clearly.

Regular speed would be ideal.

Love debate.

Please speak clearly and make sure Summary and final focus are consistent.

I am a trial attorney who has a background in civil and criminal law.

I'm a former Chicago Debates External Coach and have judged for Lakeview High School and Solorio High School while living in Chicago. I debated on the national circuit in high school and have since them moved on to law school where I graduated from UC Davis School of Law in May 2020.

Please feel free to ask details about my judging preference. I am an Offense/ Defense judge and default to utilitarian impact calculus unless instructed otherwise. I am told by my peers that I have a bad habit of privileging truth over technique; i.e. I care more about the depth of policy knowledge you bring to the table over mere organization skills. That said if you make my flow messy and I don't have a record of your argument, it does not exist. So be clear and be organized. Explain your impacts or expect me to reject the argument in favor of the party who exhibits greater command over the topic area expertise.

Have fun. Be civil. And please do keep the flows clean.

ADDED JUNE 2023

I've had about one year of experience judging debates at the High School level. My experience has largely been with congress and public forum events. As a judge, my primary focus is to ensure a fair and objective evaluation of the participants' performances. I firmly believe that decisions should be based solely on the merits of the arguments presented and should not be influenced by personal or political biases. I will approach each round with an open mind, giving equal consideration to all viewpoints and avoiding any preconceived notions.

In evaluating the strength of an argument, I value the use of evidence from reputable sources. The inclusion of well-supported facts, statistics, and expert opinions can significantly enhance the persuasiveness of an argument. Participants who effectively incorporate such evidence into their speeches will receive due recognition for their analytical and research skills.

Furthermore, I will take into account the presentation style of each participant. While this includes aspects such as speech clarity, annunciation, and projection, it extends beyond these technical elements. I appreciate engaging speakers who effectively connect with their audience, employing appropriate gestures, vocal variation, and overall stage presence. These qualities contribute to the overall impact and effectiveness of the speaker's message.

I have not had prior debate and speech experiences, and I am new to being a debate judge. However it is always welcoming to hear well constructed arguments coming from different perspectives. I will try my best to follow the principles of impartiality and objectivity, and to base my decision on how well constructed, supported, and convincing the arguments are.

However, being inexperience in the art of adjudicating, I would like to ask the participants to pay special attention to the clarity of your articulation. This does not mean to be slow, but to delivery your arguments in a clear and understandable manner. After all I won't be able to judge fairly if I fail to hear what you are saying :)

I'm a parent judge. This is my second year judging.

Please don't go too fast. I have lived in the US for almost 30 years now and am very familiar and interested in all kinds of political topics.

I will try my best to take some notes, so please signpost.

Thanks! Good luck!

Hi everyone,

I am a parent/lay judge and I have limited judging experience.

A few notes:

1. Please don't spread and make sure to speak clearly
2. no jargon
3. Don't expect me to understand the topic, so warrant and explain well
4. i don't know the schematics of the round; time yourselves and maybe explain which speech you're doing before you start

Good luck and have fun!

I'm a parent judge. Please speak slowly