Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 3-4 years.

DECISION:My decision evaluates all scopes of the debate: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence, links, etc. However, telling me why your IMPACTS are important and how you better achieve them than your opponent is key for you to win this debate. I do not care about what kind of impacts you give me, but it would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize with broad ones so I know where you are deriving your impacts from.

FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis, however, I prefer OVERVIEWS (not only in your 2ars or 2nrs) because they clear things up for me and make the ballot easier too.

OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD . If you speak marginally fast or faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY because I will probably not understand it or flow it. By chance if I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate and I will probably just ignore it.

HAVE FUN DEBATING ;)

Lay judge, no spreading. I have judged Congress to oi to policy. I will always write long form notes on in round speeches, but I may not set up my flow like conventional debaters.

sai.ankireddi@gmail.com

I am a lay judge, so whenever you talk about anything, please make sure that you explain it thoroughly. I know little to nothing about this topic so just keep that in mind.

How I will vote.

1. The first thing that I will take into consideration is whoever proves more convincing to me, whoever proves that the benefits outweigh the harms or that the harms outweigh the benefits. I would greatly appreciate if you could weigh with your impacts on the three scales, magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

2. Whoever debates better. I would also vote for a team that refutes all of their opponents points compared to a team that drops all of their opponents points. Whoever keeps their case alive at the end, and destroys their opponents or whoever convinces me to vote for them in this way will definitely earn my ballot.

Not as important but I may include some of this in my decision

1. PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES. For example: If you take like a minute of prep extra and YOUR OPPONENTS POINT THIS OUT TO ME, this will affect my decision. Please use your respective amount of time for speeches, there is a 10 second grace period after every speech, and 3 minutes for prep.

2. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL. Although this is competitive, it is still done for fun. There shall be no disrespect shown to anyone else, as this is a formal setting and must be looked upon as.

3. PLEASE NO SPREADING. IF you do so, I may not catch everything which will affect my decision.

I am a beginner judge of speech and debate tournaments.

For speech tournaments, the guiding principles that I use to judge participants include the following:

1. Was the speech compelling? Was it well delivered with maturity, poise, and a demonstrated understanding of the topic?
2. Was the logic in the speech sound?
3. How well did the speaker present? Did they use effective gestures and facial queues? Did they speak fluently? Were there nervous ticks or unnecessary adds such as the use of "like" or "just" repeatedly throughout the presentation?

For debate tournaments, I look for the following:

1. Is the logic used in the debate sound? Are there inconsistencies or logic leaps that make the argument difficult or impossible to follow?
2. Did the AF team effectively present a plan that I could understand?
3. Did the Neg team present an alternative or effectively refute the plan presented?
4. Was evidence used effectively?
5. Were ideas communicated in a way that was understandable?
6. Which team made the most compelling arguments/which team was able to respond most effectively to key points of the opponent to make or refute a case?

I do my best to remove any bias based on prior knowledge or a topic and/or presenter characteristics.

Hey guys this is Austin, Joel's son here to tell you a little bit about my dad. He is a LAY judge. NO SPREADING. you will lose if you do this. Don't run medium arguments and use jargon like internal link. It will not work well for you. My dad has been working in cyber for 20 years so he knows stuff about cyber but will listen to evidence.

TBD

I am a parent judge and this is my fourth year of judging debate. I strongly prefer that you speak slowly and clearly and emphasize the important arguments in the round.

Hello,

This is my second year as a parent judge. While many "k affs" are cleverly conceived, I value and adjudicate in favor of those debaters who focus on the core issues of the assigned topic and can most clearly and logically lay out their case.

I am a parent judge and judging for past two and half year.

I prefer if both teams would reference their evidence and make their arguments concise and easy to understand.

I look for consistency in the arguments throughout the debate

Judgement is limited only to the arguments presented and contested in the debate

I'm a parent judge and have only judged a few rounds of public forum and policy debate. Please present your arguments in a clear and concise manner, keep speed to a medium/slow pace if possible. The most important part of debate to me is responding to the opponent's arguments while also defending your own key points. I also value delivery and emphasis, as well as respect for your fellow competitors.

Truth > Tech

First and foremost, I am a lay parent judge. Please be patient and explain arguments thoroughly at a reasonable pace. I will not be familiar with the topic you are debating, and make sure to extend the argument throughout the entire debate. Also, be sure to provide an off-time road map and I also want to hear top-level reasons why you win today's debate. Racism, homophobia, sexism, or any other -ism will not be tolerated. Thank you!

I am a lay judge but I have 8 years experience judging League debates.

General Stuff:

Just speak at conversational pace and tone and use all your time.

Only go for topicality if its a glaring violation

Try to avoid using terminology-heavy debates.

If aff, focus on defending your policies and answer all of the negs points effectively and clearly

If neg, focus on finding gaps in the policy proposal and carry only the most contested and strongest negative stock issues into the 2NR.

Cross ex is the most important focus area for me in the debate. This is the only part of debate where neg/aff actively clash with each other. I look for teams to use the that time effectively. Don't cut off responses, unless they are stretching the time limit.

Don't give up in round, I keep an open mind throughout the debate, even the last speech.

I am judge that has been judging for 5+ years, mostly in debate (Policy). I tend to value stock issues and the affirmative must be able to prove all of them sufficiently in order to win the round and fulfill their burden. I also prefer well reason, clear speech and relevant/recent evidence. I'm not comfortable with speed and please explain all arguments in depth.

I'm a parent judge with little experience.

For debate specifically, I'm extremely lay — try to explain clearly and guide me through arguments carefully. Speak at a conversational pace — trying to cram in tons of different arguments, explain each one thoroughly. By the last few speeches, you should be focusing on one or two specific issues in the debate. Cross-examination is important! Don't just ask clarifying questions, be sure to add follow-ups.

I am a parent who has judged for 5 years. Please be civil and respectful in round. Speak at a reasonable speed, and make sure to have organization in your speech.

Hello Everyone,

I have been volunteering as a parent judge in S&D tournaments for the last 5 years. My personal beliefs border on moderate philosophy. I am very open to listening to arguments on either side of the spectrum and I especially like the ones that are logical and convincing. I don't like it when people speak too fast since most of them are trying to scram in a bunch of arguments at the same time which otherwise don't stand on their own.

I also like the flow of the speeches, a simple and easy to understand structure, and, the ones that follow the time requirements.

Parent judge. Speak slowly and explain arguments simply and clearly.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

Hello!

I have been a parent judge since 2020. I appreciate if the participants can pace themselves in a way that I can follow along, and be respectful of their opponents.

Good Luck!

Amit

As a lay judge, I place high importance on receiving arguments that are straightforward and structured for easy comprehension.
Please ensure that your presentations are clear and digestible. A respectful demeanor is essential throughout the debate.
Additionally, I prefer arguments that emphasize real-world truth over technical debating skills.

Also, for my reference, kindly add me to the email chains at sajeesh.mathew@gmail.com.

I am a parent judge with some experience in judging but not with fast debate. Please avoid using terms that parents do not understand.

For Policy Debate specifically, I evaluate the round based on the clarity of your point, evidence, and ability to handle cross-examination of issues. I will consider your framing but will vote for a more credible, logical, and understandable case most of the time. I also prefer summarizing your argument and points at the end of the debate, especially in rebuttals.

I am a parent judge, and I have some experience with judging congress, LD, public forum, policy, and parliamentary debate. I have been judging for less than 2 years, and I don't know all the rules about these events.

Please speak slowly and clearly, and don't use too much debate jargon. I evaluate rounds based on what you convince me to evaluate, so please clarify this.

Good luck! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me in the round.

As a debate judge, I am not worried about your presentational/speaking skills.

tldr:

• policy coach, tech > truth, tabula rasa critic of argument (details below but basically this means tabula rasa with complete claim-warrant-impact arguments &a premium on logical analytical work - quality logical analysis can easily beat subpar evidence)
• be excellent to each other - "Keanu Reeves & Alex Winter explain "Be Excellent to Each Other" ": this video gets the spirit of things right (minus Alex Winter's gendered language) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv0i8YasmEM
• adaptation to panels + doing your own style = good & respected (i'm just as happy in a stock issues or case / DA round as in a circuity policy or K round as long as there's clear clash, weighing,& analysis, not just a card & block war)
• if you do fast policy debate, i prefer the depth and clarity of an 80% of toc style speed and fewer off [happier with the depth in a 4 or so off situation] but you do you
• but please no blippy unwarranted args - esp not for theory (needs initial claim-warrant-impact to be a voting issue)
• everything below mainly includes background info, advice, and predispositions which you can override w/ skillful debating as long as you hone in on the basic ideas above

about you:thank you for being here and for your commitment to this activity! before we even meet, i already have so much respect for you - for your time spent working on this life-changing activity that builds essential life skills and shares important messages and advocacies! i'm here to listen and respond and will put 100% effort into that for you during your debate / performance! please communicate with me if you need any sort of support or accommodation during the round!

about me:

• she/her...and you can call me Michaela; michaelanorthrop@gmail.com – put me on the chain

• current policy debate & spontaneous events speech coach at Leland High School in San Jose; have coached policy debate on a spectrum from slow lay judge format to fast circuit style nearly every year since 1999 but have focused less on circuit style the last few years - more lay & semi-fast / mixed pool debate for regional / state & nsda / cat nats

• former head coach for all speech & debate events; experience coaching all of them

• competed in hs & college speech & debate (policy, extemp, congress, duo, oratory, & parli) in the mid-to-late 1990s

• tabroom experience is deceptive; i judge 50+ practice rounds a year for our team

• coaching areas / experience:

• 2000-2003 - head speech and debate coach at Lynbrook H.S. in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2003-2006 - head speech and debate coach from at Chantilly H.S. in the Washington D.C. metro (D.C. metro and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2006-2008 - assistant coach for policy debate at Wayzata H.S. in Minnesota & Twin River (formerly Henry Sibley) H.S. (Minnesota and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2015-present - policy & impromptu coach at Leland High School in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments)

most general paradigm for all debate events (please see below for more specific paradigms for Policy, LD, PF, Parli, and Speech - it’s a lot more specific below)

• i'm a critic of argument open to most arguments you might want to advance (see exceptions below in terms of arguments which marginalize or seem to create harm) with more policy strat experience than K experience and very little high theory experience.

• i used to run Ks on the neg but my experience as a competitor was before K affs really hit the scene, so though i'm open to hearing K affs and have judged some K v framework and K v K rounds, i wouldn't call them my wheelhouse. i'd say 90% of my judging experience - just based on types of tournaments judged and the timelines for those - lines up with either policy strats or Ks on the neg as opposed to 10% K affs / clash rounds. see details below for more of my thinking on K affs & framework debates.

• unless persuaded into another vantage point and role, i first view myself as an educator seeking the outcome of advocacy skills and informed activism in / beyond the debate space

• If you're not familiar with “critic of argument” as a paradigm, it’s probably most helpful to interpret it as a tabula rasa judge who is open to whatever role of the judge / ballot you want to set up but who defaults to the side with the overall best-warranted logical argumentation (with well-substantiated analysis and judge direction held in nearly equal weight with strong evidence) and the side with the best control of clear comparative impacting throughout the debate (not just in final rebuttals).

• i think this is not much different from what a lot of coaches a few decades into the activity are saying except that i flag it as what we used to call it (critic of argument paradigm): yes do line by line, yes tech > truth, but also get out of your blocks and compare stuff; it's not just having a solid line by line or having more arguments or flagging that they dropped more than you did...but saying why your line by line is better and why your arguments >>>.

• Typical concerns about a critic of argument paradigm are: How do we know the judge won’t intervene? What are “quality” arguments? Is this just a strategy contest comparing the first constructives? Nope. Here are some other core beliefs which check against those concerns and provide more information on how i judge argument quality:

• tech > truth: i vote off of the flow guided by your comparisons of argumentation strength and your assessment of the significance of arguments extended or dropped… with the caveat that the tech (right out of the gate, not just by the final rebuttal) needs to have clearly articulated substance (claim-warrant-impact) to be a voter. dropped arguments are true, provided they were originally presented as a complete argument (claim, warrant, impact).

• evidence quality + analysis quality instead of evidence automatically being weighted over analysis: Quality evidence (breadth and strength of warrants, relevant source with expertise for the claim at hand) is important to me. So is analysis. Contextualized analytics with clearly isolated warrants demonstrating logical reasoning (empirics, cause and effect, argument by sign with clear justification for the link, or other clear categorical reasoning) easily beat vague evidence missing clear warranting other than having a source. Evidence with more warranting > evidence with no warrant other than the source. However, source quality is persuasive as a separate metric. The basic point here is that arguments like “I read evidence, so you must prefer it over a high school debater’s analysis” aren't persuasive for a critic of argument. Warrant breadth, isolation, and application via analysis is persuasive. Flagging fallacies also moves you up the believability spectrum.

• the best stuff as far as i'm concerned (highly rewarded w/ speaks and tipping me towards your side before you apply any other particular structure or goal to the round):

  • demonstrating strategic thinking in speeches and cx

  • in-depth discussion and comparison of evidence (source quality, internal analysis, warrants);

  • detailed, clearly substantiated analytics;

  • clear advocacy (applies to condo / dispo as much as any other advocacy - tell me what this advocacy means and why it's good);

  • cross-ex as an art form which i'm flowing and applying highly to speaks and then to the round if you apply cx concessions during speeches;

  • a good balance of ethos, logos, and pathos - which breaks the speaker / audience barrier a bit, generating audience goodwill and communicating empathy which elevates your speech acts / projects

  • See below under particular event paradigms for specifics according to common argument categories.

• i love comparative overviews telling me your path to the ballot via the avenues above, the flow, and clear impact calculus, starting some of this party BEFORE FINAL REBUTTALS
  
  

Other General Points Across Debate Formats:

• rate: speed is fine but needs to be clear; no predisposition for or against a rate as long as it's clear but I'm happiest and doing the best processing and evaluation when debaters choose a *moderately* fast rate [see special note below - command F Debating for Panels - about mixed panels / local lay tournaments though! i want you to include / consider the whole panel!]

• for online debate, a caveat to the above: due to the special constraints of judging online (home wifi issues, multiple windows / programs to manage on the computer while tracking the debate, etc.), i really prefer a moderate rate of delivery at most - what i view as about a 7/10 vs. full-speed TOC-style rounds. feel free to run a quick pre-round calibration w/ me to get a baseline as i realize this is subjective.

• If you're not clearly communicating (too fast, not enough articulation or separation of words, etc.), I'll indicate that once by typing "clear" in the chat or in person by saying "clear." If you don't change and i've already indicated an issue, don't expect me to flow.

• Debate needs to be a safe space for all participants. Be kind. We're all here to learn and grow. You can be assertive, authoritative, and forceful without being dismissive or rude. Be inclusive and respectful of others' expressed concerns. Consider the assumptions behind your claims and arguments carefully as well as their impact on all involved. Ad hominem and exclusionary behavior are unacceptable. At a minimum, you will lose speaker points. Personal attacks or marginalizing behavior that seems intentional or that's repeated without apology / recognition after an objection is raised may also be grounds for a loss, especially (but not only) if your opponents raise the issue.

• i am not going to vote on an individual's behavior *outside* my ability to observe it within the round. this includes any flux time before or between rounds at tournaments. this is not to say that you can't use examples about what a team has *run* at other tournaments to substantiate T or theory or credibility arguments or to add pressure about a team's authentic advocacy during cx based on their prior arguments; feel free to do that

POLICY DEBATE SPECIFICS

the commentary below isn't meant to be prescriptive but instead serve as guideposts - the thinking i'll tend to apply absent specific guidance on an issue; you can always make a push for me to see it from your perspective! in that case, what i wrote about my default paradigm (critic of argument) comes into play for how to best persuade me into a particular vantage point

Fiscal Redistribution / 23-24 topic experience:

• some policy-focused strat familiarity and experience: i led a middle school policy debate workshop this summer on this topic. we focused on policy strats and the NFHS / NSDA novice case areas.
• i spent some time reviewing various summer camps’ literature and doing personal research; this was mostly policy-focused
• year-long involvement with our team's policy strats in lay and mixed judge pools

Style / Approach: Your rate, style, and argumentation are your own decisions (with the caveat above about mixed / lay panels as well as thoughtfully considering any expressed concerns for access and content). i'm happy to hear about whatever you think is important. i do especially enjoy thorough case, theory, and T debates, but i'm no more likely to vote on them vs. other positions.

Number of off case / depth vs. breadth:

• it’s your call, but as a critic of argument who values argument development, i'd say you'll generally fare better with me in a 1-4 off round than a 5+ off round. i'd much rather see a few well-developed arguments.

• if your shell is undeveloped and under-highlighted, you will have a lot of catching up to do in the block and i won't be filling in conventional blanks for you on missed steps in a disad or K shell. i'd rather hear more internal analysis in fewer quality cards than lots of cards highlighted down to bare bones.

CX: love it, pay attention to it, actually flowing it for reference, but waiting to hear you integrate it in speeches to factor it in beyond speaker points and general credibility

Overviews - love them! i think impact calc and setting a clear lens for the round at the top of a speech and / or on top of the core issues you're going for is strategic starting in the 2ac and in most subsequent speeches. (just make sure the line by line is developed enough to substantiate this work!)

Clash rounds: i don't have a strong default for sequencing arguments, so please clearly articulate criteria for how you believe clashes of advocacies should be resolved with strong warrants as to what level of impact / implication comes first and why. tagline advocacy won’t be enough. cross-x will matter. escape your own perspective enough to make comparative claims

Theory - enjoy it but cannot be blipped - i don’t vote on *tagline* theory debates, even if conceded; not inclined to revert to status quo / judge kick unless 2nr advocates it but sympathetic to 2ars if that happens and definitely open to advocacy shift arguments on that; please warrant any "drop the team" arguments heavily

T / framework

• i default to competing interpretations with an eye on education unless given another method of evaluation

• i REALLY dislike the trend toward underdeveloped standards and warrantless voters. i prefer instead to hear distinct, warranted standards and voters, case lists and articulation of the quality of debate and other impacts those case lists create, and the *importance* of the ground you've lost.

• i have no preference for potential abuse vs. in-round abuse arguments so long as you warrant them.

• i think a clean articulation of a counter-interp that hones in on one impact turn and how the counter-interp solves it is a pretty straightforward approach as long as you are articulating why this outweighs

• perfectly willing to vote on old school T metrics like jurisdiction and justification if you tell me reasons that would be good in the debate space or in life; i’ve loved T debates forever including reading 80s backfiles so do with that what you will…T theory is cool!

• Framework specifically:

• K affs which focus on impact turning education args have been pretty compelling to me

• both sides can provide a lot of clarity for me by throwing down on a TVA and what it does and doesn't resolve

Case debate

• yes please; i love a good case debate (not to say that a K cannot access this love...but i enjoy hearing about the fundamentals and nuances of a case)

• yes i will vote on presumption (if you tell me how & why i should) and case defense can be very helpful in the overall decision (assigning relative risk, forefronting your own arguments)

K affs: looking for a clear thesis, connection to the resolution, clear articulation of method or solvency, and a clear role of the judge and ballot

Performance specifically: i've judged very few rounds of this; you'd have to be pretty specific in telling me how to evaluate it and the role of the ballot and judge

Off case generally

• no real preference for what you run (Ks, DA/CP, whatever else) but looking for strong analysis of the evidence and well-developed overviews clarifying your impacts / implications and overall position starting in the 2N

Disads:

• yes zero risk is a thing; i heavily lean towards the link strength of your evidence + analysis (critic of argument lens here is relevance + significance + proof)

• love to hear about how the world of the disad implicates case claims and solvency

• strong uniqueness and link specificity explanation > giant uniqueness walls

Ks

• yes, no problem, excited to hear these but i'm not steeped in high theory lit so you need to use overviews and analysis to develop those particular arguments for me

• the link story and overall reasoning of the position need to be clear, as well as your suggested role for me as a judge and the role of the ballot

• love and reward debaters who do the work to contextualize specific links to case / speech acts instead of relying on generic links

• i really prefer a structured debate here (clear sectioning of framework, perm, link debate, implications, alt, etc.)

• long overviews are fine and probably most helpful in resolving the ballot as long as you get to the line by line to justify and substantiate the overview work

• in a pretty balanced debate, aff probably gets to weigh their plan and neg probably gets some offense from their discourse

• i need to hear details about what your alt is and does to give it much weight; evasiveness is hecka bad for your ballot odds

Counterplans

• if your CP doesn't have a solvency card / advocate, you're way behind and probably have to justify that with something like how small the aff is + some reasonable indication of solvency based on facts in the round (e.g. aff evidence)...or exploiting a plan flaw…but in general, i think the playing field needs to be level and counterplans should have solvency given affs should have solvency

A few args i'll admit to not liking:

New affs bad isn't usually persuasive to me. i don't reject it out of hand but it's an uphill battle. i value research and innovation. T, significance / impact weighing, and args against the evidence quality are probably better ways to go if you think their new aff is abusive or bad.

Disclosure theory is similarly uphill; as a coach who believes in the life skills of debate, i believe you should have a generic strat and some confidence in your analytical skills. i will vote neg on analytics or logical application of general evidence to a specific case, so you're not disadvantaged in front of me by not having case-specific evidence. i don't think there's information you're definitively owed before the 1ac speaks...nor are you owed time to prep with a coach before your round given that your opponents may not have that opportunity...though i do think reciprocal agreements should be respected and any disclosure misdirection i can verify / observe will result in low speaks at a minimum.

SPEAKER POINTS

• i try to fit into the rubric of a particular tournament’s level of challenge and objectives; in lay local debate, i tend to defer to the adaptation goals of that community and adjust accordingly; in circuit, certainly i hold the line more on substance and relative skill in the pool

• speaks are earned by a combo of:

• style (art, creativity, accessibility, memorability, ethos/pathos/logos balance)

• + substance (tech, strategy, demonstrating knowledge and control of the flow + clearly writing my ballot)

• + adaptation (because i’m here for you and you can be a little here for me - and i think this shows your ability to pave a way to persuasion and willingness to make a speech act connect; as a critic of argument focused on education, to me that seems like part of the mission; you make a clear effort to reach out to my understanding of and goals for debate; it’s flagged; it’s obvious; bonus points in paneled prelim round situations if i can tell you're doing this for the whole panel)

• Generally, i think the College Debate Ratings speaker point scale from a few years ago is a good guide for toc-qualifying tournaments but here i overlay my personal rubric from above so you see more of what i’m looking for per level:

• 29.7+ – exceptional; top few speakers; you’ve blown me away in style + substance + adaptation

• 29.5-29.6 – should be top 10 speakers; the force is strong with you across style + substance + adaptation

• 29.3-29.4 – still high points for top 10 speakers; very strong in at least one subset of style + substance + adaptation and other areas are still high

• 29.1-29.2 – median for top 10 speakers; by here, you may not have the full package of style + substance + adaptation but you are excellent in at least some of those areas

• 28.8-29.0 – roughly 75th percentile at the tournament; bubble territory; i see a bright spark in at least one of the areas of style + substance + adaptation but the breadth isn’t there yet / today

• 28.5-28.7 – roughly 50th percentile at the tournament; emerging strengths in style + substance + adaptation but some clear deficits in skills or effort across the areas

• 28.3-28.4 – roughly 25th percentile at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation; clearly uneven performance

• 28.0-28.3 – roughly 10th percentile speaker at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation

• 27.5-27.9 – having a tough day / round or looking early in your journey for style + substance + adaptation; some skills which seem basic for the tournament mission aren’t clear yet

*************************************************************************************************

OTHER DETAILS & DEBATE FORMATS:

Debating for Panels:

State Quals / NSDA National Quals / Panels with Lay Judges: i'm an educator who believes in access and participation. If you go warp speed, choose a hyper-technical style, and / or present esoteric arguments and in doing so exclude a lay judge, i will be peeved and your speaks will be low. i'm fine with you picking a moderate rate and trying to hit the middle most of the time by occasionally getting more technical, but i'm a proponent of including all your critics. i also see a value in lay debate and stock issues, so if you do that, i'm not going to be bored or think you're not a smart debater. This isn't to say i believe you must take a stock issues approach to mixed panels - just saying i'd recommend you err towards what includes the panel's understanding of debate.

debate events besides policy: i primarily coach and judge policy but have coached and judged all debate events; my paradigm below has sections for LD, Parli, & PF; you might want to read the Policy section above to get more insight about particular positions; ask if you've got questions...but i'll go w/ the standards the debaters set as opposed to judging your LD, PF, and Parli rounds "like a policy judge" unless you give me no guidance, in which case i default to being a critic of argument

for LD Debate:

• i've most often judged traditional "California style" LD but i'm open to other styles

• my default is to look for contentions which are clearly impacted to the criterion based upon warranted, high quality evidence and / or analysis

• will listen to theory arguments and consider them if they are substantiated and impacted...but also...i will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules such as "no plans" / "no counter plans") in those particular settings if a student raises an objection regarding event rules

for PF Debate:

• my ideal PF round has debaters setting a clear framework / objective / goal for the round and pointing their contentions and their impacts towards this goal

• my rfds - absent guidance otherwise - tend to hone in on how the debaters resolve the framework of the debate and the relative weight of their impacts

• conceded args / defense / whatever is NOT sticky - you need to say it in summary for it to be valid in final focus (i don't think it's fair for me to have to evaluate what was responded to directly / indirectly or enough vs. not enough - requires too much subjectivity - so the objective standard for me is concrete extensions)

• can you pls just share your ev w/ one another before speeches rather than making everyone wait for these vague and lengthy specific card requests? pls???

• cross-fire / grand cross-fire are very important to me in terms of argument testing and argument resolution and i'm flowing them; however, debaters should carry these concessions or other components into speeches and weigh them out in the context of the round's framework / objectives / core claims if they want cross-fire content to be a voting issue

• theory - sure if substantiated and impacted, though i think PF lacks adequate time for impacting such arguments without placing yourself significantly behind on clash

• will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. "no plans" / "no counterplans") as directed by debaters' objections or formal protest (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules) in those particular settings

• cards, not links or vague paraphrasing - "[author name] says X in 2022" where X is not a direct quote or at least mentioning a very specific data point / argument rather than a broad claim is absolutely not evidence to me; i'm dismayed by the amount of paraphrasing i've seen in the event lately; paraphrasing brief claims without warrants or drop quotes...or simply providing a pile of author names...these things truly aren't persuasive if there's no quoted evidence or warranted analysis based upon specific conclusions; this isn't to say you need giant paragraphs like policy evidence but actually cite specific details and quotes with warrants for your claim if you want me to view that as a supported claim. i am not going to go through your separate evidence doc to find the support for you if you haven't read it into the round. you don't get to summarize a whole book or article w/o detail. NSDA rules (which apply to CHSSA & CFL tournaments as well as NSDA tournaments) are very clear on this point. See NSDA High School Unified Manual (Feb. 2023 updated version) (command F "Evidence Rules for Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Big Questions Debate" and in particular, rule 7.2.B.3 on p. 30: "If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round.")

for Parli Debate:

• mainly looking for clear warranting & impacting as well as linking plan provisions / thesis to benefits or the agreed upon / debated out goal of the round

• will apply other frameworks based upon debaters' warranted advocacy and clash

• theory is fine if substantiated and impacted; T / other theory / off-case positions are welcome if clearly warranted

• either "dismiss the argument" or "drop the team" claims need to be very heavily substantiated and demonstrate clear potential or in-round abuse with demonstrable impacts

• generally no RVIs absent substantial work in justifying them

Please keep your delivery slow and clear, I'm a volunteer and new to judging. Competitors may keep track of their own time, however keep in mind that I have final say when it comes to time. In addition, when taking prep time please announce it so I can keep track, I want both teams to have a fair opportunity to present and prepare.

Parent judge, please try to go slower and err on the side of overexplaining jargon on the topic. Warrant out and impact all of your arguments. Good reasoning and explaining of your side will win you the round.

I am a lay parent judge with a little bit of judging experience in policy.

Please no circuit arguments or spreading, and make sure to explain all of your arguments.

Remember to be kind to your opponents and have a fair round!

Please speak slow and be clear in analysis. 2nd year parent judge

I am a parent judge.

Hello, I am a second-year LD/Policy judge. Please be respectful and courteous to your fellow participants. Keep track of time. Be confident, clear, and consistent with your arguments throughout the debate. And have fun!

All the best.

I am a parent judge.

My decision was based on logic argument with the support of relevant and verifiable evidences.

To avoid implicit error, such as speech order, I give scores to each categories (depending on events) and calculate the waited sum. Then I normalize the score through linear transformation to obtain speaker points.

Zita Wang

I am a parent judge. I judged speech and debate in different tournments in the past three years.

Take your pace, provide framework, and love to hear your summary about why you should win.

Be confident, run your flow, respect your competitors, and have fun!

I am a parent judge.

I don't believe I can give advices on how you can better improve your skills; however, being very logical, I strive to give my best decision. I appreciate

• well-arranged and logical arguments
• how one team really listens to another and find flaws in their arguments
• respectful exchanges

Personally I don't like

• excessive repeating of points already spoken
• excessing questioning the other team's evidence without a follow-up agenda

• Quality over Quantity - focus on weight of impact, explain it clearly
• Clear evidence with weight of evidence - source, reputation etc. (one highly reputable source better than five random sources)
• Stay away from technicals unless absolutely necessary
• Be respectful, clear, and concise in disagreements

Welcome to my angry rant!....I mean, my paradigm!

(don’t worry, I am nicer in my RFD).

I have 5 years experience in World Schools and Public Forum Debate. Flay for policy.

I hold debaters accountable for Public Forum’s original purpose- which is to communicate to the public*. I am not a lay judge, but if a layman couldn't at least understand you, you are defeating the purpose of public forum and you should be in policy instead.

tabula rasa, but don't overdo it. You don't need to define "the" for me :P.

I love kritiks when used sincerely, but not when they are used frivolously.

Substance over theory, forever and always. I despise theory (except topicality). If you use theory, you better have a GOOD reason and address a REAL issue, because it will not impress me as a default strategy. Theory was designed to keep debate fair...so don't be like rain on your wedding day (ironic...Alanis Morissette...no one?) and use it abusively.

There is nothing I hate more than a petty theory debate with no substance....but spreading is a close second. If a teacher assigned you a 2 page paper and you used 1pt font to get as much info in as possible while also hoping the teacher didn't catch your mistakes, you wouldn't get away with it. Spreading is no different. The assignment is to convey your message to the public as persuasively as you can in 4 minutes. I consider spreading to be like using 1pt font: cheating. Not to mention that spreading is SUPER elitist to ESL debaters.

Truth over tech, sorry not sorry. It’s not because I am lay, its because I am allergic to kool-aid and won’t drink it. I still hold you accountable to technical aspects of debate, but not if tech isn't supporting truth. I don't care if you memorize more jargon than your opponent, I care if you have better arguments. Impressive impacts with strong links win.

Framework should not be neglected!!!!

---------------Advice for my victims....I mean, competitors--------------------------------------------

I have a tendency to favor global impacts over domestic, and I am a sucker for strong logic based on economics. Please remember- the United States is NOT the world, and the values of the United States are NOT universal. If your opponents make assumptions, point them out to me.

Don't assume I am a liberal- if you want to argue that republicans are inherently bad, you need to prove it.

Don't collapse on a good argument for the sake of collapsing. It might take 5 seconds out of your summary speech to keep a contention in play that could save your whole round.

Don't focus on niche issues when your opponents' impact effects the whole world.

Real world impacts are more impressive to me than theoretical ones. Don't tell me something is going to lead to nuclear war unless you really can prove it. -_- Links or its fake.

If you are going to use climate change as your impact, you better be able to prove uniqueness.

I have a pet peeve for arguments that falsely equate correlation with causation. If your opponent calls you out on this correctly....-_-

Don't give me a false dilemma. Don't strawman. Don't be dumb. Don't be tricky. Just do your research.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS.