I am normally speech so I'm a lay judge for debate. Don't run K's!!!

• I focus on solid storytelling. The most important piece of the puzzle is the script, please don't forget to hold true the story as a whole even though we are only seeing ten minutes of it. Connecting to the audience, it's about telling the story to us, so a solid connection to the audience is important. We want to laugh and cry with you.

• Clean pantomime and connection with off stage characters
• Take us on the journey with you.
• Take a deep breath and have fun!!! Leave it all out there and take your seat feeling like there was nothing else you could have done.
• Don't forget you are not speaking FOR them, you are speaking AS them. It is an ownership that you should take seriously. If you don't tell the story, how will they continue to live?
• Be honest. These are real people sharing real stories of their lives. Breath through their struggle and be honest.

• Be you, you're enough.

• Believe in the story you are telling, be confident, be bold, own your time in front of us.
• Make sure everything you do has a purpose. If it doesn't have a reason, it begs the question of why do it?

I have 0 speech and debate experience. Please don't spread and be clear.

Add me to the email chain at danielagui2005@gmail.com

Read if you want info for parli below. Summed up for speech I was a great debater so I can handle fast speaking and complex ideas.

I was a 4-year varsity debater and have been to many East and West coast tournaments, including finals at Berkeley, so I'm well-versed in debate jargon. I am a flow judge.

SIGNPOST!!

General notes: I'm fine with any arguments you want to run, provided they have solid links and clear impacts, as I will typically weigh/vote off of them. For the most part I am truth>tech. However, if your opponents are lying, call them out on it. Debate is an educational space for you to learn how to deal with other people.

I'm fine with theory if it a) has a reason to be run (not a fan of frivolous theory) and b) is clear and well executed; know the structure of a T-Shell if you want to run one, for example. If you’re trying to claim something is abusive, theory is unnecessary.

I'm not fond of spreading and it will drop your speaks, but I won't stop you. If there is anything I miss, however, I won’t vote on it. I will protect the flow, but call the POO regardless in case I miss something.

I will give all speeches 30 seconds of grace time unless the event specifies otherwise (i.e. some speech events) before I mark you down. Clear voters are wonderful. Roadmaps (on time or off time) are encouraged. Please signpost or I will cry. NO tag team POIs.

If you are rude or offensive I will drop you. Examples include name calling, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or deliberate misgendering, etc. Don't be a jerk. Debates should be inclusive spaces to everyone. You can be assertive, confident, and passionate without being mean, so just don't do it. I promise attacking your opponents will not make your case stronger.

DON’T RUN A K

When responding to your opponents arguments, make sure that you summarize them, then give a response. Merely saying subpoint a of contention 2 leads to confusion on my side and your opponent's side, and I judge based off of my flow. If I have no idea what argument or impact you’re responding to, I just won’t vote on it. The straw man fallacy never works, make sure you flow your opponents speeches well so that you can respond to them well.

Policy rounds:

I respect Fiat in rounds but there is a limit to it. Fiat gives the government the assumption that their plan will pass, but doesn't extend into the impacts of the plan. Nontopical plans (i.e. plans with policies that don't relate to the resolution) will also not be considered. If your opponents have a nontopical plan, call them out on it and elaborate as to why it’s nontopical.

Connect your impacts back to the weighing mechanism. Make it very clear in your final speech why your plan is better than your opponents -- opposition especially should just be focusing on impact weighing.

GOV

Permutation According to CHSSA rules, a perm is “A test of the competitiveness of a counterplan or counterposition, it is an argument that explains how the functions of the plan and counterplan are complementary and mutually supportive. More practically, a permutation is a type of argument used by proposition teams to illustrate the noncompetitiveness of counterplans.” In essence, if the opposition runs a counterplan that is not mutually exclusive to the government’s plan, the government can run a permutation, or “perm”. For a basic example, if the resolution is that the USFG should raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and the opposition runs UBI, the government can make the case that, because the government can both raise the minimum wage and implement a UBI, the two plans are not mutually exclusive and the opposition needs to drop their counterplan, as well as all of their advantages. Perms are necessary in debate, but the government must explain how the two plans are non-competitive.

OPP.

Competitiveness CHSSA rules state that competitiveness refers to “An argument for evaluating the legitimacy of a counterplan in formal debate. The presence of the counterplan should force a choice for the decision maker between the policies advocated by the affirmative plan and the counterplan. Competition is the quality of a policy that makes it a reason to reject another policy. Classically, competition was measured solely by means of mutual exclusivity.”

Counterplan: “A policy proposed by the opposition. The policy must offer a reason to reject the proposition team’s proposed course of action. Generally, the counterplan will either try to solve the proposition team’s proposed harms in a more beneficial way, e.g., by “avoiding” (not linking to) disadvantages accrued by the proposition team’s plan of action.”

If you are side opp, your job is not to just prove why the government is failing to solve an issue, but either why the current SQ solves better or your counterplan solves better. However, your counterplan should be exclusionary. Even if eliminating homework is better for students’ mental health than eliminating the SAT, the two ideas can happen in the same world, so your counterplan would be invalid. Unless you can prove that both can’t happen together, use your best judgment.

Typically, policy rounds use advantages and disadvantages rather than contentions, but I don’t really care either way. Opposition using ads and disads is definitely better for signposting, though, and might earn you higher speaks depending on your content.

Opposition’s counterplan needs to be competitive with the plan, not necessarily the resolution. Delay and study CPs, PICs, agent CPs, etc. are all within the rules, but can make the round confusing and messy, so make sure that you know how to signpost and argue for them before you run one.

Value rounds:

Name Dropping influential philosophers will not help your case if you don't understand their ideologies, and will not be valued over general moral arguments. However these philosophers can make a round more nuanced, which is more entertaining and educational. AGAIN -- don’t search up a basic definition of Deontology and try to frame your case around it if you don’t understand it, it will discredit your case. Only run a funky weighing mechanism if you think you can actually argue it.

Plans and counterplans are not accepted in value rounds and I will not vote on them. In a value round, you should argue the morals of an idea, not the logistics.

+ speaks if you understand Kant better than me

Fact Rounds:

The side that has the most evidence will not necessarily win. Analyze your statistics, impact them, explain how they relate to the round and how they benefit your side. Site your sources and don’t outright lie -- it’s a fact round be fair, and honest. If you are in a fact round and your opponents and your evidence conflict with each other, you should explain why your evidence makes more sense using logic and context of the round. However, nobody likes a definition or evidence round so don't make the whole round about the evidence. Burden of proof does not count in a fact round: both sides carry the burden of proof.

Fact rounds are weighed on probability, not net benefits. This should be obvious, but don’t set your weighing mechanism to what’s best for society.

Speaker points:

Confidence and emotion are the most significant factors for speaker points.

Be passionate! Act as if you care about the topic at hand! Make the round entertaining!

Office references = +1 speaker point, but it has to make sense in the round. Don't hurt your speech by just quoting Dwight.

Spreading will lose you speaks: I prefer speakers that know their arguments well enough to state them concisely and eloquently.

Don’t be repetitive, if you have nothing more to say, just end your speech. You don’t need to take up the full time.

Try to stay away from filler words, it’s fine if you want to take a break for a few seconds to gather your thoughts or find your place on the flow.

Hello!!

While I have experience in debate, most of my career is Speech oriented, so I HIGHLY value signposting and clarity! To me, what wins the round is IMPACTS and clear, logical arguments.

Happy debating!

My approach is simple -

1. content - original, no fabrication or speculation with transparent sources/examples.

2. Organization - flow => topic introduction, topic(s), and conclusion. The transition between topics.

3. Presentation - clarity, pauses, audience connect, language quality, voice modulation, and tone.

Thanks to Kids, Parents, Coaches, & Organizers.

I judge according to the entirety of the round, the team better able to convince me why they should win. I also prioritize all judging rules while judging.

Hi! My name is Shannon Babu, and I'm a parent judge from Concord, MA. This school year (2023-24), I am primarily judging speech events, but I also judge public forum. I am a math and science teacher, so I love to see your clear thesis, your logical process, and a nice tight summary in your speech. My primary concerns in public forum are your logical process: linkages, evidence, weighing, etc.

For speech:

Extemp
Here's some ways to get a high ranking from me:
-Answer the question
-Content > delivery, but doing both is always better. Maintain a slower pace so I can actually flow
-Clever/unique substructure and diversified arguments.
-Answering NO (or whatever is not the obvious answer)
-I’ll generally reward creativity.

In general forpublic forum:

I expect you to keep your own time, but I'm happy to keep time for you - just ask.

It's ok to be nervous, and it's ok if your voice shakes - that means you care about what you're doing! We're all here to learn and help each other, even through a competitive environment.

You may sit or stand, whatever makes you the most comfortable.

You may speak relatively quickly with me, but please don't spread. My ears are only human.

I will allow a few extra seconds for a debater to finish a sentence, finish a question, or finish an answer.

If you have any questions for me during the debate, please ask! It's ok to ask questions between process steps, and asking is ALWAYS better than not asking.

I have the following non-negotiable expectation:

*treat your teammate and opponents with respect and dignity (polite body language, mindful utterances/whispering, professional language, etc).

I'm excited to hear your arguments - I know how much work goes into your preparation, and I'm here to support your process!

Add me to the chain nedabahrani16@gmail.com

Please subject the email "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

About me:

She/her/hers… also good with they/them

Hey I’m Neda Bahrani and I am a current Junior at UC Berkeley. I used to debate Lincoln Douglas/Policy Debate with Dougherty Valley for 5 years. During my time on the team I was Policy Captain for DV and mentor our middle school team. I have competed in both LD and policy style debate through out high school as well as attended camps like CNDI and TDI.

I agree with almost all of Julian Kaffour, Magi Ortiz , Savit Bhat’s Paradigm/Judging philosophy

Tl/dr:

Number your arguments PLEASE

Don’t be offensive. Debate is a game, and supposed to be fun, so don’t take yourself too seriously.

Tech > truth. BUT true arguments are better arguments.

Tricks/Spikes - just no. I won’t flow these.

Friv theory - also a no for me

No RVIs

3 + condo = bad (for LD)

5 + condo = bad (for policy)

You can also refer to my teammate, Savit Bhat’s paradigm if you would like more info than this ^.

Top Level Preferences:

I’m good with anything as long as you do link level analysis and impact out everything. Winning the thesis of your K, your aff, your affirmative, or even your violation is not enough for me to vote for you.

1 - Policy/T

1 - K’s/ K affs

2 - Phil (actual phil, ie nc’s)

3 - Theory

4 - Strike for tricks

K’s

1 - Topic Ks

1 - Security

2 - Set Col

3 - Identity Ks

4 - Anthro/Humanism

5 - Cap

6 - Pomo (Pomo’s are 6 for a reason, don’t pref me just bc “she likes Ks”)

I do enjoy a good K debate. On neg the K winning a turns case, solves case, or some impact ow arg is something I usually like to vote for. I dislike when the alt is intangible and cannot be the intricacies cannot be articulated in cross. You should be able to answer the question “What does the alt look like in the real world?”

Straight Up

This was the style of debate I primarily debated throughout high school. I usually went for “edgy” pics like the asteroids pic, womxn pic, etc. So yeh love those. Honestly at the end of the day it comes down to impact calc and whether you did it and answered the line by line. I like GOOD arguments. My team, throughout highschool, has always produced a really high quality of cards and affirmatives, and that is something I have come to appreciate as I start judging. I hate opening the doc and scrolling through and just being like, “oof this is just a bad aff.” Because those bad arguments are just easily beatable.

If Lay:

If your opponent requests a lay round and it's a ggsa tournament or a "usually" lay tournament you should default lay. However, if your opponent requests a lay round and you are entered in Var TOC at an invitational, I am completely okay with you saying "I won't go fast." That is sufficient for me.

If it is a lay round, I look to who does the most impact weighing.

At the end of the day, be nice and have fun. Debate means more than just your wins and loses.

Hi! I'm Srini, a parent of a speech and debate competitor. In the rounds that I judge, I expect respectful, engaging debate and prefer a slower pace when you present your arguments. For speech, I'm looking for unique ideas presented in a confident, engaging way (humor definitely helps). Overall, just have fun, and the more interested you are in your topic, so will the audience! Good luck!

INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I focus on solid and meaningful storytelling. Be genuine and true to the words you are speaking. I was always taught that the only way to successfully tell a story is to have the audience laugh AND cry with you.

• Be RESPECTFUL! The same way you aspire to be a great performer, be a great audience member! Please be respectful of your fellow competitors, as I will take your behavior in rounds into account as a judge.

• Clean and reasonable pantomime/blocking. Your movements/blocking must add onto and enhance your performance, not take away or distract your audience from the message you are giving us.

• Be true to yourself as a performer. Do NOT try to copy off of anyone else’s performance style or take chunks of well-known or unknown performances to build yours. Think and perform outside of the box.

• Have FUN! Speech is meant to be and outlet not a stressor, be passionate and let go through your performances.

• Clear thesis/message. As a judge and audience member, it is extremely important for me to get a CLEAR understanding of your piece’s thesis/argument and overall message. In order to move your audience, we must understand what you are talking about and why you are talking about it.

PLATFORM EVENTS:

• Be specific with the topic at hand. Make sure your speech flows and each point connects to the last and the next.

• We may not know anything about the topic at hand, think of yourself as a professor sharing knowledge, teach us.

• If at some point you stumble over your words, keep going forward, don't go back unless that information was so important you need to recover it.

• Strong supporting material is key, like any good research paper the more recent the source the better. And with that strong source material is also important to the strength and legitimacy of your speech.

• Solid, confident delivery style.

• Be RESPECTFUL! The same way you aspire to be a great speaker, be a great audience member! Please be respectful of your fellow competitors, as I will take your behavior in rounds into account as a judge.

• Have FUN! Speech is meant to be and outlet not a stressor, be passionate and let go through your performances.

DEBATE EVENTS:

• Not as familiar, but I look for well spoken, clear, factual speaking.

I coach policy and public forum debate at Success Academy Midtown West Middle School and have coached with BDL and Able2Shine. Much of my paradigm is based on a MS debate level but I enjoy higher level debates, too. I have been in forensics over a decade; four years of PF, two of Parliamentary, and four years of IPDA experience competing and many in speech. I can speak directly to older teams about my paradigm if they have questions.

DISCLOSURE: I have chronic dry eye. In most situations this is not an issue, but I know how frustrating it can be too look up and see your judge isn't paying attention or is falling asleep. If you see me closing or covering my eyes or even crying please understand it's a medical issue and not indicative of my attention span or emotional state.

danabellcontact@gmail.com for the chain.

My experience is mainly in IPDA, Public Forum, and Parliamentary Debate, with Policy being well understood but not a favorite. I prefer educational rounds with an emphasis on accessibility.

Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win. I love threading a value throughout the debate to help me weigh. It's the Pubfo in me. Sorry.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons (voting issues) you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. I flow it probably more than anything else said in the round. I will consider the ability of you to actually understand what you say. I want cards to be read, not recited.

4. POFO: I love framework debates and definitions debates. Emphasis on definitions debates. Squirrels are one of my favorite animals. Observations, Ks, have fun but make it accessible POLICY: Love T, love K, don't hate Performance. All I ask is you commit. A dropped K or T arg is a big waste of the round and it's not a reason I'll drop you, but it could be what sets up your downfall. Be cautious!

5. I can understand fast speaking. BUT KEEP TAGS AND AUTHOR SLOW. I'd rather you present four excellent arguments than eight ok ones. I don't literally "weigh" the arguments in quantity.

6. Be kind and speak with inflection. I dislike being able to tell that you don't really understand what you're saying. This is a debate, not a speedreading contest.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters. Time that I have to spend shuffling my flows and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you.Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

11. Body language is a language; people watching can understand when you're being patronizing and don't respect who you're speaking to.You are debating even when you are not speaking.

12. You're meant to be making this debate for the sake of society, not each other. Excessive "alphabet soup" and a general ignorance towards the fact there may be someone in the room who doesn't understand the very niche language of policy debate is an annoyance to me.

13. PF specific: I love a good framework but if there's an egregiously strong point outside of it I'll listen to "forget framework" arguments. I prefer analytics over reading cards 1000%. I usually vote for the more educational team. Also, it's "Public" forum, not Policy. (REAL) Spreading with no email chain in PF is a typical auto-drop (if that makes you want to strike me and this is a MS-HS tournament, I doubt you actually spread that fast and I mean that for collegiate teams.)

I keep time silently but do honor the 30 second grace period. While you shouldn't take advantage of it frequently, just don't feel the need to abruptly stop when the timer goes off in the middle of an impactful closing thought. Don't worry so much as speaking up to the bell as giving a clear, cogent argument or rebuttal. Although I myself am a fast speaker, I'm not as keen on hearing rapidly paced, densely packed verbage ("spreading"), but rather a convincing and eloquent train of thought. Don't interpret my silence badly -- I'm just adhering to judging protocol. I do give detailed feedback in Tabroom. Good luck and enjoy yourselves!

I frequently judge speech and parliamentary debate, and have done so over the past two years. I prefer students do not speak too quickly because that makes it difficult to track the presentations (do not spread because I will not be able to understand it). While I expect disagreement, I want students to treat each other with respect at all times. I only track the time myself if the rules require it.

Please add me to email chain: cedricbonsol(at)gmail(dot)com.

Bravo High School 2015 (Shoutout LAMDL and sending my love to other NAUDL folks <3)

University of Rochester 2019 (on and off)

NUTSHELL:

I used to ask opponent teams to slow down when I debated and ran ableism arguments. I cannot keep up with speed as well as other judges. Please speak CLEARLY and SLOW DOWN on tags or lists of subpoints if you want me to flow and evaluate it well. I won't consider it my fault if I say "CLEAR" or to slow down multiple times and I still can't catch your arguments.

The meaning of debate and how I should evaluate arguments is under your control. If you instruct me how to understand the debate space/round, my role, and your roles, I will listen to you.

Argue whatever you want. For me, the only rules to enforce are speech/prep times. Other than that, what you do with those speech/prep times is what you make it. Simply convey to me the purpose of our time/space together for the next 2-3 hours.

While I’m tech over truth, I stylistically tend to enjoy nontraditional, "performance" argumentation. [Insert obligatory "still do the work / I'll still weigh traditional args, FW, T equally"]. I’m probably going to need first and foremost a direct “technical” answer to this framework if you want me to evaluate the rest of the round through some other method of evaluation (without line-by-line or other traditional “tech”) before you address the rest of the debate.

OTHER DETAILS:

If you integrate my direct interaction/participation into your performative argumentation, I'm probably going to enjoy that a lot.

Most of high school, I ran traditional policy args. Most of college, I ran kritikal/nontraditional args.

I find myself in a minority of judges who actually enjoy (secondarily to deep, developed clash) watching frivolous, trolly, or cheesy gimmicks/tricks. If you run such an argument, I'm assuming you're acknowledging any competitive compromise. Just be sensitive and don’t run death good vs a Settler Colonialism AFF in front of me. We'll see how long I keep this on my paradigm.

Unless told otherwise, I won't assume evidence is limited to traditional "cards".

Unless told otherwise, NEG gets the status quo as a default (and presumption) and I will judge kick CPs/counter-advocacies.

Unless told otherwise, cross-ex is binding.

Unless told otherwise, tag-team CX is okay, ins and outs (instead of 1s and 2s) are okay, prep time can be used for clarification questions.

Explicitly kicking off-case positions you are not going for in the 2NR is the safest option to avoid my confusion.

I am open to being convinced that an alt is unnecessary for your K (e.g. framework, K as a DA).

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

I am a parent judge in my third year of judging. I was a trial attorney for 20 years. I judged policy all of last year.

Don't spread. The more informative and understandable the better. I want to be able to listen to you and understand the subject and your argument. I don't want to read your argument, this isn't a writing competition, so speak clearly so I can flow out the the different arguments and responses.

I am familiar with the more technical rules thanks to a year of watching and judging the best in the State. i also try to keep the time flowing so be ready to move on after each speech.

Public Forum

Emphasize logic and flow, facts & evidences; value respect and professionalism. Manner, behavior and sincerity matters.

Judged in SCU & North Bay.

Email: kinan.cehajic@gmail.com

Anything enclosed by a "~" are not part of the flow/performance, just my intermittent notes. Specific paradigms listed below. Good luck!

PF, LD, CX, BQ

I'll disregard anything over a 10 second grace period. Put me in an email chain for CX, it's your call for LD. I'm okay with spreading so long as I can flow still it. You can call cards off-time. Flex prep, sitting, disclosure, etc. are all fine if all competitors agree.

Competed debate for 5 years, so do with that what you will. Can't believe I have to say this but, if you are in PF, do not run a K nor a plan. Both are fine for policy and LD. Non-topical Ks/plans are fine. If you give me an OTR, actually follow it. Good signposting will help. Please don't make me vote on extinction/nuke war. I don't mean you can't run it but if you lose to it, then you probably just didn't debate well. Cross won't generally be part of flow/RFD unless something is explicitly conceded, so put it in your next speech and I'll flow it. Give me a weighing mechanism in final speech if applicable, which it almost always is. Please don't make me go off my gut. Make it an easy round to judge.

DUO, DUET, HI, DI

I've competed in Duo and Duet, so I know some of the tech but I'm probably going to vote up whatever is more moving so if it's the funniest/most dramatic. Cleanly blocked sight lines, clear delivery of lines, and well timed pauses never hurt anyone.

OO

This is easily my favorite speech category. Below is a short paragraph on what I'm looking for:

I love an interesting topic but obviously that won't win you the round. Something different than usual is still appreciated and noted, though. First and foremost, I don't want your hook to go on too long, and make sure your hook actually transitions well into your piece. Choppy transitions to make a cheesy joke don't reflect well. Introduce your structure to me right at the beginning. I want to know what three points you're going to cover right away. Then, actually follow your structure and give me distinct transitions into the next body paragraph. Just walking to the other side of the room alone doesn't mean you transitioned. Don't give me personal anecdotes as your sole evidence for a trend you mention unless it's something that truly is universal human experience. When you wrap up with your call to action, make sure that it a) addresses your introductory hook and question, b) mentions your the topics of your three body paragraphs and c) is actually applicable and not general. The last point there is extremely important. I've seen too many well done OO's that bring me to a weak call to action that does not actually give the audience let alone average person an actual course of action they can take. An easy way to avoid this is by working in points that direct you towards a call to action throughout your speech.

This is not an exhaustive list and I'll add more guidelines as I think of them but the above are what I'll generally be voting off of.

INFO

I'm probably a lay judge here. I appreciate good boards/visual aids that are engaging but not too distracting. Don't make visuals the entire point of your presentation though. The main focal point should be the speaker.

Welcome! As a parent judge, I'm excited to hear your speech and witness your development as a speaker. Here's what I value in your presentation:

Clarity:

• Articulate Pronunciation:Speak clearly and enunciate each word carefully.Ensure your audience understands you without straining.
• Defined Vocabulary:Use words that are appropriate for the audience and avoid overly complex language.Explain technical terms if necessary.
• Organized Structure:Present your content in a logical order with clear transitions between points.This helps your audience follow your train of thought.

Pace and Delivery:

• Moderate Speed:Speak at a pace that allows your audience to absorb your information.Avoid rushing through your speech.
• Effective Pausing:Use strategic pauses to emphasize key points,allow for audience comprehension,and build anticipation.
• Dynamic Delivery:Vary your vocal volume and pitch to engage your audience and add emotion to your message.

Flow and Engagement:

• Smooth Transitions:Connect your ideas thoughtfully using effective transitions like rephrasing,signposting,and summarizing.
• Confident Presence:Maintain good eye contact with your audience and project your voice clearly.
• Enthusiasm and Passion:Show genuine interest in your topic and connect with your audience on an emotional level.

Additional Notes:

• Enjoy the Experience:Have fun delivering your speech!Your enthusiasm will be contagious and make your presentation more impactful.
• Learning Journey:Remember,everyone makes mistakes.View your speeches as opportunities to learn,grow,and improve your communication skills.

Feel free to ask me any questions before you begin. I'm here to support you and witness your learning journey!

I am a parent judge. I focus on speech clarity, content, clarity of thoughts and delivery.

I don't have a preference as to philosophy or economic arguments, but I have to be able to understand them. I would prefer a slower speaking speed.

I am a parent judge. I judged over 100 competitions.

I will rate the competitors based on two main parts:

-Composition:

If the content is effective writing or not.

Does the competitor's speech organize clearly and easy to follow?

Does the speech contain ample solid reasoning and logic

Is the speech too general or does it focus on specifics?

Does the speech make too many generalizations or assumptions about the audience?

Does the speech contain evidence and examples?

Does the speech have good rhetorical choices?

-Delivery:

I would like competitors to use effective oral presentation skills. I will check if the competitor is comfortable with delivery such as having a clear voice, good intonation, or a nice tone.

I will also check if the speaker uses effective body language or not such as hand gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact.

Hey there, my name is Anatoly Chikanov and I am a judge from Tierra Linda Middle School. Below you will learn a little bit about my judging history and my preferences.

I have judged tournament(s) before, so I'd prefer to not retain the status of a lay judge. I have seen many a good round.

In speech: I'm looking forward to hearing excellent presentations. I'm particularly keen on even flow delivery of your presentation that is backed up by facts. Keeping pace, and engaging your audience with occasional humor go a long way towards effectively wining the audience towards your point of view and your argument. Keeping facts accurate and neatly integrating them into your narrative will add substance towards your view point and that is an important consideration.

Now debate: I'm hoping to see good, highly interactive debate between the teams. I weigh tech>truth. I weigh heavily on strong arguments and crystallization, and make sure to ALWAYS tie back to your weighing mechanism/value, aff plan, and definitions.

I might flow your round, so watch out. Otherwise, if you retain a strong grip on your arguments and speak strong, you will certainly get good points. In parliament, make sure to call POO's. POI's are also important for obtaining good speaker points.

Behavior/conduct: make sure to be respectful and responsible. Students who conduct themselves with a good and positive attitude, and are respectful to their opponents add to their speaker point. I do not judge on any basis of discrimination or bias other than your actual presentation. I try to judge as fairly as I can.

Thank you!

Hi, I’m a current second-year at UC Berkeley— I have experience competing in speech (impromptu, extemp, oo, oi). For debate events, speak clearly (might mean going slower) and make sure arguments are well structured.

good luck and have fun!

varshac@berkeley.edu

Dear participants,

My simple expectations:

• Please Speak Slowly
• Use simple words and make point to point communication
• Use generic, familiar and practical examples while comparing or quantifying your arguments
• Don’t be offensive or rude while you are making arguments
• Speak with clarity
• Last but not the least, enjoy your competition

For Speech, I need to feel the energy in your presentation. Eye/camera contact is important. Annunciate and make sure your moves are sharp and distinguished. Evaluation criteria will be :

• Clarity & purpose
• Structure
• Engagement
• Voice and character match where applicable
• Depending on the type of speech, relevant examples, facts, etc.

If online, make sure you are in a well-lit room and that camera is treated like the judge/audience. I expect all competitors to have their mikes switched off while others are speaking.

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

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

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

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

High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.

28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.

28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.

< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.

Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.

IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)

Cultural Context

If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....

Post Rounding

I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.

"Community" Members

I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...

Judging Proper

I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.

I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.

I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.

Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.

Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.

GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters who will go on to coach younger debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.

A few issues that should be clarified:

Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."

Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.

Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.

Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.

Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.

Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.

Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.

Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.

Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.

Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.

Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.

Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.

Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.

Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.

I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.

Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.

I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.

REFUTATION

After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.

EVIDENCE USE

I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.

ANALYSIS

I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.

2022

Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

Stanford 2020 and 2021

Here are some preferences:

I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.

It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2019

Please put me on the email chain: hcorkery@eduhsd.k12.ca.us

English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!

Here are some preferences:

Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2018

Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.

I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."

For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).

Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.

My experience in public speaking goes as far back as elementary school plays. But my experience in competitive public speaking began when I competed as a slam poet in my high school years for the SayWordLA team in the years of 2016-18. We represented the city of Pomona at Brave New Voices and made it to semi finals both years. In between that, I became a Los Angeles Youth Poet Ambassador in 2017. When I went to college at Mt.SAC, I competed in Poetry, DUO, Persuasion, and extemp. I was awarded multiple medals throughout the season and took some hardware home from nationals as well. Our team took Gold in 2022 at Phi Rho Pi.

Part of my judging philosophy is that we establish and create a safe space for all competitors. We can achieve this together by being good audience members. That means no phones or side conversations while a speaker is performing. We know you are a great speaker, let’s practice being respectful listeners.

I am happy to help you grow in your events and I’m sure we can learn from each other.

Good luck always!

email: kimberly@adcominc.us

As a recent graduate from American University with a focus on Communication and Public Relations, I bring a fresh perspective and a solid foundation in strategic communication and marketing. My coursework and hands-on experience have equipped me with the skills necessary to evaluate speeches with a critical eye and provide constructive feedback.

I believe effective communication is the cornerstone of success in any endeavor. As a judge, I value clarity, creativity, and relevance in speeches. I appreciate speakers who demonstrate a deep understanding of their topic, engage the audience effectively, and leave a lasting impact through their delivery.

I expect speakers to present well-researched arguments supported by evidence and analysis. Originality and depth of thought are crucial components that I look for in evaluating the strength of a speech's content.
I pay close attention to vocal clarity, articulation, and body language. A confident and engaging delivery can significantly enhance the persuasiveness of a speech, capturing the audience's attention and effectively conveying the speaker's message.
I appreciate speakers who connect with their audience through compelling storytelling, humor, or emotional appeals. Audience engagement is key to effective persuasion, and speakers who can establish a rapport with their audience are more likely to succeed.
I value speeches that demonstrate a clear understanding of the topic and its relevance to the audience. Speakers should effectively convey why their message matters and how it relates to broader themes or issues.
I admire speakers who bring fresh perspectives and innovative ideas to their presentations. Creativity in both content and delivery can set a speech apart and make a lasting impression on the audience.
I strive to provide constructive feedback that helps speakers improve their skills. My goal is to offer actionable insights and guidance that encourage growth and development. I encourage speakers to approach me with any questions or concerns they may have, and I am committed to fostering a positive and supportive learning environment.

I believe in fairness, impartiality, and respect for all participants. I welcome diverse perspectives and experiences in speeches and encourage competitors to showcase their unique talents and perspectives. Let's work together to make this tournament a rewarding and enriching experience for everyone involved.

Background -Debater for over 4 years and have experience in adjudicating across several formats.

General Note for Speakers -

I) I appreciate organized speeches which are clear to follow. The manner, style, vocabulary and pace of the speech doesn't matter insofar as the speech is able to communicate the depth and meaning of the argument and case.

II)Healthy environment must be maintained during speeches i.e. AVOID:

a) condescending behavior to opponents,

b) passing rude and stereotypical statements about particular community which might be offensive to majority of rational individuals,

c)Racist, sexist and homophobic prejudicial behavior,

d)Generally abusive and unfair tone.

III)Use material which would be understandable by an average reasonable voter.

IV)Customization, innovation and uniformity in arguments is always cherished.

V)Feel free to reach out to me via mail for any queries or assistance.

I am a parent judge (read Lay Judge :-)

My paradigm is

1. Clear and Slow in both Speech and Debate, so that it is easy for me to understand
2. Structured presentation, demonstrating clarity of thought, so that I can follow your contentions and speech
3. Robust roadmap, so that I know what you are going to tell me
4. Logical flow of thoughts that tie back to your thesis and roadmap ensuring I am not lost
5. I am analytical and critical, so not easily swayed by tangential statistics and overload of references that don't support your contention. I am looking for examples that support your argument and thesis. 
6. I am a parent judge, so my feedback is geared completely at making you better.
7. Most importantly, all contestants are typically so good, it is extremely difficult to pick the top 3-5 places, there are usually very minor nits that differentiate. A contestant ranked fifth is almost as good,  if not the same, as contestant ranked first. While this is not fair to the contestants, the reality is that I am forced to pick 1st to 5th place and sometimes very minor nits force my hand.  So please don't be discouraged. 

Good luck. Remember, you are all amazing. I applaud you on choosing to spend your fun childhood years on rigorous and tough extra curricular activities, like Speech and Debate competitions, instead of random texting. You are all winners in my book, just for making this difficult choice. 

I've been an educator for the past forty years. The majority of that time has been spent teaching English, drama, and forensics. I have a background in the performance arts with a degree in speech and drama from Missouri State back when it was called Southwest Missouri State University. I am familiar with the mechanics of flowing but have limited practical experience. I do have the benefit of working with a very well-trained group of veteran debaters who've been assisting me as I navigate these new responsibilities. My philosophy when it comes to judging debate is to listen closely, script frantically, and remain objective in my analysis. I am becoming comfortable and confidence in my decisions weighing impact and evidence validity with greater ease.

I am a parent judge with limited experience. Please do not spread and remember to signpost. Please be respectful and remember to have fun!

I've been a Speech and Debate coach for the past 7 years, but primarily on the Speech side.

When it comes to policy debate, I tend to be more of a stock issues judge and believe that the Aff's burden is to protect and prove the stock issues; I especially look for that. I also want you to clearly articulate your positioning and prove why your arguments outweigh your opponent.

For Congress, be clear and efficient with your speeches. Feel free to lean into the "Congressional" part of it and performance is always key, but if you don't have sufficient evidence and don't explain or otherwise discuss the consequences and implications of that evidence then all the rhetoric in the world won't make up for it.

Overall, please speak clearly and slowly. Do not spread. And above all, analyze your evidence. Don't let it stand for itself - prove why it's important.

I prefer speakers to give a roadmap before they begin and list arguments one by one. The evidence presented needs to be relevant. I judge based on whether you can convince me with solid logic and reasoning.

To start, I will describe my judging style in a few words as: purposeful, logical, inclusive, classical, and delivery focused.

Experience as a public speaking coach for both students and corporate professionals, and I have also coached/taught/judged various formats of debate for both adults and students.

I am graduate of Rice University for my undergraduate studies, and have an MBA from the University of Colorado.

When I am judging, I recognize strong speaking and presenting skills much more than speed reading of cards and a blast of facts. I am a debate classicist in that I see the PURPOSE of debate as both educating and convincing your audience of your position on an important issue, as compared to focusing on winning the "game" of debate. Using well selected supporting material, well organized and delivered speaking about the issues and details, the debaters need to focus on creating a clear and compelling message and presentation AND also engaging firmly and politely with the opposing position and team. Good flow and good logic are key to building a compelling LOGICAL and convincing position.

I recognize that debate styles, manner, and delivery are open to variation and INCLUSIVE minded judging needs both awareness and openness, and I always task myself as a judge to educate myself and do my best to seek a decision based on what happens in the debate, and to always be learning.

When I say CLASSICAL minded, what this means to me is that some of the competitive and strategic debate competition features evolving in recent years are too often divisive and impolite as well as overly technical leaving the audience disconnected from the judging outcome. A good Kritik discussion over a cup of tea is far more worthwhile and develops understanding more than debaters using K as a weapon to disrupt and dodge the real issues around the resolution. Just as I consider good sportsmanship important on the field of play, I consider good debate behavior and mindful participation critical to developing positive character of the debaters, and to developing civic minded individuals that can discuss, debate, and push forward on important and difficult topics in the real world. The real winning in debate comes in the development and learning through competition, and merely focusing on the goal of winning instead of the bigger purpose of debate makes our community and world less engaged rather than more so.

And lastly, DELIVERY! Debate is a spoken art that connects to written argumentation, but needs to recognize and focus on the power of the spoken word. Too many words rushed through while reading cards is not speaking for impact. Poor delivery skills always negatively overwhelm good ideas and logical thinking skills. The mastery of debate is a difficult balance of thinking, rhetorical speaking skills, knowledge and understanding of the issues, and the real-time pace of clash and engagement with the opponents and their position.

In summary, my judging paradigm is all about convincing me that you are a passionate and skilled advocate for your position. The debate competition framework provides the stage you work on to show your skills.

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

Hello! I teach history at Polytechnic School. Please consider me a lay judge. Thanks!

Policy @ Northwood -> UCLA '26 (Environmental Science/Conservation Biology)

Email Chain - alexfu004@gmail.com

LD and PF paradigm at bottom

TL;DR

Debate is a game, do impact calc, I'm more familiar with Policy strats, clipping is bad, and clarity on analytics is important. Tech determines Truth.

F'23 Update: I'm only vaguely familiar with the topic (~15 rounds judged) so if you start using fancy econ jargon I might get lost, please slow down on analytics, especially in the T debate.

General

Don't be a bad person, you've seen it on other paradigms, no racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, etc.

DA/CP

I love them! Your disads should be specific to the aff, but generic links are ok too if you can spin it well enough. Condo is probably good, int'l/private/object fiat is probably bad. I mainly read process counterplans and states in high school so make of that what you will.

K

I'm pretty familiar with a few Ks but don't go for that many of them, barring things like Cap and Security. Case specific links would be great! The Aff should explain the perms instead of just throwing them out there, at least by the 1ar but preferably in the 2ac. I'll treat framework like an impact debate, but I tend to lean weighing the aff.

Ks I'm more familiar with: Cap, Berlant/Suffering, Yellow Peril/Orientalism, Security, Militarism

Ks I'm less familiar with: Deleuze, Bataille, "pomo"-esque Ks (with reason)

T

I'll vote on it, but I'm persuaded by reasonability more than other judges. The neg needs to win a clear instance of abuse beyond just "it's what they justify," and the Aff ideally should have specific reasons why the counterinterpretation resolves or turns neg offense.

Nontraditional Affs

I have very limited experience with reading K affs (maybe 2 or 3 times), but I'm receptive to them. I think that having a stasis is necessary for debate, and I think that fairness is good, whatever fairness means. That said, I do think that K Affs can provide unique educational value, and if the Aff can prove their aff is important to talk about certain issues I can still buy it. Framework is probably your best 2NR against K Affs, I went for education and movements mainly in my junior and senior year in high school but I can be persuaded to vote on fairness as well.

Theory

Reject the arg, not the team is persuasive in almost every case, condo aside. I lean neg on condo; I can be persuaded otherwise, but it's an uphill battle for the aff to win on it. International and Object fiat are probably illegitimate, and require more work to be done on theory if you want to win on them as the neg.

Speaks

• being creative, strategic
• clarity, especially when spreading through analytics
• efficiency between speeches, sending out docs, etc
• if you're funny
• clear signposting!
• i was inspired by another judge but please get me food (+0.1? speaks) (but dont bankrupt yourself it's not worth it) (better to just speak better probably)

LD

I'll judge it like I judge a policy round, and I'm not familiar with a lot of LD theory. I'll try to adapt but please exercise discretion.

Public Forum

I used to do PF, don't worry about having to adapt too hard

Everything above applies, don't spread if your opponent is not okay with it though. Don't read policy-esque arguments just because you can, PF probably should be a bit more accessible. I'm more receptive to Ks than most PF judges, but don't read incomplete arguments i.e. a K without an alt just because PF doesn't have advocacies.

*PLEASE READ FOLLOWING NOTICE: I have specific judging philosophies for the different styles of debate (Policy, ld, pofo, parli) For a full record of my judging history, please look for my other account by searching my full name, Mariela Garcia. Any rounds that I judge after October 16, 2015, will be located on this judge's page. I apologize for the inconvenience.*

General Information About Me

My speech and debate background:

I am currently an senior director for Advantage Communications, a leading speech and debate company that in 2023, had 60% of our students in out rounds at the NSDA championship. I have dedicated the past few years developing district programs in California and Illinois for affluent and Title 1 communities of various backgrounds. I train and advise staff, students, and families, while also creating curriculum with our team of experts. My students and teams are usually in the finals, if not champions. As a coach, I want students to challenge themselves to read material that they wouldn't otherwise read if they were not in this activity. My goal is to ensure all students feel empowered enough to use the stage to say something they truly care about OR that they feel is urgent. I also encourage my students to do at least one event in each category every year if their schedule allows so they stay well-rounded. I train coaches to ensure they bring out the best in students by engaging a growth mindset that keeps them both busy with goals rather than busy work. I work with students from all backgrounds, ethnicities, economic brackets, orientations, races, genders, etc. and it is my goal to ensure all my students feel that there is someone in their corner that is rooting for their success.

My Experience in Debate:

• I debated for about 4 years at CSU-Fullerton ranging from novice to varsity. I am currently the head coach and director of the policy and public forum teams at La Quinta High School. I have been coaching them for almost a year now.
• I have judged policy, ld, pofo and parli, at all levels for 4 years now at various tournaments and have coached minimally in the past. My entire record is not on my judging history, given that many of these judging events occured when I was filling in for missing judges at our CSU-Fullerton tournaments.

My Educational Experience:

• I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculum. More than likely, I will know if you have made up evidence or if you took evidence out of context. I will automatically give you a 25 for your speaker points and you will lose the round.

My Debate Motto:

• EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES. I encourage you to be creative with your arguments, even if that means you must debate the resolution (Policy/LD). However, please note my requirements for these types of arguments to be valid in a round below.

My Speech Motto:

Practice does not make perfect, only perfect practices makes progress. This means that you have to bring 100% of yourself OR communicate to your coach if you cannot do that at a practice because without full commitment, we cannot grow and improve at a steady pace. I believe that students are keenly aware of the world around them and they have a lot that they want to say to adults, so I encourage my students to read articles that will help them better express a message, argument, or idea because it is my job to ensure they sound astute on stage. As for acting, it is one of my passions that I am constantly working on improving so I can better teach my students. Impromptu and extemp are difficult events if you don't respect formulas, but if you take it as a coding project, you can create neuropathways that will easily help you during your prep time. I love to coach and I love to teach others how to coach students.

My Judging Philosophy for Policy/LD:

All types of debate prescribe to a game with rules that are ALWAYS debatable. Having said that, I encourage debaters to establish a role of the ballot and a role for the judge as a way for me to score the round. This is separate from framing the debate through framework arguments. Framework tells me how to evaluate and prioritize certain issues within the debate while giving me net benefits to preferring it over other framings. The roles you give to the ballot or judge are additional arguments that allow me to weigh the round given the interpretations you give to those roles and clarifying the necessity to accept these roles as opposed to upholding my own predisposition.

Thus, I will do my best to keep my predispositions away from the round. We as judges merely evaluate the arguments presented to us given the strategies that are used to explain and spin the issues. I stay true to the flow and not my opinion. A debater’s job is to clearly communicate what your argument is and spin the debate by reverting back to the arguments you should have consistently presented throughout the debate to answer the opponents opposition. Thus, you have to warrant your explanations and create clear impact calculations to narrow down my vote in the last speeches.

I welcome metaframing debates and kritiks. However, kritik debate is hard work. This means that if during cross x you do not have a clear explanation of your alternative, metaframing, or links to clarify to the opposing team why your kritik exists in the debate, you have basically lost the round. You may be able to explain it in later speeches, but the cross x is your time to make sure I know what it means to vote for the k. The best k’s engage the topic or the affirmative to either turn the case or frame out the affirmatives impact. Topicality against these types of arguments are good but are not enough to win the debate. To win the debate against a k, you must set up a good framework and topicality argument and demonstrate why it is that we should preserve the norms of thinking in the direction you want us to go (lay out the harms, impacts, and voters). Net benefits for both k and fw/topicality are necessary.

LD debaters must explain how their criterion is the correct moral choice to make. LD is not about solving an issue per say, it is a morality debate. So please make sure you emphasize how your case supports your criterion and why your criterion is the best moral position to take, especially if you aren't doing TOC or CA style debating. Remember that LD started off as a debate about morality, and not so much policy. If there is a plan, I expect you to provide solvency and the neg can counter with a CP. I will respect the type of debate category you enter and I will also respect arguments about the importance of keeping a distinction between LD and Policy. After all, I do believe that while many teams that experienced cuts to their budget have moved to LD to carry on their policy habits, it is also hurting the policy debate community and their budget when we bleed the two together. This doesn't mean we can't have a K in LD, I mean the criterion/value portion of LD welcomes the K, but it does mean that people DON'T have to have a plan but if they do, then you have the burden to prove it's probability and solvency.

Specificity is key. Don't put your judge in a position where they may need to intervene with their own thoughts or emotions, just prove your point thoroughly and make sure you do it in a way that can easily be flowed and explained. This is how I know that no one else knows your argument better than you and I reward specificity with higher speaker points. You don’t need masses amount of evidence to win the debate. Quality over quantity.

Note some other specifications about formalities in debate that I judge on:

Clarity & Speed:

I value clarity over speed. I am fine with any speed. I will give you three warnings for clarity, no exceptions. After that, do not hold me accountable for missing an argument on the flow since I clearly gave you a warning about not being able to understand what you were saying.

Do not spread the following items for your own benefit: Value, Value Criterion, Contentions, Tag Lines, Authors, Date". This avoids me having to call for evidence to make my decision. I want to be as fair as possible. It is your responsibility to to help me make it a fair round.

Road Map & Sign Posts:

This helps me keep up with you on my flow. After the first constructives, I recommend the following structure:

• AFF: Overview, What you are winning on, Dispute Neg. claims by referencing evidence, Why you should win debate(calculation of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, risk of solving, etc.)
• NEG: *BLOCK SHOULD ALWAYS BE SPLIT: I will take off speaker points for teams who fail to do so* Overview, Restate arguments (should be split in block), Why Aff isn't resolving your claims with clear warrants from your evidence, and why you should win the debate (calculation of actualization of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, etc.)

Evidence:

As long as I can follow a clear, reasonable, and logical line of thought, I will always value that as evidence. This means that if you use your experience, poems, performance, or anything that can be seemingly categorized as "unorthodox" evidence, I will still count it as a warranted claim in the debate. I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculm. EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES.

Diplomacy:

• SPEECHES: If you need to yell, scream, or perform your speech in any way that is necessary to make emphasis to your claims or give it performative interpretations(say that you are running an identity K or performance K), I will NOT deduct speaker points. Make sure that any claims you are making can be backed up reasonable, logical lines of thoughts. Try to be as respectful to the other team as you can.
• CROSS X: Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in cross x, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

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

My Judging Philosophy for POFO and Parlimentary:

As A Team

I only judge on what you actually said in the round. I will stick to my flow and nothing else. So you have to make sure you are clearly defining terms and positions on issues that are raised in the round. Evidence is key in pofo and parli and the rules must be followed thoroughly as to set up fairness for every student in the tournament. Contention of the rules is reserved, in my opinion, only to policy and LD debaters. In making the decision, judges are expected to ask the following questions:

1. Which team was more persuasive?

2. If yes to number 1, did the debaters back up their claimswith evidence?

3. Based on my flow, were the ideas understandable enough that I can repeat (almost word for word) the argument that they made?

4. Were the debaters polite and professional throughout the entire round? (speaker points)

As Individuals

Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another.I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in crossfires, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

General Notes about my judging preferences:

I mimicked my judging philosophy from many of my past coaches and through my experience in debate, but I found a great breakdown of what most judges will judge like by looking at Mike Maier's judging philosophy. He has great tips on what you should be doing in almost every form of debate and recommendations for you as well. I highly recommend that you read it. I do hold different positions on some of his ideas, so please make sure to note those distinctions by reading my paradigm thoroughly. Do not expect me to give you a thorough breakdown of my judging philosophy before the round!

Mike Maier's judging philosophy link: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Maier,+Mike

Hi! My name is Nikki, and I have been judging speech and debate occasionally for about five years. I participated as an impromptu speaker during my high school years. I don't have an expansive history of judging debate, but as a judge, I will always listen attentively and do my best to understand. During rounds, I'll take notes of key arguments and areas to improve upon. I tend to value the strength of one's argument and one's style and delivery equally. Excited to hear your arguments!

I have been around speech and debate my entire life so even though I am young, I tend to be more of a traditional judge defaulting to a policy-making/ cost-benefits analysis paradigm. It is imperative that you weigh the round for me, you want it to be perfectly clear as to why you are winning the debate round.

General:

-Don't be rude

-Keep your own time, I will also have a clock running just in case there are any issues.

-Discriminatory or exclusionary language is not acceptable and I will vote you down if you use that language.

-I do not disclose. My RFD will be on your ballot.

Speed:

DO NOT SPREAD! This is even more important if you are debating online. Also, if something is especially technical or confusing slow down when explaining the issue.

Weighing:

I know I have said this a couple of other times, but that is how important it is. WEIGHING IS YOUR NUMBER ONE JOB. Do the work for me. You don't want me to have to figure out at the end of the round which issues are the most important. You have been doing the research, not me, communicate that research into reasons why your side of the debate should win the round.

I was the Asst. Coach for Wm. S. Hart High School in Newhall, CA from 2015 to 2023, and still help online occasionally.

I have judged IEs for 27 years.

I have judged Congress for 24 years.

I have been judging LD, Parlie and PoFo for 21 years. I do NOT do Policy or Big Questions.

I ask that speakers avoid spreading and/or reading/speaking at an excessive rate of speed. Communication is paramount.

Respectfulness and courtesy are required at all times.

As a competitor, please do not tell me what decision I have to make. I'll decide that for myself.

I do not disclose. Nor do I give any oral critiques prior to the tournaments ending, although once it's all over, I'm happy to discuss. My comments will be on the individual ballots and RFD.

Heyyyyy,

I debated for 2.5 years at Cal State Long Beach. I am now a debate coach at Cal State Long Beach. I was a K Debater running arguments pertaining to Afro-Pess, Misogynoir, Reproductive Justice (& Feminism in general), sexual politics, and colonialism. During my time at Long Beach I also competed in IPDA and Parli; also having debate experience in World Schools.

Please add my email to the chain: jaysynteacher20@gmail.com

Judging style:

I understand the debate space as an academic site centered on the development and dissemination of knowledge. Primarily a discursive activity, I want to know the importance of theorizing and discussing specific ideas within the space. I am very Truth over Tech and my RFDs will center logic and reason over the technical aspects of the debate (unless the technical is very glaring within the round). I am extremely receptive to historical and sociological theory and use these things to understand arguments.

Things I find helpful within debates: what is the role of the judge? How should I evaluate arguments? What about their plan, methodology, alt, etc. is bad or harmful? how do arguments interact with each other?

K AFFs:Your theory should be the foundation and the background of ALL of your explanations within the debate. You should be using the vocabulary of your 1AC throughout every flow. Please refrain from using buzzwords with no explanation. I like High Theory but don't assume I walk into the room knowing the specifics of your arguments. I expect K Affs to be able to adequately answer generic K's and FW.

Policy AFFs: Because I am Truth over Tech I would like to see y'all interact with such truths. For instance, if your opponents read Set Col and the 2AC extends the Russia/China advantages with generic extinction impacts, this will not move me. I would be impressed to hear how the specifics of your plan affect various indigenous groups or the project of settler colonialism in general. In essence, I would like particular interaction with the details of your opponent's arguments rather than proceed forward with "everyone dies under extinction, and this overwhelms the links"

Go ahead and speak at the speed you are most comfortable.

I flow on paper and I also tend to flow CX paying attention to interesting moments or points made.

I also pay heavy attention to the way power flows through the debate space and I am critical of the space people take up within round. With that said I like it when debates get heated but just make sure to be reasonable with one another.

Tell me how to navigate the debate. Persuade me and you have my ballot.

If you have any questions feel free to ask but other than that, Happy Debating!

Jaysyn Green (she/her)

Beach Forensics

English is my second language, please keep your track of your speaking times and be respectful to your opponent(s). Thank you.

-Please talk loud and clear at a moderate speed

-Anecdotes and humor is encouraged

-Dont be monotonous

DEBATE: Please speak clearly and not too fast. I value evidence especially for bold arguments, refutation of opponents arguments, and respect given to fellow competitors.

SPEECH: Prove your interpretation to me, I go into every round with no agenda, and take my perspective out.

Updated for IPDA and Policy judging

Craig Hennigan
University of Nevada Las Vegas

TL/DR - I'm fine on the K. Need in round abuse for T. I'm fine with speed. K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred. Avoid running away from arguments. Actual dropped arguments will win you the round. I vote a lot on good CP/DA combinations.

I debated high school policy in the early 90’s and then college policy in 1994. I also competed in NFA-LD for 4 or 5 years, I don't recall, I know my last season was 1999? I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 8 years. I coached for 5 years at Wayne State University. I was the Director of Forensics at Truman State University for 7 years and now am the Director of Debate at UNLV and started in 2022.

Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. This being said, I have been more truth over tech lately. Some arguments are so bad I'm inclined to do work against it. If its cold conceded I will go with it, but if its a truly bad interpretation/argument, it won't take a lot to mitigate risk of it happening. I have responded well to sensible 'gut check' arguments before.

I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat. You need to have clear tags on your cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence.

With regard to specific arguments – I will vote seldom on theory arguments that do not show significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless it’s really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. Showing an abuse story should come well before the last rebuttal. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate." Intrinsic and severance perms I think are bad if you can show why they are intrinsic or severance. Again, I'd drop argument before team.

I don't judge kick. If the CP is in the NR, the SQ isn't an option anymore.

I don’t like round bullys. If you run an obscure K philosophy don't expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a ‘good’ person who wants to enhance the education of all present. I have voted for a lot of K's though so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. I will have a preference for K alts that actually "do" something. The influence of my ballot on the discourse of the world at large is default minimal, on the debate community default is probably even less than minimal. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome. I have found clarity to be a premium need in LD debate since there is much less time to develop a K. Failing to explain what the K does in the 1AC/NC then revealing it in the 1AR/NR is bad. If the K alt mutates into something else in the NR, this is a pretty compelling reason to vote against the K.

Never run from a debate. I'll respect someone that goes all-in for the heg good/heg bad argument and gets into a debate more than someone who attempts to be tricksy in case/plan writing or C-X in order to avoid potential arguments. Ideal C-X would be:

"Does your case increase spending?"

"Darn right, what are you gonna do about it? Catch me outside."

I will vote on T. Again, there should be an in-round abuse story to garner a ballot for T. This naturally would reinforce the previous statement under theory that says potential abuse is a non-starter for me. Developing T as an impact based argument rather than a rules based argument is more persuasive. As potential abuse is not typically a voter for me and I'll strike down speaker points toward RVI's based on bad theory. Regarding K's of T, it is a high bar and you probably shouldn't do it.

Anything that you intend to win on I need to have more than 15 seconds spent on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner.

Performance: Give me a reason to vote. Make an argument still with the performance. I don't typically want to do extra work for a debater so you need to apply your performance to arguments your opponent makes. I don't place arguments on the flow for you through embedded clash.

Small note: If you're totally outmatching your opponent, you're going to earn speaker points not by smashing your opponent, but rather through making debate a welcoming and educational experience for everyone.

Policy:Most of this is the same. Know that I'm getting older. I used to be around an 8 on the scale of speed and its probably dropped down to a 7. This means don't spread analyticals if you want me to vote on them. If you group 4-5 perms at once very quickly I may not get them all. I'm only in the game 2-3 times a year so some of the newer terminology or tricks I may not be as up to speed on. I won't vote on short blip arguments. Not the biggest fan of too many conditional worlds, 1 K and 1 CP is my default. I don't do judge kick either. I'm probably a bit of a dinosaur in this area now.

IPDA: IPDA is not policy nor should it resemble policy. I'm much less flow oriented. I'm of the belief that IPDA is far more of a speech activity and judge it accordingly. Dropped arguments carry weight, but less weight for me if they aren't really quality arguments. I'm of the opinion that a debater can win even if they aren't winning "on the flow" by being persuasive and speaking well. This is a publicly oriented event, so being cordial and good natured is important. This is a showcase to what debate ought to look like for the public, so treat it that way. I aim to be a judge that tries to leave behind my Policy/LD experience to substitute my speech experience and quality argumentation knowledge.

Card Clipping addendum:

Don't cheat. I typically ask to be included on email chains or ideally a speechdrop so that I can try to follow along at certain points of the speech to ensure that there isn't card clipping, however if you bring it up I in round I will also listen. You probably ought to record the part with clipping if I don't bring it up myself. Also, if I catch clipping (and if I catch it, it's blatant) then that's it, round over, other team doesn't have to bring it up if I noticed it. If its obviously unintentional then I'll warn you about it. (like you're a novice or you skipped a non-strategic line by mistake).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a lay parent judge

I am looking for clear communication and intersting ideas and topics.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, clearly, avoid any debate jargon, and be organized in your speeches. Give me a clear RFD in your last speeches. 

Lay judge - Second time Judging

Don't forget to extend your arguments

Continuously weigh arguments

Ovey Comeaux High School '23, Western Kentucky University '27

For IE/SPEECH EVENTS: I base ranks on passion, performance, and preparation. How much do you connect and care about your topic? How elevated and unique are you as a performer? How relevant and timely is your topic and how well do you understand it, as well as memorization?

Debate Paradigm:

Majority of my decision will be made on Clarity, Content, and Evidence.

How clear is the presentation of your information? How relevant, concise, and impactful is the content of your argument? Does the evidence support the claims and sides of your debate? A competitor who presents information in a way that I can repeat it back to you will, more times than not, get the win.

I am not biased on the medium of debate you take, but do consider how your form on debate contrasts or compares to the opponent. You want to build strong and virtually irrefutable arguments!

Above all: make the round YOURS. Have fun. Speech and Debate is, at its core, about expression, so express yourself. I am nothing but an observer, you are EVERYTHING! Good luck :)

Hello,

I have been a competitor on the circuit for the last four years in speech specifically original oratory but I am well versed in all Speech and Interp events.

Humor can get you very far with me but I am also a firm believer in using humor when it needs to be used and to have actual substance in your piece. I do pay attention to your body language ie. eye contact, voice fluctuation, tone, and hand gestures. Have great body language and a positive attitude with your piece and you will do just fine provided you have a decent topic

During rounds be polite to your fellow competitors and display proper tournament etiquette. Do not be on your phone and be disrespectful to your fellow competitors and to me as your judge.

I am a lay judge, I have limited experience as judge. I am a Dentist by profession.

Though I might have my personal opinions about any given topic, I will make sure my personal bias will not influence my decisions in the tournament. I will make sure my decisions will totally depend on the contestants knowledge, ability, competency and technical details of the topic given. I expect mutual expect between participants. Please speak clear and do not speak too fast, I want to make sure I follow what you are saying. Please be polite when you speak and do not interrupt the other speaker. I like the participants share their case to my email ravikanth23@gmail.com so that i can go over and will make sure i am not missing anything.

For Speaker Points:

1. Please be loud and clear.
2. Conversational speed talking.
3. Eye contact.

Former Policy debator

Frequently judge in both speech and debate events (judging as of 2017).

In events involving cross-x, fine with rapid fire style of questioning so long as it's civil and not rude.

For Debate events, particularly PoFo and Policy, tend to vote based on Topicality. Flow judge, ok with spreading (though can be problematic with virtual tournaments if bandwidth/audio gets choppy).

For I.E. Speech events, determine rankings based on overall cohesiveness of supporting arguments, clear layout and roadmap, body language, facial expressions, pacing of speech, vocal tonal variation, and delivery. For OO/Duo Interp, clear transitions and being able to follow performer(s) interpretation of piece, along with all other criteria listed above for I.E.

This will be my second judging round for debate and speech. I have previously coached students in Science Fair, Science Olympiad for last eight years.

I judge keeping following in mind;

Precision
Structure
Debatability
Reasonability

Fairness is at top of my list when I judge. I am interested to learn your perspective on your topic.

For PF James Logan:
I'm a freshman in college and I did parliamentary debate in high school for four years. I was pretty bad at PF so please articulate your arguments and please don't spread. If you run a K it should be justified and well articulated, but to be honest, I'm pretty skeptical of them unless there is a really blatant and justified reason for running them (ie obviously skewed topic).

Here's a generic paradigm that I agree with:

Traditional Approach: I am inclined towards a traditional debate style that emphasizes clear and well-structured arguments without relying on experimental or circuit-style techniques. This means I am not a fan of speed (spread debate) or Kritiks (Ks) (unless its clearly necessary as a means to have a fair debate). Instead, I value a clear and comprehensible presentation of ideas.

Clarity Over Quantity: Articulate your arguments clearly and concisely. I prefer substance over quantity, so focus on the quality of your points rather than overwhelming me with sheer volume.

Etiquette and Conduct:

Respectful Engagement: Maintain a respectful and civil tone throughout the debate. Personal attacks or disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated.

Judgment Criteria:

Clarity and Coherence: The clarity of your arguments and their connection to the resolution will play a significant role in my evaluation.

My paradigms would be in the construction and fluidity of presentation and how well a speaker is able to engage an audience and actively spread their message/point!!

Hi, I'm Aashik Khakoo, I'm a traditional judge but have had 30+ years public speaking experience.

I'd prefer to be on the email chain, but please do not spread.

Please speak like you are giving a Ted Talk

Also for 1AC in LD, I prefer you read only part of the cards highlighting bullet points of your cards, which will leave you time to create an analytical section to help persuade me rather than just reading your cards, which is what’s happened in the past. I’m happy to clarify this if needed before, starting the debate.

I prefer analytical debates over card dumping, and please line by line your opponents case.

Please send documents ahead of time - my email address is akhakoo2@gmail.com

Keep Cross efficient, and give short answers to all as many questions as possible.

I see debate as a performance, and prefer truth > tech

Please create clash in the round don't just extend your arguments

I will not tolerate speaking over each other, or any racist, sexist, homophobic etc, arguments

Aashik

Don't spread, I'm a student that goes to UC Berkeley.

My approach to judging is holistic. A single blunder won't break your case so don't panic if you lost on a critical issue. I try to look at everything you did - style, content, humor, teamwork etc.

I'm a parent judge. Most of my experience is in judging extemporaneous speaking. I look for clarity and clearly constructed arguments.

I am a parent judge, and this is my Second Year judging. I have been a public speaker for most of my school & college and Love it. My son is now a Middle School debater. My judging style is based on the following;

Your Mastery of your Content

Good Explanation, Sound Reasoning & Clear Arguments

Eye Contact & Body Language

Your Overall Attitude towards your Fellow Competitors

May The Best Performer Win !!

Hi! I'm Preesha Kumar and I'm an S&D alum from Brophy. I competed in PF, POI, Congress, DUO, and a bit of DI.

Paradigm (PF) :

DO NOT say what your school is in case or before case (say you and your partner negate/affirm). I would hate for any of y'all to get a biased judge, and I also don't want it to influence my judging.

• do not yell at your opponents (this is a debate, not a shouting match), and treat everyone with respect. I don't tolerate disrespect.
• Don't spread (please)
• have proper blocking and extend well. State your points cleanly and neatly so I'll be able to catch them and evaluate them when I judge
• When you drop contentions, don't bring them up in final extensions. If you drop it you drop it
• Have fun and good luck!

Speech:

- If you have triggering content, INCLUDE TRIGGER WARNINGS BEFORE YOU START!! (anything related to violence, hate crimes, sh, etc.) I want to be mindful of the spectators and competitors.

• blocking!! it can take your piece to to next level
• make sure to stay on time, the grace period is 30s
• have fun! honestly the less you worry about who's watching you, the better you do. Most of you have spent a lot of time cutting your pieces and alot of these stories mean something to you. Don't hold back :]

Hi!

I'm a first time debate judge looking forward to learning more about the process!

Just a few things:

1. Please speak at a reasonable pace. Please no spreading or extremely fast speaking, I won't understand.
2. I'm looking for clear and logically backed arguments. For the sake of organization and flowing, signposting would be greatly appreciated.
3. While delivery is important, I will ultimately be scoring based off of arguments and evidence. I'm mainly looking out for impact weighing!
4. Please be respectful to the other competitors, even during rebuttals and cross examinations!

Thanks and good luck!

Updated for 2024

Name: Storm Lasseter

Affiliation: University of Texas at Dallas

Email: stormlasseter@gmail.com

*Disclaimer: I am going to try and make this as comprehensive as possible so your team can determine if they want to pref me or not. If you get me in the back of the room and are short on time, refer to the TLDR section in this paradigm.

*If you have any questions about this paradigm do not hesitate to contact me through the email provided above.

TLDR:

I do not care what you decide to run in front of me. Debate is many things to many people and I am not here to dictate the best way to approach this activity. All I ask is that you run what you like and run it well. Teams try to over adapt to judges perspectives when, as a judge, I am suppose to be a neutral actor that evaluates the debate the best I am able too. If you want to run afro-pessimism in front of me or heg good I am here to listen to whatever the teams present in front of me.

Introduction:

My name is Storm Lasseter and I debate for UTD. I am trying to judge more this year. I have been in this activity for 10+ years now and every year my opinion on debate changes in a way that makes my understandings better. I usually flow on paper because I am a slow typer. I am not a stickler about speed, I do not care how fast you go as long as I understand what you are saying, I am not prone to saying "clear" because it usually never gets super egregious, so if I do say it, you should not take that comment as a suggestion. Please be prepared to debate, I try to make this a fun environment, I am not there to tell you what to do. I do not keep track of time, its not my job. I actually like judging, so the easier you make it for me the best I can judge the round. The last thing I want to say is I believe truth over tech. This is antithetical to most of the debate community, but my understanding is the more truth and persuasiveness to your argument, the less tech you have to do to convince me to vote on it.

Argument Thoughts:

General: You can insert re-highlighting. It must be from the specific cutting of the card your opponent read. If it is from a different part of the article that you had to go and cut, then you have to read it.

Aff: I do not care if you read a straight up policy aff, a left leaning policy aff, a k aff, or even read a poem. Affirmatives should be able to defend their aff no matter what they choose to read. I think debate has fallen into an impact run whole where we find the quickest way to read 10 impacts in the 1AC without specific internal links and solvency cards to supplement the impacts read. K affs should be ready to defend their method, answer T, etc. I think good 2As are able to diagnose the real negative threats, and identify the big picture arguments that the 2AR needs to go for to win the debate. Inversely, good 2NRs are able to recognize the affirmatives win condition and are able to make sure giving a winning 2AR is virtual impossible.

Case: Good case debating is a lost art. I think that negatives need to be more specific when they utilize their evidence. 1ACs are written poorly these days, but 2Ns would be better served using the case debate by applying their defense to the aff scenarios and pointing out logical flaws in the 1AC then mindlessly reading your generic impact defense block. The problem I have with case debating is that negatives do not answer aff warrants. What I get from the neg is merely extensions of impact D and then they call it a day. The aff made arguments to your cards, ANSWER THEM! I am a firm believer that negatives should have offense on the case. When affs don't have to worry about case turns, you are making their job incredibly easy.

DA: I think no matter what type of debater you are, rather that be more policy leaning or critical leaning, I think the DA is the fundamental foundation for every argument in debate and learning how to effectively go for a DA makes debaters extremely deadly. Negatives should be reading quality evidence on a DA, and reading more does not hurt. I understand links don't grow on trees, but I think the negative should be contextualizing the link debate to the 1AC as best as they can. Internal link chains should be tight and backed up by lots of evidence. Good efficient line by line will earn negative teams good speaks in these debates. Now, affirmatives are too inclined to go for too many things in the 1AR and 2AR. You need to narrow down the debate. I think about it like this. A DA is like a chair, it has UQ, Link, Internal Link, and Impact. The affirmative does not have to win every part of the DA to win the debate, just like I do not have to remove every leg of the chair to make it fall down. Usually negative teams win these rounds by proving the DA outweighs and turns the case.

CP: I do not have any preconceived notions about CP debating. I think conditionality is good. CP theory is really determined by the debaters. I will say I have a high threshold pulling the trigger on Condo, PICs, Agents, Consult, Conditions, and more inclined on Process CPs and Word PICS. While affs may want to go for theory, a lot of these CPs get slaughtered by PDCP because they are just not competitive with the aff. The only theory that comes close to reject the team is condo. Having a solvency advocate for the CP would help but isn't necessary. I do not think negs are abusing fiat enough. I default to judge kick.

K: For some reason, HS debaters are getting into the habit of reading Ks that have some sort of identity crisis. I am seeing afropess mixed with cybernetics mixed with set col, its getting bad. I am a firm believer that one should master one kritik and understand the lit base before moving on to another. 2NRs should pick and choose if they want Framework or the alternative to be in the 2NR, going for both waste precious time that can be spent impacting out crucial arguments. 2ACs should have a multitude of arguments against the K, but should start narrowing the debate down in the 1AR. I am familiar with most lit bases and if I am not I can catch on to whats going on quickly. This isnt an excuse to lack explanation. You should be clear about what the Framework for the debate is, what are the links to the aff, and what does the alternative do. I think negatives that take time to pluck quotes and phrases that prove negative link stories results in a level of ethos that I love. Further more, I am not really fond of using lit bases for easy wins. These can include PICS out of words you do not like, PICS out of CX, or procedurals that rely on stand point epistomology. I think discussions about the world are productive, but these debates just seem to demonize debaters for maybe just making a genuine mistake.

T v. Plan affs: I think competing interpretations is best. The negative needs to win that their interpretation is better for debate then the affirmatives. I think teams are afraid to go for T, but I think that getting good at debating T is scary to any affirmative team. I think affirmatives wanting to go for reasonability should tell me what they mean by that instead of just saying buzzwords.

T v. Planless affs: I am down with the framework debate. I think both fairness and education are great impacts to go for, pick the one you like and can explain the best. TVAs are busted. I think a good carded TVA is hard to answer and is able to soak up a lot of aff offense. This might be the minority here, but I think for most K affs it is more persuasive to me to go for the impact turn to framework, then to go for the counter interpretation. T in these debates can sometimes have a lot of moving parts that interact with each other. The team that usually has a coherent model of debate we can envision will win the debate.

Looking forward to hearing all of your great speeches!

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

Hi everyone! I'm a current freshman at UT Austin, and I'm excited to be judging you. I mainly competed in International Extemp in high school, though I'm also familiar with US Extemp, Congress, and Worlds.

For Extemp, PLEASE answer the question, and (if needed) preface how you're going to answer the question in your intro. In general, I value analysis more than presentation, but I always like a good joke.

In Congress, I care most that the speech you give matches where you are in the round. If you're beyond the first cycle, please refute previous speakers!

Have fun! I made my best friends from debate :)

I am new to judging. English isn’t my first language so I prefer if you guys would talk at a slower pace and use less debate jargon.

Email me, if you ever need me to elaborate on a ballot, or want to add me to the email chain: alorde1712+speech@gmail.com.

I most often judge at the middle school or novice level — this paradigm will reflect that. I’m a senior at Plano West, and I’m the team captain for Plano West Speech & Debate. I mostly compete in Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, Program Oral Interpretation, and Congressional Debate, but occasionally dabble in other events — including experience in World Schools Debate, Prose, Poetry and Big Questions Debate. I’ve qualified to TFA State, NSDA Nationals, and NIETOC every year since freshman year, and made out-rounds at tournaments such as finals at the University of Florida’s Florida Blue Key tournament, semis at Yale & Emory, finals at State, and many more.

General Rules:

• Be kind.

• Do your best!

• Don’t let your nerves get the best of you — no matter what, you got up and competed today, and that takes a lot.

PF/LD Paradigm:

Please don't spread.
General aim: make sure that you're weighing your argument— and carrying it through. If you completely drop one of your own arguments, why bring it up in the first place? Weighing is always an important factor in the round for me: if you can't explain why what you've said matters over your opponents, then you're already lost.
Unless you manage to convince me well enough to vote on something else (thinking of Ks right now, which I'd recommend straying away from in the novice department nonetheless), I'm going to judge based on these three factors, in order: offence, defence, and framework.

Speaking of Ks (and by association, theory) — if you're going to try it out as a novice, it needs to be done well. If you're going to run it, give yourself something to fall back on in the event that things go wrong— but if your opponents fall flat, carry it through! (Which as a general rule of thumb, ought to be your case for any argument.) Ensure that you articulate what the alternative looks like, the role of the ballot, all of the sort, and ensure that your links are strong. Any negation Kritik ought to engage with the affirmation: more specifically, call out an assumption or value of the Affirmation and use that throughout. Don't assume I know the literature your case relies on.

If you're running arguments that require or call for trigger warnings, use them. Speech and debate ought to be a safe and open space for everyone, trigger warnings help ensure that's the case. Err on the side of caution with these: and if a member of your audience or another team makes it clear that the arguments you're running are triggering to them, and you don't adjust your strategy or arguments accordingly, I will dock your speaks. If it begins to impede the debate, it may also have to factor into my decision.

Framework, value, criterion, all of that is important to me— if you and your opponent agree on these matters then feel free to simply use it for your weighing. If not, then you need to make sure that you actively spend your time explaining why your framework best applies to the round. I'm always up for a framework debate, but you need to actually debate.

Speaks start at 28 and go up or down from there.

Original Oratory Paradigm:

I want you to explain things to me like I know nothing. I only say this half-jokingly — when you’re writing a speech, you want to make sure you clearly and effectively communicate an issue to your audience. If you’re telling me that something is a problem — don’t assume that your audience knows everything about said problem. Instead, remember it’s your responsibility to teach & inform the audience in order to persuade us.

Your speech should be cohesive — if it doesn’t flow smoothly & solidly, you’re missing a core component of speechwriting. Your points should connect together in order for your speech to sound like a full, authentic performance, rather than varied, disjointed points.

In my eyes, delivery is just as important as your writing. Tip number one: slow down! I know the limit for Original Oratory feels short, and sometimes it can be hard to communicate everything you want to. But trying to speed up to fit more in means two things: first, crucial information will be lost, and second, you’ll have a much harder time connecting emotionally with any audience. It makes it harder for jokes to land, for hard-hitting moments to resonate, for your speech to feel impactful at all.

Mistakes happen. Brush them off, and keep going. It’s better to trip on your words and show that you can power through them than to make a mistake and go back in your speech to repeat the sentence as is. Unless it’s a source, quote, rhetoric, or another crucial part of your speech, it’s okay for you to just keep going.

Think of the “drama moon” as you deliver your speeches. I’m looking for an emotional journey when I sit down to watch a speech — make jokes, make me cry, make me care, make me sympathise — if you can make me follow along with your speech by captivating my attention, you’ll win any round. But to do that, you have to be varied in your tone, style, and delivery. Nobody wants 8 minutes straight of sadness, or 8 minutes of humour — it takes both to make a speech complete.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

When you lose the “Debate” in “Congressional Debate,” you’ve lost me. As important as it is to prepare before round, you have to be ready to respond to the points made earlier too — if every speech you give could be identical to a sponsorship speech, you’re doing it wrong.

Evidence is crucial to me — I want to make sure you’re backing up the things you say with reliable sources. Vet the articles you use, make sure your argument is cohesive — because it makes your argument just so much stronger. Obviously, there are some arguments that require a logical chain of thought, or analytics, but where you can use evidence — I’d say do so!

Weigh your impacts! Why should I care about what you’re saying over your opponents? What makes your argument so important? Tell your judges, audience, and fellow competitors just how essential it is that we vote your way, and you’ll win easily. The way to do this often isn’t a line-by-line rebuttal, but by grouping opposing points (especially ones repeated often) and responding overall. Talk about what a world with/without this bill looks like, as opposed to the opposite.

I am interested in current events and politics, however, I don't have very much experience judging so please speak slowly in round and in crossfire. Please be polite in round, I will dock your speaker points if you are rude to anyone.

Please emphasize the important points of your speech at the end as I don't have much experience flowing.

Thank you, and the most important thing is to have a good time!

I am a first year parent judge. I did Oxford debate in high school. I would prefer moderately paced taking and no spreading. I will not be able to keep up with you if you start spreading. Since I am a first year judge, I will need you to clearly spell out your arguments, rebutals, and points during the round. Make sure you tell me why you or your team should win the round and why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Thank you and good luck on your rounds!

Parent parent judge, I do try to flow. No Spreading, reading faster is ok.

Please be clear and explain your arguments and importance in each round.

Feel free to explain why I have to vote for you. But repetition is not necessary.  

Be respectful towards your opponent and follow the rules.

I am a speech and debate coach and an English teacher, who taught logic, technical writing, composition, and Literature in college for 11 years. I debated in high school. These are some of the things you should consider when debating:

1. Speak clearly, do not spread. I am mostly deaf and I rely on imperfect hearing devices and lip reading. If I can't hear your arguments you haven’t made your argument.

2. Have empirical evidence and use it concisely.

3. Consider your structure. Make the time for a well thought out planned case or response that makes sense logically.

4. Be mature and respectful at all times. Yes, be confident and assertive, but do not yell, bully, belittle, roll your eyes, use sarcasm etc. . ..

5. For speaker points make sure to have a polished presentation style with appropriate eye contact, volume, dynamics, dramatic pauses, rhetorical appeals, tone etc. . .

Everyone’s paradigm is too long and this one is also too long sorry abt that y'all

-

-Vista Ridge ‘23 + TXST ‘26

-3 years PF, 4 years congress, 4 years extemp, 2 years oratory and LD occasionally

-Ask me about joining the TXST speech and debate team

PF / LD

See Jonathan Daugherty‘s paradigm it sums up how I view rounds.

Only difference is I’ll vote off theory or a K (topical or not) if it’s well-warranted.

This is your game play it how you want, all I ask is that you defend your interpretation of the rules and event.

-

WSD:

Please weigh. If you don’t weigh I have to intervene. I do not want to intervene. Simplify the round and I will be happy to vote for whatever the path of least resistance is.

-

Congress: (long soapbox)

Will rank someone who gave a mediocre speech but heavily participated in chamber higher than someone who gave one amazing speech but then didn’t participate in chamber.

Forget equity, move the round forwards and you’ll be my favorite. We do not need to make sure everyone gets a speech just to have 20 minutes of rehash. Dockets usually have 5+ bills for a reason.

If you need time to call a recess to prep a speech that is not good, come prepared.

Congress is not just about speeches, it's about how you present yourself.

Speech :

I don’t think this needs a paradigm but this is what I mainly judge so if you’re curious just do your event as you would normally.

-

email - smcstabs@gmail.com

reach out if you have questions

-

sometimes tabroom doesn’t save ballots, I always leave ballots no matter what. if you are not seeing a ballot tell your coach to email me and I will forward it to them. I pre-write and save all of my ballots in word.

Please deliver your arguments to me as you would to your younger sibling. This means speak slow and don't assume that I already know anything about what you're talking about. I am more interested in the quality of the arguments than in their quantity.

Please also listen carefully to your opponent and respond to their arguments or explain how their arguments are irrelevant. Merely repeating your position in response their arguments is not persuasive. I tend to be persuaded by the side that has done the best job of clearly identifying the disagreements between the two sides. Whoever can do that often has the stronger contentions anyway.

I am a parent judge. So please keep technical aspects of the debate to a minimum. If you can avoid spreading it would be perfect. Try and avoid speed-talk. I appreciate addressing and making eye contact with the judge. Please explain some of the definitions and/or acronyms you may be using. I give credit to sticking to the full topic. For example in one session "Should liberal countries coerce non-liberal states to become liberal', it is not about liberalism vs autocratic govermnents - it should be about the entire topic. I don't mind if you remove your mask to talk during your turn. I typically take notes and keep time. Before every section try and provide a roadmap of what you are going to present and stick to it. I love a good debate or a speech! Good luck!

UMich ‘25

LASA ‘21

I am making my paradigm increasingly grumpy to reflect my feelings when judging debates.

If you think that Wake Forest RT defeated Michigan PP in the finals of the 2023 NDT, strike me.

I don't think I'm a particularly good judge. I would strike me if I was doing prefs as a policy team too. I will do my best to evaluate any debate I am in but I just don't think that is very good. I am trying to be super transparent so that you can do prefs with a full idea of how I judge and how good of a judge I am.

If both teams agree to stake the debate on something other than an actual debate, (i.e. a chess game, a board game), we can do that and I will give as close to a 30 to everyone as I can. This is the ideal scenario. If this doesn't happen, I will be sad.

Add me to the email chain: mayacxdebate@gmail.com. Please title it with tournament name, round number, and team names so I can find it later. Don't use NSDA file share. If I have to download a document with NSDA file share, you and your partner will get a 25.

Please send out a Word doc, if possible.

Tech over truth. However, I do need to be able to explain back to the other team why you won. This means I've found I have a higher burden of explanation for certain arguments that make less intuitive sense to me and that I've had less experience with. Sometimes this means that even if I feel like you are the better debaters, you still lose the debate (usually this happens when it is a K/K aff and teams just say buzzwords and I am left confused).

Please do specific impact calculus. I would like to take the easy way out and evaluate the impacts the way the debaters describe and I think this causes less judge intervention.

If I have to be judging, I would like to judge unintuitive impact turns. Not death good (although I will vote for that if you win it). Climate change good and prolif good are perfect examples of these. Dedev is not.

Unless it is dropped, I won't vote for personal attacks or things that happened outside of the round. A sufficient response is "don't evaluate things that happened outside the round."

I'm not going to pretend that my predispositions don't factor into the way I evaluate debates even though I will try to limit them.

Theory

I want to cast the easiest ballot possible. This means I am willing to vote on any dropped theory argument that was a reason to reject the team even if they kicked the argument it was about. It does need to be a full extension in subsequent speeches.

I am willing to vote on most theory as reasons to reject the team if it's dropped even if they kicked the argument. I want to put the least amount of thinking to my decision as possible.

Ks

You probably shouldn't pref me for K debates. What I read in college has absolutely no bearing on the debates I am qualified to judge or want to see. Just because there are some Ks that are okay in front of policy judges does not mean they are okay in front of me. Usually, people take this as, "it'll be okay we just read Cap and Security" but you shouldn't.

Against an aff that can go for util outweighs, you will have a hard time winning that your structural violence impact outweighs.

I have yet to understand an explanation of why the 2NR can just go for framework (including in debates where I'm giving the 2NR) and not a material alt (which is then solved by the perm). It is unclear to me why voting neg solves the impacts to the K if they don't fiat an alt. If you fiat an alt, it seems like the perm should overcome any disads to the aff.

Between two equal teams, the aff should always win the perm solves. Between a better neg team and a worse aff team, the aff should nearly always win the perm solves. Between a varsity neg team and a novice aff team, I suppose the neg will probably win but it will be begrudgingly, and at that point, you could just as easily beat them on a policy argument and I will be much happier with you and your speaks will indicate that.

K affs

Most of the K section should give you the idea that I'm probably not the best to have in the back for this debate. Because I think this might be important to the way you see my judging: I read framework against K affs until part way through junior year of high school with no success. At that point, I pivoted to reading specific K arguments, Cap or frame subtraction against K affs.

I have slightly more confidence in my ability to evaluate a K v. K debate than a K v. Framework debate. Framework debates generally have lots of analytics that are read at full speed which makes it a lot harder for me to keep up.

T

I don't judge high school frequently or do any research on the topic. I never went for T that frequently. What this means is you're gonna have to slow down and I will barely know what the resolution is. Go for T at your own risk.

DAs/CPs

This is mostly for novices. Have an external impact. Do line by line. It would help you a lot if you have a way to access the affs impact either through your impact turning theirs or a CP.

Analytics that are specific to the other teams' warrants will get you as far as (and probably farther than) reading your generic uniqueness updates block for whatever tournament. This includes the politics DA. Look at what states/specific senators/blocks of representatives the other team talks about and provide reasons why they're wrong.

I auto-judge kick if it isn't brought up in the debate but if it is, I will evaluate who won it.

Miscellaneous stuff that won't cost you the debate but that you should listen to

Theory should be answered on the page where it was read. Your order should not have the name of a theory argument in it or say "I'll do theory here." I guarantee you I do not know where the theory argument was read off the top of my head.

Write down how much prep time you have left on either your flow or somewhere on your laptop. It wastes so much time to stand up, find a marker, and write it on a board. Also, it will make me think less of you.

CX time isn't meant for clarifying questions, use it to attack the other teams cards/arguments. 1-2 clarifying questions are okay beyond that it should be prep.

Do you really need to ask for "reasons to reject the team" just learn how to flow.

I am completely fine with reading condo on pages that aren't conditional worlds. It makes it more likely the other team will drop it and I would prefer a condo debate to a substance debate especially if it is dropped.

Perf con isn't a real argument unless the aff is willing to concede something to get out of the other argument. Obviously, if it's dropped I will vote on it though.

Debate: I am a lay judge, please speak at an appropriate pace and explain why your side is more important for me to vote on. Define any terms that you don't think a non-debater will know. For clashing arguments, try to tell me why your side of the argument is more clear and probable. Please explain how your arguments work and also explain your evidence rather than just saying the name of the author. Please time yourselves and your opponents, as I will not keep track of time. Be respectful and enjoy the debate!

For speech: I value your presentation skills like body language, eye contact, and clarity. For interpretations, I like to clearly see many different characters and connection with the audience through your expressions and theme of the piece. In oratory, I enjoy good humor and stories that make your speech seem more personable.

For impromptu/extemp: using your full time to the best of your ability is one of my top judging mechanisms. I will look to see how much you can develop your content and not be repetitive.

One thing I've noticed having judged semi/final rounds at the TOC in Kentucky, the best speakers have a great connection with the audience, whether that's humor in extemp/info/impromptu, incredible expressions and gestures in interp, and personal stories in oratory, they really make an effort to make their speech be memorable.

I prefer organised and easy to follow speeches.Throwing jargons without analysis won't make your case persuasive.Avoid condescending behaviour to opponents ,be respectful and avoid making generalisations.

General:

I am a lay judge. I prefer traditional style debate with logical analysis over a technical debate with poorly explained cards. I do NOT prefer spreading. If I do not understand what you said, then I would not be able to flow or give you credit for those arguments. I prefer high-impact & high-probable arguments with a strong link structure. Make sure you provide framework and crystallize impact. Break it down and tell me what the most important voting issues are.

I will not look at cards unless it is heavily contested or the team asks me to call for one. Clash is king in the round and I fully expect direct refutations and spirited, clever, cross fire sessions.

I expect you to be courteous to your team mates and opponents.

PF:

Okay with Ks and Theory. Make it good or I will be less inclined to vote on it (structure it properly and explain it well in the context of the round).

No Tricks please.

LD:

I understand the mechanics of value/criterion debate and expect the debater to use the established criterion to measure the value. Crystallize the debate and clearly articulate voting issues. If you are using technical jargon, be sure to explain them in the round.

Hello!

My name is Sai Nagarajan and I am an undergraduate student at the Georgia Institute of Technology. My connection to Speech: I had an awesome time competing in Oratory for 4 years from 2019-2023, ranking first for three years in the State of Washington and peaking at 19th rank nationally. On the side, I competed in Impromptu, Congress, and Humorous Interpretation but I've always had the most fun with Oratory! Speech is unfortunately a very subjective realm of events and know that ranking lower does not ever dictate your capabilities and skill level. I will try to introduce as much objectivity as possible with the below criteria.

This is the criteria I will use to evaluate rankings:

Oratory/Informative/Impromptu/Extemp/Non-Interp (Extra Weightage to Mechanics and Language)

Organization (1-4 pts): Is there a clear and central idea supported well by the main points? Is there a clear structure utilizing smooth transitions? Are the introduction and conclusion effective?

Content + Topic (1-4pts): Is the motive clear, significant, sufficient and timely? Is the thesis original and presented effectively? Is the topic interesting?

Language /Communication (1-4 pts): Is the language accurate and clear? Is the language well-suited to the topic and speaker? Are you audible, articulate and direct with the audience? Do you seem interested and sincere? If used, are visual aids effective?

Mechanics (1-4): Did you employ use of hand gestures, eye contact and body movement to enhance the narrative of their speech? Were Visual aids (if used) helpful enlightening and adding depth to presentation?

Overall Effect (1-4): Did you effectively inform or persuade me about your topic? Did you adequately develop the speech to keep it interesting for the audience?

Interpretation Events

Introduction and Transition (1-4 pts): Is there are clear introduction that is separate from your actual performances and is it effective? Is it interesting and a good summary/teaser of what your piece is? Is it significant to the piece?

Characterization(1-4pts) : Do you effectively create distinct and well-developed characters? Do you create a lasting mood? Does the character have a clear emotional and plot arc?

Poise/ Physicalization (1-4 pts): Do you adopt a good stance and are you able to use your poise to characterize and differentiate? Are physical effects and movements beneficial to piece? (One shouldn’t be just standing around and delivering a monologue). Is there variety in movement that is clean and adds to the piece?

Voice Mechanics (1-4): Are you performing at a good rate? Is there good pacing? Do you use your voice to your advantage? Are you able to use voice to characterize and differentiate characters? Is there a large range in emotion?

Overall Effect (1-4): Did you truly capture the audience into your scenes and piece? Can I feel or relate with your piece? Is there a meaning or a message being sent?

Good Luck and Have Fun!

Gday, I am a parent Judge, honored and happy to listen to all the great conversations and storytelling. I look forward to the following -

1. Coherent storytelling - A story that has a great introduction and a strong ending.
2. Facts - Pure facts, not convoluted interpretations of facts.
3. Honour and Respect - Delivering an argument without offending.
4. Confident & Passionate - Speak with conviction and enthusiasm.

Most of all have fun and give your best shot. Enjoy!

TL;DR

• Update for NSDA: I will give a verbal RFD 15-20 min after the 2AR if all debaters request it and are in the room to hear the RFD. This is allowed under NSDA rules.
• My name is Nico Neal (he/him), you may refer to me in whatever way you're most comfortable with, but as a general hierarchy of preferences: Nico >> judge >>>>>> Mr. [anything]. Again, no pressure to do anything you're not comfortable with. I'm just a fly on the wall.
• Email chain, duh: enjen.cxcoach@gmail.com
• Don't ask for high speaks, you shan't receive.
• FR Topic - I have done some research and am familiar with many core controversies over topicality and substance, but my understanding is by no means exhaustive. It's best to overexplain your theories of economics rather than assuming I know why you're right.
• Intervention is inevitable, write my ballot for me so I don't have to do work for you. I write the quickest path to a win for either team. I won't jump through hoops to give you the win.
• My aim is absolutely not to tell you how to debate;long paradigms from college kids are usually dumb, I just have a lot of opinions. Very few are immutable in the presence of a good debater. Good debate is good debate. Persuasion is key.
• DA + case 2NR is a classic. CPs should compete functionally and have a well articulated net-benefit. I have some knowledge of Ks, don't read your high theory tomfoolery in front of me unless can explain it very, very well. T should have a good interp debate and a pretty good impact debate. Clash and fairness can be impacts or internal links. I'm probably not best for planless affirmatives but I'm willing to hear them and vote for them if I feel you've done the better debating.
• Questions about my paradigm or decision? Email me and I'm happy to provide more info.

GENERAL

• 'Background: I debated on a local high school policy circuit and taught myself progressive styles of policy. I now debate for the Missouri State University debate team and compete in NDT/CEDA policy.

• Judging Philosophy: Debate is an educational exercise that is most effective as a forum for discussing new ideas (particularly policies), and it functions best when the debaters have full authority to determine the rules of the round, excluding those which have been predetermined by the tournament. No judge is truly tabula rasa, otherwise we wouldn't need paradigms; that being said, I like to believe I'm unbiased as possible in my decisions.

• I will take a flow and determine the winner of the round based on the flow blah blah blah, you've seen this on every judge's sheet. Pref me if you can out-tech your opponents and minimize the amount of intervention I need to do. I'll vote for any (warranted) argument; dropped procedurals are voters in almost every case, a dropped disad/turn is not an instant win. You need to spend significant time explaining why that argument deserves my ballot and, most importantly, why it outweighs their offense. A 2NR that says "they dropped pandemics good, vote neg!" and moves onto some other page is... less than persuasive.

• Arguments > speaking ability, but clarity > speed. I only flow what I understand. Your ability to persuade me is dependent on your ability to speak clearly and in an organized manner. I will scroll through speech docs while you speak, but I should never feel like I need to.

• Unnecessary aggression = bad speaks. I don't think the ballot should be a source of punishment, but speaker ranks can be.

• I've debated lay and tech and I see value in both. If you're at a prominent circuit tournament, this shouldn't apply to you. If I am judging on a panel with a lay judge, you will make sure the debate is accessible to everyone or you will not get my ballot. Real-world accessibility outweighs every impact (see: Louisville project) and if you aren't able to accommodate that, you probably don't deserve to win the round anyway.

• Tech issues: they happen but I know BS when I see it. Keep it to a minimum.

• Speed: it's a tool for accessing depth of information, not one for exclusion. Good spreading with good content is good. Bad spreading with bad content is bad. I can comprehend all speeds I've witnessed as long as its clear. Please slow down to about 75% your normal speed online, it's almost always less clear.
• Accommodations: in most cases, if one team requests speed-related accommodations 30 minutes prior to the round via an email I am attached to, I'll expect both teams to honor it. Beware of requesting accommodations only to neglect them yourself. If either side intentionally violates a pre-round agreement of this nature, my ballot will often be very easy. There's obviously some leeway here; just be reasonable and don't manipulate speed to gain an unfair advantage. Again, accessibility is the golden rule: if any judge on the panel asks you not to spread, don't spread. I'll be very reluctant to vote for you if you're careless enough to exclude judges from the round.

POLICY

• Giving me one clear piece of offense to vote on and outlining a clear explanation of how the world works is the best path to my ballot. A 2AR/NR that can step away from debate jargon and eloquently explain a string of causal events while framing my ballot is the best place to be in at the end of the debate. A turns-case arg that has been extended throughout the debate can easily make the difference between a win or a loss, make sure your DA/AFF has this in your overview or frontline, respectively.
• FR Topic: I've done some research on this topic, coached some local teams, and I have a fundamental understanding of macroeconomics theory from college courses. If you're well research, it's likely you know more than me and should take care to make sure I understand why you're right. My understanding of topicality comes from a few thorough reads of the topic paper, anything more complex than that will need more explanation.
• Affirmatives: policy affs should be topical, inherent, and solvent for their impacts. Nuanced advantages with rigorous internal links to your impacts are very persuasive and very resistant to generic 1NC case answers. Aff innovation shouldn't just be a topicality arg; show me a cool aff I've never seen before and make good arguments in support of it and you will be rewarded.
• Disads: give me a clear link story and, ideally, have specific links to the aff. If the aff is new or questionably topical/significant, you'll have more leniency with generic links. Impact overviews should be at the top of the page, include a turns case arg, and set the 2NR up to easily explain why it outweighs on scope, certainty, and timeframe. Pick a specific impact frame for the 2NR and invest time into explaining why its best and why, under that frame, I should vote for you.
• Counterplans: you should compete in function and solve the aff with a clear net benefit, or to the extent your CP has a deficit, the NB should outweigh that. Cheating process CPs are real and good if they have a solvency advocate that is directly contextualized to the topic. "The states should host a constitutional convention and ratify a UBI as the 28th amendment to the Constitution" is contrived unless you have the best solvency cards ever and the aff will have a very easy time pointing this out. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and 2-3 warranted 2AC perms are better than 8 blippy ones; I'll have a harder time voting for a perm if it doesn't become an argument until the 1AR.
• Kritiks: Explain your theory of power to me, have clear links, and ideally an alt that's more substantive that everyone holding hands and singing kumbaya. I like IR Ks a lot, pretty familiar with general theories of epistemology, less familiar with critical ontology lit, and I'm probably not your guy for pomo. Overviews are good insofar as they help me understand what your K is, they're bad when they're used a cudgel to avoid doing line by line.
• Condo: the status quo is a logical option, but its possible for the neg to read two advocacies that put the 2AC in an unfair position (e.g. 'First Strike Iran CP' + 'Never Strike Iran CP') which deserves some form of correction from by ballot in the form of rejecting an argument, giving the aff leniency with something, or whatever you convince me is a logical reaction. I will not vote for a condo 2AR unless it is flawless and the 2NR is severely lacking.
• Topicality: I think precision and predictability are usually a better starting point to approach the interp debate than grounds/limits args. If the neg's interp is very precise and predictable but potentially overlimiting, I'm likely to prefer it over a seemingly contrived aff counterinterp that has better arguments for limits and ground. Limits and ground claims matter and can determine the outcome of a T debate, but topicality is fundamentally an issue of what the topic is, not what it should be; precision and predictability are the foundation of interpretations of the topic, ground and limits claims are second level argumentation.
• Theory: most theory violations are debatable, but evenly debated, few rise to the level of persuading me to reject the team in violation. I'm better for vagueness than most judges if you capitalize on CX of the 1AC to prove they have no idea what their plan does, but it's better as a presumption arg than a fairness one. 1As who know their plan and solvency advocates shouldn't feel threatened by this. Not enough people read theory as a means of lesser ends than a voting issue (e.g. arguing that some evil CP genre justifies even eviler perms to level the playing field).
• Planless affirmatives: I'm not as bad for them as I once was, but I'm still not great. The only role of my ballot is to signal who did the better debating. If you do the better debating and I understand your impacts + how your affirmative functions under a model of competitive incentives (why SSD doesn't solve your offense is a biggie), I'm willing to vote for you. Absent an understanding of why my vote for you matters or what the role of the negative is under your model, I'll have a hard time justifying a ballot for you.

PUBLIC FORUM

I don't have an immense knowledge of PF, but I know enough that you're not gonna get anything shady past me. This means:

• Plans or CPs: this is dependent on the rules of circuit, obviously. Don't violate the rules, but those aside, just make

• Framework is cool but not required by any means. Good FW gives me a mechanism to weigh impacts - bad FW tells me what to do with a reason why.

• "PF should be X, not Y! Debate differently!" - this isn't persuasive to me. Each debate format isn't "supposed" to be anything. Forward a set of causal claims and prove that they're more important than those of your opponent and you'll win.

• The thing I dislike most about judging PF is the monotony round to round, I hate seeing the same args every round. Creative args that are well developed will keep me very invested.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

I have never competed in LD, but I am well-versed with the traditional framework of an LD case and I enjoy the situational nature of evidence. I don't have many particular comments on the typical structure of a case since I don't have too many opinions on how the debate plays out. Just do what you do, and if controversy arises articulate your side of the issue well; debate it out and see who wins me over.

• I have nightmares about the rumors I've heard of LD theory shenanigans, but it also sounds awesome. Gimme a good theory debate and I'll be very invested, but make sure you don't assume I'm well versed in the norms of LD theory.

• I don't care if you use the typical framing of a value + value criterion or what have you. Whatever floats your boat or is the norm in your circuit is cool with me. If I ever seem confused by the formatting of your arguments, just try to contextualize it with something I'll be more familiar with.

• K-affs are probably most justified here since the focus is much more grounded in philosophical lit. I do still need to know

• Kritiks are cool here. whatever is said about Ks in policy goes here too.
• Do you guys get plans? I neither know nor care until someone reads the relevant rulebook to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My name is Sabrina Oliveri. I competed in OI, Declamation, POI, Oratory, Duo, DI, Impromptu, Extemp, PF, and LD during my 5 years as a competitor. I have 5+ years of experience judging all major speech and debate categories. During my time as a high school competitor, I was captain of my speech and debate team for 2 years. My responsibilities included (but were not limited to) creating/cutting/blocking programs, running practices, and managing our team's Instagram account. I was also a member of Beyond Resolve's New York Chapter, helping further diversity, equity, and inclusion within the Speech and Debate community.

Elizabeth Pak is has been a licensed attorney in California since 1994.

She has judged speech and debate tournaments.

I really value the amount of creativity, preparation and effort that goes into the activity of debate and speech competitions, and am always looking forward to seeing the new perspectives that students from diverse backgrounds have to contribute to the ongoing discussion.

Although most of my experience comes from judging Congress events, the elements I look for and highly value in speeches remain constant across the board.

- first and foremost, an environment of mutual respect in which competitors maintain a professional demeanor is of utmost importance

- ensure that you clearly articulate your arguments (any generic argumentation that does not contribute to the overall point or "beats around the bush" should be avoided)

- strong public speaking skills, including, but not limited to varying tones, hand gestures, confident delivery, and eye contact have huge value

- a normal rate of speaking is greatly preferred, as it allows me to concurrently take notes

- out-of-the-box, eccentric, and creative ideas catch my attention!

I am a parent judge with some experience judging speech and public forum. I will try to take notes, but I am not a flow judge. I look for competitors with a clear and smooth speaking style, solid gestures, but most importantly, logical and well-supported arguments.

Lay Judge; Talk no faster than conversational and explain your points to me. I will vote for the team that I think has the strongest argument at the end of the round.

Interp Events-

- I focus on solid storytelling. The most important piece of the puzzle is the script, please don't forget to hold true the story as a whole even though we are only seeing ten minutes of it.Connecting to the audience, it's about telling the story to us, so a solid connection to the audience is important. We want to laugh and cry with you. Cleanliness does impact my ranking, Dont forget you are not speaking FOR them, you are speaking AS them. It is an ownership that you should take seriously. If you don't tell the story, how will they continue to live?

SPEAKING EVENTS/Debate

• Be specific with the topic at hand
• Not a fan pf spreading
• please be respectfull
• I pay the most attention during cross, like a lot. So please keep that in mind

Make sure your speech flows and each point connects to the last and the next.

• - We may not know anything about the topic at hand, think of yourself as a professor sharing knowledge, teach us.
• If you stumble over your words, keep going forward, don't go back unless that information was so important you need to recover it.

- Strong supporting material is key, like any good research paper the more recent the source the better. And with that strong source material is also important to the strength and legitimacy of your speech.

- Solid confident delivery style

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 300 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE!I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED.The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct.

3. As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em.

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

4. Cross-examination: I know some judges don't pay too much attention to this. I REALLY do. To me cross is the essence of debate . During cross, I am looking for you to probe the weaknesses of your opponent's contentions to set up your rebuttals and to defend your own positions. I expect lively exchanges involving vigorous attacks and robust defenses. I will also look to see which team can establish perceptual dominance. Your performance in cross is often a key factor in how I decide speaker scores and possibly the round.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

My name is Satish Ponnaluri and I am a parent judge

Congress -

I value speeches that are rightly timed in the progression of the debate. This means I will equally weigh an author who explains the status quo as the same as a speaker who gave a crystal with minimal refutation rehash. I value speaking a lot as well. You need to convince me why I should believe you. That being said, I will drop senators who give rhetoric in lieu of evidence and logic chains.

PO will usually get the top 5 on my ballot if you are adequate with few mistakes. Overall round presence is extremely important, this includes effective cross-ex, round leadership, and familiarity of motions. Other than that, be kind to everyone else in the round and have fun!

Speech Events:

I give weightage to quality of arguments and the evidence provided.

I am a lay judge with 3 yrs of judging experience. I would like participants to speak loud and clear. Also, would be great if they can keep the camera on their face while talking. Sometimes I see their heads only and hard to figure out what they are saying.

1) Do NOT spread - This form of debate must be extremely easy for the general public to follow & understand. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you.

2) I try to flow along with you, so, state the # of contentions, & your contention description very clearly.

3) I prefer reasoned arguments, that are well supported or backed up by clear, warrants & evidence.  Make sure to clearly call out the impacts. 

4) I DO NOT flow during Cross X, so anything that comes during this round or conceded, make sure to bring it up during the next speech, so it gets into the flow.

5) Time your own prep

6) Don't be rude or disrespectful to your opponents

7) Last but not the least, this is NOT a life/death situation. So, pause, take a deep breath, and enjoy your debate :) 

Background: I am a lay judge for SPAR debate. I have judged PF debate tournaments in the past few years.

Speaking: Please prioritize clarity over speed. I will request debaters to slow down, if I am unable to follow.

I expect all debaters to conduct themselves in a polite and respectful manner. Please do not interrupt when anyone else is speaking.

Arguments: Please weigh your impacts and provide sufficient evidences. Ensure you cover all the opposing teams arguments during your responses. Do not bring any new facts or arguments during the final speech because it does not give the opponent team a chance to respond. Please provide clear analysis for why you should win in the final focus.

As Aristotle mentioned, use all three modes of persuasion - "Ethos, Pathos and Logos" to score a Win!

All the best and have fun at the tournament!

he/they.

president, '23-24 @ king's college london debating society

ex-extemper from westwood and their former speech captain

best at judging bp/parli/wsdc, speech, congress, pf

lots of speaker and judging experience:

in bp, outrounds at eudc, oxford, india pre wudc, open grand finalist @ bristol open, cardiff open, hypothetical open, champion @ pdc, semifinalist @odesa open, grand finalist @ cfo 3.0, finalist @ucl iv pro am, semifinalist @ 3udu open

as a judge:

semifinals panellist @ucl iv '24, gold finals panellist @ paris wsdc '24, silver finals chair @ lse schools, gold finals panel and breaking @ lse x imperial, breaking @ manchester novs, breaking @ zagreb pre wudc and panelled nf

chief adjudicator, imperial juniors '24, exeter open 2024, southampton open 2024

in extemp,

2x tfa, toc, nsda qualifier

quarters @ extemp toc and breaking/5th seed @ uktoc

finalist @ longhorn classic and nova titan

semifinalist @ blue key, bronx, tfa state, uk season opener

quarters @ glenbrooks, stanford

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

if you have a disability or bad wifi or anything you need to tell me before the round, please do. i will not penalize you for anything out of your control as a speaker.

extemp:

tldr; answer the question as best as you can, try to engage me and other members of the audience, have strong evidence to back up your claims.

i judge on content and then on delivery.

i'll only rank you down for delivery if you have errors that impede my ability to understand your speech, or if someone else in the room had content as good as yours but was more conversational and engaging

substructure is essential to build up strong links between your a, b, and i. without those link chains, your points don't answer the question.

make sure you use sources to justify claims and to analyze situations. locals and think tanks are best, but i won't hold you citing dailies against you. i very much appreciate qualified sources and they will advance my opinion of your speech.

i love good agd and creative taglines and transitions.

my standard time signals are five down, in virtual you may time yourself. The extemp triangle is helpful in both in-person and virtual environments, but I totally understand if it is unfeasible when you're behind a laptop screen.

respect the communities and issues you speak about, i will drop you for bigotry.

don't be afraid to run a slightly unorthodox substructure or argument, as franklin roosevelt once said, “it is common sense to take a method and try it. if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. but above all, try something.”

best of luck! this is my favorite event.

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

other speech -- lay

i never really did other forms of speech in high school. i'll evaluate impromptus much like i would an extemp speech, just with more of an emphasis on delivery as opposed to content.

as for interpretation and oratory, i'll judge you equally on your presentation and content, and while i don't need trigger warnings before a round, i would appreciate it if you offer them for other judges/competitors in the room.

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

pf, tech > truth, flow judge

good with speed/spreading, though if you do I'd prefer that you make a speech doc and send it to me at arjunraman10000@gmail.com

good with theory. i don’t require frontlining in the second rebuttal, but i prefer it. please extend your arguments throughout the debate. weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh. signposting preferable.

i'll evaluate disclosure/para theory.

i try to intervene in round as little as humanly possible, will vote off the flow.s

speaks will probably go from 28.5 to 30 in most cases, only lower if I couldn't understand you or if you were bigoted in round.

in pf, all you need for high speaks from me is to debate ethically and respect your opponents and partner.

strike me if you run tricks.

for a longer version -- check amogh mahambare's paradigm

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

congress:

po - know what you’re doing, and you have a place on my ballot; i'll forgive any minor mistakes with regards to precedence or recency. offer time signals to people that want them (not as necessary in virtual), and keep track of speaking time and recency.

everyone else -- giving two good speeches is better than giving three mediocre ones; extemp-level analysis is essential to being on my ballot -- 2 points, at least two sources per point of analysis.

try to make sure there’s a decent aff/neg split and clash as a chamber.

don’t be overly aggressive in cross, just like the other events -- no bigotry

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

bp/parli:

i track

i adjudicate using the judging manual in bp and using the wsdc manual for wsdc

paradigms not really a thing in iona, who would've thunk

I am a lay judge/parent. Please organize your material well and present a clear conclusion. Try not to repeat ideas and please stay on the topic. Remember the end goal: to prove that your value is superior to your opponent's. Use logic and reason to explain your arguments. Present credible evidence. Ask incisive questions, but also be respectful of each other. Pace your words so that communicate effectively. Since I take notes, your speech delivery is crucial for me to provide you with complete feedback. Breathe deep, have fun, and good luck.

Background: I am a physician and also the head coach of a Speech and Debate team. I was a former high school policy debater, but that does not mean I like spreading or progressive arguments. I'm a dinosaur. See below.

PF

General: The team that is able to support their offense with strong logic and good evidence while having effective defense against their opponents' case will win the round. Duh.

Speed: I am okay with some speed. You will see me flowing during the round, but this is a no spread zone.

Cases: I like strong links to your impacts, which is why I usually find stock arguments to be the strongest. However, I also like squirrels, but only if your links are convincing. I don't believe in tabula rasa judging. If something doesn't make sense or the link is weak, I will be less likely to vote on it. I am a judge after all and that's what I get paid the big bucks to do. Actually, I don't get paid, but if I did get paid, I'm sure it would be big bucks.

Progressive arguments: Please, for all that is good in the world, do not bring progressive LD nonsense into PF. OK? PF is the last bastion of debate purity left. My ROB is to drop progressive arguments and don't try to RVI me.

Crossfire: Be courteous. If someone is trying to be a time hog, I am okay with polite interruption. I sometimes vote on something that comes up in CF, but you should mention it in your speeches if you want me to not forget. Word to the wise: I've dropped many debaters because CF sometimes reveals their lack of knowledge and/or incoherent warranting. That's why I will flow CF.

2nd Rebuttal: You should probably start frontlining now. Starting frontlines in 2nd Summary is a little late in the round and puts too much of a burden on the 1st FF to backline for the first time. Luckily this is a rarity in PF.

Summary: You should extend all offense and defense. I don't believe in sticky defense. If you don't extend in Summary, don't expect me to vote on it if it suddenly shows up in FF. You should start weighing in Summary. In fact, you could start weighing in rebuttals. Don't wait until FF. For Rebuttal, Summary, and FF, please give me logical warrants beyond just reading the cards. In other words, explain the card with logical analysis. I frown on debaters who rely solely on card reading.

Grand CF: This should have balanced involvement of all debaters.

FF: When rounds are close, I will use the FF to write my RFD, so I hope you are a good writer. Weigh impacts, cases, links, evidence. Metaweigh if needed, although I often find metaweighing too subjective unless you can convince me that you outweigh on prereqs. Make sure to extend at least your most important if not all offense. I'm fine if you drop a contention and collapse on one or two, but be careful. I have dropped debaters because they chose the wrong contention to drop (it was actually their best offense).Offense is what wins rounds. But to make sure your offense is better than your opponent's offense, your defense better be legit. It doesn't matter to me when you weigh and give voters...after each issue or at the end...it's up to you.

Evidence ethics: I HATE power cutting where you pull single words from one sentence and attach to a single word two sentences later and think that is a legit way to cut. If the two sentences are logically linked, then okay. But most power cut cards are atrocious. They often end up being straw arguments or horribly paraphrased. I won't necessarily call for a card myself. This is where I need teams to be proactive. If you suspect bad evidence, call for it in round. Call it out in your speech and request that I look at it at the end of the round.

Calling cards: Yes, include me on an email chain when sharing evidence. When requesting evidence, I will consider prep time to begin once the evidence is received. Please announce when that happens and that you are taking prep. Don't be sneaky.

LD

Although I am a former policy debater, I am not a fan of Kritiks, Theory Shells or ROBs. I prefer debate on the substance of the resolution. So in that respect I consider myself more of a traditional LD judge. However, I am okay with plans and CPs because that totally appeals to my policy debate background. However, if you run a plan or CP, make sure you check the boxes on solvency, topicality, uniqueness, and inherency. Even if your opponent doesn't identify all the problems with your plan/CP, I won't be able to weigh your impacts if I don't believe that your plan is going to get you there.

Please don't just read cards. This is a definite problem I've noticed with progressive debaters trying to adapt to a traditional round. You need to give me some solid warranting so I can effectively weigh your arguments and also so I know you know what you are talking about.

In terms of framework, I will go with whoever makes the best case for theirs. But what I've often found is that the contention level debate ends up fitting many frameworks, so it really comes down to your arguments. However, if you go all in on something like util, make sure you have some terminal impacts for me to see exactly how you benefit the majority or maximize pleasure/minimize pain.

Crystallization and more extensive analytics and voters in the 2AR and 2NR is helpful, especially when the round gets muddy. I don't care as much if you drop an opponent's argument as long as that argument is not effective offense.

I don't believe in tabula rasa judging. If I did, then we could use computers to determine the winner of a round and we wouldn't need human judges. So I WILL cast my own opinion on an argument if I think it makes zero sense or is not well warranted. After all, I am a judge and that's my job. I am going to judge your arguments on their merits. I will extend a solid argument unless your opponent applies some good defense or turns.

I am not a fan of spreading. I am okay with some speed, but if I can't understand you, then it is not going on the flow. Even if I get your case via email, I'm not going to be reading it while you spread. This is a verbal activity and, therefore, I will only flow things that are verbally communicated and what I can hear and understand.

At the end of the day, I'm going to give the win to whoever I think had the most offense at the end of the round.

World Schools

I will judge based on traditional World Schools debating i.e. proper terminology, appropriate use of POIs, persuasive style and rhetoric, good logic and argumentation, and most importantly examples and statistics from around the world if appropriate. You will not win if you try to debate using PF or LD technical arguments, squirreling, or spreading. Do not try to burden opponents with limiting definitions or frameworks.

Glendale ‘21

Missouri State ‘26

rauhoffdebate@gmail.com---yes chain---please include tournament, round, teams debating, and sides in the subject line.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE:

Education (HS, debater)

Immigration (HS, debater)

Arms Sales (HS, debater)

Criminal Justice (HS, debater)

Water (HS, coach)

NATO (HS, coach)

Fiscal Redistribution (HS, coach)

Nukes (NDT, debater)

I was exclusively a policy debater in high school and I’m exclusively a policy debater in college. Debating the college nukes topic now. Currently coach for Glendale and cut lots of cards for them, so I will be up to date on the vast majority of the topic lingo.

FOR MISSOURI:

If I am judging you and you want to spread, I love it! You all don't get that opportunity much, and I remember being ecstatic in HS when I'd get a flow judge/panel at a Missouri tournament. However, there are a few things to note:

1---I very much dislike spreading that sounds horrendous. This looks like debaters mumbling through cards incomprehensively, making it impossible to distinguish tags/analytics from the body of a card, attempting to speak faster than you can read, etc---you should prioritize clarity over speed.

2---Your opponents should be able and/or willing to participate in a round with spreading.

3---I will flow, and will decide the debate based off of said flow.

I've noticed some debaters in MO bragging about not taking as much prep time as their opponents or making it a goal to not take prep time at all. I will audibly laugh if you stand up for the 2NR/2AR without prep, and immediately after the debate, tell you several things you could've used prep time for to improve your speech. Prep time is useful. It's there for a reason, and no debater that has ever stepped foot in a debate round is too good for prep time.

FIRST THINGS FIRST:

Will vote on whatever, just impact it out & tell me why your argument matters more than/outweighs your opponents’ argument. Don’t care if you read death good in front of me, but just know that the threshold for beating that argument is pretty low. Same goes for ASPEC/FSPEC/whatever weird stuff you feel is necessary to read.

I try not to be a very expressive judge, because I find these judges to be extremely annoying.

Clarity is more important to me than speed---go however fast you want, but make sure I can hear taglines/analytics, regardless of whether they’re in the speech doc or not. If you want to blaze through cards, that’s fine, just make sure I can hear like every fifth word or something.

Condo is good (within reason), judge kick is good, reasonability is stupid, utopian alts are stupid.

I will not adjudicate out-of-round events, regardless of the situation. My role is solely as an educator, not as an executioner. If you bring up an issue to me that has happened outside of the context of the debate round that involves your opponents and you refuse to debate the round, I will give all debaters involved a 27.5, immediately stop the round, and report the issue to tab/let them deal with it.

ONLINE:

Could not care any less if you have your camera on or off.

Slow down slightly.

Include analytics in the doc (don’t care if you do this in-person, but tech issues makes it important).

Use an external mic if possible.

TOP LEVEL:

Probably about 60/40 on tech v truth. If you explain to me why one matters more than the other, I will evaluate the debate that way. I lean slightly more tech, because you can’t just answer an extinction impact with “extinction won’t happen!” with no ev or warrants to substantiate that claim.

I typically vote pretty quickly, but this doesn’t mean the debate was bad or lopsided. All it means is that I feel as if the debate was clear enough argumentatively that I was able to adjudicate it without putting pieces together at the end or looking at evidence. This is my ideal situation. Debates are long and we all want to move on. That said, if I need to take 20 minutes to decide a debate, I will do so.

If you’re rude, it’ll affect your speaks in a negative way, though I might have a higher threshold for what I constitute as “rude” than most. For example, if you’re giving a long, drawn-out answer to a question and your opponent cuts you off, they’re not being rude---they have more questions to ask and you don’t get to use CX as 3 minutes of extra speech time. Calling an argument “trash” or something isn’t rude, but calling your opponents “trash” is. If you’re REALLY rude, it is possible for me to vote you down, but this is an extremely high bar that I’ve only come CLOSE to crossing once.

I will only intervene if neither side has made the arguments they’ve gone for clear. This is my least ideal judging situation. The more I have to intervene, the lower your speaks will be.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I do not pretend to have a strict rule for speaker points, and they are adjusted on a tournament-by-tournament basis. What this means is that my average will be contingent upon various parameters of the tournament (i.e. size, pool, length, etc.). My average is a 28.5 and you’ll go up or down from there.

DISADVANTAGES:

They’re great and ½ of my favorite 2NRs.

Politics DAs are awesome.

COUNTERPLANS:

They are also great and the other ½ of my favorite 2NRs.

Textual v functional competition can be debated out. I don’t have particularly strong thoughts about either. Competition is more impactful than theory.

Conditionality is definitely good, but I’ll vote on condo bad if you decide to go for it. That will, however, require lots of work done on the line-by-line and there should probably be an example of in-round abuse.

Advantage CPs are great and underutilized at the high school level.

Multi-plank CPs are fine.

Probably better for Process CPs than most.

PICs are good, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Plan-plus counterplans are bad 99% of the time---not from a theory perspective, but from a substance perspective---just stop reading these

TOPICALITY:

Pretty bad for T vs policy affs, unless

1---The violation is obvious or

2---It’s a new aff.

In situations where your opponents break a new aff that has not been read commonly on the topic, I understand T as a last-ditch strategy and will give the negative some more leeway. That being said, if the aff IS clearly topical, it will still be difficult to get my ballot on T.

While I don’t consider myself a good judge for T, I do place importance on having good interps/reasons to prefer. It is possible for the aff to get my ballot with just a “we meet” argument, so make sure your violation actually applies.

Fairness & clash are not independent impacts---but rather internal links to impacts like education---this is especially true for T against K affs.

T is not an RVI.

Will not flow an ASPEC shell or any other theory shell if it's hidden inside a T shell---stop doing this

KRITIKS (on the aff):

In my ideal debate, the affirmative will defend a hypothetical plan through the USFG and the negative will negate the effects of said plan’s implementation. If I was a critical debater creating my pref sheet for a tournament, I would likely place myself in the 70% range. I personally believe that in an equally debated framework v framework debate, I am likely more easily persuaded by the negative.

In order to get my ballot, you will have to convince me of three primary things by the end of the debate:

1---My ballot in this particular round is key for the solvency of the affirmative.

2---The world of the affirmative creates a better model of debate than the negative, or at the very least, does not create a worse model of debate than the status quo.

3---The affirmative out-teched the negative team and voting affirmative outweighs the offense that the 2NR has.

If you think you are unable to convince me of these three things, you should not read a critical aff in front of me. While it may be harder to win my ballot than some judges, it will not be anything close to impossible. I will reward good debaters, regardless of the arguments they read.

Having a strong framework argument is integral to getting my ballot. In order to prove to me that the model of debate you produce is better or equal to the status quo, you will first have to win that debates over the resolution are bad.

KRITIKS (on the neg):

The three questions from above also apply to this section. In order to win my ballot, you will have to convince me that my ballot in this round is key to solve, that you create a better and/or equal model of debate than the squo, and that you have out-teched your opponents.

If your kritik is a DA, i.e. just “aff perpetuates x, no alt”, refer to the DA section.

I think that the Cap K is extremely strategic on this year’s HS topic---and I’m more than willing to pull the trigger on it if there’s a viable link to the aff. I think that it is extremely strategic to run this as more of a linear DA, too.

Argument vs Style : Both are important, but strength of argument would have 60% weightage (40% for style)

Role of final focus : Summarize succinctly own arguments as well as the ones to counter the opponent

If a team plans to win on an argument, it should be extended in both rebuttal and final speech

I shall vote on arguments raised in crossfire

Analytics vs Evidence : I weigh them equally (50% each)

top-level

qualifications (AKA bragging rights & career highlights): qualified enough to judge. i am majoring in sociology and electric engineering specializing in energy and computers. i have cleared at 10 college policy debate tournaments starting with triples at the northwestern season closer on alliances. on antitrust i was double 2's in getting to doubles at the 2022 Texas Open. i was also double 2's at the 77th NDT during 2023 in virginia on the topic about legal rights for AI, while simultaneously coaching a HS team from Detroit's UDL to clear at NAUDL on the NATO AI topic during the same weekend. i cleared as 17th seed at that NDT as well as clearing as 17th seed during the 2024 ADA tournament at indiana the following year and also making it to the doubles. nothing amazing but i know how to debate.

speaker points: the only reason my inflation for speaker points is probably high if you look back at my speaks is because i cant fight it and i dont want to be the reason someone doesnt make it to elims on speaks. i think speaker point inflation has been wild, but i still probably give out decent speaks compared to most people. however though, that being said, the trade-off here is that i will be probably more critical in the RFD and im direct and straightforward and outspoken so you can argue with me in the decision i dont care it doesnt bother me ill just respond back nicely and still be correct, but i dont mind a lil postrounding, im a debater too i get it, ur invested. just know this:

i dont get paid enough to change your personal opinions, i get paid to give you an RFD. this will be based on who i think won the Debate based on community consensus across the board. it reflects what i think most judges in the pool would think, not my own hot takes. take that into consideration while listening. i believe the judge should adapt to the debaters and i am aware of mainstream debate opinions on most things and takes about the topic about logics that work or do not, and the structure of various arguments, etc. dont judge me based on what others say. time yourself please, and do not go over time because i will be timing so do not try it.

read whatever u want. seriously. i promise you i can judge any debate. i am very familiar with patent law and copyrights as i am a computer engineering major who debated on antitrust and legal rights. if you run critiques, just know i hate when people call it "the K". germany did not win world war 2, we can use our own words to describe things. that's really my only personal pet peeve. otherwise, not super nitpicky, i have a real life outside debate. i honestly couldnt care less about 99% of peoples random miscellaneous hot takes, sorry!

novice things for the neg:

1 - split the block, novices always forget the negative has two back to back speeches (2nc and 1nr) and they should have completely separate arguments from one another (but also not contradictory otherwise it's a performative contradiction). again, they should be totally separate positions, i.e. 2nc takes the counterplan and case, 1nr takes a disadvantage and kicks out of any other argument.

2 - the 2nr must choose and narrow down - you want either a DA, or a case turn, or you could do a DA with a counterplan, butdo not just go for a ton of different random unrelated arguments.narrow down in the 2nr. if you sound all over the place, i will vote aff.

3- 1nc and 1nr should not need prep time - you should have your 1nc ready before the round, and after you finish asking questions to the 2ac you should immediately start working on the 1nr. i recommend the 2nc takes half of the prep time you have, and the 2nr takes the other half. the 1nr should have at least fifteen minutes to prep this way, and it should be a really good speech because you can take one position and just solidly answer every single argument they put on that one position for a winning 2nr.

novice things for the affirmative:

1 - answer every position and try to not drop any flow (as in, any position - you can surely drop parts of a position in novice debate and be fine usually), think about how much time you need to spend on each one in advance and break it down.

2 - don't drop your case in any speech, and put case as the first thing in every affirmative speech. please do not drop their case turns in your 2ac. have blocks that respond to each off case position and if you can do at least that, you're good.

3 - the 1ar only needs a couple good arguments on each flow so just pick and choose and go fast. the 1ar only needs to extend your case impact for 5-10 seconds, and solvency for 5-10 seconds - if you don't do at least that, then i have to vote neg on presumption.

varsity - ABC's

conditionality: unbiased, more in the camp that it depends on the number not the practice, unless aff goes for condo bad outright. 2nr for condo good obviously doesn't need as much as the 2ar's full speech of condo bad, you just need to beat 1ar because 2ar can't make new arguments that weren't in the 1ar. that being said, 2ar still has hindsight and i'll still evaluate ur cross-apps. i dont understand how people still think dispo solves because being able to straight turn multiple neg positions and forcing them to go for them seems untenable and perms only take a couple of seconds to say on each flow so you still have to make most of the arguments otherwise so just set counter-interp to less than theirs or say its bad outright. just choose and make it clear in the 2ac.

cp theory: unbiased usually i dont care either way but generally if you can articulate specific abuse story for the type of counterplan they have it's winnable for the aff for me still but at the end of the day just be real with me about what the impact to their thing is, or if their model and interp is just bad go for that, neg teams should feel good if they justify what they do.

critique: the more u talk about the aff the more likely i will vote for u. dont drop their answers to your super important things, i get that you can drop stuff but it makes me sad when they have an on-point answer that you pretended to not hear. collapse down on the offense and close doors for me. for policy teams answering it, you win the round mostly based on good strategic vision, which are often times realizing they have no actual substance against your basic arguments. use your aff and answer alts, your strategy typically either needs link defense and perm or just really good offense on framework and your aff's impacts not turned or solved by them.

framework against critical affs: i will vote for whoever is doing the better debating about debate i promise less on cheap shots more on impact level, fairness clash education skills are all equally good impacts i am unbiased in terms of each. predictability is your friend and limits should frame how you describe the iteration of your model over the course of a year and otherwise it is an internal link to the above four impacts. testing turns case because refinement, ballot cannot solve because Debate doesnt shape things, their model links back to their own offense because its not intrinsic to reading plans, and mitigating their turns to the process of Debating because they fall back on relying on them in some way are the four key components of negative strategy in my opinion. i think Defense is good, for four examples, the TVA or SSD lets you absorb their impacts with your model, and people can say they dont solve their case with generic presumption pushes or particular conceded cards specific to something they have said that their aff relies on. i know aff will shift but something you have said will probably stick if you are smart and can actually engage with what they are saying.

disadvantages -1ar must answer turns case, uniqueness frames the link for me but i can be convinced otherwise thats fine. in a lot of situations, uniqueness usually either is so powerful it overwhelms the link or it loses to thumpers, so exploit that. i think you should frame conceded internal links against the relative probability of aff solvency or your impact defense on their advantage if you have any, or if you are pairing it with a counterplan then frame it as any risk of a link to net benefit combined with sufficiency framing.

theory- apart from CP theory and conditionality, i often think reject the arg not the team is a decent response to lots of them and i also am willing to hear defenses of some out there things, i think textual competition alone is not too good but in tandem with functional maybe not too bad, lit base usually checks abuse probably but it needs to be winnable arguments.

final notes on strategy

good strategy: there are many different ways to view Debate which are all "good". i believe there are a lot of different ways to understand what "good" strategy is. i'm honestly tired of having opinions on lots of strategic disagreements between different sectors of the Debate community and i molded my brain so much over the years that i really don't have any strong opinions about which strategies are good, in a sense of what wins Debates, comparing community consensus to my own takes. i don't know what the "it" factor always is to win, but it's pretty obvious within the Debate.

Tech first makes sense obviously, but truth first isn't just what someone arbitrarily dictates is the truth on a personal level - it's the framing and narrative of the Debate that isn't just about technical coverage. Most of the time though when it's a simple Debate, Truth = Tech, because they end up being usually the exact same when the winning team goes for dropped arguments that are executed well and become true even when we might not agree on what the capital T Truth is. i care about you having your own arguments you focus on and also answering their arguments they focus on. i flow well enough to know when something is dropped, but good cross-applications can save you. giving a speech with more persuasive and narrative value even if you drop a minor blip is better because well-executed strategy always maximizes your chances of victory.

Don't worry about adjusting your strategy in front of me, unless you double turn yourself, not just multiple contradicting worlds. Debaters are already under enough stress as is at a debate tournament. Just debate well. i can recognize good debaters regardless of what argument you read and how you present yourself, so actually just be yourself and i can give you tips on how to just unlock your true potential based on what you already do, not based on what i want you to do. just go for the argument that is both the most technically sound decision because of lack of technical coverage, AND the argument that is the most coherent in general against the affirmative you're going for and would be your A-strat against the best team that could be reading that aff.

Defense-Offense or Offense-Defense as better known is intuitive to me because of how i have been coached in college, i divide arguments into Defense and Offense intuitively but i don't discriminate if your strategy is more of one than the other. i've seen teams prioritizing the latter in Debates and give incredibly difficult speeches to fight back against effectively even though sometimes i think they don't collapse down and instead extended way too many different pieces of offense. i've seen teams give largely Defensive speeches that i thought were pretty good too, and they were persuasive because they were directly responsive to the other team's primary arguments and largely controlled the direction of the Debate enough to actually determine the condition for the win. Most people do a mix, which is generally good, but interestingly i think different styles are conducive to different ratios of Defense to offense, if that makes sense. But don't overthink it - you should just do what you're already prepared to do.

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly so I may best understand all your arguments. Place importance on rebuttals and empirical evidence in debate. Also place importance on logic.

Policy

I'm okay with anything as long as you know what youre talking about

Run an untopical aff, run a plan, advocacy or no advocacy, run a k do whatever you want as long as you know what youre running and are prepared to win on theory/t. Make sure you can explain it to me bc im not gonna vote on something i dont understand and also dont assume I know your authors.

If you go for T or Theory you have to explain how it actually hurts you in the world of debate- don't just read a shell/shadow extend it. I want you to do a line by line on your standards and voters or I won't vote for it. Also if you read disclosure theory that's an isntant loss and no speaks. Sorry you're rich boohoo.

If you're gonna run a BS CP like a PIC or a consult you best have a DA and not just an INB.

Dont go for multiple world advocacies in the 2nr. pick one- you can run multiple advocacies throughout the round- but only go for one

If u go for theory, that better be the only thing u go for or i wont vote on it

LD/Pufo

more impacts based and please do weighing the last speech- i will defer to FW

hi! my name is shea (he/him)

put me on the email chain: shea.rueda@gmail.com

I debated with The Bishop's School for 3 years and Capitol Debate before that. I did PF and LD in high school (mainly LD) and I currently compete with USC in college policy. I have experience debating on the national circuit but also a lot of local lay type of tournaments.

*Novice*

Novice debaters: You can basically ignore the rest of my paradigm besides this section.

• Make sure to clearly tell me which argument you are talking about during your speeches (ex: "On first contention, we have three responses here..."). I always found that giving my judges a brief off time roadmap was helpful for organization.
• I know debate can be heated at times, but please remember to be respectful and courteous to your opponents (and your partner!) before, during, and after the round.
• I will keep time but also try to keep your own time as well, it's a good habit.
• Please don't interrupt your opponents speech to say that they went over time or set a timer that goes off really loud. I promise that I'll notice when they go over time and stop flowing.
• In your final focus (even summary), I would advise you to not go for every single argument in the round--talk about the most important points of the round and tell me why you're winning there.
• Make sure to to not assume that the judge automatically believes something (ex: don't just say that the impact of the argument is climate change, tell me why climate change is bad and why it's the most important argument).
• Weight between different arguments. Tell me which impact has the most magnitude or probability to happen. Extra speaker points if y'all get into why your weighing mechanism that you're winning is more important than your opponents!
• If your evidence clashes with your opponents, tell me why you should prefer your evidence (author credentials, recency, they misinterpret the text).
• Ask for evidence during prep time. If there's a dispute over evidence I will check it post round.

TLDR:

1- Policy/Traditional

2/3- Cap, Set Col, and Pess

3-Theory/T

4-Other Ks

5-Phil

Strike-Tricks

General:

Tab approach, don't assume I know or believe almost anything

I debated mostly policy args in high school, I'm most comfortable with this. I ran a bit of theory and some Ks infrequently

i'm good with you recording the round, ask your opponent

PLEASE SIGNPOST, it's really annoying trying to flow when I don't know which flow you're talking about and I'm not that fast at typing or writing lol

Being sarcastic is fine with me, but being rude or overly abrasive during the round will dock your speaks + L for egregious violations

Speed: slow down on analytics and tags (like 30% slower than on cards)

I will say slow or clear like 4 times before I start docking speaks

Tech> Truth but please still explain throughly in later speeches what arg was dropped, why that matters, etc

BUT if your arg is just inherently and blatantly wrong I won't vote on that

Serious evidence ethics claims will stop the round

I love weighing work done early and often, but esp in the later speeches

Crystalize in the last speech, tell me why you're winning

I default to 1ar theory is fine and no rvis but I would be open to voting on those

Ask for cards during prep time

I'm not gonna vote for death good

Pre round disclosure is a good norm, but I'm not gonna buy your shell if the arg is new

I think avg/middle of the pack speaks should be around 27.5

Policy/Traditional

I did this the most in high school and I'm most comfortable with this

I'm gonna get really bored by the end of the tournament, run a unique arg

I usually don't buy "no risk of the DA" but its possible if you explain it

CPs: Be explicit with the solvency, what it is, how it solves the aff

PICs, Agent, Consult, Process CPs are good, but i'm willing to hear theory about why it isn't

K

I like both K affs and negs, I think some of the best educational experiences for me in debate have come out of these rounds

K on the neg: I'll consider generic links but it's that much easier for me to also buy a "no link" arg. Tell me how you generate offense in the later speeches.

Like CPs, be specific with the solvency, why it solves the link/aff

Theory/T

Don't run a billion shells against a novice or traditional debater, like bruh.

I default to reject the arg, not the team, tell me why to reject the team

Weighing between standards is k2 my ballot

Default to presumption flows neg, but tell me why it doesn't

TVAs are compelling

Phil

I hit Kant a fair amount, but I never ran phil myself, assume I know nothing and over explain

Author indicts to phil are compelling to me, but only when you explain why the indict proves their theories are problematic/wrong and why that means we should reject.

+0.1 speaks If you make a Celtics reference

I am a parent judge.

Please time yourself.

Be courteous and respectful.

Enjoy yourself.

Thank you.

Hello!

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

Best of luck to all :)

CONGRESS

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

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

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

LD/PF

These paradigms apply to both LD and PF:

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

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

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

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

I value debaters who bring fresh perspectives and innovative ideas to the table as original arguments and creative approaches enhance the quality of a debate. I appreciate well-organized speeches with clear introductions, body, and conclusions.

Clear articulation and concise expression are crucial for effective communication, debaters who convey complex ideas in a straightforward manner receive higher scores. I value well-researched arguments supported by credible evidence. Debaters who engage the audience through expressive gestures and vocal variety perform well.

Hello! Please speak loud and clearly. Make sure not to bring up new points in your second speech and focus on the impacts on your last speech. Make sure to have good evidence and warrants to back up your points. Finally, don’t be rude to your opponents or talk over them aggressively!

I am a parent judge. I am engineer by training and profession. This is my first year judging but I am an avid follower of debates. I do my research on topics and as a human I do form views, but I will NOT use it to judge the debaters.

My Focus:

• Be respectful and have a healthy debate.
• Have a clear flow to arguments, present evidence and be concise.
• Clarity and ability to understand arguments without being the loudest voice.
• Special focus on crossfire and rebuttals.

I was in speech for four years, and did debate for two; I like to think I keep up to date on world events and am pretty educated on this type of stuff in general, but please remember to define your terms. I’m truth over tech. Try not to spread too much, I understand y’all wanna say a lot and the time limit can be kinda limiting, but just don’t be obnoxious about it. I love it when people can get passionate about a topic in debate, but just remember to be respectful to your opponents and not be rude or anything like that. Try not to go overtime. NO THEORY.

-your judge (Aidan)

I am a seasoned debate coach with 14 years of experience, having competed both in high school and college. My judging philosophy is rooted in the belief that debate is a valuable educational activity that teaches critical thinking, effective communication, and advocacy skills. I appreciate and prioritize well-researched arguments, sound logical reasoning, and persuasive speaking techniques. My judging style is fair, respectful, and focused on evaluating the round based on the merits of the arguments presented.

Values and Criteria:

1. Clarity and Communication: I value clear and effective communication. Debaters should strive for clarity in their speech and organization, ensuring that their arguments are easily understood by all participants, including me as the judge.

2. Research and Evidence: Well-researched arguments supported by credible evidence are essential. I appreciate debaters who delve into deep research to support their claims. Quality evidence strengthens the persuasiveness of your arguments.

3. Critical Thinking: I prioritize critical thinking and expect debaters to analyze and engage with the arguments presented. Thoughtful analysis, rather than mere assertion, demonstrates a deep understanding of the topic and enhances the overall quality of the debate.

4. Respect and Sportsmanship: Respect for opponents, fellow debaters, and the activity itself is crucial. I expect all participants to maintain a high level of sportsmanship throughout the round. Respectful cross-examination and rebuttals are appreciated.

5. Adaptability: Debaters should be adaptable and able to respond effectively to different arguments and debate styles. Flexibility in strategy and the ability to adjust to the round's dynamics are valuable skills.

Philosophy: I believe that debate is not just about winning arguments but also about personal growth and learning. While I acknowledge the competitive aspect of the debate, I encourage debaters to view each round as an opportunity to enhance their skills, regardless of the outcome. I appreciate creativity and innovation in argumentation and encourage debaters to think outside the box.

I adhere to the principle of fairness and will evaluate the round impartially. I am open to various debate formats and styles, and I will adapt my judging approach accordingly. My decision will be based on the strength of the arguments presented, the quality of evidence, and the overall persuasive abilities of the debaters.

Analysis and Sound Argumentative Techniques: I place a strong emphasis on the quality of analysis and argumentation. Debaters should focus on developing coherent and logical arguments. Here are some additional points regarding analysis and argumentative techniques:

1. Impactful Arguments: I appreciate arguments that are not only logically sound but also have a clear impact on the round. Debaters should explain the implications of their arguments and why they matter in the context of the debate.

2. Comparative Analysis: Comparative analysis is key to winning debates. Debaters should compare and contrast their arguments with those of their opponents, highlighting the differences and explaining why their arguments are superior.

3. Framework and Criterion: Debaters should establish a clear framework for the round and a criterion for evaluating the arguments. A well-defined framework provides a lens through which I can assess the debate's key issues.

4. Organization: Structured speeches enhance the clarity of arguments. Debaters should organize their speeches coherently, with clear signposting and a logical flow of ideas.

5. Rebuttal Skills: Effective rebuttals are essential. Debaters should address key arguments made by their opponents, pointing out flaws in reasoning and presenting counterarguments. Impactful refutation can significantly influence my decision.

I approach each round with an open mind, valuing clear communication, rigorous analysis, and respectful engagement. I encourage debaters to present their best arguments, supported by thorough research and critical thinking. Remember, debate is not only a competition but also a valuable learning experience, and I look forward to a constructive and enlightening debate round.

Dear Congress and Speech Candidates,

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

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

Good luck, godspeed, and please enjoy yourselves.

Hey there, everyone! Just wanted to drop a quick hello as I step into the judge's shoes for your speech and debate showdown. I primarily focus on training primary, high school, and college students. My experience spans a variety of speech forms, including prepared, impromptu, informative speeches, and OO. I've judged and trained students for competitions such as the 35th Annual Stanford Invitational and other NSDA regional competitions. On top of that, I had the privilege of adjudicating at various national and regional competitions in China, offering me a diverse perspective on speech styles and competition scales. Furthermore, I have coached teams in the realm of Public Forum (PF) debates, although this year marks my inaugural endeavor as a judge in this particular format.

As a judge for speech events, I'll be assessing speeches based on several key factors. Firstly, it's essential that speeches are clear and well-organized, making them easy for the audience to follow. I'll be looking for compelling content, supported by relevant and persuasive evidence. Effective delivery is crucial too, speakers should showcase confidence, articulate expression, and maintain an appropriate pace. In the context of speech events, creativity and originality will be valued, along with the ability to engage and connect with the audience. Overall, I'm eager to see a blend of well-thought-out content, polished delivery, and a genuine connection with the audience in each speech event.

In PF debates, it's all about speaking clearly, passionately, and logically, proving your arguments. Show me your conviction with extraordinary evidence and logical links, as well as a deep understanding of the essence of the debate. In the heat of crossfires, having solid objectives or tactics is a winning factor. Let's keep it clear and to the point when laying out your questions. When we're in the thick of it, keep it civil, but let me know you're here to win. Have effective strategies to defend your contentions, and don't forget to break down those Key Voting Issues (KVI) logically and persuasively. Ensure you have great logical links for everything.

I hope you all have a mind-blowing educational experience. Let your words be as powerful as your arguments. As your judge, I'm here to check out and cheer on your persuasive speaking skills. Let's keep things top-notch and fair in this competition. Good luck, everyone!

I care most about your effectiveness as a speaker, your content, and being a courteous person.

I do not care for spreading, cramming, and being rude to opponents.

I am a flay judge - lay judge who flows through the debate so I am looking for effective arguments, flaws in opponent cases and persuasive speaker.

Hi There,

I am new to Judging but exited at the same time.

I am looking for clear communication and it doesn't have to be too speed or slow, just go with your normal pace.

I will be looking at effort you put in, preparedness on the subject, critical thinking and collaboration.

Good luck.

My paradigm is pretty simple. Speak slow enough and concise enough to be understood. Make your points directly and clearly. :-)

I am not a flow judge really, so ideally if we can steer away from spreading that would be preferred. Can definitely have some speed but obviously within reason. If you have your case in a Speechdrop that I can follow that would make my life a lot easier however not a requirement. In terms of in-round behavior not a big fan of passive-aggressive behavior (i.e. snide remarks you may think are said under your breath but everyone can hear you) so please be polite, and play fair. Any problematic or ill-mannered behavior will cause me to give the ballot to your competitor.

Lay judge. 4th year of judging. I have judged many, many tournaments. I keep myself informed on current events/news including complex issues. Please be very organized in your speeches and be polite during questioning. Time yourselves please. DO NOT SPREAD.

Yuhadhi

What school(s) are you affiliated with? Oakwood School

Were you a competitor when in school? If so, what style of debate did you do, and for how many years?

Not in debate but I grew up in Illinois and competed in the IHSA division all four years in HI and HDA ( it's duo but only humorous pieces) for 4 years and placed 3rd at Regionals in HI and was a finalist in HDA my junior year and 4th at Regionals in HI and HDA my senior year and was a Sectional finalist in both events but missed going to state by one point in each event from a judge who told us "don't break the fourth wall" when giving our introductions so I promise to be an amazing judge for you (outta spite for what that parent judge did to us lol) if I am judging any interp or duo rounds.

As far as debate goes I got familiar with debate through my previous employment with Enreach Education in Shanghai, China, and have been coaching debate for the past year.

How often do you judge debate? Almost every tournament I have students entered in.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Just a little faster than conversational

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? Yes, I will use a hand motion that is slow and smooth to signal to speak slower/clearer

Evaluating the Round

1. How do you evaluate framework in the round? I’m looking for if they directly addressed the topic, understood the basic issue, and clearly explained their position

2. Do you expect to see a value and a value criterion? Yes

3. What are your thoughts on reading plan texts, counterplans, or kritiks in LD? I think it’s okay.

4. What is most important to you when you decide who wins? What team was overall more prepared for this debate

Other Notes

In a few sentences, describe the type of debate you would like most to hear or any other things debaters/coaches should know about your judging style.

I’m there to see you do your best so put your best foot forward. This is your time to shine and show me that you have put in the work and know your facts/framework/contentions. I enjoy humorous but not snarky responses.

If I am judging Parli I am not the biggest fan of tag teaming. You should not have to rely on your partner feeding you what to say verbally when you are speaking. Be confident yourself! Passing notes to help a struggling partner is fine but when it comes to tag teaming you should be able to state your arguments and rebuttals in your own words so I am most likely going to choose whatever team has a more even balance of stronger speakers instead of a team with one strong person carrying the debate.

I am the parent judge and this is my 2nd year judging speech. I value well-structured cases, clear arguments, and explicit weighing. I like empirical evidence rather than emotion. I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to connect the dots.

In terms of experience, I competed in some collegiate IPDA tournament's, but I mostly competed in platform and interpretation events. I competed at Mt. San Antonio College and we just recently won Gold at our national Phi Rho Pi tournament. My experience in forensics as a whole allows me to know specifically what I look for in a speaker.

Some general rules:

Do not be rude while you’re speaking or while anyone else is speaking.
You do not need to change your style for me. I will be able to keep up.
I appreciate off time road maps.
No spreading and I do not disclose after the round is over.

In general, I’m here to help you grow and thrive in this event. I hope it is fun and rewarding!

email is megan@adcominc.us

Judge Paradigm: Albert Wang

Experience: I have been actively engaged in Model United Nations for multiple years, participating in various conferences and honing my skills in public speaking, critical analysis, and diplomacy. Additionally, I have extensive experience in the business world, serving in leadership roles where effective communication and strategic thinking are paramount.

Philosophy: As a judge, I value clear and concise communication, backed by well-researched arguments and a strong understanding of the topic at hand. Drawing from my background in economics and business, I appreciate speakers who demonstrate analytical thinking, creativity, and adaptability in their presentations. Moreover, I believe in the power of persuasion through engagement, whether it be through storytelling, humor, or emotional appeals.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Content: I expect speakers to present thorough research, well-structured arguments, and innovative ideas. Originality and depth of analysis are key components that I look for in evaluating the strength of a speech's content.
2. Delivery: I pay close attention to vocal clarity, articulation, and nonverbal cues. A confident and dynamic delivery can significantly enhance the persuasiveness of a speech, capturing the audience's attention and effectively conveying the speaker's message.
3. Engagement: I appreciate speakers who engage with their audience, fostering a connection through compelling narratives, humor, or emotive appeals. Audience engagement is fundamental to effective communication and persuasion.
4. Adaptability: I admire speakers who can adapt their delivery style and content to suit different audiences and speaking environments. Flexibility and the ability to adjust based on feedback demonstrate skill and versatility as a communicator.
5. Relevance: I value speeches that demonstrate a clear understanding of the topic and its relevance to the audience. Speakers should effectively convey why their message matters and how it relates to broader themes or issues.

Feedback: I strive to provide constructive feedback that highlights both strengths and areas for improvement. My goal is to support the growth and development of speakers by offering actionable insights and guidance. I encourage speakers to seek clarification or further discussion on any feedback provided.

Additional Notes: I believe in fostering a positive and inclusive learning environment where all participants feel valued and supported. I welcome diverse perspectives and experiences in speeches and encourage competitors to approach me with any questions or concerns they may have. Let's work together to make this tournament a rewarding and enriching experience for everyone involved.

Debate:

I did speech for 6 years but also dabbled in PF so I do consider myself to be somewhat knowledgeable when it comes to debate events. I personally love a an active and engaging crossfire. I think clash in crossfire is good so long as both sides are not disrespectful or mean when asking or answering questions. That is when I will start to adapt my ballot to reflect that behavior. Prove to me that not only did you understand the resolve but also that your case is relevant, important, and impactful. In terms of speeches, you are not peanut butter, NO NEED TO SPREAD!!! I can understand spreading but I like to flow so speaking at somewhat average speed is always desirable. One thing that wins debates for me is your link chain. If you can make it all make sense and capitalize on your contention(s), weighing, and impacts, I am all ears. Might throw in some extra speaking points if you mention a Dance Moms or Survivor reference. Good luck!

Speech:

Just give me life, liberty, and property!!!

With 30 years of experience as a university history professor, I have developed a keen interest in judging speech and debate competitions, particularly Extemporaneous events. My approach to scoring encompasses various aspects, including content, voice, demeanor, and the use of visual aids (when applicable).

I believe debate should be about the students, so I am open to any arguments you want to run. Please do not spread

I am a parent volunteer judge. My feedback is subjective.

I have done PF and Policy in high school.

Tech over Truth

Remember to sign a post or else

Don't go too fast unless you disclose to me. If I didn't catch it I won't flow

I would buy Ts/Ks but you need to get the structure right

I don't flow cross

Be nice to each other

Judging Philosophy

I believe each team should give actual strong arguments instead of having a lot of arguments and collapsing on one, but I won't vote solely on that. Also, articulation of arguments is important because I need to fully understand each part of a contention to be able to vote on it. I also really like wacky and weird arguments but you would need to also make it make sense for me to buy it. Another thing is that you don't have to be too formal with me I won't get mad at you for singing your 1AC (I encourage it). Most importantly, have fun.

I've been a speech supervisor for more than ten years. Pls focus on the delivery of your idea. If you are not sure about your delivery, pls send me the speech via email: zhaohaping@nbu.edu.cn, or in the chatbox, which might help me judge a bit.

For Original Oratory, three keys in content: Importance, Relatability, Originality. Speakers can emphasize the significance of the speech. (for example, Why is it related to the society? How does it affect the world? Why people should care about it?) Speakers can involve audience in the speech, relate the issue with audience. In delivery, non-verbal: eye contact, gestures are the most important. Verbal delivery is important as well: pace, intonation, pitch, tone, volume, pronunciation.

For debate, 1 constructive part, I focus more on Logic, arguments, impacts, each team should clearly know their burden in debate. Premise-contention-evidence-logic-impact should be connected. 2 rebuttal, teams should attack more contentions from opponents instead of extending more case. 3 summary, when teams cannot convince me to buy their clashes, I will conclude clashes from my point of view.

Really appreciate teams who do impact weighing!