I am a parent judge, I evaluate argumentative logic first and care about evidence quality and evidence ethics. Speaking presentation and style are for speaker points but do not substantively impact who wins or loses the debate. Please do not paraphrase when you first introduce evidence. Also, please don't speed-read.

Like to stay in the current state of affairs and like public forum debates given the relevance. Been judging PF style debates for over a year across several tournaments

Hi guy's my Name is Javin. I am a college student at Sacramento city college herein Sacramento, I have family that lives in the bay area. I love the sport of debate wish I have taken it when I was in school, but I taken a different course. All in all I am a solid judge to get to know. Happy debating !! Also please slow down enough so I can follow along with the topics discussion.

Keep it civil, please!

I like to watch stronger topics vs teams attacking eachother.

Stay calm. I like clarity and confidence. I know everyone is nervous, but dont let it get the better of your performace.

Keep me engaged!

Make sure you get everything in before your time is up. <3

Experience:

I am a parent of an avid debater. I have judged debates in the past and I really enjoy when a debater brings their authentic self to the competition. Be authentic, score points.

Content:

I believe debates are won and lost in the curation of your content. When you make a claim, be very clear and to the point to make your case. Be mindful of not getting distracted by related but less important detail. Focus, focus, focus on those metrics that best make your case and be ready to let go of the ones that do not add that much. Rank your content in order of impact.

Style:

Your content can only go as far as your delivery allows. Be clear, don't go so fast that the judge has a hard time following you. Take your time, state your claim clearly and then go on to make the case. Be expressive, show emotions, modulate your voice, and the most important, make eye contact. Making eye contact shows you are confident, paying attention and care that someone is listening.

Fun:

I like when debaters have fun with their topic. Be creative in bringing out the alternate angle, add humor, add and edge to your claims and you will score points.

My background: PhD in Chemistry coupled with an MBA degree with an emphasis on finance and operation management. I grew up and completed my undergraduate studies in Asia before pursuing postgraduate education in the United States.

I started to judge in regional and national tournaments in the year of 2021, primarily PF debates.

Logic flow is important to me. I like arguments that are logically consistent and presented in an organized manner. I have a hard time following arguments without a clear and solid logical flow.

Trained as a scientist in my early career, I tend to be data/evidence driven. Credible evidence is important to support your arguments. Quantitative data makes your arguments stronger.

Debaters should prioritize clear and effective communications in your speeches, avoiding spreading (i.e., speaking rapidly or spreading out a large volume of information in a short amount of time).

I would like debaters to treat your opponents with respect and have fun.

I am a parent judge. I am looking for fluency and justified claims. Evidence must flow logically and must be factual. Arguments must be linked in a way the opponent can understand the justification. Please be kind during cross examination. Be respectful and have fun! Good luck debaters!!

I'm a parent judge and have limited experience with judging speech/debate. Please speak clearly and emphasize on the main points and evidences. I can't handle fast speed. I value speech quality and offer speaker points. As for PF, I like contestants that defend their cases well and raise questions/validations of their opponents' case.

I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.

Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.

University of Central Florida Alumnus

Four years of LD for Fort Lauderdale HS and former policy debater for UCF.
Pronouns: he/him/his

Email: delondoespolicy@gmail.com

***Avoid graphic explanations of gratuitous anti-black violence and refrain from reading radical Black positions if you are not Black.***

If you're rushing to do prefs here's a rough cheat sheet:

1- K and performance debates
2- framework debates, general topical debates
3- LARP debates and util debates
4- Theory/ Tricks debates

I will evaluate any argument so long as they are not morally repugnant, actively violent, or deeply rooted in foolishness. I can handle speed but due to the online setting, please go slower than you usually do. Also, be sure to properly extend and implicate your arguments in the debate as well, saying "extend X" and moving on doesn't really do much. In short, tell me why your arguments matter and why I should vote on/evaluate them. At the end of the day do what you do best—unless it's tricks and/or frivolous interps— and have fun doing it.

I like clarity over speed. Speak clearly and confidently so I do not miss important details that you are mentioning.

You got this!

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

I am a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Avoid jargon. Explain your points in the simplest terms.

Judge: Prince Jose
Background: Over 3 years of experience in speech and debate.
Philosophy: Prioritizes clear, structured arguments with effective communication.
Delivery: Emphasizes good eye contact and gestures.
Content: Values structured content with evidence and support. Memorable phrases, content recaps.
Persuasion: Engage the audience, include thrilling stories and surprises.
Dislikes: Disrespectful behavior and over-reliance on notes.
Advice: Advocate with conviction. Be daring in your presentation approach.
Feedback Promise: Committed to offering insights that foster growth and enhance speaking abilities.

Please speak clearly and loudly in normal speed. It is hard to follow when you go too fast especially in loud environments. Good Luck!

Treat me as a PF lay judge during the round. To win the round here are the following things to prioritize:

1) Slow and steady speed

Although I will be able to understand most of your content, make sure to slow down and be clear about what you want me to prioritize in the round (main arguments, pieces of evidence, voter issues).

2) Make sure to extend your arguments (the arguments you want me to vote on) to the final focus.

3) Be respectful to your opponents and everyone else in the round

Hello,

This is my first time Judging a competition. Please speak clearly. I am looking for the clarity of your thoughts. Do the best you can and have fun!

I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a video, but I'm new to judging. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

My email is brianylee2003@yahoo.com. I am a parent judge. I have no prior debate experience, but my child has competed in PF for the past year. You should assume that I am knowledgeable about the topic if it is PF.

Evidence: I am not tech > truth, so if you want to argue the sky is green, I won't buy it. But I am open to reasonable interpretations of evidence (e.g., sky is purple, pink, orange, blue, a mixture of hues, etc.), particularly if your opponent fails to contest your interpretation.

Please be honest about your evidence. Your credibility matters A LOT. If your opponent points out a weakness in your evidence, you can try to dodge it by diversion, etc., but don't outright lie about it. If you're caught in an outright lie, you WILL lose your round.

Moreover, I want to reward the team that has done its research and can back up their contentions with solid evidence. That's why it is not uncommon for me, especially during elimination rounds, to request to examine cards that I think are crucial to how I might decide the debate.

Spreading/Speaker Score: Don't speak at a supersonic speed. My upper limit for comprehension is about 200 words per minute. So if your speech exceeds 800 words in a 4-minute speech, consider shortening it. Competitive debate may be the only activity where confusing your opponent through mumbling is allowed. I accept it as the reality, but I don't want to reward it. Spread at your own risk.

Beyond your mastery of language and confident articulation, I'm also looking for the ability to explain complex ideas simply and logically. Clarity is crucial in getting a high speaker score from me. Be careful about tossing around jargons. While I may understand it, excessive use of jargons in lieu of plain speaking may lower your speaker score.

During cross, I want to see polite, but assertive examination. Being passive may lower your speaker score.

Constructive: During this phase, I'm looking for debaters to (a) describe a problem, (b) explain to me precisely how the resolution you're advocating for will help solve the problem, and (c) tell me the impacts.

Too often I see debaters unable (or perhaps unwilling) to describe the problem beyond vague, general terms. For example, if you want to argue Chinese hegemony, tell me what specific behavior of China you want to stop or counter. Simply throwing around fancy labels like "hegemony" or "multi-polarity" won't do it for me.

The same goes for (b). To convince why your proposal will work, you need to cite either a credible expert explaining how it will work, or a historical example showing how it has worked, or at least logical reasoning and common sense why it will help. If, after four minutes, I struggle to connect the dots, it would be challenging for me to lean in your favor.

When it comes to impacts, I don't always go with the biggest one. I measure magnitude of an impact along with likelihood as well as timeframe. More importantly, if you don't do (a) and (b) well, I can't give you (c). In other words, accessing (c) is a direct function of doing (a) and (b) well.

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.

Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus. Rebuttal is straightforward, so I won't elaborate. For summary and final focus, I'm looking for debaters who can bring CLARITY (yes, that word again). That often means collapsing if you have three or more contentions and telling me how the contentions interact with each other. Tell me what I need to focus on, why your contention wins, and why your impacts outweigh. Clarity is the key to earning my vote.

Good luck!

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

Judging:

I’m a flow type of judge. And judge based on the following.

1. The topic/Message being made clear

2. Evidence is provided if asked for or needed

3. Mannerisms, no hostility or rudeness during the debate

4. I don’t usually flow during cross but if there’s a question or something about the logic that really stands out to me ill let it be known

5. Points being correctly attacked and built up

6. But I’ll also give feed back on what could’ve been done better or pointers on how to make a certain point or topic stronger, suggestions

Speech:

I judge based off of:

1. Topic/Message made clear

2. Manners/Hand gestures/Facial expressions are important, it helps convey the story

3. Volume and eye contact help keep a piece together, especially in intense moments

4. Ones acting in general, if one is trying to act something out and it’s not clear just exactly what they’re supposed to be doing it can throw off the entire scene

5. Passion, a piece can seem robotic or made to seem completely bland without some type of enthusiasm behind it.

About me:

Please call me Joi! I’ve been doing speech and debate from 6th grade up until the day I graduated high school. The events I’ve done are DUO, DI, HI, OPP, Impromptu, Public Forum, Parliamentary and a plethora of others. Speech and debate I guess you can say was my life and I’ll love it until the day I die. Whether it be competing or judging I’ll stop at nothing to help people get better and lift up those who need it even if they’re against me. It’s not something I take lightly but even throughout the seriousness I believe speech and debate is a place for not only competition, but to have fun as well as meet long term family members, not just friends.

Please add me to the email chain and send your cases as well so I can follow along! My email is rocklynry@gmail.com

I've been in the forensics world as a coach, and competitor for about 15 years. I started in Policy Debate, so I am familiar with most debate jargon, but have coached competitive Public Forum for about 8 years now. I have also taught LD, Parli, and Most speech events way way back when.

Overall:

1. Do you clash with the opposing positions?

2. Do you test/provide links and scenarios for your positions? Weighing on the links, the uniqueness, having strong topical internal links for your impacts will take you far with me. Don't lose the links in the mess of the Rebuttal/Summary.

3. Do you guide the flow and focus of the round and provide Extensions & impact calculus accordingly?

4. The Affirmative has the Burden to Prove. The Negative has the Burden to Disprove. If the Negative provides as much ground as the Affirmative zeroing out the Affirmative proofs of the resolution, the Negative wins the round. Remember the Affirmative Burden to prove the resolution. Of course the Affirmative also gets the first crack at interpreting what "defending the Resolution" means.

5. Topicality: Is an important procedural. It is not bad for PF for people to stay on Topic, it is not a policy debate only structure. That said, if you are going to argue T, do it right please. I need to have a clear interpretation, violation, and standard for the procedural.

6. Dropped / Kicked positions & arguments are conceded only in so far the links are concerned. Unless the impact is also conceded/kicked then the implications of a scenario can still be evaluated.

Some other Notes:

A. Tech over Truth: I don't care if what your saying is true in my book, I care if it is substantiated and structurally sound.

B. Delivery wins you Speaks, Not Rounds. I will not give the ballot to the better speaker, but to what I perceived to be the better proven/substantiated positions.

C. Offensive beats defense any day of the week. Very few rounds are won on terminal defense.

D. Don't be rude or combative when unnecessary. I won't make you lose because of it, but accessibility in debate is a high value. Let's not make this activity harder for those less aggressively inclined.

E. Link Debate > Impact Debate: Scenarios & Causality beats out "Nuclear War" any day. That said, have big impacts, and be able to playtest/provide analytics as well as evidence for them.

Kritiks:

I feel that most Ks are there to avoid clash in the debate. This does not mean I don't love a GOOD K, but I would argue they are few and far between. PF especially seems an odd place for most K debate, except at perhaps the highest levels of PF debate, primarily HS. As far as answering Kritiks, in PF if you can provide an interpretation that just says "TVA/N" then I will probably accept it unless well contested. Arguing that depth of topic analysis is better than randomized exposure to new ideas without disclosure also would work as an analytic (since many teams don't disclose in PF). In any case, K debate can be warranted, and should not be avoided IF NECESSARY or if it would actually make for the best CLASH and best EDUCATION in the round. In most debates this is not the case for PF.

A. Kritiks are improved by a direct link to the Affirmative Truth/position. The Kritik should directly indict the truth of the Aff case, positions, or advocacy. I like Kritiks less when the discussion starts to get into the "Role of the Ballot" but there are exceptions to this. Some issues are worth talking about over any topic links/case connections. That said, it is not my go to, so you have been warned. I am not against Affirmative Framework answers, but prefer direct CLASH between the initial case and the Negative Kritik. Neg teams should argue that Aff impacts are caused by the issues weighed in the Kritik, and that the Aff should defend those assumptions. If the K Aff is being discussed, things get a little messier for me, but most of the above discourse flips. That said, a K Aff does intrinsically fail to link to the Neg case in most PF rounds (unless run against a Neg Case that presented first, in that very niche scenario).

B. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

I am a parent judge. I prefer clarity in the arguments presented with relevant fact based evidence in making your point. I would like the debaters to be respectful to each other and conduct themselves in a professional manner.

I am currently a sophomore at Emory university. I debated public forum at the quarry lane school for four years.

tech > truth

please add me to the email chain - snellian@student.quarrylane.org. Send speech docs before each speech !

I'm fine with speed, but make sure you're clear. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Any offense you're going for in final focus should be extended completely (uniqueness, links, impacts) in summary. Cross is binding but doesn't matter unless it's in speech. Please collapse !

Start weighing as early as possible and definitely focus on comparative weighing (both link and impact level if possible), when I'm looking at the arguments, I'll start with the one with the strongest weighing.

Always be respectful towards your opponents. I won't evaluate arguments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. Lastly, debate can be stressful but make sure to have fun :)

Regarding prog arguments, I have little to no experience with Ks (I’ve debated a K maybe once or twice). If you want to read a K, I think it’s super interesting but I probably won’t be able to evaluate it well and am not a great judge for that. I’ve debated/read theory before, and have more experience with it than Ks, but I’m not extremely experienced with it either.

Good luck and feel free to email me before or after the round if you have any questions.

uc davis 26 james logan high school 22

former circuit policy debater qualed to the toc my senior year

tech>truth

yes add me to the email chain - lucnguy@ucdavis.edu

I'm cool with speed but be clear that being said if I'm on a panel with other judges, please adjust your speaking speed to the level of comfort in the room

my paradigm will closely reflect my teammates --> mateo mijares + jack jacobs -- (cept the part on jacks paradigm where he says copying ev onto a doc to send out is prep. this is objectively wrong. i don't care) you can check out their paradigms for a more comprehensive understanding of my judging philosophy

don't be racist or homophobic i hope this goes without saying

K's r cool, Policys cool - just warrant out your arguments & have fun

I am a software professional with responsibilities in managing Engineering orgs.

Although I have not competed in public forum debates, I have been a parent-judge for few tournaments now and understand the process and its intricacies.

Here are few things I like :

1. A good rebuttal, not just questioning an argument : It doesnt just help questioning your opponents argument but providing a counter argument aka rebuttal adds true weight to your argument.
2. Clear communication
3. Focus and stress on your key winning points.
4. Good evidence : Reasonable logic is good but a legit evidence can trump a good reasoning given legit evidence is based on research by a reputable organization. As a judge, participants are welcome to question either the source of evidence or the content within by providing counter evidence. I will intervene when there is a contradiction in interpreting the evidence / card.

Here are few things I do not like :

1. Running away with words : Communication is about your ability to get your message across to your listeners. If your listeners are unable to catch your words, your message is lost. When you run away with words, to me its more about you vomiting words more than communicating.
2. Back your statement with legit evidence : Do not throw statements that you are unable to backup with legit evidence.
3. Going tangential and not Sticking to the topic and its scope : Don't play scare tactics. Such as calling out potential nuclear war for topics such as "High Speed rail" or "Single Usage Plastics ban". The result will be counter productive since I perceive this as a lack of an understanding and being focused on the immediate impacts.

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.

I am a fellow parent and has a very little experience judging PF and speech tournaments. Expecatations are very less to speaking clearly and slowly , explaining key points or terms as understandable to common audiences . Stating your sides politely . Good contentions and tactful rebuttals are a value add .

Expecting a good decorum among debaters!

I am a parent judge and I expect that the speeches should be clear and pronounced. Do not go to fast while talking and you get higher speaker points for how well you perform your speech and the creativity in your speech. Be respectful of your competitors throughout the round and good luck to everyone! Have fun!!

I am a waitress. I'm kinda new to judging debate. Please speak slowly &clearly. Get your key points across! Expecting a great debate amongst you all!!

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

I am a UC Berkeley undergrad, debated british parli for a bit but mostly PF in HS for about 4-5 years. I haven’t judged in 3 years so be clear on all your args

There a few things to keep in mind:

I like:

• weighing
• sign post always
• be nice to ur opponents and me
• send me speech docs before (ahead) don't send me multiple files of your cards
• articulate very clearly, speak at a reasonable pace, don't spread but i can handle speed
• i don't know much about the topic so only say what is key and important to win your case
• If it’s not in summary, it won’t count in your final focus. Please weigh and use impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc).
• tell me clearly where to vote and why. don't go for everything by the end. collapse.
• Tech > truth
• be respectful, nice, don't be rude. and i mean this.
• Announce when your prep time is starting/ending.
• Don’t just read author names for cards, remind me what the card said and why it matters.
• never lie of evidence: I expect all evidence to be fully carded, not just a link. I will call for cards if they may largely impact the vote or sound sketchy.

I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.

I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.

I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.

I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.

I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.

I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.

Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.

MY PARADIGM, IT DOES RHYME

A reluctant judge who’s a parent,

Better make your speeches coherent!

Don’t run theory or a clever K,

Risky strategies because I’m lay.

Surely, you don’t dare to spread.

Rely on good warranting instead!

Fake a conflict, and I’ll hold a grudge--

Use a proper strike to remove me as your judge.

I’ll do my best to keep a good flow,

Of all the arguments apropos.

Don’t falsely say an argument was dropped,

Or your score will unceremoniously be chopped.

Near impossible to earn 30 speaks--

Lay appeal combined with incredible techniques.

My ballot is truth over tech,

Especially when probability is but a speck.

Terminal impact of nuclear war,

When farfetched, is a claim I abhor.

I end this with typical lay dross—

Have fun and be respectful in cross!

--Parent Paradigm Poet

PS. Add me to the email chain (smsung@post.harvard.edu). I do actually read the cards and cases, if needed for my RFDs

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

April 2024 update...I feel I must step it up for TOC, so I'm adding another version:

PARADIGM TO THE TUNE OF “ANTI-HERO” BY TAYLOR SWIFT

PERFORMED BY THE TALENTED FIONA LI, THE OVERLAKE SCHOOL '24

I try to flow where I get speeches but just never crossfire
Debates become my sacred job
When my confusion shows with nonsense claims
All of the students I've downed will stand there and just sob

I should not be left to my own devices
They come with prices and vices
I end up in crisis (tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

Sometimes I feel like disclo-theory is a sexy case read
And I'm a substance judge for real
Too lay to judge tech, always leaning toward the actual factoids
Truth through and through, to me appeals

Did you read my covert activism--I drop speaks for chauvinism
And same goes for racism? (Tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

I have this dream the teams that I judge signpost and speak clearly
Collapsed and covered, showing skill
The impacts weighed well with data and then someone screams out
"She's writing up her RFD!"

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, everybody will see, everybody will see

It's me, hi (hi), I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis (dis) close (close), everybody will see (everybody will see)
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

**PLEASE ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN: SMSUNG@POST.HARVARD.EDU

I am a parent judge. I participated in Speech and Debate when I was in high school so I am familiar with the events (although many things have changed since I was in high school!).

I am looking for:

• structured speech/debate with sign posting if relevant
• strong and logical arguments with strong evidence/supporting data where applicable. I prefer conciseness rather verbosity
• clear and smooth delivery

I competed in LD and extemp for a few years. I am familiar with both traditional and progressive styles of debate and am not inclined to automatically favor either approach, though I appreciate a good critical argument. I can follow spreading.

I appreciate elaboration on why particular impacts/values are relevant; i.e., if a certain policy would decrease crime, or boost the economy, I want to know why I should care about those things. If aff is more efficient, but neg is more egalitarian, I want to see a weighing mechanism at play; otherwise we are just two ships passing in the night.

If enormous impacts are introduced (i.e., 7 billion people will be plunged into poverty) this is fine, I just need compelling evidence for that claim.

That being said, I am very open to creative arguments and I am more than willing to listen to your unique approaches to the resolution!! I appreciate good framework debate.

The only unwavering expectation I hold is that you engage in good faith. I will never vote for an argument that sexism/racism/abuse is somehow a good thing. Do not attempt to distort your opponent's argument. Abuse is not tolerated.

Be respectful, engage in good faith, and do not let arguments go unanswered. Have fun!

I am a parent judge. I believe this is a great learning platform for all of us. I look forward to learning from your ideas, arguments and reasoning.

1. Greet everyone and introduce yourselves.

2. Demonstrate respect and professionalism. Adhere to time limits.

3. Be original and be comfortable. I will adjust to your style of presenting.

Please highlight maximum 3 main arguments for your case along with 3 supporting evidences. Additionally, pay attention to other team's arguments and respond accordingly.

My decision will be based on the strength of reasoning, impacts, rebuttal and weighing in Summary Speech(SS) and Final Focus(FF). Any additional weighing that is not stated in Summary Speech will be quantified in my choice. No new cards or arguments should be made in Final Focus(FF).

Hope you will have great learning experience and have fun!

Welcome, fellow debaters! As a lay judge new to the world of debate, I'm excited to watch you all debate. First off, let me assure you that I'm perfectly comfortable with fast speaking, so feel free to unleash your verbal prowess. However, I do appreciate clear signposting to help me keep track of the arguments.

In this round, I'll be particularly attentive to unique examples that support your points and demonstrate why you should win. Remember to weigh your arguments effectively throughout the debate to help me understand their significance. I am truth > tech, so please show me why and how much will be affected by your side to earn a vote.

I encourage you to break stereotypes and inject creativity into your arguments. Show passion and enthusiasm for your positions and be energetic. But please, let's maintain genuine respect for each other throughout the discussion. If someone's crossing the line, don't be afraid to counter them respectfully.

Please, let's keep the debate honest. State your evidence properly and take the time to explain it thoroughly. And remember, confidence is key! Be confident in your arguments but also open to constructive criticism and new ideas.

Above all, let's have fun! Debate is an exciting opportunity to engage with important issues and learn from each other. So, express yourselves passionately, but always with a genuine spirit of camaraderie. Let's make this round memorable!

I would like to disclose so you don't ponder about your results, and I will provide feedback and insights after the debate.

Humor is always appreciated, so feel free to start off with a funny or humorous joke to kick things off. It'll definitely earn you some extra speaker points!

Keep calm and have fun!

Thanks, Charan

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.

I am a lay judge, so please speak at a normal pace.

Speaker Points:

Be to the point and concise

Be organized: Give roadmaps

Don't cut your opponents off in crossfire

Weigh in summary and final focus: Tell me why you win

Extend in summary, don't bring up new topics as second speaker during summary

Final Focus:

-Voter Issues

Speaking: I don't understand spreading very well so it is in your best interest to speak slowly. Speaker points will be given based on confidence and articulacy. 

Arguments will be weighed on by ability to defend the argument and refuting others. 

I am a Quarry Lane Computer Science Teacher and am new at judging. I would prefer debaters:

• show respect to their opponents,
• speak at a reasonable pace,
• make strong impact calculus starting in the summary,
• only make arguments in the summary/final focus that exist in the prior speech ("no new args"),
• use cross-fire for clarification and resolution (and not brand-new arguments),
• and read direct quotes when first introducing evidence in a debate (i.e., do not paraphrase).