I am a second time lay judge.

I prefer clear and concise speaking, i'm okay with speed but prefer slow speaking.

Tell me what to vote on (weighing) in final focus and summary.

Clear and concise reasoning will get you higher points.

Just a regular Dad who loves to support school activities, like Speech & Debate. First time judging Worlds (3 time PF judge). I value clarity, teamwork and risk taking. Not a big fan of hyperbole. Don't waste my time. I could be skiing right now.

I am a lay judge and this is my first time judging.

Please speak at a conversational pace. Off time Roadmaps are allowed. No jargon. No framework. No Ks or Theory.

Truth > Tech. If an argument seems outrageous I won't flow it.

Please explain everything very clearly. If an argument doesn't make sense to me I won't flow it.

When you use weighing mechanisms explain what they mean to me.

Speaks will usually range from 25-30.

I view debate as an exchange of ideas. Please don't be aggressive.

I don't disclose or give verbal feedback.

Andrew Chadwell,

Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA

Coached PF: 10+ years

Competed in PF: 1 year

Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years

Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.

Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.

Hello all,

Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be Civil

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive- either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding All of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent personally.

TOC Specific Items

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

The speed of Delivery: Medium speed and clarity tend to win out more than the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

I generally would go for either Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.

Role of the Final Focus

Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.

Topicality

Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.

Plans

Not for PF.

Kritiks

With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.

Flowing/note-taking

You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.

Hello,

My name is Dan Chen. I place significant value on quality of argumentation, particularly with solid sourced evidence, personal logical analysis, and find your competitor’s logical fallacies. Be coherent. Speed is fine as long as everyone in the competition is happy with that. I try to focus on the debate itself and throw away my own opinion the topic.

Thank you! And good luck!

I’m a parent judge from Eastside Preparatory School . This is my first time judging a debate tournament. Because I’m new to judging and English is my second language, I might have difficulties in understanding your arguments if you speak too fast or use too many debate jargons. Therefore, I would appreciate if you speak slowly and clearly, with minimal jargon and lots of explaining. Thank you!

TLDR: Be respectful, have fun, and make debate educational. I'll judge the debate round as it's presented, and vote off the flow to the best of my ability.

I will disclose the result if EVERYONE in the round is fine with disclosure.

Imo speaks are kinda dumb, by default everyone will be getting full speaks from me, or at least the most I can give.

I don't mind answering questions about the round or ballot (time allowing), but generic feedback will be given in the RFD.

Actual paradigm if you wanna read: I'd say my overall judging philosophy skews progressive. I'm a big fan of progressive arguments in PF rounds IF DONE CORRECTLY. I've got a decent experience with progressive arguments in the past, but if you bring up some super theoretical philosophical argument, it may fly over my head. If this section is confusing, don't worry about it. It won't affect how I judge your debate round.

In terms of speed, I can only flow as fast as my pen can write. That being said, in most scenarios, I should be able to catch what you're saying.

Tech > Truth, but also to an extent. For me, that means if something gets conceded, I'll hold it as true. But for rebuttals, I will use my own judgement to determine if it's responsive. Try your best to implicate your rebuttals as otherwise it'll have to come to my discretion if your block responds to their case. Truth outweighs for common logic. I'm not going to vote on a no evidence climate change good impact turn.

For evidence ethics, please just have good evidence. I prefer cards to not be paraphrased, but if they are it's not the end of the world. If it's discovered that you're misconstruing cards, it'll be an auto-loss for me. Realistically, there's not enough time in a debate round to be checking through everyone's evidence. The basis of debate is an implicit assumption that everyone goes in with good faith for things like evidence. Please don't be the team that misconstrues a card and gets caught, because then it looks bad for everyone. If there is an email chain, please add me to it chenjacob@outlook.com.

I find that I tend to be pretty big on the respect part of debate. I understand that it's a sport where you're literally forced to argue against someone else. I get that tensions can be high when you're arguing against someone else. That being said, there's a line between being passionate about your argument and verbally berating your opposition. Example of things that will not be tolerated: personal attacks, comments on things like your opposition's race, gender, national origin etc. In summary, keep debate in the debate space, don't make it personal.

Overall, we're all just trying to learn in debate, it's supposed to be a fun sport built on the respect for others. Please try to keep it that way.

For Speech:

I've been an impromptu competitor for 2 years now. Impromptu has been the main IE I've participated in, so I have the most experience with it. Small pieces of my impromptu judging philosophy, I don't mind evaluating based on my personal perspectives, so if you want to just go up and speak I'll do my best the judge based on quality of speeches. That being said, I have a slight preference for impromptu speeches that don't follow the same 3 point formula. In my opinion, the three point style of impromptu speaking gets repetitive, but if that's what you're most comfortable with, don't feel bad. It won't affect how I view your speech. It's more, if you give a great well coordinated speech that doesn't follow the three point formula -> it'll be more interesting to me -> More speaks -> Potentially better ranking.

For other individual events, I may need to ask for clarification on speech timings, but other than that, I'll evaluate to the best of what the event is like.

Personal Info if you care about that: I'm Jacob, a current senior at Newport High, I'm the current Public Forum Captain for our team's debate club. I've been debating public forum for 3 years now, with 1 year of policy debate. If you have funny stories or moments to share with people from Newport debate, please let me know, I'd love to hear stories about my fellow debate members.

What I look for:

1. Enunciation - one pitfall I notice is that debaters trail off near the end of their sentences, and the end of their opening statement. Please speak clearly the entire time, dont' trail off.
2. Speed - I want to understand your argument, your sources and your numbers if you choose to cite them. I think you should error on the side of caution, that you clearly lay out your argument by speaking at a speed I can track, instead of rushing through. You do not need to speak slowly, just not at a speed where you are rushing through your words...
3. Argument - Lay out your argument, explain, why your position leads to good results, and why your opponent's position will lead to poor results. I find a lot of debaters will tell me the good/bad result of both sides' positions, but fail to explain the how or why those positions lead to those particular results. A sentence or two should suffice, this does not need to exhaustive.
4. Cross - Finishing making your point. I find most debaters are abel to ask the questions that point to the weakness of their opponent's argument. Few take the next step of getting your opponent to concede that their argument is weak or has a fallacy. In close debates, winning/losing often comes down to this skill....

Feel free to discuss after the round if time permits and if you'd like more input - have fun!

Hello there,

My name is Hema Goyal (Patil) and I have judged middle school debates for the last two years. I began judging high school debates in 2023. At home, I participate in fierce debates with my high schooler and he wins most debates :). I am an immigrant from India and I have lived in Seattle since 1999 and worked for two software companies SAP and Microsoft for a total of 16 years. I have my husband, two kids and a cat in my family here in the US.

A few things to remember:

1. My preference is for debaters to speak at a conversational rate because a fast rate of delivery has made it difficult for me to understand arguments in the past.

2. I write down key arguments while focusing on your speaking, and I might appear serious when doing so, but please don't be worried about or read into my facial expressions.

3. Tell me a story. I can comprehend and retain information well if the message has a good flow, and I find arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive. I value good argumentation supported with relevant statistics and preferably recent or historical examples or good hypotheses. If there is good reasoning and delivery of the significance and impact of data you are presenting, I will more than likely find your arguments or contentions persuasive.

4. Please be kind, open and respectful towards your peers and opponents and everyone's time.

5. You can be assured of receiving stellar speaker points from me if you are able to speak clearly at a conversational rate and are able to establish a good flow and put good efforts in crossfires.

All the very best for your debates and speeches. You bringing yourself to this platform of healthy argumentation and speaking is commendable and this is going to help shape you for a bright future. So congratulations already.

As the assistant coach of the Eastside Prep debate team, I am new to judging Upper School/High School debates, but I have consistently been judging PF and Speech this winter. During the debates, I pay close attention to each speaker and team, taking notes on the contentions and refutations presented and supported with evidence. It is crucial to explain your contentions and their refutations in a way that anyone can understand. You should speak as though you are convincing someone else, not yourself. Speaking faster and louder does not necessarily make you more convincing. When judging debates, I appreciate it when debaters explain their points and how the evidence relates to the overall position. Off-time roadmaps are unnecessary if your statement is well-organized and presented clearly. It should be evident that you understand your side, the contentions, and the evidence, rather than just referencing sources or reading from cards. During the debates, it is essential to demonstrate consistent communication with your teammate and build off each other's arguments. Debaters should also be polite and respectful, yet firm, during crossfire. Public Forum debate is the time to explain the sides of the topic, engage in the arguments, and seek understanding through a clear explanation of the evidence and the significance of that evidence to their overall contention.

I am a parent judge. This is my first time judging.

Please speak clearly and explain all your arguments. No spreading.

If you use any abbreviations or acronyms specific to the topic, please explain them.

Try not to use debate jargon as I will most likely not understand it.

Signposting is helpful.

Good luck and have fun!

This is my first year judging for PF, and I am not a native speaker so:

• No spreading - speak slow, clear, and concise.

• No jargon - word it so that it is easier to understand.

• Be respectful (discriminatory language will be dropped immediately).

• Be patient.

• Have a clear link chain.

• Feedback will be on ballot.

• Keep track of your own time.

Deduction in speaker points if rules above are not followed. I will drop anything that clearly has logical fallacies, weak link chain, or doesn't make sense in general. Ex. Nuclear war, sanctions, extinction... I will do my best to flow everything mentioned besides Cross X. Good luck to all those competing!

-Parent Judge

-First year as a Judge

-Have judged a few tournaments

-Appreciate conversational speaking pace and not too rushed

-If in doubt, please ask me, I am accommodating to your needs like timing, prep etc.. :)

I am a flay parent judge.

Do NOT spread. It defeats the purpose of the "Public" in Public Forum.

SIGNPOST!!

Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

Most important things for me are these:

- SPEAKING SKILLS. If I am not intrigued and/or convinced by your style of speaking, voting for you is going to be incredibly hard. Do not give a monotone spiel, make me actually believe in your arguments.

- FINAL FOCUS. This will be the speech I pay the most attention to. Give me voters and tell me what is most important in the round.

Don’t be mean and have fun for good speaks

Apart from that, try not to run super unfamiliar arguments and/or theory. Good luck!

I'm parent of a passionate debate student, also new to judging. So it will be helpful if you do not speak too fast or use a lot of slangs in your speech.

I am keen on witnessing well-prepared debates where students not only provide compelling examples and statistics to support their positions but also delve deeply into the topic to impart valuable knowledge to the audience. Additionally, a well-organized speech is crucial for ensuring that their points are clearly understood and effectively supported.

In essence, my hope is that students embrace a holistic approach to debating – one that encompasses in-depth research, thoughtful incorporation of examples and statistics, and a focus on delivering well-organized and articulate speeches. This not only benefits their performance but also contributes to a more enriching experience for all participants and spectators alike.

I am a parent judge. I have judged Public Forum debate for two years.

Please keep in mind a few things while debating:

• In Construction, I like well stated Contentions.
• In Rebuttal, I want you to highlight the weakness in the Contentions of the opposite side.
• In Summary, I judge how well you defend your own positions and how well you debate the opposite positions.
• In Focus, I want you to convince me why you win. Please do not bring in new evidence at this stage.
• Please talk slowly. I try to take notes, but if you talk too fast, I am not be able to keep up. No jargons please.
• I look for clear logic and reasoning, less on emotional appeals.
• Statistics is good as long as it is concrete to support your positions but not hard to follow.
• Any discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language will result in automatic minimum speaker points.
• I believe debate should be a fun and educational experience!

I am looking for clear and well-paced speech, structural narration and well labelled claims and warrants.

I am a parent judge. I have judged roughly 40 rounds in the last 18 months and I did policy debate in college.

I would consider myself a flow judge and you should expect that I will vote on the flow. I expect clear links as well as impacts, one without the other doesn't mean much. I expect to see debate on both the links and the impacts.

I prefer it when you can explain your arguments in some context. If you just read cards and don't tell how they tie to together, that's likely not to be compelling. Reading me a random set of arguments that aren't really anchored in your case or your opponent's case or reading them in a random order so I don't know what you're arguing against may leave you in a spot where I can't put them in context and, thus, you don't get much value out of them.

Tell me a story in final focus about why you won and about how I should interpret the flow and the weigh the impacts. Repeating your impacts without explaining anything about probability or timeline doesn't have the same impact as explaining why and how your links and impacts outweigh.

I don't mind speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow you. Frameworks are fine as long as they're not abusive and I'm open to theory, although I am likely woefully inexperienced in judging it.

Off-time roadmaps are fine, but just enough so that I have idea what parts of the flow I need to have in front of me.

I'm the head coach of the newly formed Oak Harbor HS Debate Team (WA).

I did a public forum debate in HS and College a very long time ago. I am not a traditionalist.

I appreciate sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do and I dislike mean, sullen students who use trickery. Know that an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed-speak clearly, I may struggle if you are fast and unclear. I won't tell you if you are unclear-I feel it is your job to adapt. Hint: If you don't see me writing/typing, you probably want to slow down.

Tech = truth: I am learning more tech but I do not vote for weak arguments that are blatantly untrue whether or not your opponent calls it out.

Arguments & votes:

I appreciate a strongly developed strategy with clear concise arguments that include compelling evidence coupled with strong analytical reasoning. I like to connect the dots.

I value arguments based on overall persuasiveness, clarity, and presentation.

Please be sure to explain terms you think might be new to a lay judge, so we are on the same page.

I keep personal beliefs and opinions out of judging with a focus on logical reasoning, evidence, and a civil debate.

Hi, I'm a newbie judge! Ish!
I hope you feel comfortable with me as your judge. I competed in varying forensics tournaments myself, though my personal experiences were with extemporaneous speaking, broadcasting, and prose interpretation (it was the popular thing at the time). I know the typical flow of tourneys and certainly know their stresses and successes.

I'm currently going to describe myself as lay, because I may not have judged the particular area in which you're competing, but I feel my previous experience as a competitor will place me slightly higher in my judgement ability than that. But please forgive me if I ask seemingly simple questions as I learn. The following notes are based upon PuFo because that's the area in which I'll be judging first. I'll update as I learn more and expand my judging experience.

My Standpoint:
I am neutral - I have my own beliefs but I'm 100% able to suspend those beliefs to hear both sides of a discussion and judge based upon the content. Just do your best with your points and evidence. I'm also able to judge your performance based upon your experience level as a novice or a more experienced competitor.

Regarding your debate:

• I appreciate quality over quantity. I would rather hear three points stated well and backed up solidly, as opposed to hearing six points that do not add information to the discussion. Further - I expect your debate to be productive; simplified statements are not effective evidence.
• Emotionally-backed statements are fine, but don't forget that your argumentation should also include Pathos and Logos angles. Also: I learned long ago from a mentor that if you lose your patience or humanity during a debate, you've lost that debate. Maintain your points and your professionalism. Rude comments, raised voices, and escalating language will never be productive.
• I expect you to follow the basic principles of public speaking - ensure you're not fidgety but not rigid, apply deliberate gesturing when appropriate, avoid filler words when possible, enunciate well so that everyone in the room can hear you clearly, and remember that making sure your presence doesn't distract from your point is important. Maintain a clean, professional, or at least business-casual dress style.
• Ensure you adhere to time requirements. Don't go over time. And to that point, maintain your pacing! You should not speak too quickly; you want to give me, your team, and the rest of your audience, the time to understand and process your points. I type 120+ wpm - so if I can't maintain my flow, you're talking too fast. Anything I can't record in flow will be forgotten. On the other hand - don't speak so slowly that it's difficult to focus on your overall intent.

Scoring
I will be happy to provide 30 point scores - but those will be reserved for those who blow me away. If I've scored you a 30, pat yourself on the back. Otherwise, extremely high performers can expect 28-29 from me. Others will be ranked accordingly, and feedback will be provided to support my score.

Feedback
Dependent upon the round, I may be open to providing post-round feedback in person. I may not. Please do not be offended if I do not - that simply means I want some more time to think through what I've seen and review my notes. However - I promise to always provide constructive feedback in Tab. I'm a huge believer in providing actionable items that you can use to learn and grow.

Good luck, have fun, and put your best food forward!

As a new judge, I am excited to participate in this high school debate tournament and learn more about the intricacies of competitive debating.

1. Clarity and organization of arguments: I appreciate well-structured arguments that are easy to follow and understand, even for someone who may be new to debate.
2. Presentation and speaking skills: I will assess the debaters' ability to communicate their ideas clearly and effectively, considering factors such as enunciation, tone, and overall delivery.

The key to explaining your reasoning to me lies in precision and continuity.

1. When you state facts or provide evidence, ensure you have sufficient granularity to make your point. Eg. “Half the world is male. Therefore, half the students in computer science can be safely assumed to be male.” Insufficient granularity to make the assumption. I consider this a "leap of faith."

2. Once you have established a fact, show me why it is relevant - without link it might look like "data salad" to me. I might not see what you feel is obvious. So state the obvious to make sure we are on the same page and path of reasoning.

3. Ensure your argument is closely reasoned. Well reasoned descriptions go a lot farther at convincing people than a tirade of random bits of evidence.

4. Cross & Grand: Your cross should cover all points raised in opponent's contentions. I have little choice but to favor contentions that are not refuted unless I believe them to be outright false. Listen to your opponents so you can surgically refute or challenge opponent's arguments. If you can’t cover all contentions due to time, then I will take that into consideration as well.

Remember, we are all here to learn. My goal is to be fair and give you feedback, not as criticism that cost you points - chances are it didn’t - but as a way to help you broaden your thinking, sharpen your focus, or help you articulate a position more effectively. Enjoy. This is a great journey you are on. I hope with my feedback you are able to discover how to better leverage that great factory in your brain.

I am a lay judge, and have judged once before at a district tournament. My kid does debate so I have a little knowledge, but I am still not very experienced when it comes to technical debate terms. Please explain things clearly and speak slowly. I prefer logical arguments over ones that sound unrealistic or fake.

Although I participated in high school debate years ago, I am new to debate judging, so please have patience and help me improve. Some things you can do that will help me:

1. Speak at a normal speed so I can take better notes on your arguments.
2. Use sign-posting to clearly communicate the arguments you are answering.
3. Stay within your time limits.
4. Have some fun!

Thank you.

Novice Judge, here. Please clearly explain your main arguments and their impacts and make sure to directly respond to the points your opponents are making. Speaking quickly is fine, but make sure you can be understood and that your points are clear.

I’m a parent judge who has judged HS Public Forum in the past (2017-2019) and consider myself a more traditional public forum judge.

I appreciate a clear and succinct analysis of why you should win in the final focus. I judge Quality over Quantity.

I like:

1. Clear and concise arguments

2. References should add value to your argument (Quality v. Quantity)

3. Speak clearly and at a cadence to be understood

Hello. I am a lay parent judge with no prior judging experience. English is my first language.

Please speak at a reasonable/slow pace so I can actually track your arguments. If you speak too fast for me to understand something, I will not write it down. Please do not be rude to me or one another. No debate jargon. Be clear and confident. Speaking matters.

Make your arguments make sense to me. Explain the logic of your argument and exactly why I should vote for you over the other team. If I do not understand an argument, I will have a hard time voting for it.

I highly encourage offtime roadmaps, as they make it easier for me to track your speeches. Please signpost as well, so I can tell which point you are responding to.

Have fun!

Hi debaters, My name is Imene Said Kouidri. I am a parent judge who has judged before but pre-covid so I kind of understand the rules, but please go easy since it is my first time since then. I am most definitely a lay judge so make sure you explain any jargon/acronyms you bring in during the round. I have very simple criteria

1. Enunciate and speak clearly and present your arguments strongly.. speak on the slower side, please!! (no spreading, it helps you and me)
2. I am a fan of intense cross x, but make sure you are always staying respectful throughout the round in general
3. If you want high speaks make sure you are confident during the round, I promise I won't bite

please time your prep and speeches, as debaters I trust you won't go over time.

I will judge based on clear logic and reasoning and less on emotional appeals. If you want to link your contention to something like nuclear war you better have a clear logical link chain.

Just remember to breathe and enjoy, debate is fun!! You should already be proud of all the prep you put in before this competition.

Experience:

Rising Senior at Interlake High School

I am a flow judge.

Debated for 4 years:

- 4 years in public forum on the local and national circuit (Qualified for Nationals and TOC)

- 2 years in parliamentary (wasn't that good)

Preferences:

Speed:

I don't care how fast you speak as long as you are clear and what you are saying makes sense. If you intend on spreading, check with your opponents and be sure to send me a speech doc @ ishansinha2004@gmail.com

Weighing:

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, I don't have a preference. Give analysis on why your weighing mechanism is more valuable because it makes it SO EASY to sign my ballot i.e. severity is more important than magnitude so even if they win their entire case we still outweigh.

- If there is a specific policy being implemented i.e. UBI or Price Controls, I prefer a two worlds analysis. If the resolution does not specify a policy i.e. Increase Nuclear Power, I prefer a voters analysis.

Things I HATE:

- I love giving feedback and talking with excited debaters, but I am strongly against post-rounding/ pre-rounding. If I feel like you are trying to influence my decision after or before the round, it will result in an instant loss and 20 speaks.

- Debate is inclusive, everyone should have fun! I am strongly against sensitive issue cases i.e. anything to do with domestic violence, sex trafficking, etc.. It makes it sufficiently more difficult for your opponents to refute without looking like an ahole. HOWEVER, if you check with your opponents and they are okay with it, I will flow it normally.

- I HATE miscut evidence. While bad evidence may not completely sign my ballot, it will be reflected with a -1.5 in your speaks. I will call for evidence if 1) I feel that it may be misrepresented 2) If someone asks me to

Speed of speeches - Normal, reasonable pace to make and land your argument

Politeness - absolute yes. do not interrupt and be respectful of others and time

Experience - parent judge, first time

Will be looking for speakers to make their case backed by facts

About me:

I am a coach at Mountlake Terrace High School. I was awarded most argumentative in high school, and probably would still hold that title if re-evaluated.

My strength is in historical periods/perspectives, philosophy and morality. I'm a Math and Social Studies teacher; so I like when arguments take good research, with strong sources, and combine it with logic and interpretation of material mixed into a smooth transitory argument.

I like civility and respect in my debates but don't mind rebuttals and crosses having a little bite to them.

I like sources that are short and concise but to a strong point, especially with numbers/stats!

Strength of an argument is brought through strong points that are well articulated and backed with sources. Out-speaking your opponent in words-per-second is not a source of victory from my standpoint.

I don't mind controversial topics being brought in as long as it is done tastefully and with purpose.

Off time roadmaps are always helpful but by no means necessary.

Speech-

With so many varying speech types paradigms are a little harder to pinpoint. The most consistent and well-put-together performances that include strong openings and closings with details/script inside. Vocabulary, diction, intonation and articulation in your words, emoting/gesturing in your body language, and preparedness (as much as possible) are the qualities I look for.

Any questions on my paradigms please feel free to ask!

TLDR: Be respectful and have fun, and make debate educational. I'll judge the debate round as it's presented, and vote off the flow to the best of my ability.

TLDR pt. 2: I am a flow judge on command, ie I will flow but only if you explicitly ask me to.

I will disclose the result if EVERYONE in the round is fine with disclosure.

I'm a junior at Newport High School and by default everyone will be getting full speaks from me, if possible.

I don't mind answering questions about the round or ballot (time allowing), but generic feedback will be given in the RFD.

Actual paradigm if you wanna read:

In terms of speed, I can only flow as fast as my pen can write. That being said, I have not flowed properly in many months so to be safe, you'll want to signpost extremely well.

Tech > Truth, but also to an extent. For me, that means if something gets conceded, I'll hold it as true. But for rebuttals, I will use my own judgement to determine if it's responsive. Try your best to implicate your rebuttals as otherwise it'll have to come to my discretion if your block responds to their case. Truth outweighs for common logic. I'm not going to vote on a no evidence climate change good impact turn. I also do not understand progressive arguments or how frameworks work within PF debate (as opposed to LD) so I recommend avoiding it!

For everything, including in your case, try to give warrants to things as much as possible. Please avoid arguments like "my opponent is wrong because my card says so." Explain why your card matters and how that affects the validity of their argument/your own.

For evidence ethics, please just have good evidence. I prefer cards to not be paraphrased, but if they are it's not the end of the world. If it's discovered that you're misconstruing cards, it'll be an auto-loss for me. Realistically, there's not enough time in a debate round to be checking through everyone's evidence. The basis of debate is an implicit assumption that everyone goes in with good faith for things like evidence. Please don't be the team that misconstrues a card and gets caught, because then it looks bad for everyone. If there is an email chain, please add me to it maggieruoyuwang@gmail.com

I find that I tend to be pretty big on the respect part of debate. I understand that it's a sport where you're literally forced to argue against someone else. I get that tensions can be high when you're arguing against someone else. That being said, there's a line between being passionate about your argument and verbally berating your opposition. Example of things that will not be tolerated: personal attacks, comments on things like your opposition's race, gender, national origin etc. In summary, keep debate in the debate space, don't make it personal.

Overall, we're all just trying to learn in debate, it's supposed to be a fun sport built on the respect for others. Please try to keep it that way.

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PiSENj9X4taoU2p1SM3ORhd8Frd80FY69zN8OSukJdM/edit?usp=sharing

Hello, I'm a lay. I've judged in locals, toc bid tournaments, and nats '23, but please treat me like your average lay. Before the round starts, make sure I am 100% clear about who is who and their position.

I don't know anything about the topic so it would be nice if you could restate that for me. I'm comfortable with English but not spreading.

Please SPEAK SLOW and DO NOT USE DEBATE JARGON, as I will most likely not understand it. I don't vote on perceptual dominance or anything but if you talk slower and clearly, I'll be able to understand what you're saying. If I don't understand you then I won't vote for you.

If you dump 50 responses I will remember none. I would prefer if you could just overexplain a couple points and make them really clear to me. Tell me which arguments you are addressing (signpost) and make the back half of the round as clear as possible for me. Do not make this an evidence debate. at that point I will have no idea who won and who lost because I don't know how to call for evidence. If it turns into an evidence debate, I am strongly inclined to vote for whichever team stops talking about the evidence and gives me another reason why they should win.

I will be taking notes during the round but don't think I'm a flow judge yet. -- I don't take notes on cross but I will notice if you're getting destroyed and it'll probably go towards speaks.

Speaks range from 27-29 and I err on the higher side. I don't disclose.

Be respectful and have fun!

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and explain all your arguments. If you use any abbreviations or acronyms specific to the topic please explain them.

Speaker points:

26 - below average

27 - average

28 - better than average

29 - get into elimination rounds

30 - one of the best debaters at the tournament.

I am a parent judge and new to debate. Please speak clearly.

1. MOST IMPORTANT THING:

Speak concisely. I will not flow your case or information if I cannot understand it. Additionally, teams that spread or speak too fast will automatically not be eligible for a high speaker score. If you want to win or get good speaks, make sure you speech in a way that allows me to actually hear your information.

2.

I will not flow anything that isn't extended into summary for voting. If you want me to consider it, make sure you talk about it in summary. Additionally, I will allow first summary to have some frontline if it's short (under a minute) and generally is not completely new information for fairness.

3.

I would recommend that you think about what you want to focus on in final focus. FF is not summary part 2 it is intended for debaters to focus on things that really matter. If you do decide to use FF as summary part 2 it won't really hurt your speaker score or your debate flows in any real way but remember that all of the cracked teams collapse.