Updated for NSDA WSDC 2024:

I adhere to the rules of WSDC, which means 40% content (what you say), 40% style (how you say it), and 20% strategy (why you say it). My evaluation of content includes good analysis (logical, relevant, important, tracking evolution), quality of examples, and thorough rebuttal. Debate in good faith, without straw-manning the other team's arguments. Style includes appropriate word choice, eye contact, body movement/hand gestures, voice projection and control, speed/variation of delivery. Strategy would be the choices made in motion interpretation, time allocation, prioritization, speech structuring, correct identification of issues in the debate, taking adequate POIs, weighing and use of comparisons, and relevance of material to the debate.

Proposition has the burden of proof and has to define the motion, being clear and fair to both sides. They should describe their characterization of the status quo and present substantive arguments in favor of their case, and where appropriate, present a solution to the identified problem. The opposition should oppose the prop's motion and probably have their own substantives. No new constructive material or POIs in the reply.

There are only 3 people on the bench for each side. Non-speaking team members and other spectators must not make signs or signals to debaters on the bench and must maintain room decorum. I keep track of time, and at the 1-minute mark and 7-minute mark, I will knock on the table, opening the speech for POI's (which should be brief and no more than 15 seconds), for the first 6 speeches.

Older paradigm below:

Hi there, I've been judging debate (LD, PF, Congress, Parli, WSD) for about 6 years. I am tabula rasa when it comes to judging a round; don't expect me to know the topic. It is up to the debater to provide a framework that best upholds their arguments. I flow but if you spread, send me (and your opponent) your speech doc. That said, I don't want to look through pages and pages of your speech doc with a couple of words highlighted on each one. If you couldn't tell, I'm more familiar with traditional LD and have little experience in circuit debating. I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I like evidence and logical link chains with clear warrants. I like clash. I don't like falsified evidence, misleading evidence, disclosure theory or bad theory. I'm less familiar with K's, so make sure I can thoroughly understand them if you decide to run them. I'm pretty flay, so make your preferences accordingly. Please be respectful to one another. Being rude, disrespectful, racist, homophobic, and aggressive is not cool and will result in low speaks and/or loss.

Good luck everyone!

I have judged other types of debate in the past, but the '23-'24 academic year is the first season I am judging World Schools Debate. Be gentle with me.

I learned to flow as a high school debater, and you should feel confident I will spot arguments that are unsupported or uncontested.

I love clarity. Be organized. Give me signposts. Just be certain that we actually visit all the places you tell me we're going.

I recognize that skilled debaters must necessarily conflict with each other, but I deplore bad sportsmanship. Treat your opponents with respect. Be polite.

Bear this in mind particularly if you see an opportunity to throw your opponent into disarray by interjecting a third or ninth time. If you have already demonstrated they are easily disarmed, you may trust I have noted that fact. Bullies will be disappointed with their scores.

I expect you to keep your own time. I will have a timer running, but I will not give you time warnings.

It is an honor to return to judge at the Berkeley tournament where I debated in high school. I won't say what year that was, but here's a hint: at the time, Russia was investing a substantial percentage of it's GDP in efforts to dominate The Ukraine.

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

Hello competitors,

My name is Chitra Jayaraman and I have been judging speech for a few years now, so I am pretty familiar with most categories.

For original events, writing and solutions are just as important as how good of orators you are. I appreciate good cadence and tech, but I would also like to see good writing with well thought out solutions and sources when those are applicable.

For interpretation events, your piece selection does matter, however I am more looking at gauging your skill set. Tonal variation, emotional variation, show me that you are able to become a character. I would also like to see clean characters popping. This is so important especially in events like POI when you are constantly changing.

While planning out your tech is important, it should still seem like it is natural. Movement shouldn’t seem robotic or over rehearsed.

Good luck orators, I look forward to seeing your pieces!

I've been judging tournaments since 2017 - mostly debate (LD/PF/Parli) but some speech events as well.

Things I like in debate:

- Debating on the resolution

- Running traditional framework and making it clear with clash and weighing mechanisms

- Good, explicit speech structure and signposting

- Strong clash

Things I do not like in debate:

- Spreading

- Kritiks

- T-shells / theory

- Falsified evidence

Things I am probably OK with in debate:

- CPs and basic LARPing, where permitted by tournament rules

Things I am probably not OK with in debate:

- Highly implausible impacts

Please include me in email chains; if I don't hear it, I won't flow it.

Ask me for my email address at start of round.

Background

I've never competed in speech and debate before.

I've judged Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate.

General Expectations of Me

1. I am a parent judge, so although I will be flowing, this doesn't mean that I'm going to understand every technical argument.

2. Don't assume that I have any prior knowledge of the topic, so make sure to be clear and descriptive in your definitions and arguments.

3. Don't post-round me - It is unethical and it won't persuade me to vote for your side.

4. Don't expect me to disclose rounds unless the tournament explicitly tells me to do so.

5. Clarity > Speed: I would rather you run 2 well-explained arguments than 5 rushed ones. I additionally also flow on paper, so if you rush through your evidence, then I won't be able to keep up. I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you talk too fast. Do not under ANY circumstances spread and I will yell "clear" if you do. If you ignore this warning, I will give you the loss.

General Debate Information

1. I am truth > tech by slim margins. If your argument in unethical, false, or offensive, I won't give you the win based on that deciding factor. However, if you win by another argument, then there are chances that I'll vote for you.

2. Make sure to weigh impacts in your rebuttal speeches, but for sure in your summary speeches (or last speech in LD). Tell me WHY your argument matters and how your case's impacts are bigger than your opponent's.

3. Please signpost! I am a flow judge and I need to know what contention you're attacking and where this is on the flow. If I don't know where you're making this argument, I likely won't write it down as I am confused.

4. I am not a fan of progressive debate. Theories and kritiks are usually not well warranted and I won't understand what you're talking about. I don't mind counterplans, but make sure to explain them thoroughly.

I'm a former policy debater, judge, coach a couple decades ago; recently returned to judging and coaching, now Parliamentary.

I can flow speed, but don't think I should have to in Parli. An organized flow is important to me, so please number your arguments, signpost, avoid jumping around the flow. Keep roadmaps a few seconds long. If you're signposting as you should, a roadmap isn't really necessary. I generally prefer good clash, line-by-line, etc.

I prefer good case debate. If it's not against the rules (including equity expectations), it's generally up for debate, and I'm not categorically opposed to any argument types. That said, Parli isn't the best forum for too much complexity. I think it's a good idea to disclose to your opponents anything that may surprise them. I have more patience than most for debate theory. Kritiks can be great but almost never are, especially in parli.

Neg, don't wait until the second aff/gov constructive to ask about plan specifics or definitions and then scream abuse in the next constructive. Obviously, aff contradicting their 1A in the 2A would be an exception.

POI - Follow the rules. You can refuse POIs if you have reason to, but I'm suspicious of a speaker never accepting one.

About Me:

I competed in Congressional Debate and World School’s Debate for Loyola High School. Currently, I am an undergraduate student at Pomona College.

For Congress:

Placement will be determined by your contribution to the dialogue. I value engagement with other senators and not just reading a pre-written speech. Do not read a constructive when someone has already established those same arguments. Unique additions to the dialogue that go unrecognized by other senators will still be respected in evaluation.

Stylistically, I am tolerant of a faster pace than most other Congress judges. Speak in a compelling manner that does not distract from your argumentation.

For WSD:

All arguments should function within the perspective of the world unless otherwise specified by the motion. Speakers should sign-post throughout the speech to help me have a clean evaluation of the round. New arguments in the third speech and beyond will not be evaluated.

WSD is the combination of both speaking style and argumentation. Winning on the flow should but does not always guarantee a vote in that side’s favor.

Please accept POIs throughout all applicable speeches and clearly establish a method through which you will acknowledge or deny points throughout your speech. POIs should not distract from the flow of the speech.

**Avoid snapping or nodding during your partner’s speech. It is unnecessary/distracting and will affect your speaks.

For Other Events:

Treat me like a lay judge.

I am an experienced judge. I am happy to evaluate any arguments you want to run. I have been judging for 10+ years. I don't have any preferences and am excited to see you all approach the round you want to.

I mostly judge WSD, the below applies to such.

Clarity and cohesion (as a team) are good. Build off of each other.

If you don't have enough content to fill the entire allotted time, don't feel pressured to drag it out. A good speech can be shorter than 8 minutes.

Try to resolve conflicts on definitions and assumptions quickly. Not doing so cuts into the amount of time debating the substantive points, and it helps neither side.

Debate is a performance as much as it is intellectual exercise, so try to make sure your audience can understand it -- speaking at a conversational pace is best.