I am a lay judge. Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. I do not always disclose, but I usually will if requested. If you are rude or disrespectful to your opponents, I will drop you.

Speak clearly. If you are talking as fast as possible, I’m not going to understand a word you’re saying and that’s not going to get you any points even if what you are saying is good. I need to be able to understand what you are saying. Speak at an appropriate pace and you’ll be good.

“I am a community judge and as such I prefer that you speak at a moderate rate and make your case clear.
Please number your contentions so that I can keep better track of them, as well as using your opponent’s
numbers in your rebuttal. In judging, I will consider the clarity and organization of your case, whether and/or
how well you respond to your opponent’s case, the impact of your case vs. the impact of your opponent’s case
as well as your poise, professionalism, clarity of speech and sportsmanship.”

Frequent judge of PF. 3rd year coach of HS Congress, HS BQ, and MS Congress. Studying finance @ ASU

VPF Paradigm

*If email chain is set up add: tomelibil@gmail.com - I won't read off of your speech doc though, so go slow enough for me to normally flow.

90% flow 10% lay. Progressive stuff is ok, but I have very little experience with it, so it needs to be crystal clear. Speech orders make my flow better. The stronger link chain, from claim all the way to impact, wins the round. If they're equal strength I go off weighing. Make extensions and weighing clear! I always give an RFD time permitting.

JV/Novice PF & BQ Paradigm

50% flow 50% lay. Sitting/standing doesn't matter. Preferably look at either me or your flow/computer when talking, not your opponent. If you give me a "brief off time road map" and it's longer than 15 seconds, you will lose speaks. A passionate debate is ok, but genuine anger/insults aren't. Time your own speeches and prep. Please don't state your name and the topic at the start of every speech. Generally I evaluate novices more Truth>Tech except for in late out rounds. If you notice anything that puts into question the fairness of the round, alert me at the soonest reasonable moment. If anything immediately threatens your safety, alert me immediately. I typically disclose.

Congress Paradigm

I judge congress equally as both a speech and debate event. Uniqueness is hugely important, and the time in the round you speak must match the speech you give. All the things on presentation are important - volume, stature, passion, speed and pausing, and enunciation. Generally prefer late round speeches to early round.

PO's: Don't make errors, be fast, and be clear. Follow standard proceedings and control the chamber whilst being respectful. Cut off people effectively and on time. I've never dropped a PO but never given a 1 either.

Hi, I’m Frederick and I debated in both Public Forum and Congress for three years. State champ PF, went to nats in Congress.

Email: fchangho@asu.edu

Overall, pretty standard tech.

The easiest way to win my ballot is by having clear warranting throughout the debate. Evidence is great and all, but please have reasoning for WHY that evidence matters in the round. You need to be able to explain the logical progression in your link chains every time you mention your arguments. Don’t say NYT 19 and move on and expect me to go along with it.

Weigh. But make sure your link chain is intact and you’ve made clear extensions through the round.

Signposting is good. Organization is important.

If you get a concession in cross, bring it up in speech.

When possible, frontline in rebuttals.

No prep time for card reading is okay, but don’t take too long to pull up a card for your opponent to read. If there are card issues that you want me to look at, tell me to call for them too in speech. I will choose to view them at my discretion.

NO SPREADING.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponents. If I need to intervene b/c someone’s consistently talking over another in cross, you’ll be on pretty thin ice. Watch your own time. Watch your opponents’ time. Don’t talk during others’ speeches or make any rude gestures.

Off-time roadmaps are okay, but you don’t need to tell me what you’re doing in your first rebuttal for example.

Clash. Address opp’s arguments and explain to me how yours interact with theirs + why yours are better. Simple way to win.

PF-specific

PF’s intent is to be accessible to the average Joe. Don’t do anything that hinders that.

Generally tech>truth, but please don’t pull up with some nuke war argument that vaguely relates or anything else that requires a significantly unlikely chain of events.

I would rather vote for a well-warranted argument without an impact over a poorly-warranted one with a good impact.

Key voters are great for staying organized, but if you choose to do line-by-line just remember to signpost exceptionally well.

I don’t pay attention during cross. Unless something blatantly wrong happens.

LD-specific

Before I ever judged LD, I had only ever seen 3 LD debates. I’ll be able to follow along with your arguments, but progressive will be relatively difficult for me to evaluate in the scope of the round unless your warranting is pristine (which it should be anyway). Disads, CPs make the most sense to me. Topicality shells and K’s, somewhat. High risk, low reward if you run theory.

My first time judging debates, I spent some time researching online for information on judging debates. It is important to me that a debate has a good delivery, a reasonable pace, and a good flow that explains solid arguments with logical reasoning and examples.

Hello, My name is Gang and I am a lay judge. Make sure to talk clearly and not too fast. Also make sure to talk with logic and reasoning. I will likely be writing down your arguments, make sure to articulate why you win the round. Thank you and I hope it is a productive round!

I am a first-time judge for speech and debate.

My pronouns are she/her.

If using technical jargon, please provide a simple explanation so the argument is not lost on me.

If I miss something, I'll ask for cards.

Let your opponent complete their thought in cross-fire. A conversational volley is expected.

I like to take notes during the competition.

Hello, my name is Lu Gan.

For debate:

• I am a lay judge, please don't spread and talk at a decent pace.
• I have basic knowledge of topics so please make your arguments clear to me.
• Please make sure that your links are made clear and if I call for evidence, you should be able to show it to me. Your arguments must make sense logically.

For speech:

• Make sure I can understand what you are trying to say
• Stay on topic, and don't deviate

Good luck!

This is my second year judging. Please don't use jargin and speak at conversational speed.

PF

PLEASE SIGNPOST - tell me where you are during your speech

Extend the full argument and explain it - don't just tell me to "extend [card name]" or "extend [contention]"

Please weigh - tell me which impact is more important and why

BE NICE - I'll drop you if you're rude/disrespectful to your opponents

let me know if you have questions.

LD

I have gotten very dumb in my old age (22) so please take it easy on me and debate slowly and as clearly as possible. I am very familiar with PF but am new to judging LD.

if you need my email for a email chain: catherinejiang10@gmail.com

The following is mostly stolen from Karsen Wahal, thanks Karsen!

PF debater for four years for BASIS Scottsdale.

How I vote:

1. Who is winning the weighing?

2. Who is winning a link into that weighing?

3. If no one is winning a link into any weighing, then I'll either find the best remaining offense, or, if none exists, presume whoever lost the coin flip (that'll be rare, though).

Tech > truth, but I'm probably marginally more inclined towards truer arguments.

I debated pretty quickly and I'm totally good with PF fast, but not policy spreading. If you do really want to spread for some reason, at least provide a speech doc.

Second rebuttal must frontline -- all turns must be frontlined and frontline the argument you're going for.

Weighing is the most important thing for me, and it's typically how I evaluate rounds. Give me warrants for your weighing and do clear comparisons (don't just use buzzwords).

Tell me why to prefer your arguments -- give me impact comparisons, link comparisons, evidence comparisons. If you do that effectively, you'll almost always win. Sidenote: Probability weighing is fake 95% of the time, but if you warrant it well, I'll buy it. If it's the only other weighing in the round, I'll probably also buy it.

Warrant everything. Don't just extend your impact, extend your whole argument.

Please collapse.

Logic is great -- evidence is better, but I'm more than willing to vote on well-warranted logical turns or defense.

If you do cooler weighing mechanisms than just scope/magnitude etc., you get bonus points.

Defense is sticky, but if defense is frontlined, it must be responded to in the next speech.

Signposting is important. Tell me how to vote in FF (treat me like a lay judge in your final focus).

I won't call for evidence unless a) it's contested in the round and it'll affect my decision or b) I just think it's interesting. But please don't misconstrue evidence: if it's really horrendous, I'll drop you for it. PLEASE don't call for a lot a lot of evidence! Progressive argumentation is fine, but I didn't run theory/Ks in high school. Run it at your own risk (I might not understand it at all).

Cross: I don't pay that much attention, and don't flow it, so if something important happens, tell me. I'll pay some attention though, so don't screw around too much.

I'll time you guys sometimes if I'm in the mood, but if I don't, please time yourselves. 10 sec grace period.

I appreciate humor.

Most importantly, don't be exclusive. To anyone. Period.

I'll almost always disclose. Feel free to ask questions.

my own stuff:

i try my best to be a good judge, but please feel free to ask questions because i do miss stuff sometimes and i dont piece together some args until post round!

I am a lay judge but I have judged for several years. This is my paradigm.

1) Please speak at a reasonable rate because I am flowing. If you speak too fast I may not follow your argument.

2) Please number your contentions and your opponent's contentions when referring to them.

3) Please be sportsmanlike in round and during cross

4) In cross you should not respond to your opponents response; save it for the round

5) It is OK to ask for cards off time but please do not drag it out. Have your cards ready.

6) Good debate has clash. Please tell me what the decision points are and why you should win it. You need to be able to clearly state your opponent's case and why your case is better. Don't just keep stating your case. Make the clash obvious. This will make it easier for me to vote for you, as long as your argument is solid.

7) Please include impact. Otherwise I will have to and you may not like the result

8) If a claim seems outlandish, I may ask for the card

Good Luck!

Don't spread. Talking at the speed of light isn't helpful for debate. It also makes my life a lot harder when flowing. I am not trying to flow as hard as you are so slow down. If your argument doesn't get down on the flow because you were talking too fast it puts you at a disadvantage. Lastly, if you see my pen drop because you are talking too fast I have stopped flowing.

- I will not call for a card unless you specifically ask me to during one of your speeches.

- If something important happens during CX, bring it up during a speech.

- Don't be rude to your opponents.

I am new to debate judging so talk clearly and don’t spread. For me it’s really important to have clearly articulated points with facts and evidence. Quality of arguments matter more than quantity. Although I don’t judge based on cross x however you can get an advantage if team asks right questions and able to provide logical answers to the opponent teams questions. Also, final focus is one of the most important part.

Hello, I am a relatively new parent judge. You can do the following things to make the debate go in your favor.

1. Please do not speak too fast. I am trying to take notes but if you speak too fast I won’t be able to get everything down.

2. I do not vote off of cross fire/cross examination. I will be writing feedback in your ballot, so if something important comes up please bring it up in a new speech.

3. Please stay very organized within the rebuttal, summary, and final focus speeches. Jumping around from point to point without telling me where you are on the flow will make it very difficult for me to write down your responses. So please signpost.

4. In order for an argument to be considered as a part of my evaluation in the round it must be brought up in every single speech.

5. I will give the win to the team that articulates their points the clearest, brings up their most important arguments and rebuttals in every speech, and weighs their impacts for me.

Hi there,

I am a relatively new parent judge. You can do the following to make the debate go in your favor.

• Please do not speak too fast. I should be able to understand what you are saying and your arguments. Be organized in yourcommunication?
• I would like to hear the evidence to support your contention/s, which should allow your conclusion to flow accordingly
• With the rebuttal, were you able to effectively counter the arguments raised?
• During cross examination, I will gauge if questions raised were relevant and were answers to the point. Avoid speaking over your opponent.
• The winning team will be the one that articulates their points the clearest, brings up their most important arguments and rebuttals in every speech and impresses their impact on me.

I am a lay parent judge.

I value a clearly laid out argument, supported both by evidence and logic.

I do value using card names and numerical evidence is good too.

I have judged before but I am still fairly new.

Don’t spread, speak clearly it is pretty hard to follow and vote if I don't understand the arguments properly.

I don't vote off of cross but if there is any disrespect I might dock off points.

Signposting is much appreciated for ease of keeping up.

Stay organized and try not to jump from arguments without being clear.

I generally don't keep time, so you have to time yourselves.

In general be respectful to everyone in the room.

I am a new judge and I would appreciate clear signposting and slow speaking.

Please do not spread.

If I feel like you are talking too fast, I will ask you to be clear twice. After that, if I can't understand you I will simply put down my pen. I believe that spreading is poison to the debate community. I do not want to be added to your email chain, as I should not have to read your case in order to understand it. If there is an evidence dispute or I feel like there is any other reason I need to see a card, I will ask. I find off-time roadmaps to be a waste of time, and while you are speaking I will always keep time and immediately drop my pen once your time is up.

I value topicality above all else. Debate should be an educational experience focused on the resolution. Regarding Ks, your arguments should not simply be ones that you could repeat ad-nauseam for any topic and a lot of Ks don't pass that test. In fairness, a Neg K can be topical and I will evaluate it accordingly if so. However, K Affs by their very nature generally do not meet the burden of defending the resolution and are there is a high probability of me just dropping you if you run one. Regarding Theory, be very careful. I recognize there are things that either side can do which are abusive or frivolous even if the base argument is topical. If you can thread that particular needle when responding, more power to you.

For weighing, I prefer probability over other mechanisms and I am receptive to timeframe as well. I'm fine with reasonable magnitude weighing too. However, we live in a reality in which extinction has not yet occurred despite the countless number of dire warnings given by debaters over the years. I feel like debaters are intelligent enough to understand the distinction of something that could arguably be true vs. an impact that is just included in your case as a magnitude bomb.

Finally, tech is of course important in any debate round, but I also recognize that there are also some things that are objectively true. If you have a card telling me the sky is green, that does not mean I have to accept it as the truth, even if your opponent does not have a specific card refuting that (because why would they?). However, for any reasonable argument that isn't straight-up factually incorrect and flows through, I will absolutely find them credible regardless of any previous opinions I have on a given topic.

The bottom line is that if you're being intellectually honest and recognize that a debate round exists within the confines the real world, that will maximize your chances of picking up my ballot.

I am completely new to debate.

DO NOT SPREAD PLEASE. I WILL NOT CATCH A LOT OF WHAT YOU SAY IF YOU DO.

When debating please speak slowly as my English is not great.

I will try to take notes on the entire round but please bring up important things in all of your speeches.

I have no formal training in speech and debate, but am a logical thinking that is persuaded by data. Pleaser remember your objective is to convince the judges. Speak slowly and make your points clear.

Don't spread. I hate it. Talking at the speed of light isn't helpful for debate. It also makes my life a lot harder when flowing. I am not trying to flow as hard as you are so slow down. If your argument doesn't get down on the flow because you were talking too fast it puts you at a disadvantage. Lastly, if you see my pen drop because you are talking too fast I have stopped flowing and most likely have missed your points.

 I ask that debaters time their own prep. I will time speeches though. I don't really buy the whole grace period thing. The time limits are there for a reason. You can keep talking but I stop flowing once the timer goes off.

Please don't ask me who won. I would love to tell you but you will see my comments in your ballots after the tournament. 

I am a parentjudge

I prefer eye contact (you may get extra speaker points)

Do not yell at each other

Do not go to fast

Do not go over time ⏰ more than 7 sec (possibly minus points)

Let's enjoy this !!

I am a parent judge with a year of experience. I value the flow of a debate round with a clean structure that I can follow.

PF Preferences:

• Keep it civil, be respectful of each other. If there is an issue then let me know in a professional manner.
• I appreciate when you outline and conclude your speech with the narrative, rather than cramming cards or arguments into a speech.
• I ignore cross fire completely.
• Do not spread.
• Each team should keep their or their opponents time.  I may stop listening if 20 seconds over time limit.
• I value sign posting and succinct off time roadmaps. Off time roadmaps should not include arguments or new evidence.
• No theory debate, its not productive and will be dropped.
• Impacts should be clearly flowed all the way through.
• Do not try to pull me into the debate as an individual.  As a judge, I consider both sides, not the emotional appeal. 

I am a first-time judge for public forum debate. I am okay if you speak slightly fast but make sure you are clear so your opponents and judge can understand. Apart from that, I want rebuttals, summaries, and final focuses to be cleanly formatted by using signposting and an off-time roadmap.

Hello! My name is Uzoma Okeke and I am a lay judge for BASIS Peoria.

I'm quite new to judging debate, I had a little experience with PF last year.

Just go slowly in your speeches and ensure I understand your argument. That will give you the best chance of winning the round.

I am completely new to judging speech. I like informative topics and engaging speeches. You should have a good, conversational pace, be loud, and be confident.

“Please speak slowly and clearly because if I can't understand then I can't vote for you"

Have fun with this debate! :) I prefer people to speak slowly. No spreading I have difficulty hearing, if I can't understand what you are saying it won't help you. I am not familiar with debate jargon. Be respectful, while this is a debate, it is a civil debate. Uncivil arguing will not be tolerated. Don't be aggressive. I would be considered a lay judge.

I'm a college student and did debate in high school. Nothing is off-limits, but I do ask you guys to be civil and courteous towards one another.

Debates:

Where do I even start? I'm not gonna start with the usual talk about how judges don't want to weigh in on the debate and intervene....but, throughout my judging experience, I'm forced to be an interventionist so... Yes, I will be dropping/weighing arguments if things are unclear. Yes, I will be asking for cards. And no, I will not use my knowledge (tech > truth) to refute your ridiculous contentions but you might get a very angry ballot.

The quality of your argument is BETTER than the quantity of your argument. Don't lazily extend your arguments without explaining WHY IT MATTERS ON THE FLOW. This is very important to remember to obtain higher speaks.

Slow down your speech. Idc if you have 100 sources to read in your 1AC, 2NC, slow down and explain your arguments clearly. Fast is cool but If I don't type, I'm not listening. And don't ask me for a wpm MEANING NO SPREADING. I can understand fast reading and will flow your arguments to the best of my ability, but zero tolerance for spreading.

Run tech stuff (DA/plans/counterplans/theory/Ks) if you think it's genuinely interesting and not a gotcha against your opponents. (I can tell if you really know your things/just doing it to win). For Ks in particular, bonus speaks if you show effort. Pls no spreading.

And uh, no friv and tricks. Zero tolerance.

Do the weighing for me. If your impacts are numbers and statistics, compare them to your opponents'.

If your impact is nuke war/extinction stuff, tell me why it is LESS PROBABLE to happen on your side. NOTE: Nuke war impacts without comparative analysis will get you a very frustrated judge.

You should be combining great rhetoric with great arguments and evidence. Consider me a parent judge. Lead me through your positions and point out why I should vote for you (insert key voters). Just Debate 101. And some miscellaneous things:

Time yourselves.

Do whatever with your cross. I will probably not pay attention.

I'm fine with disclosing after the round.

Prefer speechdrop for evidence sharing (if need to). No emailchains. But don't rely on the evidence-sharing to be lazy in your speeches. I have a very low tolerance for this.

And pls don't run prog in PF, lol.

Updated 9/1/24 for Scottsdale Prep

Welcome back and I am anticipating another engaging year of congressional debate. Arizona has a well earned reputation for excellence in congressional debate and I look forward to continuing that excellence this year.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Taurasi esque or Clark esque. So, I ballot accordingly. I can only think of one time in the past 10 years that the PO failed to make by top 6 in rank. So, PO and do it well.
2. First AFF/NEG - easiest speeches to prepare and delivery. Delivery should be polished, organization and transitions would be clear, all analysis should be well warranted.
3. Mid round speeches (2nd AFF/NEG to 4th AFF/NEG) are more challenging than First AFF/NEG and potentially will earn higher rankings. These speeches should be extempted, not read and should interact in a clear and meaningful manner with prior speeches.
4. End of round (summary/crystallization) most important and potentially highest ranked speeches if you mee the burden.
5. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE. This will result in a rank reduction to last in the chamber. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE.

BONUS INFO

1. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos "the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
2. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

3. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

4. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal, I strongly urge all congressional debater to review these paradigms from former elite congressional debaters who are now elite judges of congressional debate.

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

Hi! I’m Maddie, I was a competitor all through high school. I have done PF, interp, but mainly info. Although I’ve done debate I’m not really a flow judge, so please make sure your arguments are clear, that is very important to me. If I’m confused on a point because it was not made clear I most likely won’t weigh it. Talk at a normal speed please, that always helps confusion! Thanks for reading and good luck!

I value clean, respectful debate where the individuals and teams debating respect each other, their selves, the topics they are debating, and humanity in general.

I am a parent judge, and this is my 2nd year judging PF. I am skeptical of statistics unless they are backed by good explanations and sound reasoning. I value well-structured cases, clear arguments, and explicit weighing. Dont spread

At this time, I have no stated paradigms.

General Paradigms:

I will be keeping time, but you should be timing yourself, as well.

I expect you to also keep your prep time but I will be keeping it just in case as well.

Please be friendly, respectful, and professional.

Debate Paradigms:

A little bit about me, I have been debating for 4 years and I went to nationals in BQ debate. I am currently attending college and I help teach middle school debate on the side. I think the most important thing about this event is being persuasive. You can tell me a million cards but if you don't explain their relevance or how it helps you I don't have a reason to believe it. Logic can also play a big part in the resolution so it would be advantageous to use it.

For construction speech be clear so I can hear what you are saying and write it all down. I am good with speed but do not spread.

I will be timing you and I'll allow a 5-10 sec grace period for all speeches but if you go over I will stop listening.

In rebuttal please address everything and make sure to sign-post so I know where you are on the flow. For me, I expect the AFF to rebut all of the NEG's points in the rebuttal speech. For the NEG I expect the same thing along with all the defense (I know it might seem unfair but I extend this responsibility of the defense to the AFF in the consolidation so it evens out).

For cross-fire please ask questions and don't use it as an opportunity to discuss your case. I do not flow this part of the debate so if you think you made a good point then say it in your next speech.

Make sure to flow through everything you deem important in the consolidation or I will not. I am okay with bringing up new evidence in the consolidation, especially for the AFF since this is your first speech for defense. For the NEG not as much unless the AFF brings in new rebuttals against your case (which really shouldn't happen). Consolidation is also a much shorter time so make sure to pick and only extend the main analysis, you should not be reading your case or cards that have been read in previous speeches as I have already heard them and you will also waste a lot of time. THIS IS NOT ANOTHER REBUTTAL SPEECH. I really want to see you responding with the defense and extending the warranting for your case instead of only focusing on attacking the other side.

For the last speech, I'll be looking for closing arguments. It is not enough to repeat your consolidation, please explain your points in the context of the resolution and relate your points back to the burden to show me why you think you should win. Please be clear and concise in your final speech so I can easily make my RDF. If I hear new evidence I will not include it in my decision and it may reflect poorly on you. Note I extend new evidence to include anything in your case or rebuttal that was not said in the consolidation (I am not too concerned if you say rephrase something in a card you extended in the consolidation, I am looking more at if you make an entirely new claim).

I don't think you need prep time to look at cards but obviously, if it takes you more than 30sec-1min then I will start timing you. This also means if you are the side providing the card it shouldn't take more than 30sec-1min to pull up the specific quote.

I'm not very strict about what I look for in speaker points but obviously, in a tie-breaker that could be a factor so if you do everything I asked for in my paradigms, I will give you the maximum amount. If you forget a couple of things or if your speech organization is a bit messy then I will dock some points.

Policy:

I have a very rough understanding of Policy, but I am still a flow judge so I will vote based off of the flow. The main thing I am looking for is solvency but other than that I can pretty much understand anything.

General Dislike:

These are my debate icks. Just don't do them.

please.

1. Yelling your speech when I am 5 feet away from you, pls calm down
2. Talking to your screen so that I can't hear you
3. lying about cards (which could make you lose the round)
4. lying about your opponent (like saying that they didn't respond to your points when you, me, and your opponent(s) know that they did)
5. using debate speech incorrectly
6. debater math
7. saying "I think this is wrong because.." + giving an opinion as a rebuttal
8. personal evidence
9. talking to your partner (or to yourself?) during your opponent's speech
10. leading questions or "do you agree?" questions
11. arguing after the round is over
12. packing up during your opponent's final speech
13. loud pen clicking
14. rolling eyes (try your best to control your emotions even if it is completely justified, and I will know when it is or isn't)
15. texting someone on your phone or laptop (I'm pretty sure it's not allowed as well)
16. angrily typing on your laptop
17. general disrespect to your opponent or to me

Hello, I am Rayna Shaik, a current freshman at ASU. I did LD, BQ, CX, and PF in high school, so I understand pretty much all the nuances of debate, and I am a pretty technical judge. I can follow any type of argumentation. I value evidence, but I also very much value the logical side of debate. I think if you can show me that you are able to argue with logical reasoning, that has the same weight as cards in my book.

I am a flow judge, and I WILL NOT weigh new argumentation in final speeches (I see it done a lot), and I expect you guys to signpost. If I cannot follow or understand an argument, I will probably ask you about it or drop it, depending on my mood. I flow rounds, and even though they are messy, I would like weighing done for me; just pretend I am a dumb 5th grader when it comes to the topic. I will give feedback, but I generally don't like disclosing.

Debaters who portray a persona of racial or gender bias and discrimination in any form and use it as a tool to bully or demean other debaters will be marked down. We want to make sure that debate is a safe place for us all. So please be kind.

I am a parent judge, and I am fairly new to judging speech and debate.

Speech
Speak clearly. Ensure your character transitions are distinguishable and breakouts identifiable.
I value a speech that keeps me engaged.

Debate
Speak clearly. Do not spread.
Be respectful. Do not yell or be abusive.
Identify contentions clearly. Number them so that I can keep track. Use signposting. Stay organized.

Hello, my name is Rajin, this is my first year judging a PF and LD judge. You can consider me a lay judge. Make sure your arguments make sense, and please refrain from any negative remarks outside of resolution.

I am a parent judge and this is my third year of judging. I will only vote for arguments that I will understand, So please be clear with your warranting - don’t just tell me that something will happen, tell me why it will happen.

Clearly explain your framework, why it should be used , and how I should weigh the round based off it.

I don't flow cross-examination.

Weigh Impacts, If you don't do it then I have to and you may not like the outcome.

Be polite and respectful always, If you cross the line I will drop you from the round solely for that reason and report to Tab.

· I am a parent Judge; this is the first time judging this style of debate.

· Please keep your delivery slow and clear. Talking at a fast speed is not helpful for debate. I am not trying to flow as hard as you are so slow down. If your argument doesn't get down on the flow because you were talking too fast it puts you at a disadvantage.

· I appreciate you explain any acronyms before the debate starts.

· I would appreciate if you could number your contentions so that I can keep better track of them.

Hello, my name is Ninad Tambe.

Few things to keep in mind:

- I have basic topic knowledge but I would appreciate really clear arguments so that I know at the end of the round without a doubt who I should vote for.

- I can't understand speed, so if anybody goes too fast for me, I reserve the right to shout "CLEAR" or stop taking notes. If you see my pen go up or you see me stop writing, that should be a cue that you're going too fast for me and you've lost me.

- Please don't be rude or overly aggressive, especially in cross - I want to see reasonable and calm crossfires, not the two speakers shouting at each other.

- I appreciate humor, and if you can make me laugh (NOT at the expense of your opponents) I'll award extra speaks.

- If you cannot prove to me why the impact of your case is more important than the opponents', I will have to decide myself.

Good luck to everyone!

1. I will focus only on what I hear in the debate.

2. Speak slow/medium pace.

3. To avoid disturbance sometimes I mute voice...since I take notes sometimes I turn off video so speakers can focus on their thoughts....

4. I look at the entire debate flow and compare both teams....

Hi I am Miranda Vega. I competed in PF debate, Congress, info, and various interp events in high school, and now I am the assistant coach for ACPHS. This will be my 4th year judging debate, so I am looking forward to it! I will disclose quickly after the round if time permits; however, I will not disclose if the tournament directors explicitly tell me not to, or if one of the competitors are not comfortable with it. I do try and provide really extensive feedback within the ballots but for some reason if I forget to finish it or it cuts off please email me @ mirandakathleenvega@gmail.com you put in a lot of time and effort and you deserve your feedback.

(ASU Congress scroll all the way to the bottom)

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

Here is some general paradigms I have:

Spreading: I think this is an educational activity; therefore, I do not like any sneaky tactics that give you an unfair advantage, like talking at the speed of light. For this reason, I HATE SPREADING, I think this makes debate inaccessible for the general person, and forces your opponent to also spread so they can respond to all of your points. This is especially true for debate formats like PF and BQ, as they are meant for lay judges. DONT SPREAD IN PF AND BQ. If you spread in PF or BQ two things will happen. Generally I will be very annoyed and hate judging the round, and I will not get very much down on the flow which will more likely than not lead to you losing the round. At a certain point I just stop flowing, and as a tech judge you are probably going to get the L. If you are going to spread in LD and CX, that is fine. HOWEVER, you should only be spreading the card text and I should still be able to understand what you are saying. If you are mumbling and I don't know what you are saying then I am not going to understand the evidence being read. You need to slow down on the Contention Names, card names, tags, warrants, and analytics. Spreading anything that isn't card text will ultimately end up with me not really flowing and you, most likely, losing the round. Debate is an oral argument so I should be able to hear and understand what you are saying. That is why if you are going to spread you only spread card text. Anything else I won't get on the Flow

Evidence Violations:If I catch you committing an evidence violation I will automatically drop you and cite that as the reason for the loss. Evidence violations are getting worse on the circuit and I believe it is no longer enough to just drop the argument. So make sure your card says what is says and don't misconstrue the evidence. This also includes debater math. You can't just mush two stats together and call it a day.

Cross examination/fire: I never flow this. I am typically writing in the ballot during this time; however, I am still paying a bit of attention to make sure you guys are being respectful to each other. If I notice it is getting out of hand I will give a warning to the person being disrespectful, and if it happens again then I will drop debater. If something completely and horribly disrespectful happens in round (racism, sexism, xenophobia, ableism), I will just drop debater. This is also a period for you to clarify things, not do another rebuttal. CX no tag teaming. The reason I say this is that 1). It was never originally meant to be that way anyway 2) that is time that your partner can be prepping. No tag teaming.

Tech>truth: you still have to tell me that your opponents dropped something I am not just going to automatically flow that through. Also, if you run something really far fetched you can, but the second your opponent calls it out as such I am less likely to buy it.

No sticky defense: if you drop an argument it is conceded in the round. That doesn't mean I am just going to automatically flow it to the opposing team. They still have to extend in every speech that it is conceded. If you pick up a dropped argument, I will not weigh it at the end of the round. Generally, when you do that you are wasting time that you can be telling me why you should win the round.

Signpost:Please please please signpost! Telling me you are responding to the first contention isn't enough. Tell me "On their C2, "specific warrant", we have "number" of responses". Or for progressives tell me what part of the progressive you are going to attach. If you are responding to a DISAD tell me if you are responding to uniqueness, external link, impact or internal link. Please be as organized and specific as possible. If you are going to address an argument as a whole TELL ME THAT, and tell me why that should be enough.

Weigh: Tell me why you win! Please weigh for me! If I have to do this you may not like the outcome. Also, it is not enough to tell me "I outweigh therefore I win". How do you outweigh? Are you outweighing on magnitude, scope, timeframe???

Extensions:You MUST extend in every speech. However, just saying EXTEND is not an extension. You need to analytically interact with your opponent's responses and tell me why I should buy your argument over theirs.

Everybody should time their own prep: I am timing speeches and cross. There is no 10 second grace period, I don't know where everyone got this rule from, but it doesn't exist. I stop flowing at the end of the time regardless if you keep speaking.

STAND FOR ALL SPEECHES AND CX PLEASE (exception GCF in PF)

If aff doesn't win enough offense or impacts for me to weigh that offense I presume negation.

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

PUBLIC FORUM

The paradigms mentioned above are pretty much it.

If no framework is mentioned my default is a cost-benefit analysis.

The team that wins my ballot will tell me why their impacts outweigh the others.

NO PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS. I can't believe that I have to say this, but this is a lay friendly debate format. There is also not enough time to properly run and respond to them. I will drop the argument if it is run. Please just don't I will be so annoyed. If that is something you love to do then join LD or CX, but no progressives in PF.

I don't take prep time for calling and reading cards. That being said. If a card is called and it cant be located within 2 min it is dropped. It should be already cut and easily found. If there is a tech issue that is different. That being said. If you are reading the card don't take an eternity either.

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

POLICY DEBATE

Refer to the general paradigms I listed above.

You can put me on the email chain with my email, but know that I am only flowing what I hear you say. You can spread but ONLY CARD TEXT. You need to slow down on your tags, warrants, impacts etc and for your analysis for why I should extend your argument further in the round. I am NOT going to yell clear, so if you see me stop flowing you need to slow down otherwise you are most likely going to lose the round.

Run whatever you want, just make sure that what ever you are running is formatted correctly.

SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST PLEASE I BEG OF YOU For some reason policy people don't sign post enough. If you are reading responses to a disad or the plan you should tell me what parts you are responding to so for example this is what I am expecting:

"Onto the [BLANK] Disadvantage. First onto uniqueness, we have [#] of responses. 1) response response response 2) response response response. Then onto the external link we have [#] of responses" That is what I am expecting when I say signpost.

Any other questions please ask me!

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

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

I think I have judged LD on a circuit only a few times. I judge my LD kids all the time, and judge Policy now on the circuit regularly.

Like I said no spreading but card text. If there is an email chain put me on it, just know that I am only flowing what I hear.

The way I will judge the round is whoever wins under the winning framework. So just because you don't win your framework doesn't mean you can't win the debate. If you can still prove to me that you solve for the standard better than your opponent I will vote for you. That being said I understand that sometimes your arguments may be mutually exclusive from your opponents.

Since I judge policy so often I am fine with progressives run whatever! I am cool with K's, performance K's if you want (just make sure your K's are well linked), any plans or CPs I am cool with.

If you have any other questions please let me know!

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

CONGRESS

For the love of all that is holy, this is Congress not debate. Do not use debate jargon. Dont say drop, extend, my opponent, vote aff.... this is Congress you say "pass this bill" or "fail this bill", "my fellow representative/senator" etc...

PLEASE TAKE YOUR SPLITS BEFORE THE ROUND! My biggest pet peeve judging Congress is when y'all agree on a docket, and there is no first aff or neg. And you have to take a bunch of 1 minute recesses. Those are also a pet peeve.

I really do not like rehash, at a certain point in the cycle you need to start doing rebuttal speeches and if you are all the way at the end of the cycle then do a crystallization speech.

Try not to rely heavily on your legal pad.

The more you sound like a Congress person the better you will rank. Rhetoric is your best friend.

I will rank PO pretty high if you do a good job. I won't rank PO in the top 6 though if there are A LOT of precedence and recency errors.

Hello, I have been judging for 2 years. You can do the following things to make the debate go in your favor.

1. Please do not speak too fast. I am trying to take notes but if you speak too fast I won’t be able to get everything down.

2. I do not vote off of crossfire/cross-examination. I will be writing feedback in your ballot, so if something important comes up please bring it up in a new speech.

3. Please stay very organized within the rebuttal, summary, and final focus speeches. Jumping around from point to point without telling me where you are on the flow will make it very difficult for me to write down your responses. So please signpost.

4. In order for an argument to be considered as a part of my evaluation in the round, it must be brought up in every single speech.

5. I will give the win to the team that articulates their points the clearest, brings up their most important arguments and rebuttals in every speech, and weighs their impacts for me.

6. If using technical jargon, please provide a simple explanation so the argument is not lost on me.

7. If I miss something, I'll ask for cards.

Hello All,

I am a parent judge.

Preferences:

-If speaking at fast pace, please put focus on important points.

All the best.

I've coached Speech & Debate for around a decade now. I do not support any form of progressive debate in PF. Prove you understand the resolution and the content of the topic. Here’s some advice:

- No spreading, I’ll say “clear” if you need to slow down

- Use taglines and signpost to maintain clarity of flow

- I do not flow cross examination so be sure to include ideas in speech

- I am a believer in pragmatism over the ideological

- Clear elaboration and correlation is as important as card use

-Link the arguments, don't make assumptions or just point to a card

-It should not take over a minute to find cards, please be familiar with your evidence

- Keep the round moving, I’ll keep time of speeches and prep

1. Background: I am a parent judge with about one year of judging experience, only at local tournaments. Please treat me like a lay judge, and attempt to convince me as such.

2. Speed: I can only handle up to moderate speed; if you start speaking too fast, mumbling, or spreading, I will raise my hand and stop writing. Continuing to do so after I have indicated an issue in your speaking style means that I won’t be able to follow your arguments.

3. Clarity: Please signpost and directly reference which points you are extending or refuting in order to keep the round clear and organized. This makes my job easier and prevents arguments from getting muddled or lost.

4. Argumentation:

1. For the most part, I will evaluate all arguments in the debate round in isolation from my personal beliefs. However, make sure all of your arguments are logically sound. Ridiculous responses are sufficient to ridiculous arguments.

2. Please weigh. I understand that both teams will have something going for them by the end of the round. Give me reasons why I should prefer your side over the opponents, especially when the impacts are drastically different (ex: Environmental harm vs. Economic growth) and do direct comparison; Otherwise, I’ll decide which one I think is more important and chances are you won’t like my decision

3. No new arguments in final focus, they will not be evaluated.

5. Evidence:

1. Please use prep time when looking at evidence. You don’t need to use prep while searching for evidence, but you must use it while reading the opponent’s evidence.

2. I will only call for evidence at the end of the round if either team tells me to throughout the course of the round.

6. Misc:

1. Be respectful; nothing irritates me more than a rude or condescending tone when speaking

2. Any sexist, homophobic, or racist remarks will get you automatically dropped and 20 speaker points

3. Have fun!

Do what you need to do to win.

Unless the debate is about nuclear war, total world destruction is hard to get behind.

I will attempt to flow debate rounds. Clarity of your claims, warrants, evidence, and impacts will score you higher. Spreading only undermines clarity so please speak clearly at a normal conversational pace. Less is more.

Off-time roadmaps and signposting are totally acceptable and help me follow your logical construction.

Use Crossfire periods in Public Forum to gather clarifying information, not to further argue or press a point. I will not be paying attention to what is said during those periods unless I deem debate ethics are being violated.

Simply put, I like facts, solid logic, and clear presentation.

As a parent I am relatively new to judging for speech and debate. I am not used to technical jargon in this field and would probably be more familiar with a more conversational style, while appreciating structure, objectivity, and logic.

This is my first year judging; talk at a relatively slow pace. Speaking clearly and concisely is better than speaking loudly and vigorously.

I judge tech over truth, but let's be reasonable. Misusing evidences can make you lose.

Be confident and perform as you prepared, but have respect for your opponents.

Extend your arguments through summary and final focus or I won't consider them.

In Final Focus and Summary, make it clear what the main contentions are left in the debate and why I should vote for you.