Hey everyone,

My name is Amit Bansal, and I am a lay parent judge. My child does pf, so I have judged in one PF tournament before. However, I don’t have much experience, so I would prefer if you speak slowly so that I can understand you. Don’t use debate jargon, and I look at how you speak to your opponents. Please be respectful, especially in crossfire. Also, it would be nice to have an explanation of the topic, as I am new and likely won’t understand the topic right off the bat.

I will try my best to flow and understand arguments dropped and extended, but I won't be flowing crossfire.

Thanks, and good luck!

I am a parent judge new to speech and debate, expecting students to speak slowly and clearly. Please just assume that I would sometimes know about the topic beforehand. In addition, I might need students to explain their voting issues clearly.

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

Clarity:

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

Pace and Delivery:

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

Flow and Engagement:

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

Additional Notes:

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

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

Hello, I am only experienced in LD, so this paradigms will be about LD. Though most of this should be applicable to other forms of debate.

I do not like abusive definitions. Do not waste time reading one, I will ignore it. Even if you trick your opponent into agreeing with it in cross.

However, I am fine with abusive values/value criterion, but you must be very convincing as to why we should accept your abusive value/value criterion.

I write slowly, so if you speak too quickly, I may not get down everything you say. I will try my best though. Because of this, I may keep writing for a few seconds after your speech so I can get down as much as possible. Do not start cross or ask if I am ready before I have stopped writing. Although cross is not flowed in LD, I will pay attention to it in case it is brought up in later speeches. Additionally, I may not understand all of your speech so I will pay attention in case your opponent asks a clarifying question I am also wondering.

Finally, I care about how engaging of a speaker you are. I know it is hard to do anything other than just read your constructive because paraphrasing is not allowed in LD, but do try and certainly try to be engaging in your rebuttals. Judges must submit decisions quickly so if your round is close, I may just vote for the better speaker.

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

I am a lay parent judge who has judged PF, LD, and various speech events in the past two years. Please do not spread or speak at very fast speeds, speak clearly and slowly so I can catch everything. I can't evaluate any advanced argumentation/theory/Ks, so please avoid it.

Be respectful and have fun!

I am looking for fluency and confidence while speaking as well as your ability to ask and answer questions during crossfire. Make sure you don't drop any contentions or subpoints in your rebuttal speech. I will take that into account while judging. Don't be rude to your opponents either, and have fun!

I am a parent judge and will use general criteria.

Please introduce yourselves and state the topic before the round begins. Also state Road-map (OFF TIME) and tell me where you are going. It helps me understand your case better. As a rule I do not time road maps.

Please avoid snarky comments and approach the arguments with politeness and respect.If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it with speaks.

I understand your case more when there is voice modulation in your speech, reading as is from a screen makes it hard to follow and seems uninteresting. I love to see when you speak with passion and when it seems like you really mean what you are say.

Don't have to ask me if I am ready before beginning each section of the round.

Please manage the timers yourselves.

I am a parent judge and do not have personal experience in speech or debate.

Debate:

I do not understand theory nor fast debate very well. Please have a lay-style debate.

I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.

Always be respectful to your opponent.
Keep a clear, structured and consistent narrative throughout the entire round.