I am a volunteer parent with over a year’s experience judging speech and debate events. I judge for a number of reasons, most importantly is that a seeing the skills and dedication students have for connecting community members and making society batter for all GIVES ME JOY AND HOPE!

In order for me to best judge events it helps me if students:

1. Speak slowly enough for people who may be unfamiliar with the subject vocabulary to follow what they are saying;
2. Project their voices and speak more loudly if they notice me leaning or cupping an ear toward them;
3. Are silent, still audience members; and,
4. Keep noise to a minimum in buildings where events are taking place.

In debates, as I do my best to follow the arguments, logic, supporting points, refutations, and how definitions and weighing mechanisms apply. When students explicitly indicate what points they are providing support or a critique for, and how they think their definitions and weighing mechanisms matter, it helps me be a better judge of these important factor.

Also, I recognize that critiquing and interrupting others, speaking loudly, dramatic gesturing, and heckling are all used in various debates, but I also pay close attention to any instances of people invading the personal space of others, yelling at or personally insulting their opponent, or otherwise not respecting the equal rights of all debaters, and I will ask coaches for guidance in how to judge what I think I have seen. I love the community I see among speech and debate teams!

I hope EVERY student feels proud and enjoys tournaments as I am impressed by the work and courage of EVERYONE participating. If students do not get the recognition they hoped for I encourage them to remember that judges such as me are not professionals and may make mistakes. That may be a reality we all have to accept, but if anything seems unfair please speak with a coach.

Best wishes and thank you for your consideration.

Overview:

I'm a former debater who focused on LD for my four years, competing at league, invitational, state and nationals. While I did compete in other events like Congress, Parli and Impromptu occasionally; my experience in other events is mostly limited to spectating and helping other teammates. Event-specific information on my judging style is separated below, but for a couple general points first:

• SIGNPOST in all events so I can understand and judge you properly. In debate events, this obviously takes the form of taglines and directly referencing the flow. But you do this too in speech/interp events, albeit in a more pretty and implicit way, by outlining the structure of your piece and using transitions when moving from one idea to the next.
• For debate events, I'll evaluate you in prongs: this essentially means I imagine myself as a panel of three judges with different judging styles and imagine how each of these judges would view the round. This is meant to 1) reduce my bias against styles I personally dislike and 2) encourage competitors to create cases and arguments that would satisfy all sects of judges rather than pandering to one style. Typically these are the archetypes of a lay, technical, and traditional judge. For transparency though, I was a traditional debater.
• Debate constructives should contain a clear round interpretation (observations like framework, weighing mechanism, definitions, plans, etc.) for me to evaluate the round on, warrants in the form of strong cut cards with impacts that link back to your round interpretation, and elaboration as to how your whole argument is significant to the resolution/topic and should make me vote with/against it.
• In all debate events, I want to see meaningful clash and extension throughout the round for rebuttal speeches on both the interpretation of the round and the warrants/impacts of each constructive. Balance offense and defense while explaining how each line of argument on the flow is going to impact my final decision.
• For final speeches in debate rounds (voter's, final focus, summaries, etc.) be strategic and prioritize the lines of arguments that you think will impact my decision the most and are the greatest chance at you securing my ballot rather than just listing off from the flow. Typically that means I want to see no more than 5 key issues, all of which reference previous speeches in the round. After all, the purpose of this speech is to condense the round, not expand it.
• In debate rounds, speaking style will never play into my ballot decision (*unless its a technical issue which prevents me from understanding you or it's World Schools*). After all, that's what speaker points are for. But once we get into break rounds, all that goes out the window because we aren't giving speaker points anymore.
• For debate rounds, I never disclose the result unless it's a break round. The most oral feedback I'll give in prelims will be maybe like one note for each side if I believe it can help them in their next immediate round. In parli/WS though, that would almost never happen since the topics change every single round. The only way I would give oral feedback in these types of events is if I felt I had a note that wasn't topic specific (speaking style, case structure, etc.) for both sides. For breaks though, in all events I'll typically ask the debaters if they want any spectators to step outside and then give a more detailed explanation for my decision.
• For speech/interp events, content and presentation are both essential for me and should somehow thoughtfully contribute to the overall purpose of your piece clearly. Include unique elements that are personalized to your style/background because you want to be memorable (in a good way of course). Technical errors (stumbling in your script, volume, etc.) can obviously hurt you, especially if everyone else in the room doesn't make these mistakes, but I'm not going to make you automatically last because of that unless it hinders my ability to understand you or be engaged in your piece. So keep going: if not for this tournament, then to practice for the next!
• Congress is a mix of debate and speech judging due to its nature, but keep in mind the key differences. I'm judging you on your speech content not to decide whether or not I support the bill/resolution, but rather whether or not you are meaningfully contributing to the discussion. And I'm judging you on your presentation/roleplaying not to be entertained, but to see if you're persuasive. Ultimately it's about leading the room to a healthy discussion and interacting with the other competitors strategically (whether that be as dissent or agreement) so you stand out *in a good way* among the 10+ of you that I all need to rank.
• Spectators are okay if every non-spectator in the room (judges and competitors) is okay with it. At some tournaments though, keep in mind you aren't allowed to bar spectators in break rounds. If someone is going to spectate, I expect them to be respectful (no talking, no electronic use, no notetaking, etc.).
• If you break the rules of your event (for example: introducing new arguments in the final speeches of debate rounds or using props in non-informative speech rounds), I'll ignore everything you attempted to accomplish with that rulebreak in my decision and may even weigh it against you.
• In debate events, I typically allow up to a 20 second grace period to wrap up a speech/answer. If you exceed that time, I'll assume you are unaware of your time, say "Time" and expect you to stop talking within 10 seconds. For cross-examination/crossfire, I'll do the same if you ask a new question after time has already ended. Also keep in mind if you try to use this grace period to begin new argumentation after time (like fitting in your last rebuttal in sparknotes form or giving an entire summary), I'm not gonna flow it.
• Anyone being explicitly hateful or discriminatory (racist, colorist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, anti-semitic, islamaphobic, etc.) will be voted down, given low speaker points and/or ranked at the bottom instantly.
• If your comments and RFDs are blank or short, most likely I missed the timeframe to edit feedback and wasn't able to submit them before the tournament closed because, as seen in this paradigm, I have a tendency to write too much! By all means, feel free to email me at akshaynmaharaj@gmail.com and I'll reply with a completed version. If you did get complete feedback but you still have some questions, you can also email me for that. Just make sure you include identifying info like the tournament, event, round and your code.

PuFo:

• As in every other event, signpost everything and say "Quote/EndQuote" as well as the citation for every single card.
• Please don't have a sole contention, especially if it also has subpoints. I can guarantee that you could divide into actual contentions.
• Off-time road maps are recommended but not required. If done, they should be under 10 seconds.
• As I said above, I decide through a three-prong strategy of imagining myself as a panel of a lay judge (emphasizing accessibility and logic), a technical judge (emphasizing line-by-line and evidence), and a traditional judge (emphasizing weighing and extension). Typically I'll tell you in RFDs what each of these judging perspectives would've thought individually so you can improve.
• Truth > Tech, but without judge interference. I'm not supposed to be voting for who I think is the "more skilled debater" but rather who successfully convinced me to take their side on the resolution in that isolated round. So while I won't consider any rebuttals your opponent could've made but didn't, I'm not going to expect them to respond to every single warrantless claim you make and weigh it w/o extension.
• For deciding who wins the round, I'll only ever base it on key voter issues given in final speeches (summary/final focus) because that's why they exist: you tell me what to vote on. Thus they're absolutely necessary in some form. The rest of the round is meant for you to develop those key issues.
• It only becomes necessary to weigh arguments myself when both teams fail to do so, and thus it's treated as a last resort for choosing a winner in rounds where neither team really did good. Since you don't want to feel robbed and I don't want to hear complaints in a round where frankly I'd give a loss to both sides, do everything in your power to provide specific voters and extend as much as you can. The less work I have to do to come to a decision --> the happier you'll be with it and the more consistent your W/L ratio will become.
• PuFo is the one debate event where I think clash isn't required in the NC. After all, both teams are allotted the same amount of speaking time and can't actually interact with each other until crossfire. Plus under the NSDA format, NEG/OPP can sometimes speak first while AFF/PROP goes second. With that being said, every other phase of the debate (rebuttal, summary and final focus) is expected to acknowledge all of the previous speeches and bears the burden of clash on the flow. This means that although the NC doesn't have to acknowledge and respond to the AC, I expect the AR to respond to the NC and extend the AR while NR responds to both the AC and AR plus extending the NC. This trend continues for the summary and final focus speeches. And I guess if we're in NSDA rules and NEG goes first, the same applies vice-versa with the AC not having to acknowledge the NC but the NR having to respond to the AC while extending the AC and the AR responding to both the NC and NR.
• For determining what is considered a new argument in rebuttal speeches, I generally follow this rule: Is it in direct response to something first said during your opponent's immediate previous speech? + Was there no earlier opportunity to mention it? + Given what you are attempting to accomplish through it, was there was no reason to include it in an earlier speech? If you'd answer no to any of those questions, it's a new argument and I'll discard it from my consideration. I'm most strict on this with final focuses for obvious reasons.
• After every refutation, on both sides of the flow, I want extension. Even when you claim your opponent dropped an argument, I want extension. Give me reasons why you winning that part of the line-by-line will matter in prep for voters.
• Compared to the questioning counterparts in the other debate events, I expect more courtesy for crossfire. Avoid follow-ups without consent and be sure to take turns. Dominating crossfire doesn't necessarily reflect good on you and could affect speaker points negatively.
• I expect both teammates to participate in grand crossfire. One teammate saying significantly more than the other can negatively impact speaker points.
• Events in crossfire are binding but will not be introduced onto the flow until mentioned in speeches.
• If no weighing mechanism is given by either side, I generally default to cost-benefit analysis. This isn't ideal of course, since it's pretty general and hard to apply. So please give a weighing mechanism so I can do my job more clearly!
• Similar to Parli (and I suppose CX if I unfortunately ever end up judging that), I expect teamwork and synchrony of ideas. Both teammates must carry their weight for extensions: ideas across speeches need to be so in synchrony that it's like one person has been giving all the speeches while still acknowledging that there's two of you on the AFF/NEG. One of the best ways IMO for you to accomplish this is directly referencing who said what on the flow during signposting (i.e. "As my teammate explained in our constructive . . ."/"During their last rebuttal, our opponents claimed . . ."). Similarly, passing notes can come off positively if you're entrusting an idea of yours to your teammate and they present it properly, or negatively if it's just an attempt to put your words in your teammate's mouth because they themselves have no clue what you need to say.
• If you're going to whisper during your opponents' speech, make sure it's low enough that only your partner can hear it. Otherwise, stick to nonverbal communication like writing and pointing. During prep time, this is less of an issue. The only way loud whispering could affect my decision though is through speaker points.
• On the other hand, speaker points are judged independent of your teammate. It doesn't matter if your styles contrast or are similar as long as they're both good. One teammate could even score low while the other scores high. The only way teamwork could factor into speaker points is if I notice you being rude to your teammate.
• No, I will not join the email chain and you shouldn't either: To be clear, I'm not talking about just sharing cards digitally upon request since that's basically the same as passing printed cards. What I'm referring to is sharing your entire case/speech beforehand because you know it's impossible to understand verbally or is poorly formatted. Or during rebuttals, you share a giant document of blocks, many of which you don't end up reading. If both debaters agree to doing an email chain I suppose its fine between them, but you reserve your right to refuse and demand specific cards be requested and provided traditionally (even if that means a debater has to show their whole laptop because they don't have paper copies). I, however, will never join the email chain myself because in this event I'm judging you on what you can verbally communicate, not by reading your speech and cards myself.

Congress:

I said most of it in the Overview section, so I'm just gonna give a general list of my Congress icks (AKA DON'T DO THIS)

• POs Trying to Correct Each Other --> I will intervene and stop that.
• Besides that, I will not intervene at all. If the round breaks from the rules, I will hold any offending Senators/Representatives responsible only in rankings and expect the current PO to intervene in my place. If that doesn't happen and the round runs off course, I will hold the PO responsible in rankings. Typically I judge POs on things like transparency (communication with the Senators/Representatives as to how you're running the round), fairness (even question and speech distribution), presence (your speaking style in commanding the room), and management (running the round according to the rules and on time).
• Unnecessarily Clashing (Especially with Competitors on the Same Side of the Debate) --> This is not a debate round, this is a discussion. It's not like I'm assigning wins and losses or holding you to a flow where you must respond to everything. In fact, I generally find decisions to agree with other competitors and expand upon their ideas intriguing. Only oppose other competitors if they go against what you are trying to stand for with your speech and if it will further discussion.
• "Some senators have argued . . . " --> NAMES. Names with everything. Being able to reference different competitors in the room directly has always been my favorite part of Congress. It shows you are actively paying attention to the speeches and serves as an invite for competitors to respond, thereby enhancing the discussion. I don't mind name dropping a bunch of your competitors if they've all been saying the same argument since it contextualizes who's on each side in the round.
• Disturbing Decorum--> We get enough of this in our real legislative bodies unfortunately, I don't need this in a mock round. Causing chaos or intentionally trying to be as controversial as possible will make you stick out, but not in a good way.
• Too "Debate"y --> Read my section on speech for some general tips, since speaking well is more than just speaker points and will affect your actual rankings. Besides that, remember you aren't assigned to a side and don't bear the burden of clash automatically. Technically in this roleplaying, the people you're supposed to be "convincing" are the people on the other side who you're arguing against. This means that if you're going to be combative or unwilling to budge from your position, you need to give a solid explanation as why it's important for you to take this stance.
• Too "Speech"y --> Just as a constructive can have a hook but still needs contentions, your entire speech cannot be just one drawn-out summary or repeating of one argument phrased beautifully. We need substance to base discussions off too, and that means making arguments for or against the bill/resolution that will deepen the discussion in the room.
• Exceeding Time--> Although I allow a bit of a grace period to finish your current sentence in other events, I expect competitors to respect the timing of the PO and yield if overtime no matter what. As soon as the gavel starts banging, you need to stop talking ASAP.

Parli:

• As in every other event, signpost everything and say "Quote/EndQuote" as well as the citation for every single card . . . if you somehow have them in parli.
• Off-time road maps are recommended but not required. If done, they should be under 10 seconds.
• As I said above, I decide through a three-prong strategy of imagining myself as a panel of a lay judge (emphasizing accessibility and logic), a technical judge (emphasizing line-by-line and evidence), and a traditional judge (emphasizing framework and extension). Typically I'll tell you in RFDs what each of these judging perspectives would've thought individually so you can improve. Because of the spontaneous nature of parli, the technical judge's standards of evidence would be lower as compared to other events.
• Truth > Tech, but without judge interference. I'm not supposed to be voting for who I think are the "more skilled debaters" but rather the team that successfully convinced me to take their side on the resolution in that isolated round. So while I won't consider any rebuttals your opponents could've made but didn't, I'm not going to expect them to respond to every single warrantless claim you make and weigh it w/o extension.
• It only becomes necessary to weigh arguments myself when both teams fail to do so, and thus it's treated as a last resort for choosing a winner in rounds where neither team really did good. Since you don't want to feel robbed and I don't want to hear complaints in a round where frankly I'd give a loss to both sides, do everything in your power to provide specific voters and extend as much as you can. The less work I have to do to come to a decision --> the happier you'll be with it and the more consistent your W/L ratio will become.
• For deciding who wins the round, I'll only ever base it on key voter issues given in final speeches because that's why they exist: you tell me what to vote on. Thus they're absolutely neccessary in some form. The rest of the round is meant for you to develop those key issues.
• On the other hand, speaker points are judged independent of your teammate. It doesn't matter if your styles contrast or are similar as long as they're both good. One teammate could even score low while the other scores high. The only way teamwork could factor into speaker points is if I notice you being rude to your teammate.
• For determining what is considered a new argument in rebuttal speeches, I generally follow this rule: Is it in direct response to something first said during your opponent's immediate previous speech? + Was there no earlier opportunity to mention it? + Given what you are attempting to accomplish through it, was there was no reason to include it in an earlier speech? If you'd answer no to any of those questions, it's a new argument and I'll discard it from my consideration. I'm most strict on this with the first speakers' second speeches for obvious reasons.
• After every refutation, on both sides of the flow, I want extension. Even when you claim your opponent dropped an argument, I want extension. Give me reasons why you winning that part of the line-by-line will matter in prep for voters.
• I expect the teams to clearly establish which type of debate (fact, value or plan) the resolution falls under. If there is a disagreement, clash over it AND explain the implications of either interpretation on how I'll judge the round.
• Definitions tend to be more annoying to me in parli than other events due to the volatile nature of the topics. Because of this, I'm more willing to buy arguments of the abuse, although you still have to explain why the implications of this definition are unhealthy for the debate and provide an alternative definition. If you feel you're being unfairly accused of abuse, the simple way to defend yourself from this is to simply prove the debate is still winnable for the other side under your definition.
• POIs are always acceptable to waive down, but there also an opportunity to get insight into your opponent's strategy and frontline. Waiving them down will only really reflect poorly on you if your opponents previously took significantly more POIs than you because they're a grace we extend to each other . . . but that would really only affect speaker points. The same would apply if there's a team imbalance in who's asking the POIs.
• Points of order (yes I'm not gonna call them POOs) should not be thrown around freely and only be brought forward when you believe a rule violation that could affect the round is actually happening. After all, it's not like I'm going to just give you an automatic win if I agree with your point. As I said above regarding rule violations, all I do is consider the round as if the sentences which provoked the point never happened. Time will stop during this, but keep the point of order and the defending team's response each within 15 seconds. So points of order should not be back-and-forth and should never exceed 30 seconds total.
• Similar to PuFo (and I suppose CX if I unfortunately ever end up judging that), I expect teamwork and synchrony of ideas. Both teammates must carry their weight for extensions: ideas across speeches need to be so in synchrony that it's like 1v1 while still acknowledging that there's two of you on the AFF/NEG. One of the best ways IMO for you to accomplish this is directly referencing who said what on the flow during signposting (i.e. "As my teammate explained in our constructive . . ."/"During their last rebuttal, our opponents claimed . . ."). Similarly, passing notes can come off positively if you're entrusting an idea of yours to your teammate and they present it properly, or negatively if it's just an attempt to put your words in your teammate's mouth because they themselves have no clue what you need to say.
• If you're going to whisper during your opponents', make sure it's low enough that only your partner can hear it. Otherwise, stick to nonverbal communication like writing and pointing. The only way loud whispering could affect my decision though is through speaker points.
• On the other hand, speaker points are judged independent of your teammate. It doesn't matter if your styles contrast or are similar as long as they're both good. One teammate could even score low while the other scores high. The only way teamwork could factor into speaker points is if I notice you being rude to your teammate.

Speech:

• Give me an outline no matter what so I know where your speech is going. The more natural it is --> The better received it'll be.
• If you're going to mention anything potentially triggering or traumatic (suicide, abuse, etc.) please give a content warning for the sake of your fellow competitors and if there's spectators.
• For the prepared speech events, I expect the speech to match the event, especially in CHSSA. Unless we are at NSDA or other tournaments where OA doesn't exist, I expect your speech to be either written as a clear OO in OO or a clear OA in OA with little overlap.
• Balancing your subject between the niche and important is essential. Your want your topic to be unique, but if it doesn't engage me at first MAKE me engaged and think I've learned something new when coming out of the round. I'm open to any topic: I'm not going to write something like "pick a better topic" or "this doesn't engage me because I can't relate." With me you have the ability to make anything interesting, just make sure you don't set yourself up for failure with a speech that isn't focused or has nowhere to go beyond surface-level.
• If you are struggling to remember your speech, KEEP GOING. I know it's embarrassing and feels cringy, but don't worry I will suffer through that cringe with you. You're never going to learn your speech better for future events if you just shut down.
• Although I dislike canning in impromptu, if you're going to do so: spend more time connecting your examples and elevating the prompt than explaining what your examples are. I can tell when you've rehearsed telling a story every single round, and trust me I will get bored.
• In extempt you need content AND presentation. All information should be organized to thoroughly answer and elevate your prompt.
• In the spontaneous speech events (extempt and impromptu), one of my biggest annoyances is when you warp the speech structure you outlined originally so that you can fill the rest of the time or finish in time. Everything should be thought out and properly paced.
• Self timing is only allowed in extempt and impromptu. For prepared speeches, I can give time signals if someone in the room requests them and everyone in the room will get them if done. Generally, I'll hold up one finger for one minute used, hold up two fingers when you're halfway through your time, and then hold up one finger again for one minute left. I will not give a time signal when your time expires, but that won't be a problem unless you go over the allotted grace period for your event (typically 30 seconds). Even then, I let Tabroom handle time penalization instead of factoring it into my own rankings, unless the tournament directly asks us to apply the penalty manually.
• In every speech event except extempt (since it's usually just one speaking competitor and judge in the room at a time), I expect you to perform to the house. Simply put, this means performing to everyone in the room. You treat us all as your audience that you need to engage, even your fellow competitors who aren't up currently, because that is the purpose of a speech unlike debate where you just need to convince the judge(s). So don't just make eye contact with the judge(s), treat everyone as an audience member.
• Hand gestures and posture should come across as calculated, meaning they enhance from your speech rather than distract from it. In moments I would prefer keeping your hands still than overusing motions with them unintentionally while you talk. With that being said, it will look a little unnatural if you're just standing there for prolonged periods of time like that one emoji, so keep a good balance.
• Speaking style (like tone, facial expressions, posture/gestures, etc.) should match the content of your speech. So when you're giving multiple layers to your speech (which I would definitely recommend doing), that means your speaking style needs to change naturally to suit the content whenever necessary.

Interp:

• If you're going to perform anything potentially triggering (suicide, abuse, etc.), please give a content warning for the sake of your fellow competitors and spectators if they're present. I'm looking at you DI . . .
• Your tone should match your event. Obviously HI should be humorous and DI should be dramatic. If you include elements of a contrasting tone occasionally, they should be in service of achieving your primary tone.
• POIs and Duos can vary in tone, but they should take advantage of their unique format (i.e. combining multiple sources or two performers).
• Half the battle is picking and creating a good script, so you are accountable for the quality of it in addition to your performance. It should be clear to understand, memorable in its purpose, be a good fit for your identity/personality, etc.
• Characterization through mannerisms and voice is essential, especially if you are performing multiple characters so they're distinct.
• Scene transitions can be nice but aren't necessary as long as it comes across when we're changing scenes.

LD:

This is my area of expertise, so obviously this section is gonna be the longest. But I don't want to one of those judges with the paradigms that are impossible to read when you get Tabroom postings 5 minutes before the round, so here's a not-so-short summary of the most important parts:

• As in every other event, signpost everything and say "Quote/EndQuote" as well as the citation for every single card.
• Off-time road maps are recommended but not required. If done, they should be under 10 seconds. Afterwards when moving into their speech, the debater should make clear when exactly they have begun time.
• As I said above, I decide through a three-prong strategy of imagining myself as a panel of a lay judge (emphasizing accessibility and logic), a technical judge (emphasizing line-by-line and evidence), and a traditional judge (emphasizing framework and extension). Typically I'll tell you in RFDs what each of these judging perspectives would've thought individually so you can improve.
• Truth > Tech, but without judge interference. I'm not supposed to be voting for who I think is the "more skilled debater" but rather who successfully convinced me to take their side on the resolution in that isolated round. So while I won't consider any rebuttals your opponent could've made but didn't, I'm not going to expect them to respond to every single warrantless claim you make and weigh it w/o extension.
• For deciding who wins the round, I'll only ever base it on key voter issues given in final speeches because that's why they exist: you tell me what to vote on. Thus they're absolutely necessary in some form. The rest of the round is meant for you to develop those key issues.
• It only becomes necessary to weigh arguments myself when both debaters fail to do so, and thus it's treated as a last resort for choosing a winner in rounds where neither debater really did good. Since you don't want to feel robbed and I don't want to hear complaints in a round where frankly I'd give a loss to both sides, do everything in your power to provide specific voters and extend as much as you can. The less work I have to do to come to a decision --> the happier you'll be with it and the more consistent your W/L ratio will become.
• For determining what is considered a new argument in rebuttal speeches, I generally follow this rule: Is it in direct response to something first said during your opponent's immediate previous speech? + Was there no earlier opportunity to mention it? + Given what you are attempting to accomplish through it, was there was no reason to include it in an earlier speech? If you'd answer no to any of those questions, it's a new argument and I'll discard it from my consideration. I'm most strict on this with the AR2 for obvious reasons.
• After every refutation, on both sides of the flow, I want extension. Even when you claim your opponent dropped an argument, I want extension. Give me reasons why you winning that part of the line-by-line will matter in prep for voters.
• Can I keep up with spreading? Yes, assuming you're good at it and can still enunciate properly. Do I want to? NO. I won't instantly vote you down for it, but expect low speaker points. I also won't say "clear" or whatever if I can't understand you, I'll just stop flowing. Besides, cases that require spreading tend to be weaker in LD just because the event prioritizes key voter issues and framework over card quantity.
• CHSSA rules don't allow plans, but NSDA does. I'll follow the rules of whatever ruleset the tournament is being held under. With that being said however, there's a difference between plans/counterplans and advocacies/counter-advocacies and plans are still unnecessary under NSDA rules.
• For circuit tactics like theory, Kritiks, link to extinction arguments, plans/counterplans, etc: I won't vote you down instantly but know that I generally hold these to a higher standard just because the majority of bad circuit debaters use these tactics to actively avoid clash and secure "automatic" wins. If you're going to do them, do them RIGHT. I'd highly recommend reading the section for what you to plan to run.
• CX is binding but cannot be considered in the round until a speech introduces events from it onto the flow and extends it for me. It's also one-way, with the questioner being allowed to cut off their opponent and the answerer being expected to respect that.

Constructive Formatting:

• Greetings with your name aren't necessary, but if it's your style I get it. All I expect is for you to state the resolution and your side.
• Hooks can be nice if done properly but are by no means necessary. Only do them if you have a good one that can further your point.
• Signpost at the beginning of each observation.
• Every contention and subpoint needs a tagline, which must be signposted.
• Please don't have a sole contention, especially if it also has subpoints. I can guarantee that you could divide into actual contentions.
• Contentions/subpoints should include properly cut cards which are verbally cited w/ at least a source (author/organization) and year and clearly divided from elaboration/paraphrasing through the use of "Quote/EndQuote."
• Summaries at the end are appreciated and recommended but not required.
• The NC is expected to be shorter so you have time to address the entirety of the AC. Clearly denote when you switch sides of the flow.
• End your speech by opening yourself to CX.

Definitions:

• Only define words outside the resolution if you feel they're needed to understand your case. This includes uncommonly-heard abbreviations and extremely technical language.
• Definitions need to be directly quoted from credible sourcing. You can paraphrase after reading a card, but the basis of your definition must absolutely come from a card.
• If you want to extrapolate specific observations for the debate from a definition, do it as a frontline rather than strategically leaving first mention until rebuttals. This gives your opponent a fair window to address it.
• There's nothing that drags the debate down more than a pointless definitional debate. Don't waste your time arguing between slightly different wording of the same idea. Only challenge definitions if you think they could impact the actual debate and my decision.
• If you are going to challenge a definition, you must do three things: 1) explain why your opponent's definition is inapplicable or unhealthy for the debate and shouldn't be considered --> 2) provide an alternative definition (mostly applies to NC only, new definitions shouldn't be provided in rebuttals) --> 3) explain why your definition is better than your opponents.
• Generally I consider definitions abusive if they take away all ground from your opponent and make it impossible to win the debate. Abusive definitions will never be actively rewarded and I will try to side against them, but I can't do so unless you enable me to do so by properly refuting the abusive definition. Even if the abusive definition goes through or is overturned, it doesn't guarantee the win either way.

Framework:

• Some type of framework is absolutely necessary in LD, but it doesn't have to be a value + value-criterion. I've seen values by themselves work. I've even seen successful cases that just have a standard. As long as your framework can clearly explain how my weighing of the debate will operate and act as a mechanism/lens for me to judge the round through, it's fine. Just know v+v/c is popular because it works well.
• Values are general principles that should be universally upheld while value-criterions are topic-specific ways to measure/achieve the value through affirming/negating the resolution. Both can be attacked during rebuttals.
• I like framework debates but, like with definition debates, please make sure they lead somewhere. Only focus on the framework debate if you think it will make or break my decision. There is nothing wrong with collapsing frameworks if they are basically the same because in these cases you win by arguing how you uphold the framework better.
• With every criticism of your opponent's framework, explain how your framework is better and avoids these problems.
• Double blocking is a good but not foolproof strategy when done properly, but make sure you carry it throughout the round.
• Every argument/contention should be linked back to and weighed through framework.
• Unless framework was truly nonexistent in the round, it should almost always be a voter issue.

Cross-Examination:

• In LD CX is a one-way questioning period that we extend to each other. When getting questioned, you're expected to respect the time of your questioner and in turn they are expected to do the same for you during your questioning.
• In other words: if you're conducting a cross-examination, you have free reign to cut your opponent off. Of course doing this in a respectful way will lead to better speaker points, but still be forceful if necessary.
• And that also means if you're getting cross-examined, respect the time of your opponent if they want to interject, respond to the question in front of you, and never try to speak over them.
• I prefer you face me the majority of the time, but I won't judge you if you look at your opponent since a lot of lay judges post-COVID think the opposite. At most, it could affect speaker points (and probably only if you fully turn 90 degrees from me and make zero eye contact).
• If you're cross-examining, please make sure you give an actual question to answer. You can leave your argumentative statements for your speech.
• Events in CX are binding but will not be introduced onto the flow until mentioned during speeches.

Rebuttal Structure (Second Half of NC + 1AR + NR + 2AR):

• This should be obvious but no new arguments introduced. Everything said needs to be an extension of previous speeches or in direct response to something said during your opponent's previous speech. If your opponent makes a new argument, point it out so I can exclude it from weighing, minimize my intervention, and ensure my judgement is fair.
• Move through the flow in a logical manner (one side then the other, observations first and then contention-by-contention, etc.) with signposting. This is where I appreciate off-time road maps the most since they tell me the order you'll be going in.
• Framework needs to be interacted with in some form, be it as concession, collapse or a framework debate.
• A2s and cards can provide concise responses and will definitely appeal to my technical lens since you're reading evidence against evidence, but they aren't required. Of course you can't just make a warrantless response back, but it's acceptable to refute a contention by pointing out the flaws in your opponent's own cards or interpretation of them. This is especially true for philosophical debates, unless of course you're arguing over what a specific philosopher actually believed.
• I get so annoyed by debaters who overuse dropping. Just because your opponent responded to the whole contention and not a specific card doesn't mean the entire contention flows through --> It just means that specific card flows through, assuming of course nothing your opponent said during their rebuttal could be easily applied to it. Do not cry "dropped" lightly because I, through my flow, will know whether or not it was actually dropped. And even if it was actually dropped . . . then what? Extend and tell me how this argument flowing through helps you win the round. This isn't a point system. If your opponent drops your nine weak subpoints but manages to win the one argument that outweighs them all and actually matters, then they're going to win!
• In fact I think choosing to ignore weak contentions in favor of prioritizing the bigger arguments is good, as long as it comes from a place of strategy and not inability to keep up the flow. Hit every part of the line-by-line of course, but there's more ways to respond to an argument than just trying to refute it.
• Turns are encouraged as long as they are done properly and fully extended out.
• I encourage double blocking if possible so that you don't have to win every single line of argument.
• After successfully defending your own contentions, take the opportunity to extend them.
• Your final rebuttal speech must include voter issues that you've been extending throughout the entire round. Weigh the most important arguments of the round and give me a clear list of reasons why I ultimately vote for your side.

Plans/Counterplans vs. Advocacies/Counter-advocacies:

• NSDA allows plans/counterplans, so they're acceptable at tournaments under NSDA rules. In these rounds, I will put aside my biases and consider them valid. With that being said, a plan forces you to a higher standard of evidence & specificity, and I will still need to determine whether or not your plan/counterplan actually affirms or negates the resolution at hand.
• CHSSA rules ban plans/counterplans, and I will uphold this rule at any tournament under CHSSA rules. Like with new arguments, call your opponent out on this so I can exclude it from weighing, minimize intervention, and ensure fair judgement.
• With that being said, there are certain rounds where I'd have to ignore this rule to be able to judge it: If you respond to a plan under CHSSA rules without calling it out for being illegal, you give it validity as an argument and I am now forced to only weigh off the rebuttals you provided. So please, check which ruleset the tournament is under and call out plans under CHSSA when you see them!
• With that being said, many debaters in LD often misunderstand what a plan/counterplan is (which makes sense since LD isn't a format you see them often) and confuse it with an advocacy/counter-advocacy. Basically there are four key differences: 1) a plan typically pre-emptively provides specific means of implementation (a reference to an existing piece of legislation or an original ABC format with enforcer, funding, timeframe, etc.) while an advocacy is just a general idea of what we should do --> 2) plans include aspects that aren't completely guaranteed by fiating the upholding or rejection of the resolution yet attempt to claim benefits from them --> 3) a plan can only be compared to another plan or the status quo, while an advocacy can just be shown as generally bad --> 4) most importantly, plans shifts the focus of the debate from the topic to the plans because, while in plan debates you only need to defend the plan you provide, advocacies/counter-advocacies are used in argumentation about whether we should affirm or negate the resolution.
• Basically CHSSA bans plans/counterplans in LD (which full disclosure I agree with) because plans seek to avoid the value debate of the resolution by limiting their burden and the scope of the topic to something so specific that it's unfair to expect debaters to anticipate the hypothetical world their opponent creates, especially given the constraints of the format. On the other hand, advocacies/counter-advocacies, assuming they are actually those and not plans of course, are healthy for the debate because they are primarily used to clarify what each side wants to and can achieve in their world based on the resolution's presence without guaranteeing they will.
• Despite their differences, they do have one thing in common: mutual exclusivity is required for offensive use. In order for it to be a reason to vote for you over the other side, the plan/advocacy must only be possible in either a world where I affirm the resolution if you're aff or negate it if you're neg.
• Defensive use of plans/advocacies does not have the same requirement of mutual exclusivity, but keep in mind it can only ever minimize, not get rid of, the impact of the original target argument since you're basically just showing an alternative solution.

Circuity Stuff:

• Full Disclosure: I personally dislike circuit debate. Again I will do my best to put this bias aside for fairness sake and give circuit debaters a chance, but I do have to be strict with these arguments since they are often used just to avoid clash over the resolution.
• Can I keep up with spreading? Yes, assuming you're good at it and can still enunciate properly. Do I want to? NO. I won't instantly vote you down for it, but expect low speaker points. I also won't say "clear" or whatever if I can't understand you, I'll just stop flowing. Besides, cases that require spreading tend to be weaker in LD just because the event prioritizes key voter issues and framework over card quantity.
• Even if you run a plan, I will judge it like an advocacy (read the section above if you're confused what I mean). It cannot stand on its own. It still needs to prove why I should affirm or negate the resolution because that's what I'm judging, not a policy round.
• No, I will not join the email chain and you shouldn't either: To be clear, I'm not talking about just sharing cards digitally upon request since that's basically the same as passing printed cards. What I'm referring to is sharing your entire case/speech beforehand because you know it's impossible to understand verbally or is poorly formatted. Or during rebuttals, you share a giant document of blocks, many of which you don't end up reading. If both debaters agree to doing an email chain I suppose its fine between them, but you reserve your right to refuse and demand specific cards be requested and provided traditionally (even if that means a debater has to show their whole laptop because they don't have paper copies). I, however, will never join the email chain myself because in this event I'm judging you on what you can verbally communicate, not by reading your speech and cards myself.
• Theory: Signpost and include all components (the interpretation, violation, standard, and voters). But like with all claims of abuse, it won't secure guaranteed wins and can only be used to win lines of arguments that still must be extended and weighed. This is because I basically always default to "drop the argument" instead of "drop the debater," so you need to give me a pretty convincing reason in extreme circumstances to convince me to overturn my paradigm. Also, if you argue theory, it better be related to something your opponent specifically did during the round and not to just debate in general . . . as then, not only are you wasting my time, but you're claiming to everyone who chose voluntarily to be here, including yourself, that this whole debate is an unfair waste of time.
• Ks: They absolutely must be topic-specific, and you must explain how negating the resolution or dropping your opponent's argument is the only way to avoid making this fundamental incorrect assumption. Also, all standards of evidence go out the window once you get to this level of esoteric philosophy. So don't waste my time reading some dumb K about how extinction is good and solves everything on a debate about voting rights because I'm sure at that point I'll buy anything your opponent says.
• Running any circuit argument does not absolve you from the normal duties a debater must perform. You still need to debate the resolution, obey the rules, respond to your opponent's arguments, and weigh the round with key voter issues.
• If you're facing a bad circuit debater, still make an attempt to refute your opponents arguments and prove why you still have won the round. I don't want to have to end up voting against you and for your opponent just because you gave me no opportunity/basis to.

Hello, this is my first year judging for Speech and Debate. I am looking for a respectful debate, and I expect the participants to be articulate in their speaking. Above all, I want everyone to enjoy this experience. Thank you, and good luck!

Jay

Experience: I have three years of experience in parliamentary debate, and am familiar with the structure and style of LD debates.

Argumentation: I want clear arguments followed by quality evidence. I expect debaters to engage in meaningful clash, which means identifying weak points in their opponents' arguments and explaining how these weaknesses either hinder their opponents' cases or bolster their own. Finally, I prefer arguments to be impactful, and will consider the weight of contentions over the quantity of them.

Time Management: I want you to talk a normal pace. I can understand if you speak quickly, but don't go too fast. I will also time you independently, and will give a grace period if time is up to wrap things up. From there I will respectfully cut you off if you continue on.