Hey! My name's George Balan & I'm a High School Judge who did 2 years of debate in middle school and continued that into high school. As a judge, my main focus will be on the reasoning and logic of your arguments, as well as if you carry that logic and reasoning from your first speaker all the way to your third. Always make sure to be respectful and kind towards your opponents, I value the way that you treat each other between the round to a pretty high degree. Most importantly, I'm looking at how you contribute not just to the debate but also to your team. Feel free to ask if you have any questions regarding my judging preferences- I'd love to make the round go as smoothly as possible. Thank you :)

Most importantly be respectful and kind towards your opponents :)) I WILL deduct speaker points if you are rude.

I'll give 0.5 extra speaker points if you can include a good joke in your speech.

My name is Daphne Du and I am the parent of a competitor. My daughter started to participate in speech and debate competition two years ago and I have been involved with her debate program and volunteered to be a judge two times. I am most familiar with congressional debate as that is the form my daughter debates in. I also have some experience judging LD and PF. I focus on the content of the presentation and argument, how convincing it is, whether the argument is valid and to the point, and how well it gets across to me. I also value attitude and the manner you carry yourself in the rounds, not talking over other speakers and follow the guidance from the PO. Most importantly, I am looking for how you contribute to the discussion and move the discussions forward and in a constructive way.

I am a parent judge (software engineer) with 1 year of judging experience. I value arguments that are explained clearly and presented in a well organized flow. Speaking too fast or having a messy flow will only hurt you so try and keep your information and end goal clear.

Theories: I do not understand theories very well. If you want to run theory, explain slowly what the theory is, and why I should vote on it over case. Also clearly explain how the other team is violating your theory.

Kritiks: I do not understand kritiks so most likely if you run a kritik, I will get confused so please do not run them unless absolutely necessary.

Please be respectful to others during the round.

hi guys i tab a lot

Add mmartono@bu.edu to the email chain, please.

+0.5 speaks for 30 seconds of every speech in singing form.

Can we please weigh? Thanks.

I have no tolerance for people being mean and rude.

Hello, I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and make your arguments very clear. Please keep jargon to a minimum and make POIs and POOs as constructive as possible. Impacts and weighing are important, especially for third speakers. Good luck!

Hi, my name is Ruturaj Pathak, and I am a parent judge. I have been judging debates for 3 years now. I judge fairly in an unbiased way. I like the teams to be respectful of each other.

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as you enunciate, and everyone can understand what you are saying.

POIs: Have no more than 3 POIs per speech otherwise it is disruptive. Please use them correctly and ask them in a form of a question.

I always flow the debate and write what you speak. I judge on clear contentions, evidence that supports them and impacts. I also like clear refutes based on logic and analysis. Clear evidence strengthens your refutes.

I add 10-15 second grace period to your time to allow you to complete your chain of thought. But I will not add or write any new information presented once you pass your time limit.

I am a lay judge. I have been judging parli debate for 1 year. I prefer clear and not too fast speaking. I vote off of strong arguments and whichever team has the most points standing at the end.

Please speak slowly and articulate your words so I can understand what you are saying.

Hello debaters,

My name is Emma and I am a high school debater. I did two years of competitive debate in middle school and know the rules well. As you'll hear with most high schoolers, I'm okay with faster speeds but ultimately, no one should ever be going so fast that it detracts from their speaking ability or my comprehension. I'm also someone who is not afraid to give an 80 or a 72 so here are some things I value in speakers:

• fluctuation of tone
• effective and logical refutations
• practical pace
• eye contact
• FUNNY INTRO OR JOKE
• POIs and heckles so long as within ebdl regulations
• ethos + logos evidence
• Trustworthy sources
• How well you fulfill your duty as the first, second, or third speaker
• First --> establish a foundation, be the best in terms of delivery since most prepared, provide comprehensive evidence, break down your arguments establish a weigh, impact, and stay engaged by POIing + heckling + helping your teammates
• Second --> Begin to break down the other side's arguments, expand on your arguments,rebuild your arguments, continue to connect everything to weigh, impact, and stay engaged by POIing + heckling + helping your teammates
• Third --> Destroy other side's arguments, rebuild your arguments, WEIGH + IMPACT + COMPARISON, stay engaged by POIing + heckling + helping your teammates

Ultimately, the entire debate comes down to CLASH:

1. If your team and the other team both say the same argument (ex: Aff is saying motion will help economy Neg is saying motion will harm economy) repeating your arguments endlessly is not the way to win. Compare evidence through source trustworthiness, date, which has better/more comprehensive analysis, which is more pertinent to circumstances at hand, etc. Go beyond the wall where most debaters fall and prove to me, not just that your point has evidence but it has BETTER evidence and should be taken into account instead of theirs. The same thing goes if you guys have the same weigh, then you don't need to convince me that the economy matters but rather how you impact it more realistcally.
2. If your team and the other team have different arguments you should always and firstly refute the foundation of their arguments. However, you can also clash through comparison. For example, if Aff is weighing on economy and Neg is weighing on the environment, Neg can say that the environment matters more than the economy because the environment refers to the livelihood of our entire planet and is something necessary to our survival whereas harming the economy affects less people and on a lesser magnitude. Conversely, the Aff can say that serious changes to our environment through reducing harmful practices we rely on are unfeasible in today's age and even if we accept the Neg, while they may provide a benefit in the long term, it does nothing for the millions of impoverished starving people right now who need more job opportunities, higher pay, etc.

- When this circumstance occurs, you prove to me not what your argument is, but why it matters more. The best way to compare in my opinion is using the PMTS methods (probability, magnitude, timeframe, scope) and you don't need these terms in your speech but you can utilize the premise of these concepts to compare arguments.