I don't mind if you talk fast, but make sure it is understandable (rapid/conversational)

I don't flow during cross, if you want me to take something from there into consideration, bring it back into your argument.

Avoid using general/open wording such as "stuff" and "things", be specific in your argument and evidence, I will not try to assume and build it for you. Specific, concrete evidence and data is something that I look strongly at.

First time parent judge. Do not run theory, do not spread, do not use a lot of jargon (delink, turns are fine), please DO off time roadmaps. Summary and FF will win you the round.

I will judge according to WSFA and NSDA rules. I am looking for debaters to persuade me using good communication skills and authoritative evidence. Communicating effectively means confidently stating your case; speaking in comprehensible and well-formed sentences (no debate lingo); talking at a rate you choose so long as you make it understandable; making eye contact with me and, as appropriate, with your competitors; and showing a deep understanding of your position by being able to acknowledge its flaws and explain why they aren’t important in the framework you are urging me to adopt.

I value compliance with the WSFA Rules of Evidence In Debate 4.1, 4.2 (first time a source or evidence is used, debater is to state qualifications of author (name, publication, date of publication, and pages)); see also NSDA Unified High School Manual, Evidence Rules (in all debate events, contestants are expected to deliver, at a minimum, primary author(s)’ last name and year of publication).

Your job is to persuade me with a well-constructed argument, not to beat up your opponent. Presentation is important but I have given wins to lower-point speakers. Comport yourself honorably and courteously to everyone at all times.

I am a former NSDA speech and debate coach. My background includes 23 years of practicing law as a litigator; moot court competition semi-finalist; English teacher; and speech and writing tutor at secondary and university levels.

I am excited to be a part of your debate experience. I am new to judging debates, however I have had experience as a mediator and have spent ample time in courtrooms listening to various cases being presented. I enjoy the art of debate and am looking forward to hearing you present your arguments.

As your evaluator I will seek to judge fairly. I will seek to implement acceptable debate rules and expectations in judging your matches. I will be looking for and will be listening for arguments that are clearly presented and can be backed up with more than just your opinions. I appreciate facts substantiated with data. Please be mindful that your evidence is presented with substance and in a systematic logical way. Keep the main issue at the forefront throughout the entirety of the debate.

I will be judging not only what you say, but how you say it. Please speak clearly, audibly, and with passion. I appreciate listening to a debate that has been internalized rather than read from note cards. I do understand each debater has a unique style and look forward to seeing yours. Confidence in both posture, speech, and eye contact keeps a captive audience. Remember to be respectful when giving your rebuttal. When respect is shown, focus on the debate stays central and the distractions of ego will be minimized. Respect is key in presenting a convincing argument.

You can count on me to give you my honest feedback, as well as tips for future debates. I will judge your debate with as little bias as possible.

I look forward to this opportunity.

TLDR: Be respectful, have fun, and make debate educational. I'll judge the debate round as it's presented, and vote off the flow to the best of my ability.

I will disclose the result if EVERYONE in the round is fine with disclosure.

Imo speaks are kinda dumb, by default everyone will be getting full speaks from me, or at least the most I can give.

I don't mind answering questions about the round or ballot (time allowing), but generic feedback will be given in the RFD.

Actual paradigm if you wanna read: I'd say my overall judging philosophy skews progressive. I'm a big fan of progressive arguments in PF rounds IF DONE CORRECTLY. I've got a decent experience with progressive arguments in the past, but if you bring up some super theoretical philosophical argument, it may fly over my head. If this section is confusing, don't worry about it. It won't affect how I judge your debate round.

In terms of speed, I can only flow as fast as my pen can write. That being said, in most scenarios, I should be able to catch what you're saying.

Tech > Truth, but also to an extent. For me, that means if something gets conceded, I'll hold it as true. But for rebuttals, I will use my own judgement to determine if it's responsive. Try your best to implicate your rebuttals as otherwise it'll have to come to my discretion if your block responds to their case. Truth outweighs for common logic. I'm not going to vote on a no evidence climate change good impact turn.

For evidence ethics, please just have good evidence. I prefer cards to not be paraphrased, but if they are it's not the end of the world. If it's discovered that you're misconstruing cards, it'll be an auto-loss for me. Realistically, there's not enough time in a debate round to be checking through everyone's evidence. The basis of debate is an implicit assumption that everyone goes in with good faith for things like evidence. Please don't be the team that misconstrues a card and gets caught, because then it looks bad for everyone. If there is an email chain, please add me to it chenjacob@outlook.com.

I find that I tend to be pretty big on the respect part of debate. I understand that it's a sport where you're literally forced to argue against someone else. I get that tensions can be high when you're arguing against someone else. That being said, there's a line between being passionate about your argument and verbally berating your opposition. Example of things that will not be tolerated: personal attacks, comments on things like your opposition's race, gender, national origin etc. In summary, keep debate in the debate space, don't make it personal.

Overall, we're all just trying to learn in debate, it's supposed to be a fun sport built on the respect for others. Please try to keep it that way.

For Speech:

I've been an impromptu competitor for 2 years now. Impromptu has been the main IE I've participated in, so I have the most experience with it. Small pieces of my impromptu judging philosophy, I don't mind evaluating based on my personal perspectives, so if you want to just go up and speak I'll do my best the judge based on quality of speeches. That being said, I have a slight preference for impromptu speeches that don't follow the same 3 point formula. In my opinion, the three point style of impromptu speaking gets repetitive, but if that's what you're most comfortable with, don't feel bad. It won't affect how I view your speech. It's more, if you give a great well coordinated speech that doesn't follow the three point formula -> it'll be more interesting to me -> More speaks -> Potentially better ranking.

For other individual events, I may need to ask for clarification on speech timings, but other than that, I'll evaluate to the best of what the event is like.

Personal Info if you care about that: I'm Jacob, a current senior at Newport High, I'm the current Public Forum Captain for our team's debate club. I've been debating public forum for 3 years now, with 1 year of policy debate. If you have funny stories or moments to share with people from Newport debate, please let me know, I'd love to hear stories about my fellow debate members.

Hello, everyone. I'm a first-time parent debate judge. (The last competitive debate I judged was back in 1985, before public forum debate was even invented, so it probably doesn't count as debate experience any more.)

While I will not outright reject spreading, do note that the faster you talk, the harder it will be for me to follow and take notes.

I am the Speech + Debate Team Coordinator for St Luke School (Middle School) in Shoreline,WA (speechteam@stlukeshoreline.org)

For Speech Events:

First and foremost - enjoy your experience! It's commendable that you're at the tournament and willing to try!

I appreciate poise and confidence in speaking events. Take your time to articulate your speech, emphasizing words, phrases and emotions in your piece - don't rush. If you're having fun doing it, I will enjoy it equally!

For Debate:

I am a former high school and collegiate debater. I appreciate a well-thought out argument with spot on cards that prove your point. A sharp cx/crossfire with corresponding follow up arguments is a great technique that will also earn higher points from me.

Speed is OK, but clarity is of the utmost importance. I often find some high school debaters value speed too much, in turn sacrificing clarity and emphasis. Speaking quickly is a strategy, just as selecting which arguments or case you present.You may know what you're saying, but if it's unintelligible, it's not going to be a determining factor on my ballot.

Do your best to organize your speeches - indexing/signposting makes it easier to flow and follow your speech path. Please don't just read a bunch of cards and expect me to organize them for you, nor determine where they go.

I will listen to almost any argument and weigh it based on the scales that you - the debaters - create for me in the round. I may not personally like it, but if you win the argument, I'll consider it in the context you've defined.

I expect everyone to be respectful and considerate. Everyone wants to win, but it should also be fun. Really!

David "Will" Davis

This is my first year of coaching at Mercer Island. 42 years ago I debated at Nationals (they called it NFL back then) and Extemp. Now I am a retired trial attorney with more than 50 civil jury trials under my belt.

1) I am not yet totally familiar with Washington debate. So, let me know if you think I am doing something wrong.

2) Don't talk fast. I don't like spread debate. I don't like watching someone gasping for breath every ten seconds just so he can cram in one more argument. Slow down. Speak clearly and persuasively. If I put down my pen and fold my arms--- take that as a hint that you should slow down. Of course, you have to be looking up to see me. Eye contact!

2) REPEAT. Don't talk fast. If your affirmative is set for spread, then slow down and cut out a contention or two, and go at a reasonable speed. Your outcome and speaker points will suffer if you start off fast. If you spread, and the other side does not, I will not reward you for "dropped" points.

3) I am not a big fan of outrageous arguments such as nuke war or world hunger as a result of school prayer. Keep it real. We are not going extinct because of social security payments to Puerto Rico. Argue something a reasonable person would believe.

4) Imagine that you are chosen by your school to present a plan to the state legislators for additional funding for debate. In your speech in front of the senators would you spread? Would you claim that the economy would collapse if we don't fund debate. KEEP it real.

5) Have some fun.

I am a new judge in 2022 and excited to be a part of debate!

Similar to other judges, I believe that quality, well-structured and supported arguments are much better than quantity. It is better to have 1 or 2 strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points.

I greatly appreciate good speaking skills and professional presentation. Please enunciate, make periodic eye contact and speak slowly and clearly. If I do not hear it and cannot note it for consideration, unfortunately I cannot refer to it when making my final decision. Demonstrate that you know your material well enough to not read directly off of the page.

If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not. I prefer clarity of evidence and impacts, with valid reference to resources.

Be sure to advance arguments, clearly respond to your opponents arguments and attempt to discredit your opposition. Unaddressed arguments will carry more weight. Please make sure that you and your partner are cohesive.

Other points:

Please sign post - this will ensure that I properly note ideas and contentions.

Please avoid use of complex debate jargon.

Be respectful of your opponents, do not interrupt, and be polite through the competition.

Please no observers.

This is high school debate. It's a fun, learning experience. I don't expect anyone to be perfect and would hope that you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win or not.

Quality over quantity.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round. In other words, don't spread.
2. Also don't yell at me. I can hear you just fine.
3. Bonus points if you actually adjust your speed and tone appropriately to your speech.

Evidence

I like evidence, empirical is good, but logical and reasonable is also important. Don't be afraid to evaluate sources, not all sources are created equally. Don't ever have a hanging contention. Don't try to lawyer me with bizarre definitions and loopholes. Use reasonable and common definitions. Don't spend more time on the rules of debate (especially if you are trying to convince me how to vote) than on the actual arguments in the debate itself.

Human life, empathy and giving a preference to those marginalized are things I value.

Organization

I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots. Circle back to your contentions. Be sure you hit your impact and magnitude. Tie everything to your value.

I appreciate civility, and reasonably paced speech rather than "speed talking" for debates.

I'm a 47-year old speech and debate parent who works at Amazon. As I flow, I look for thoughtful engagement with the other team's arguments, ideally reaching a Hegelian synthesis.

Hi, I am Ram Dutt and I have judged many times before. Thank you for considering these suggestions to help me judge fairly and authentically.

Please Speak clearly so that i can understand you and be able to give you credit.

Introduce yourself and start with you plan and tell a good story connecting your arguments.

If you going to use jargon, please expand and explain. If you feel that i am not paying attention, that is because i am taking notes.

I will use my phone timer and give you a 5 second leeway and the ask you to stop

I believe in well linked arguments that tell a good story. I believe in respect for competitors and thoughtful behaviors. Arguments should have references and data that substantiates validity and applicability.

Don’t spread.

Coach and judge of 18 years.

Lincoln Douglas:

I always fall back on the basic explanations on the National Speech and Debate LD ballot.

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

*This is paramount for me.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

*I dislike when one debater puts the burden of proof on the other side.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a
student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.
4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to them as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

*No spreading/speed reading. I put huge emphasis on clarity. Persuade me with your language and well crafted thoughts. If I can't understand you, you can't win.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of their opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.
6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the
refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.
7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round
based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

Hello there,

My name is Hema Goyal (Patil) and I have judged middle school debates for the last two years. I began judging high school debates in 2023. At home, I participate in fierce debates with my high schooler and he wins most debates :). I am an immigrant from India and I have lived in Seattle since 1999 and worked for two software companies SAP and Microsoft for a total of 16 years. I have my husband, two kids and a cat in my family here in the US.

A few things to remember:

1. My preference is for debaters to speak at a conversational rate because a fast rate of delivery has made it difficult for me to understand arguments in the past.

2. I write down key arguments while focusing on your speaking, and I might appear serious when doing so, but please don't be worried about or read into my facial expressions.

3. Tell me a story. I can comprehend and retain information well if the message has a good flow, and I find arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive. I value good argumentation supported with relevant statistics and preferably recent or historical examples or good hypotheses. If there is good reasoning and delivery of the significance and impact of data you are presenting, I will more than likely find your arguments or contentions persuasive.

4. Please be kind, open and respectful towards your peers and opponents and everyone's time.

5. You can be assured of receiving stellar speaker points from me if you are able to speak clearly at a conversational rate and are able to establish a good flow and put good efforts in crossfires.

All the very best for your debates and speeches. You bringing yourself to this platform of healthy argumentation and speaking is commendable and this is going to help shape you for a bright future. So congratulations already.

hello! good luck for your rounds!!!

i'm mainly compete speech, informative speaking to be exact, so i greatly value clear speech and strong speaking skills, try to avoid filler words like like uh uhm etc. enunciate!! try to make eye contact with me once in a while :)

i'm not extremely versed in debate, having only competed pufo once or twice, so try to be patient with me and along with that, don't go toooo fast!

i'm interested in this topic, and i promise to remain unbiased.

definitely remain respectful, be considerate! cx is a different story, but still don't cut one another off :(

i feel like final focus definitely holds a lot of weight, summary too, but ff is that last chance to really sell your side so!

don't forget, i love speech! along with that, i ABSOLUTELY adore tone and inflection, how relevant is that to debate? maybe not much but still try to have some tone variation, especially on points that matter + contentions.

DON'T WORRY I'M NOT JUST GOING TO JUDGE YOU ON SPEAKING SKILLS i'd just love to see it happen...

but also, let's have a fun debate, be entertaining and passionate!

thanks <3

TLDR:

- Signposting is fine if you think it’ll help.
- I’ll favor good quality arguments > uncontested arguments > number of arguments; basically, focus on quality
- I typically don’t flow crossfire. If something is relevant and you want me to flow it, bring it up in your rebuttal/summary.
- Don’t introduce brand new arguments in the final focus.
- I’ll consider the framework (if introduced) if it’s uncontested (or otherwise accepted)

------

First-year judge for PF. Background in leadership mentorship via the Civil Air Patrol (USAF-Auxiliary). UW Computer Science. Questions, email halimr@uw.edu.

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

As the assistant coach of the Eastside Prep debate team, I am new to judging Upper School/High School debates, but I have consistently been judging PF and Speech this winter. During the debates, I pay close attention to each speaker and team, taking notes on the contentions and refutations presented and supported with evidence. It is crucial to explain your contentions and their refutations in a way that anyone can understand. You should speak as though you are convincing someone else, not yourself. Speaking faster and louder does not necessarily make you more convincing. When judging debates, I appreciate it when debaters explain their points and how the evidence relates to the overall position. Off-time roadmaps are unnecessary if your statement is well-organized and presented clearly. It should be evident that you understand your side, the contentions, and the evidence, rather than just referencing sources or reading from cards. During the debates, it is essential to demonstrate consistent communication with your teammate and build off each other's arguments. Debaters should also be polite and respectful, yet firm, during crossfire. Public Forum debate is the time to explain the sides of the topic, engage in the arguments, and seek understanding through a clear explanation of the evidence and the significance of that evidence to their overall contention.

I like competing in PF but not judging PF

• call out your opps if they go overtime - i won't be timing
• make summ and ff extra clear bc i can't flow everything (voters + weigh)
• theory and K's dropped - this is pf
• aggro cx preferred (but don't be rude)
• if card sharing takes over 2 mins i will either deduct speaks or move on
• if the whole debate is abt definitions i might lose my mind
• if u wear a pink tie and/or green suit i will give extra speaks
• also applies to if u take off your suit b4 speech like rex
• quote jiadong gu, mike liu, or harrison tang and i will give u a rlly good detailed feedback
• extra points if u make me laugh but use like or um at least 3 times then i will deduct speaks

2 worlds WWW

Hello, my name is Wenzhong (Jack) Jiang. I am a parent judge from Eastside Preparatory School. This is my first time judging a debate tournament.

Since I am new, I would appreciate it if you could speak slowly and deliver the messages clearly.

please have fun and enjoy your debate tournament.

I am a new parent judge, third time judging PF debates today. What's helpful for me: (1) Clearly articulate your contentions, including the contentions that you are arguing for/against; (2) I find the off-time roadmap helpful in knowing how it will flow. (3) Ilike to weigh the impacts of the contentions and arguments.

Hello, everyone. I'm a first-time parent debate judge. Please do note that the faster you talk, the harder for me to follow and take notes.

Hi!

Email chain: zhiruijerryli1117@outlook.com

Pronouns: he/him

pufo for interlake for 3 years, toc and stuff

tech>truth. debate is a game, play to win. if it comes to presumption, first speaking team gets my ballot.

please signpost and weigh and give warrants in all your speeches. collapse and extend in summary.

extensions aren't just a one sentence thing. extend ur links, internal links, uniqueness, and full impact scenarios.

everything in ff must have been in summary, new args will hurt ur speaks, and i probably won't consider it.

weigh your impacts and resolve clash, I hate intervening.

evidence: every debater must have cut cards available to send, even if you paraphrase. here's a link to how to cut your evidence: https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/finding-and-cutting-evidence.html

if you send the opponents a website link and tell them to ctrl + f something, i'm capping speaks at 27 and treating it as an analytic.

(if you didn't come to round with cut cards, i'll give you like a minute or so to cut the evidence you need without taking away prep time)

anything above 250 wpm - send a speech doc, altho u should just do that in general.

topic>theory>Ks>non-topical Ks>friv>tricks :(. if ur running smth wonky, tell me.

every single debater should check this site out to learn the basics of progressive debate. for better or worse, it has entered pf and it looks like its going to stay. https://pfforward.weebly.com/.

(For those who want to run it, this is a good read. https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/)

i will try to evaluate most theory (i think disclo good and paraphrase meh) but i won't hack for anything. the more frivolous the theory, the lower i set the standard for responses.

if ur initiating theory/Ks on novices who clearly have no idea how to respond, i'll give u the lowest speaks I can even if u get the W. kinda ironic when debaters talk about setting good norms + reducing structural inequality when they're literally perpetuating it.

don't be any kind of -ist.

be nice. even if you aren't having a good time, doesn't mean you have to make it suck for everyone

even tho my debate partner tells me not to, i give off heavy visual cues. nods -> good point; scrunchy face -> what r u doing...

i'll prolly give everyone high speaks unless u give me a reason not to. i'll tell u in my rfd.

please ask questions. i'd be happy to clarify.

will disclose.

I am a parent judge. I have judged Public Forum debate for two years.

Please keep in mind a few things while debating:

• In Construction, I like well stated Contentions.
• In Rebuttal, I want you to highlight the weakness in the Contentions of the opposite side.
• In Summary, I judge how well you defend your own positions and how well you debate the opposite positions.
• In Focus, I want you to convince me why you win. Please do not bring in new evidence at this stage.
• Please talk slowly. I try to take notes, but if you talk too fast, I am not be able to keep up. No jargons please.
• I look for clear logic and reasoning, less on emotional appeals.
• Statistics is good as long as it is concrete to support your positions but not hard to follow.
• Any discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language will result in automatic minimum speaker points.
• I believe debate should be a fun and educational experience!

I am a 1st year parent volunteer judge.

Hello everyone,

I look for clear arguments with a claim, warrant, and impact linked to the ballot, and I must fully understand your argument to consider it. Key points for me include clarity of arguments, the significance of impacts, and clear voters in the Final Focus. I'm cautious about overly restrictive frameworks or conduct that limits fair debate. Professional conduct is expected.

I'm open to frameworks, resolutions analysis, and observations, provided they're fair. Logical arguments are valid even without cards, but evidence debates should be meaningful and not detract from prep time. For high speaker points, clarity, effective crossfire questioning, and strong rebuttal and final focus speeches are crucial, along with good analogies.

Winning my ballot involves unique, linked arguments, cleverness, politeness, and an engaging, balanced debate. Abusive tactics, unprofessional attire, ignoring evidence debate guidelines, or personal insults will count against you.

hi :)

i'm a high school senior, "toc and stuff"

email for ev sharing: moxibustion194@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

i'll vote on the flow, anything goes (tech > truth) but have links and warrants please

Ask me about anything on this paradigm,

Basic Stuff

Please collapse and extend in summary--- if offense is not fully extended (links, warrants and impacts) i will not evaluate it.

Frontline everything you're going for in second rebuttal/first summary, and respond to turns (a dropped turn is js clean offense for them).

Defense is not sticky

Weigh please!! it makes it so so so much easier to evaluate a round. Prereqs and short-circuits are terminal and must be addressed, if u have two short-circuits u also have to resolve that (like timeframe weighing or smthn). & don't just throw out buzzwords like scope and magnitude, explain why it actually matters more.

In general resolve clash. Weigh ur defense against their link & vice versa, don't just go back and forth!!

For speed anything 250 wpm or below is fine as long as you're clear. But good strategy > dumping responses, and make sure everything is warranted

Prog

Theory: default to competing interps & no rvis, i think paraphrasing is fine and disclosure is good but ill vote on whatever if u win it. I dont really like theory tbh, i think it gets kinda messy. Especially if we are on the WA circuit like.. whats the point.. that said run whatever u want

Ks: ill vote on it but pls explain rotb very clearly since i dont hv that much experience (hit Ks like 3 times & never ran a K), remember u cant fiat the alt.

DON'T run prog on a team that clearly doesn't know what's going on (especially in WA circuit) thats rly mean. ill drop ur speaks and think ur super annoying

Other Stuff

don't be anything-ist!!

be nice in cross, if ur a guy in cross with not a guy check yourself

feel free to ask me about anything on this paradigm!! especially if ur a novice. and seriously if this is your first time debating, just do your best and have fun. ur gonna do great

if you say erm what the sigma it's auto W

Hello, student judge here. I've been competing for the past few years in both speech and debate, so I know the events pretty well. I've also judged before so I have some judging experience.

I hope that this goes without saying but please be kind and respectful to all your opponents/judges, and do not be discriminatory, disrespectful, or rude in any way.

Debate:

• I don't mind if you spread, but please speak clearly. If I can't understand it, I probably won't consider it, and neither will your opponent. I prefer quality over quantity, and having one or two strong points is better than several scattered ones.
• Please make sure to cover all your and your opponents' points in your final speeches/rebuttals. There should be lots of clash, especially during cross and rebuttals.
• Please, at the end, state why you think you should win. Voters are very helpful.
• Framework is very important so be ready to explain why your framework should win/is better.
• Please keep your arguments reasonable and realistic, especially when it comes to impacts.
• Roadmapping and a well-organized argument are very helpful both to me and your opponent.
• Don't bring up new arguments in rebuttals.
• Please explain your arguments well and with reason; don't just throw out a bunch of information without tying it together and back to the resolution.
• I'll vote on most things if they're well-backed by evidence, reasonable, and explained well.

Thank you, and have a good round!

I am a Lay Judge, and this is my first season judging debate. Please do not "spread." What I am most interested in hearing are focused, original arguments that are relatively easy to follow. I want to see people responding directly to their opponent's arguments, good clash, asking clear questions in the cross, and summarizing well in the final speeches.

I have professional experience as a performance coach and have delivered countless presentations and speeches in my career. I will be looking for articulation, good eye contact, as well as good command of your arguments and supporting facts.

Thank you and enjoy the Tournament!

I enjoy a good debate that goes back and forth but is civil. Courtesy goes a long way in showing respect for your fellow contestants. There is a fine line between being aggressive and being rude. Rudeness can decrease a persons perception of how they are doing in the debate.

Introduce yourself (name, school) before you speak, and state your side firmly and clearly. Most judges do not enjoy being read to so eye contact is important in trying to convince a judge that they should vote for your position.

As much as you may like to keep track of time yourself, be aware that I will be keeping close track of the time and my timer starts when you START speaking and NOT when you say it does.

Have fun and remember that although the round may not go as you planned or expected, it is the experience that is most important. Win or lose, the skills that you learn here and hone through each tournament you enter will help you throughout the rest of your life. The fact that you are here today shows that you are serious about improving yourself and your personal interaction and speaking skills. Cheers!

Hey there,

I am a first time parent judge. I am excited to be in this with you and it would help me if you could avoid spreading as if I don't understand what you say, it won't make it onto my flow. Please be respectful and enjoy yourselves.

Have fun.

This is my third debate tournament judging. For best results speak slowly with an economy of words.

Hello,

I am a 2nd year parent judge and am looking forward to meeting you. I would say that I tend to lean towards the argument that has the most impact.

Best wishes!

Tristan

I am a volunteer parent judge and this is my first time to be a debate judge.

I have participated in public policy discussion both in academic and public administration environment at the national and international level through my career. So, I am familiar with the skills of logic construction and evidence organisation as well as the development of communication strategy. Thus, in my role of being a judge today, I would look for the balance of E.P.L (Ethos, Pathos and Logos) in your delivery and appreciate critical thinking and unique perspectives. I would not, however, appreciate speedy delivery by using 'spread'.

Regarding the topic of debate, I have developed certain general perspective and some depth knowledge by reading both academic peer review papers and news articles.

I am looking forward to hearing your debate and thanking you in advance for this opportunity.

I am a first-time parent debate judge.

Please speak clearly and precisely. That will help me to understand your arguments and can give you credit.

Be respectful. Time management is essential.

It will be good if you introduce yourself, start with your plan, and tell a good story that links to arguments.

I am the coach of the Eastside Prep debate team. Prior, I was president of the Pacific Northwest Middle School Debate League, and I coached a middle school debate team for 10 years. While I am a flow judge, and I pay attention to what arguments are followed up on and which ones get dropped, I prefer students to act as if I am a lay judge as I think that debaters should be able to fully explain their contentions and their refutations so a "regular" person can understand them. When judging debates, I prefer that debaters focus on the significance and impact of their arguments, making sure that they are fully explaining how their evidence relates to their overall position. It should be obvious that they understand what their evidence means, not just that they can read it off of a card. I appreciate it when it is clear that the debaters are in constant communication with one another, building off of each other's arguments. Debaters should also be polite, yet firm, during crossfire. Public Forum debate is the time to really engage in the arguments and seek understanding by clear explanation of evidence and significance of that evidence to their overall contention.

- I prefer well-developed arguments with solid evidence over a multitude of weak arguments.

- I greatly appreciate debaters who signpost.

- I do not appreciate debaters who spread, use fallacious arguments and/or misrepresent their evidence.

- I appreciate debaters who focus on the broader implications of their contentions and clearly explain why their arguments matter in the real world.

- I value active crossfire engagement. Debaters should use crossfire to clarify, challenge, and highlight weaknesses in their opponents' arguments.

- I appreciate debaters who are confident, articulate, and maintain good eye contact with the judges . I prefer speakers who balance passion with professionalism, avoiding excessive aggression or rudeness; rudeness will result in lower speaking points.

- I prioritize well-sourced, relevant, and recent evidence in evaluating the strength of arguments. I prefer debaters who not only provide evidence but also explain the context and implications of the evidence in relation to their arguments.

:3

I have backround in PF

Wait until after 2nd constructive to call for cards.

Don't ask me if I "want an off-time roadmap" either give me one or don't, I do not care.

Hi, I am a parent judge.

Anticipate, prepare and manage; practical life is random.

Quick advice: track all contentions and attempt to address them all.

I will add more as I learn more.

Good luck!

Hello! I'm looking forward to judging your debate!

This is my first year being involved with debate, but I'm learning fast and I'm excited to hear your arguments. My experience so far is mostly with Public Forum and these are the things I consider when casting my ballot:

Clear contentions that flow all the way to the end. Don't drop something along the way or it won't help your argument when I'm making my decision. Also, don't let your opponent's arguments go uncontested!

Emphasize the impact. If your side has a larger positive impact you should make sure to point that out! Does the other side cause serious harm? Bring that up!

Logical arguments. Any evidence used should be relevant and have clear connections to your contentions. Your analysis of that evidence is equally important. If you don't know your stuff it will be obvious during cross.

Remember that even though this is a competition we are here to have a good time! Treat everyone with respect at all times. Actions mean as much as words. Good luck!

I'm a traditional LD judge - I prefer a traditional V/VC framework, and like a philosophical debate that substantively engages the resolution.

I have very limited tolerance for speed / lack of clarity.

be clear & limit spreading please

• I am a flay parent judge.
• Please speak at a conversational speed.
• Signposting is helpful.
• Please don't be rude, especially in crossfire.
• Quality > quantity
• Please remember to weigh in FF.

If you're struggling mid-round, don't give up. You can still learn from the experience. Whether you win or lose, I'm aware that everyone's still learning, and I'm not expecting anyone to be perfect. Go out and try your best!

-Running obscure arguments on your opponents might seem like a nice euro step, but showing probability and a clear link chain will really slam the argument home

- Second rebuttal needs to address turns from first rebuttal, otherwise as k dot said "your rebuttal a little too late."

- First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless you think its absolutely necessary for whatever reason.

- You need to extend BOTH the warrant AND impact of your argument(s) in later speeches

- In terms of speed if your flow and delivery is hot and clear I'm writing it down.

-Use author qualifications when first citing a piece of evidence (for extensions last name will suffice).

Add me to the email chain: shobana.venkatachalam@gmail.com

I am a parent judge- this is my first-time judging, but I am decently acquainted with how pf works.

general pf things:

• I consider myself a lay judge.
• I'm not familiar with any jargon or technical terms.
• Please be respectful to your opponents.
• I am a very truth>tech judge- your arguments need to make sense.
• I always prefer the sensible argument that affects a reasonable amount of people- not the iffy one that affects the whole galaxy.
• Speak slowly and clearly- I can't vote on it if I don't understand it!
• Debate is an educational activity- so have fun, learn, and do your best!

I prefer people to speak slowly and clearly and have a highly organized outlined speech.

I value logic over theory. Any theories must be well explained.

First year out judge.

caitrinw@uw.edu, put me on evidence chains, speech docs, etc

I did PF through all four years of high school, second speaker.

Timing wise, if you go over time, I'll give you some grace but I will cut you off about ten seconds over speeches or 15 seconds over crossfires.

Speaks:

Almost always in a range of 27 - 30 unless you're shouting at your opponents/doing ad hominem attacks

PF

I want to see good impacts carried through the round. Don't drop something after rebuttal and bring it up again in FF. I want to see frontlining in second rebuttal, imo second summary is a little too late to frontline.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you want it to go on the flow, you'll have to say it in a speech.

Beyond that, PF is what you make it, so have fun.

Theory: I don't love theory in PF, I think it takes the 'public' out of Public Forum. That being said, debate is always changing and I recognize theory in PF is becoming more and more popular as time goes on, so I am willing to evaluate it. If you run theory, please warrant it well and give me real impacts. It takes a lot for me to vote only on theory, so don't abandon your case.

LD

As I already said, I did PF all of high school, so while I have a solid background in debate, I don't know LD very well.

I'll vote on theory as long as it's clearly warranted and done well. I'd like to see value criterions carried through the whole round, don't just say it in your constructive and then ignore them. If you're going to spread, provide speech docs.

I will still vote for your arguments if you lose the criterion/value debate but you prove convincingly that you win under your opponent's framework.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you want it to go on the flow, you'll have to say it in a speech.

competed PF all throughout high school for Bellevue

consider me a flay judge, I'll flow but I most likely won't catch everything

- I have to write feedback, I'll flow constructive on paper, don't worry I'm still listening when I type feedback after constructive speeches

- please be kind in cross, but don't let the other team walk over you. I like a heated cross, but no insults thrown pls ????????

- I don't flow cross, but I'm listening

- no Ks or anything crazy, I'm not tryna work my brain too hard

- NO MUMBLE RAPPING or else I will start crying and throwing up in round and make ur speaks 0

- please interact with the opponent's case, don't assume I know everything you're talking about, and WEIGH

- truth>tech

- be kind and have fun, bring me food or compliment me every time u start prep for +1 speaks (u can tell me my hair looks nice or smth)

-NO NUCLEAR WAR PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

I was a CX debater all 4 years of high school and also participated in Speech (Original Oratory mostly) and judged high school CX, LD and speech in college. It has been about 30 years though since I last judged debate so am not familiar with changes that have occurred over the years. I do not have experience with Public Forum. I appreciate a well laid out case that is clearly articulated as well as solid and clear responses to elements of your opponent's case. Talking fast if fine but it is important for me to hear and understand your case. I am generally against spreading.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PiSENj9X4taoU2p1SM3ORhd8Frd80FY69zN8OSukJdM/edit?usp=sharing

Hello, I'm a lay. I've judged in locals, toc bid tournaments, and nats '23, but please treat me like your average lay. Before the round starts, make sure I am 100% clear about who is who and their position.

I don't know anything about the topic so it would be nice if you could restate that for me. I'm comfortable with English but not spreading.

Please SPEAK SLOW and DO NOT USE DEBATE JARGON, as I will most likely not understand it. I don't vote on perceptual dominance or anything but if you talk slower and clearly, I'll be able to understand what you're saying. If I don't understand you then I won't vote for you.

If you dump 50 responses I will remember none. I would prefer if you could just overexplain a couple points and make them really clear to me. Tell me which arguments you are addressing (signpost) and make the back half of the round as clear as possible for me. Do not make this an evidence debate. at that point I will have no idea who won and who lost because I don't know how to call for evidence. If it turns into an evidence debate, I am strongly inclined to vote for whichever team stops talking about the evidence and gives me another reason why they should win.

I will be taking notes during the round but don't think I'm a flow judge yet. -- I don't take notes on cross but I will notice if you're getting destroyed and it'll probably go towards speaks.

Speaks range from 27-29 and I err on the higher side. I don't disclose.

Be respectful and have fun!

This is my first time judging. Please do not spread. I am looking for arguments backed be evidence and logic, and that address the issue at hand in a clear and easy to follow manner.

• I flow

• Im okay with speed, I am not okay with mumble rapping

• run wtv u want just keep in mind I will unlikely vote for tricks or frivolous theory

• don't bang the table at any moment

• General preferences :

Rabula Tesla, BS>truth>tech, I define BS as any words that come out of my mouth so please quote me to win.

Second re-bundle must line-front and first summary must extend deed feces.

I will literally be weighing your arguments in a round by bringing in a scale. Print out your cases and put them onto the scale. Whoever’s arguments weigh heavier are the ones I will look to first. The same applies to extensions. Every time you extend an argument, please stretch the argument on the piece of paper or else it will not be evaluated. Longer extensions win rounds. As for collapsing, sadly the tournament told me I cannot encourage kids to faint in rounds. Sorry. No collapsing in my rounds or else I will have to report you to tab for my own safety.

Speed:

Unfortunately, with my debate experience, I have developed a fervent dislike of normal speed speeches. If you don't go over 300 wpm, i will give you very low speaks.

Progressive:

As a flay congressional debater, I do not understand Prog. However, I do understand Pog, so if you can yell pog as many times as you read your progressive arguments, I will vote on them. (Example: a is the pog interp, debaters must not poggly paraphrase. B is the pog violation: they paraphrased poggly.)

Speaks:

I believe everything in life has to be earned step by step so speaks start at a prompt 0 and go up .01 for everything you did that I liked. If you have ever done the wonderful art known as congressional debate, your speaks will start at promptly -1. This is a simulation for the real world in which nothing will come easily.

Cross: Debate is an activity that prepares you for the real world. In the real world, you WILL have people who yell at you when they ask questions. So naturally, you MUST be louder to win those confrontations. Thus, whoever yells louder in cross will get +5 speaker points.

• Lay parent judge
• PLEASE DO NOT BE RUDE or you will receive a fat L.
• I evaluate cross heavily so pls leverage it.
• Don't talk fast and be clear, please give organized speeches (signpost and number responses)
• Truth matters > if you say something blatantly incorrect that I catch, that may influence my decision.
• HAVE FUN debate is a game!

LD SPEC:
- keep it trad and no prog

I am a Lay Judge, and this is my first season judging debate. Please do not "spread." What I am most interested in hearing are focused, original arguments that are relatively easy to follow. I want to see people responding directly to their opponent's arguments, asking clear questions in the cross, and summarizing well in the final speeches. This includes noting verbally when your opponent has not successfully responded to your arguments. Thank you.

I've done PF for a year now so in general:

• I'm pretty good with speed but I'll tell you to slow down if needed
• I'm not likely to vote for theory
• please be respectful
• please weigh or give voters, it really helps outline the round

1. MOST IMPORTANT THING:

Speak concisely. I will not flow your case or information if I cannot understand it. Additionally, teams that spread or speak too fast will automatically not be eligible for a high speaker score. If you want to win or get good speaks, make sure you speech in a way that allows me to actually hear your information.

2.

I will not flow anything that isn't extended into summary for voting. If you want me to consider it, make sure you talk about it in summary. Additionally, I will allow first summary to have some frontline if it's short (under a minute) and generally is not completely new information for fairness.

3.

I would recommend that you think about what you want to focus on in final focus. FF is not summary part 2 it is intended for debaters to focus on things that really matter. If you do decide to use FF as summary part 2 it won't really hurt your speaker score or your debate flows in any real way but remember that all of the cracked teams collapse.