I am have judged a few debates over the last 2 years. Please signpost, be clear and stay on point. Looking forward to this event, Good luck!!

I am a parent judge, and this is my first year judging. Please use good reasoning and evidence to back up your claims. I will be flowing your arguments, so don't speak too fast because I won't be able to understand you. Most importantly, be respectful and good luck!

Hello,
I am a first year parent judge.
I am looking for clarity and eye contact.
Speech/case organization is important, and should be relatively easy to follow.
I write my feedback simultaneously as I listen to the speech. Avoid spreading so I can follow the argumentation.
Be respectful and cordial to your opponent.
Good luck!

I am a parent judge with 5+ years of PF/LD/ Policy experience. Please consider me a Flay Judge.

• Speak as fast as you would like, but I will ask you to slow down if I cannot understand. No spreading please. I am fine with 15 seconds of grace time.
• Please be respectful of your opponents and give them a chance to speak. Do not keep interrupting or be rude or condescending. If not, I will drop your speaker points.
• Please do not read any form of progressive argumentation (theory, kritiks, etc.) as I cannot evaluate them and will not give you credit for them.
• Off-time roadmaps and sign-posting are encouraged. It helps me follow your debate better.
• My decision will be based on your contentions, evidence, rebuttals, impacts, summaries and weighing. I will evaluate all those on both sides to come to a decision.
• I like to see well-researched cases backed by strong and credible evidence. Please include me in the email chain to share cards as I like to review them as well.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge, who has been judging for 2 years. I flow while judging.

I flow the rounds and appreciate reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources.

I would suggest kids to not rush. Make eye contact with me and your opponent and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

Hi debaters!

Please speak clearly and if possible, not too fast. Also please explain your arguments in plain terms.

Good luck!

I'm a parent judge. And I judge on the construction and quality of arguments backed by solid evidence. I like to see the contestants engage with arguments from the other side and use different modes of persuasion to land their point of view.

I have been judging LD debates for over four years, with occasional experience in Parli and PF formats. I prioritize clarity, substance, and respect in rounds. If any technical terms are used, please provide clear definitions. I value substantive contentions and points over intimidation or mockery. I flow during the round to track the arguments.

While I remain open-minded and impartial, I expect debaters to uphold the principles of sportsmanship and respect throughout the round. Mockery and intimidation have no place in constructive debate.

Impact calculus is highly appreciated as it helps in evaluating the significance of arguments.

Please include me (karthikakrishnna@gmail.com) in any email chains for reference. Best of luck to all debaters!"

If you need any further adjustments or clarifications, feel free to let me know!

Please speak slowly so I can understand all of your arguments.

Please don’t be aggressive or talk disrespectfully loud/talk over your opponent.

Good luck!

I am a lay judge.

For debate :
1) You can expect me to know something about the topic at hand. I look for clarity of thought, logic in your arguments and how you link the evidence.
2) Please speak at a reasonable pace, do not spread.
3) Please stay respectful at all times.

For speech :
1) I look for effectiveness of your speech - be it through listener engagement, clarity of idea, or variety of examples (depending on event type).
2) If you can convey your ideas to me, convince me of authenticity, you will have my attention.

I would like to be on the email chain, my email is fatoubbarrie1@gmail.com

Always impact calc

Policy

Do your best :)

High speaker points are awarded for exceptional creativity.

I am fine with spread as long as it is comprehensible.

LD/PF/Parli/etc.

Do your best :)

I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly. I judge based on delivery andcontent.

Hey guys I am a parent judge and have been judging for about 1 year.

Please speak and a decent pace and make sure your arguments have been made clear. If you speak to fast or not clearly, It will be much harder for me to cast a ballot in your favor. Signposting is extremely important and helps me understand the points you are addressing. I will be casting my ballot based on who is more clear, have a clear flow of thoughts and a proper link chain to follow with. Make sure to have good, relative, and reliable evidence.

Hello there. I am a first time parent judge. Some things I would like to see in the debate round include:

-Speaking clearly. I am not super great with high speed, so I would prefer for you to pace your speech

-Signposting. Explain where you are in your argument (Contention #1, Impacts, etc.) to make it clearer to me.

-Weighing. Tell me why your impact should matter more. Go heavily for a few things in the last speech.

-Respectful for your opponents. Remember, you are debating the merits of the resolution and not the people defending or opposing it.

-No advanced arguments please. I am unfamiliar with K's and T's so it is impossible for me to evaluate them.

Before the round, please inform me of the resolution and the speaking order.

In prelim rounds, I will not disclose the results of the round because it will take me time to look over my ballot, so please do not ask.

Most importantly, have fun!

Hello, debaters!

Please add this email to the email chain: anushikaa@gmail.com

I am a flay judge with a decent debate judging experience. These are some guidelines I would prefer in this debate:

• Constructive: Clear link chains and terminal impacts are essential.

• Cross: Not flowing cross.

• Rebuttal: Signpost and refute clearly. 2nd rebuttal must frontline

• Summary: Extend, weigh, and collapse on your main points. I would prefer an offtime roadmap. If you don’t extend points + refutes, they will be dropped. 1st summary must frontline.

• Final Focus: Voter issues and extending weighing. Be extremely clear in telling me why you win. No new points.

• Speaks: I won’t be much of a points-fairy, but will be fair.

• Speed: I can take speed, but clarity is most important. Definitely no wild spreading.

• Evidence: High quality evidence. Email chain for asked cards, whether from me or opponents.

• Other: Please refrain from running counterplans, theories, or Ks. You may risk a loss.

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

Hello Everyone. First and foremost - Let me congratulate you on making a choice to be part of Speech and Debate. Speech and Debate are essential tools for citizenry of democratic society with free and independent institutions and a very important vehicles to arrive at best possible solutions.

I am Raghu Bondalapati and a proud parent of a High Schooler. I have been a speech and debate judge for about a year and half. What i would like to see from Debaters is a clear and concise arguments, respect to participants of other teams and sportsmanship.

I am a parent judge, with little experience (judging), but I have a good understanding of the issues and have watched a number of debate competitions. I expect teams to know the rules and to time themselves.

I will give more weight to Arguments and contentions that make most logical sense.

Go pterosaurs!

This is my second time judging a S&B tournament.

I value the following, ordered from most important to least important:

• Being able to clearly portray a focused POV with little to no jargon. If I can't reasonably understand your point, then I won't use it.
• Responding convincingly to your opponents challenges. This shows foundational strength in your argument.
• Use of logical arguments and limiting spreading.

Above all, being respectful and having a positive competitive attitude.

I'm a parent judge with minimal experience. Clarity in communciation/articulating the info will help me digest the info better.

I have done policy debate, LD and Congress, competing at State (CA) and Nationals when I was in high school.

I am truth over technical putting a premium on understanding your argument and on the logic both teams use to explain why the evidence and the expert is relevant to the argument. Bad evidence loses to good logic and common sense. Good evidence plus logic wins. Stated another way, in making your arguments around impacts, I listen carefully for logical fallacies -- while I won't vote against you if I hear a slippery slope, or a correlation/ causation fallacy, I will keenly listen to see how your opponent responds. I share this because as you develop your speaking skills for life (amazing by the way), your goal will be to persuade whether in business, law, medicine, science or politics -- few things undermine one's credibiilty more than arguments that tend to extremes based on unsubstantiated logical or reasoning errors, so it's good to start to learn and practive now how to build structurally and logical sound arguments, relying on evidence, early in your journey.

Debate is about testing logic and evidence to communicate a Point of View that can be understood and is compelling, so expect me to be a critical judge who will weight what each team tells me about the arguments presented; I vote for the argument I find most persuasive. I will look to frame my assessment against the main stock issues, unless you convince me another standard should be used. Also, if I can't understand the argument, I can't very well score it in your favor.

Beyond my debate experience, my perspective on policy is shaped by being involved in lobbying the Federal Government for Procter and Gamble and time at a leading think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). I worked as a management consult for Booz Allen & Hamilton, where I created business facts and strategies for the Mayo Clinic and NYH Cornell. I have an undergraduate degree in History and a MBA degree, so I feel very comfortable listening to arguments that weight and test the quality of the expert as well as the merits of the evidence; I will even accept your use of common sense or logic to call out logical fallacies, and to sanity test or refute a piece of evidence that just doesn’t make sense.

Finally, effective persuasion includes respectful disagreement, so I will notice rude, sarcastic or condesending behavior and that will detract heavily from the weight I attribute to your argument or position. Please enjoy a spirited discussion and I will do my best to flow and follow.

I am a lay parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.

I am a parent judge with 8 years of experience judging almost all categories of speech and debate competitions.

I am a parent judge. Please be respectful and do not spread. I will flow the debate so please keep the debate clean and easy to follow.

I prefer clear communication and eye contact while making a case.

I am a judge for the first time. Please keep your delivery to a slower pace and be clear. I would appreciate clear arguments and explanation of your underlying assumptions.

I am a parent judge and have been judging since September 2019. I have primarily judged LD but in the last 2 years I have judged PF, Parli Policy and Congress too. I do flow and take copious notes. I am not comfortable with spreading, so please speak at moderate speed so that I can understand your arguments. Please make sure you are polite to your opponent. Please provide sufficient evidence to substantiate your contentions and be able to provide evidence when asked by your opponent. Do not introduce new evidence in your final speeches or lie that arguments were dropped when they weren't. It will definitely count against you as I do flow. Overall enjoy the debate and have fun!

Hello,

My name is Paul Choi, and I am a parent judge. I am an engineering manager in the tech industry.

I appreciate clearly laid-out arguments. Ideally, the contentions should flow together to create an overarching case for your argument. Each contention should be well-supported by evidence. There is no need to speak fast, or overwhelm the opponent or judges with the volume of evidence - oftentimes I find that the best debaters are able to clearly present their side of the argument with couple of well-chosen contentions and a few supporting evidences.

I have been in awe of many of the debates I've been privileged to witness so far. I am excited to hear more. Good luck and have a great round!

Hello,I am a first time Parent Judge and looking forward to it. My professional background is in the Tech Industry.

• Please provide an off time roadmap
• Try not to speed up too much when reading evidence.
• Sign post as much as possible
• Speak clearly.

I am a parent judge and this is my fourth year of judging debate. I strongly prefer that you speak slowly and clearly and emphasize the important arguments in the round.

This will be my fourth year judging.

When listening to proposals, arguments, rebuttals, etc., I look for the speaker to be confident, not condescending, when delivering their statements. Be respectful of one another.

I have coached Lincoln Douglass debate for 5 years. For me, excellent debaters are reasonable, efficient, articulate, logical, clear, audience focussed, fair, and adept at both offense and defense. Effective debaters provide a clear and direct weighing mechanism for why they are winning or have won the round, and they link back to the value criterion clearly and directly. I don't like fast debate. Debate in the real world for me as a human. I don't like tricks and manipulations. Debate your opponents' best arguments, represent them fairly, and use logic, analytics, and critical thinking to clash convincingly. Do the fundamentals well: good speaking skills, look to the audience, good sportspersonship, good clarity of enunciation, energy, posture, concrete framing, big picture framing, signposting, clash, clash, clash etc.

I am a first time parent judge. Please speak clearly and make well-rounded arguments with evidence. I want to clearly know why I should vote for you. Please be respectful too.

Hello my name is Tracy and I'll be your judge today! I am a relatively new judge so I would appreciate it if debates are spoken clearly and clarify what arguments to prioritize to help me with my decision-making process. I ask debaters to time themselves, do their best, and good luck!

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m a parent judge, and this is my second year judging debate. I have judged policy and parliamentary debate. I have extensive background in issues of national security and finance.

I ask that you please speak clearly and not too fast. Try to resist from filler words. Most of all, I ask that you are respectful of your opponents.

I appreciate logical and clear arguments backed up with evidence. Demonstrate that you understand the implications of your arguments on a micro and macro level.

I have been judging for last 3 years, primarily Public Forum. I have also judged speech, LD and Policy occasionally as needed .

Please speak clearly and at a moderate to fast, but not superfast pace.Doing so will ensure the best understanding of your arguments, ultimately providing you the best chance to secure the winning ballot.

Looking forward to an exciting debate.

Hi all! I’m a parent judge who has judged a few tournaments before.

Preferences:

Please don’t spread, be clear and weigh/impact.

No theory and k’s please as I am a parent judge.

Be courteous and kind to your opponents (maintain civility).

Thanks!

I am a parent judge and judging for past two and half year.

I prefer if both teams would reference their evidence and make their arguments concise and easy to understand.

edit: Please lower your volume to avoid yelling. I'm sitting 5 ft away from y'all I promise I can hear.

tl;dr: I'm a flow Parliamentary judge, good with speed. If you make my job of evaluating easier by collapsing and covering the flow, then you'll get my ballot. Policy background, thus a lover of kritiks. Aff Ks are hot, but so are Framework & Disclosure Theory. I default to K > T > Case.

ALSO i usually give oral feedback after the round, i don’t write RFDs so i recommend taking notes

Quick Bio: Hello! My name is Renée Diop and I'm a high school debate coach, tutor, judge, and former competitor. I finaled the California High School Speech Association State Championship in Parliamentary Debate in 2022, and now pass on my recent knowledge of the game to current high school students. If you’re interested in parli debate tutoring, book an appointment at reneediop.com or email me at dioprenee@gmail.com. LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/renéediop.

CASE:

Both sides: Definitions need to come out of the first 2 constructive speeches, no backtracking and redefining halfway through the round. For the love of Allah (SWT), collapse collapse collapse.

Aff: I want a killer MG; a good PMR won't win me over if the MG was trash. Kill the flow and leave Neg with zero outs and I'll give you a cookie. For the PMR the best you can do for me is reframe the round and contextualize it under your weighing mechanism, but most of the time my mind is already made up before then.

Neg: LOC needs to hard carry right out the gate. Open to PICs and counter-definitions as long as they come from the LOC and nowhere else; LOR should be preempting, wiping the flow clean so I can vote without even having to listen to the PMR.

THEORY:

Overall: Open to friv T, just don't read off 10 standards and be a douche about it. Keep it cute and fun. Collapse on 1 voters/impact, don't be messy and make me do all the work to evaluate several different layers. Anything that makes me do more work is something to avoid doing. Tell me T > Ks and T > case, but give legitimate reasons for why.

Ks Bad T: Not a fan of it. I love a good K, what can I say. Unless you can present me with some new and unique standards, I believe that Ks specifically grant access to minority debaters, and generalizing all Ks as being "bad" by default is a red flag for me. The only other circumstance I would vote for them is if your opponents are being blatantly inaccessible by spreading you out of the round, being ivory tower, etc.

Framework or Disclosure T: Now this is reasonable. I'll vote for this if you're smart about it. If not, my default is to accept Aff Ks so take this opportunity if it arises.

KRITIKS:

Overall: Cool with Aff Ks as long as you disclose during prep. I did gender, queer, necro-capitalism, anti-blackness, settler colonialism, and marx Ks in high school so if your K aligns with any of those then go for it, BUT ALSO IM OPEN TO ALL KS! Be accessible or your K has no impact! This means 1) Don't spread your opponents out of the round. Slow when they ask you to. 2) Give definitions for the hella obscure words your literature references. I'm no parent judge, but I also don't have a PhD in English. I'm cool Ks as long as you can translate it to the common vernacular.

Framework: I should know exactly what your thesis is by the end of the FW. Don't wait until the alternative to clearly explain your ideas. Tell me how to evaluate pre vs. post fiat impacts, tell me K > Case, and give me a role of the ballot.

Links: Quality > quantity. No link means no K, so choose them wisely. I want claim, evidence, reasoning like a sophomore year Honors English class. Don't just say, "Our opps did this so they're linking into the K!" actually explain it and justify it with evidence.

Alternative: Not huge on revolutionary/utopian alts, I find them to be no different than post-fiat arguments in most circumstances. If your K has in-round, debate-space solvency then I'll love and cherish you till the ends of the earth <3.

K vs. K rounds: You're so cool if you do this. Love the inevitably high amounts of clash these rounds produce. Just make sure there are proper re-links and that your alternative solves/is a prerequisite to solving theirs.

Thank you for reading & good luck! Hmu after any round to ask a question, get advice, want me to teach you debate, or literally anything else. Email me at dioprenee@gmail.com.

This is my second year as a parent-judge. I have debated in high school and college and therefore very familiar with the time and energy students spend in preparing for a debate contest, however that was in a different era and in a different country, so still a novice judge. I look for convincing, factual arguments, but also give extra points for creative thinking. Do make eye contact and be clear and confident when you deliver your argument. You should know your facts, but facts are not sufficient - how you use the to construct a logical and convincing argument is important.

I look for consistency in the arguments throughout the debate

Judgement is limited only to the arguments presented and contested in the debate

I am a lay judge but have extensive experience with argumentation. Most importantly, be kind to your competitors and do not go too fast.

I am a parent judge; I'll take notes but won't be flowing, so be extra careful about signposting since that's the only way I can keep track of arguments.

I did LD debate for four years in high school. I haven’t judged other debate events before.
I’ll be flowing; roadmaps are okay, spreading is not; dropped arguments won’t be considered; no new evidence in last speech.

I appreciate when impacts and weighing are emphasized, clearly linking back to the value criterion and effectively telling me why you’re winning.

Remember that you are not trying to beat your opponent, but rather persuade the judge based on the effectiveness of your logic, rhetoric, and evidence.

Any rudeness or condescension will detract heavily from speaker points.

I am a lay parent judge.

Please speak slowly and enunciate your words.

I have been judging speech and debate for couple of years. I love to hear good debates with good use of language and arguments related to the topic. I take copious notes. My expectations is that the debaters will have mutual respect for one another.
At the end of the debate we all should leave the debate learning and gaining something new from one another.

I am a parent judge and have judged speech and debate over the last several years across ~12 tournaments. I try to judge tournaments using a balanced approach that focuses on content, delivery, language and quality of research.

I have judged in tournaments before and am always amazed with teams that have coherent warrants, proper definition of the topic and clear impact statements. 

I am an experienced parent judge and like clear and concise warrants, topic definition and medium paced conversation style

I have been a parent judge for 3+ years and have mainly judged LD. Important notes for debaters:

1. Speak clearly and at normal pace
2. Tag your contentions
3. Be respectful

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 300 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

I'm a parent judge with experience judging at a several tournaments.

I will flow your round. Please avoid spreading as well as excessive and unnecessary jargon.

I'm an engineer by training so I’m receptive to logical arguments that are well-linked.

Please remember to be respectful to everyone in the round. At the end of the day, this is only a debate round.

Parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.

Hi, everyone,

I am a lay parent judger and has limited experience in speech and debate. I will weigh my decision based on:

1. solid data and strong evidence to support your view.
2. good communication and respect your opponent team.
3. clear logic, no contradiction.

Prefer normal speaking speed. If you use speech/debate terms, explain once when you first use it.

Good luck and enjoy debate.

I am a parent judge and this is my 4th year judging debate and speech tournaments.

For debate-

My vote is based on the following three principles:

1. Clarity and evidence: Debaters should deliver their arguments clearly and concisely, with supporting evidence from credible sources. Take your time to explain your reasoning to the judges, and don't assume that they will understand your points without a thorough explanation.
2. Rebuttal: Debaters should challenge their opponents' arguments during cross-examination and rebuttal. This shows that you have listened carefully to your opponents and that you have thought critically about their arguments. Be sure to provide evidence to support your own arguments and to refute your opponents' claims.
3. Pace: Debaters should speak at a moderate pace. Speaking too quickly can make it difficult for the judges to follow your arguments, while speaking too slowly can be boring and ineffective.

In addition to these three principles, I also appreciate it when debaters are respectful of their opponents and the judges.

For speech-

I am looking for presentations, not just readings. I appreciate speakers who use nonverbal communication skills such as varying their volume and speed, using hand gestures and facial expressions, and moving around the stage to engage the audience and emphasize key messages.

PS. Please avoid mumbling your words even if that could be funny to get certain effect.

I wish all people good luck and can enjoy the game.

I am a lay judge but I have 8 years experience judging League debates.

General Stuff:

Just speak at conversational pace and tone and use all your time.

Only go for topicality if its a glaring violation

Try to avoid using terminology-heavy debates.

If aff, focus on defending your policies and answer all of the negs points effectively and clearly

If neg, focus on finding gaps in the policy proposal and carry only the most contested and strongest negative stock issues into the 2NR.

Cross ex is the most important focus area for me in the debate. This is the only part of debate where neg/aff actively clash with each other. I look for teams to use the that time effectively. Don't cut off responses, unless they are stretching the time limit.

Don't give up in round, I keep an open mind throughout the debate, even the last speech.

Hi y'all! I'm Rhea, a frosh @ Stanford studying human biology. I debated parli @ Washington for 4 years, & now coach for MVLA & Juniper.

TL;DR: I'm a flow judge. I enjoy efficient and warranted debate with clean collapsing, extensions, and two world analysis. I LOVE Ks, but am happy to listen to interesting case or T debate.

Thoughts on:

• Case: Reading 2 swag contentions > 5 random short ones. Write good warrants and don’t rely solely on the internet. Line by line args and make smart responses. Collapse (!!!), make clean extensions, and weigh well in the rebuttals. I love overviews at the tops of cases/args & I think golden turns are cool, but have a high threshold for new args in last speeches.
• Theory/Topicality: Cool with good T shells. I default to competing interps > reasonability, education > fairness, and theory being a priori but I can be convinced otherwise! Make your interps good & as specific as possible! Friv shells/tricks are funny (I read tropicality in HS lol) but pls don’t use them to skew out your opps, & I’d need a really good justification for why they’re a voting issue. If you read blippy args (i.e. a claim with zero warranting or justification) and expect me to buy it, think again. This is true for all args, but especially tech.
• Ks: Love them! I wrote & read Ks on feminism/gender, queer futurism, and cap/necrocap, so I’m most familiar w/ those literature bases. I love a thoughtful, well-warranted K when it’s run properly, but it’s not an auto path to the ballot (so don’t treat it as such). I’m somewhat familiar w/ more phil args like Buddhism, Daoism, pomo, etc, but down to listen if you explain them well (especially if you can tell me what your alt ACTUALLY does). Down to vote for K Affs, performance Ks, etc if that’s something you want to read. I dislike Ks that force a debate about the personal identities of the debaters in the room instead of a critique of society. I have a low threshold for FW-T on the aff, and a high one for the neg.
• Other thoughts:
• Don’t call POOs just to annoy your opponents. If you’re calling more than 3 and you don’t have a good reason, I will be a tad sad.
• I can handle your speed, but don’t sacrifice clarity and don’t use it to exclude your opponents!
• I dislike presumption args and will almost certainly not vote on it; there will always be *some* offense in 99.9% of debates unless no one speaks the entire round.
• Off-time roadmaps (that don't exceed 15 seconds) are great.
• Don't contradict yourself.
• Please read content warnings if needed.
• Don’t be racist / sexist / homophobic etc, I will auto drop you to maintain a safe and equitable debate space.

Feel free to message me with any questions or ask me about it before or after the round! At the end of the day, this is YOUR space to debate how you want, and to the best of your ability. Be brave, be kind, and have an educational and fun debate.

I have experience in judging Policy, PF, LD and Parli debates, as well as Speech competitions for High School and Middle School tournaments.

- Give a quick off-time roadmap before you begin. If you signpost during your speech, it'll help me follow you better.

- I may be unfamiliar with your debate jargon, so please explain any terms simplistically.

- For PF/LD - don't assume I have judged your topic earlier, so please explain any terms related to the topic.

- I will flow with you and will take notes. I will use any missed arguments in my judging.

- Please be respectful of your opponent team, irrespective of their level of debate.

- Speaker points will be awarded on the clarity of speech and thoughts and your art of laying down your thoughts.

- In your final speeches, make sure to clearly lay out why I should vote for you.

Most importantly, debate is a friendly competition. Remember to have fun !

I am a parent judge.

Please be professional and respectful of everyone in the room. I will judge a topic based on your power of persuasion and not my personal beliefs.

For PF: Speed is not an issue, as long as you are clear and logical in your reasoning and arguments (ideally <225 wpm). State evidence to connect your arguments while offering practical solutions. I would like to see good team balance. I flow the round, and I will disregard any new arguments in your summaries or final focus. If something is conceded in cross, it must be brought up again in a speech for it to affect the ballot.

Please clearly weigh to make my judging easier.

If you plan to spread, I would like to have a copy of the speech so I can follow along more easily.

Please manage the length of your speech, I will allow a maximum of 15 second grace period before it starts to detrimentally impact your points.

For Speech: I will be looking for cutting, delivery and context. Manage your vocal variety, volume and diction while also trying to portray the mood of the speech well.

Most importantly, I am just as excited to be here. So don’t forget to breathe and have fun!

I am a parent judge, who prefers clear speaking, logical links, elaborate policy explanation, and precise points.

Please don't assume I know everything about your topic, and be mindful of your target audience (formal).

I'm also not really a fan of jargon, so please thoroughly explain it when you use it.

I'm a parent judge, and I have been judging PF, LD, and INTERP for more than 2 years.

I lived in United States since late 1990s, so you can consider me as a native English speaker.

I usually judge the debates based on 3 aspects, the content and logic, the presentation skill, and the techniques during the cross.

Debate how you’d like. I’m down to evaluate most positions, including any theory/kritik positions. Feel free to reject the resolution. Tech > truth. I protect the flow but call the POO. Good luck have fun :D

high-level stuff:

hi, my name is Sam (he/they) and I have been involved in debate for ~8 years. During my time competing, I debated in parliamentary debate for Nueva, mainly in the NorCal circuit. I am open to all types/stylistic forms of debate, so if you are not a NorCal team please don’t feel the need to change your entire debate style for one round. That being said, please do impact analysis (explain to me which impacts matter the most/matter over other impacts) and weigh (tell me which arguments are the most important). Doing both of these things is the easier path to winning my ballot. I have exactly zero tolerance for any bigotry, and I will intervene against any argument that is racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. By extension, do not misgender your opponents—I will tank your speaks if you don’t correct your mistakes immediately. Content warnings are good for making debate a safe space for everyone, so please use them and respect them.

1. I will try my best to protect the flow. Regardless, always call the POO. Sometimes I miss things, so the best way to guarantee that I won’t miss an important argument is to call the POO. I will try to rule on the POO before you resume your speech to the best of my ability. I can promise anything, but I know this is especially helpful for debaters

2. Please provide texts of advocacies (plans, CPs, alternatives, ROTBs, etc...) when you read them. I default to texts are binding. If we are online, please pass them in the online video chat. If we are in person, please write them down on a sheet of paper and pass that paper around to both your opponents and me.

3. I give speaks based on strategic decisions and argumentative execution. I don’t care how you present your arguments, feel free to sit, stand, or do whatever makes you most comfortable. My range for speaks is 27-29.5. If you get above that you did fantastically and I think you should win the tournament. If you got below that you probably did something bad independent of the arguments you made in the round.

4. I welcome questions about the round/my decision. If you want to ask me questions about the round, please do not hesitate to do so. If we are at an in-person tournament, you are welcome to come find me as well.
   
   

case:

1. If you don’t read a framework, I’m going to default to net benefits. Likewise, if you don’t read a plan, I am just going to assume you are defending the entirety of the resolution as your advocacy. I would strongly recommend that you both read a plantext and a framework, even if it is just net benefits. I will be unhappy if you don’t read a plantext :(

2. Please try to terminalize impacts as much as possible; I need you to give me a specific and quantifiable explanation so I can weigh the round and thus decide the ballot. If you are reading an impact chain to me, please implicate and terminalize all of your impacts. This is also probably a pretty good way to pick up my ballot. You do not need to terminalize impacts like death or suffering to me; I assume they are terminalize in themselves.

3. I’m fine with conditional & dispositional counterplans. Just be prepared to defend them if your opponents read condo theory. If you want to read a non-mutually exclusive counterplan, please read competition for the CP and/or be prepared to beat the perm. In the same vein, I’m very down for any strange counterplans so long as you can justify it. If you don’t ask your opponents what the status of their counterplan is when they read it, I assume it is nebulous until they bring it up or you ask.
   
   

theory:

I’m a big fan of theory, but please make sure to include a specific text and violation if you want to run theory. If you’re going fast, slow on the interp at the very least. If we’re in-person, a written copy of your interpretation would be lovely as well.

1. I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I think competing interps is a better model to evaluate theory, however, I will happily listen to reasonability if there is a brightline.

2. I assume all theory is to drop the argument unless told otherwise. I’ll happily vote for drop the debater, but just make sure to explicitly go for that.

3. Feel free to run Framework T/T-USfg/Ks bad theory. I don’t have a default for theory/kritik layering in round, so please read layering. The outcome of most rounds can be changed drastically by one side reading 30 seconds of layering, so please do it. At the very least, it helps me make my decision easier.

4. I’m perfectly fine with RVIs, in fact, I think running RVIs in response to theory is a very good strategy and often underutilized. If you’re going to run an RVI, give me a one-sentence overview of what the RVI is, why I should grant the RVI to you, and other important information you feel is necessary.

5. I’m fine with friv theory. Please be nice to your opponents though—don’t read friv t against another team if you know they don't know how to respond to it. I’m very sympathetic to RVIs on friv shells. I'm more than happy to throw my tech>truth views out the window in favor of accessibility in debate.

kritiks & critical positions:

I love kritik debates and will happily vote for them. KvK debates are my favorite kind of rounds to judge. This may be a hot take, but I also feel like they are the fairest option for neg teams trying to contest the aff K—still feel free to read framework T though.

1. Assume that I don’t understand your lit base and start from square one and go from there. I have experience and knowledge in critical literature but don’t assume anything.

1. For non-topical aff Ks, if you are rejecting the resolution, please give topic-specific reasons as to why you are rejecting the resolution. If you’re reading a topical aff k, I’m hyped to hear it. That doesn’t apply to you.

1. I think disclosure is good but quite unverifiable and invites judge intervention as a result. I am skeptical of voting for disclosure theory, but will probably boost your speaks regardless a bit if someone mentions you disclosed the aff K.

1. I’m not a huge fan of offensive RoBs, but feel free to read them if you want. Please justify and explain the reject alt if you’re reading a reject alt.

assorted tech stuff:

Feel free to read IVIs. I think IVIs can be quite strategic, and I will happily listen to them. I don’t have much experience with other ld/cx arguments that aren’t common in parli, so i'm happy to listen to phil/tricks but no promises I’ll follow along perfectly.

good luck have fun :D

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

Hey y’all I’m evan's partner. I competed mostly in parli, but I’m familiar with other debate and also did a good bit of speech.

PLEASE READ PROPER IMPACTS. THEY'RE AMONG THE EASIEST WAY TO WIN ROUNDS IN FRONT OF ME.

tl;dr

• I debated for 5 years and am now a coach @MVLA

• Comfortable w most tech, don’t assume I know your lit base, eh on speed

• Truth > tech meaning you have to explain the truth of your argument (warrant- logical/phil/analytical/evidence) for me to buy them (I won’t fill it in)

• An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication. I need all three to consider an argument. (especially an impact/implication)

• Please weigh and layer your args/impacts, I’d hate to interfere and if I do, you likely won’t get the result you want

• Be sure to explicitly extend arguments (especially uniqueness and impacts), I can't extend them for you, and can't vote very well on arguments dropped.

• Be good, nice, kind people :)

• I'll give you 5-15 seconds grace AT MOST to finish the thought you're on, I don't flow after that.

For the full paradigm (it’s a mess so feel free to clarify):

My experience-- I competed in 70-75 odd tournaments in my career, mostly in Norcal Parli, was mostly a case debater but had a decent understanding of tech, ran some theory, etc etc. Qualled to TOC twice and broke as well, was a SVUDL Parli merchant. Got a pretty good amount of experience with all types of debating- norcal, socal, apda, etc. I also qualled to nats in duo (speech).

General Paradigmatic Things:

1. When I say that I’m “truth over tech” it doesn’t mean I automatically intervene wherever-- it just means that you have to explain to me why your arguments are true for me to buy them. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant (can be empirical, analytical, logical reasoning, etc), and an impact/implication. Absent these aspects I find it hard to buy an argument. Without a warrant, idk why I should buy your argument. Absent an implication, even if the argument might be true, I still can't do anything with that argument.

2. I'm going to say this one more time: PLEASE READ PROPER IMPACTS. Terminalizing impacts doesn't mean that everything ends in extinction. Rather, it means that you've proven that the impact is inherently a good/bad thing under the given framework for the round. Ie, death/dehum/Qol under a util/net ben FW. Read a proper link chain that takes the necessary steps to get from your links to your impacts, I find it hard to buy randomly detached impacts otherwise.

3. I do my very best to protect the flow but please call the POO

4. Y’all figure out how you want to handle POIs between yourselves and the other debaters in the round, my job is to evaluate the round that happens, not control your every move.

5. Please for the love of all things good -- be respectful to one another. This means doing your very human best to make the round accessible to your opponents and also treating everyone with fair respect.

6. As much as I love a good goofy argument, but exercise your good reason and restraint.

7. I default to presuming neg absent a counter-advocacy (otherwise I’ll presume aff). If you tell me to presume a different way, I’ll do that instead. I’d much rather vote on substance than presume, so please don't make me vote on presumption.

8. As stated earlier, I will give y'all a 5-15 second grace period after speech time to finish your thought, I will not flow any new arguments after speech time is up. I will stop you once you hit 30ish seconds over time because we need to move on.
9. Please signpost, and try to progress through the speech in a consistent order, if you lose me on the flow it will only hurt you.

Case Debate Stuff:

1. I am completely down for all forms of case debate. I will do my best to evaluate every round regardless if it's BP/APDA/Norcal/etc. resolution/case read by a team. At the end of the day, I'm here to evaluate the arguments and the round in front of me.

2. I love a good case debate. I was pretty much entirely a flowish case debater for most of my career. Please be mindful about what you’re reading, it’s very easy to slip into saying something problematic while trying to justify arguments under Net Ben/Util. Debate also unfortunately puts us in positions to argue tough topics and it’s our job to make sure we handle those as sensitively and respectfully as possible. Additionally, attempting to justify genocide, outright racism, or anything else of the kind is an autodrop.

3. Onto actual case stuff-- I default to weighing on Net Bens but I’m down for any other framework that y’all wanna try to run

4. Please extend your arguments yourself- I will not do this for you. When there are responses made to your arguments, make sure to engage with them and not just repeat what you said the first time around.

5. Clash is important. Weighing is also important. Try to use your rebuttal speeches to write my ballot for me in the ways that you see fit.

6. I am ALWAYS down for a good framework debate. That being said, it's on you to (1) Justify your framework (especially against your opponents' framework), (2) Explain what the implications of your arguments are under your framework (what are your impacts and why do they matter under your framework), (3) Probably is strategic to at least briefly explain why you're winning underboth frameworks (but that's ultimately up to you).

Theory

After much deliberation, I've decided that I'm probably not the judge to run random friv in front of. I will ultimately evaluate the flow, but I'll be incredibly skeptical at best with any friv t args, and I'll happily take any chance to not vote on it. Sorry to the theory debaters who got excited. As I get older I become increasingly open to hearing anything as long as it’s not problematic or exclusionary to any of the debaters in the round. The standard CI > Reasonability, etc. applies here too-- I don’t wanna intervene in the round if I don’t have to. Please read explicit layering claims for your standards and voters. I hate intervening and again, you’re probably gonna be unhappy about the way that I evaluate the round if you don’t tell me how to view the round. PLEASE BE MINDFUL ABOUT READING THINGS IN AN ACCESSIBLE MANNER AND NOT READING ANYTHING THAT MAY BE PROBLEMATIC OR EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY TO ANYONE WITHIN THE ROUND.

K

Pretty simple here: I’m super down for K debate, but don’t assume I am familiar with your lit base, I do my best to evaluate the flow alone. While evaluating the K I start at the framework and ROB layer before working my way to advocacy (and figuring out the link/impact debate). Don’t ever leave me to evaluate the K by myself. Just like any other type of argument, it’s YOUR job to tell me where, when, and how to vote. Please actually defend your K and engage in genuine clash with your opponent’s responses, just repeating what you said the first time gets me absolutely nowhere (note that you should still be extending, just don’t ONLY extend).

[silly rabbit] Trix [are for kids]

Uhhhh… Honestly, it depends on my mood-- if I’m feeling a little silly goofy, then I guess I might vote on it, and if I’m not in such a mood I won’t. I generally tend to have a higher threshold on tricks because they tend to be blippy, poorly warranted, and I trust that I’m generally capable of making decisions. This also goes for other presumption arguments. In short- run at your own risk.

IVIs ig

Read what you want. I’m personally not a fan of the extreme proliferation of IVIs that I’ve seen in my time and the often frivolous nature in which they tend to be read. That being said, when justified, I’ll vote on them. Please layer them, absent layering claims there’s nothing I can do for you here, and also implicate them.

Other stuff

1. Speaks: I default to 29.2 for the winning team and 28.4 for the other team. I’ll give out 30s if I see top tier debating :)

2. Please read trigger warnings when applicable. If you’re unsure whether something needs a trigger warning, please air on the side of caution.

!!! Please feel free to clarify or ask any further questions about my paradigm/view on debate before the round starts, I’m more than happy to answer and help you out.

Excited to judge your round and I hope you have a great round and great tournament :)

I am a parent judge and I have judged a few tournaments. I won’t be familiar with the topic so please be clear and provide definitions. I do not flow, but will take notes. Please convince me why you should win and make sure to WEIGH. Please time yourselves. I most likely won’t understand Theory or Ks but if you explain well I will keep that in mind. In terms of speaking, make sure your words are coherent. In order to win, you need to draw me a clear path of why your arguments and impacts outweigh your opponents.

Enjoy debates that are fact based, with evidence where possible. Please be professional and respectful at all times. I also listen to the counters during CX carefully. Strong evidence will earn you points (over eloquence)

New to judging.

Go slow and explain arguments.

Looking for strong logical content in speeches.

I am a first time parent judge

speak slow and make it easy for me to understand

no form of discrimination will be tolerated; be respectful!

I am a parent judge, so please speak clearly. Explain your arguments clearly and incorporate evidence, and I will vote for the team that is able to articulate its arguments effectively.

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

Be respectful and have fun!

Add me to the email chain: mails.narendra@gmail.com

I'm a lay judge, here are my preferences:

• Contentions: I prefer clarity above all else. Explicitly reason out your argument. Run reasonable things, don't link random things to extinction.
• Crossfire: Always be respectful. Give the opposing team a chance to speak; speaks will be docked if this isn't followed.
• Speak clearly, do not spread.
• Having credible evidence is always best, this has weightage in my ballot.
• Time yourselves and let me know if your opponents go over time.

Last updated: 2/2/2024 (Evergreen)

General:

I am a tabula rasa judge who will do my best to judge arguments based on the flow. Please do not spread or exceed significantly faster than the conversational pace because I am not the fastest at taking notes... I have judged for 4 years (Public Forum/LD/Parli) and mainly lay debate, however I am down to hearing progressive arguments if explained clearly and well.

Start all speeches with an off-time roadmap: Signpost and tagline extremely clearly. I cannot flow you if I do not know where you are. Please take at least 1-2 POIs per speech as I believe there is a purpose in them existing in the first place.. I will disclose my result at the end given that this does not go against tournament protocol.Finish on time as well.The grace period is illegitimate. You get your minutes and then you are done. Granted, I will not explicitly tell you your time is up -> that is for you and your opponents to enforce in-round.

Case:

This is my favorite type of debate. Simple and easy -> run the status quo or a counterplan if you are Neg and run a plan if you are gov. Be specific but do not spend 50% of your speech on top-of-case. I need lots of weighing and terminalization in the MG/MO and the clean extensions through the LOR/PMR. I barely protect, it is best to call the POO.A good collapse into the key voters and instructing me where to vote and why is the key to winning my ballot. Statistics and empirics are underrated in Parli: But do not lie please. Do not rely on them entirely to the point where you have no logic, but there should be a good balance and mix of logic and evidence.

Theory:

Will never vote on Friv T: I will evaluate actual theory against "real abuse", but explain every single jargonistic-like term in great detail. Err on the side of caution, I have judged very very few progressive rounds. I do not default to anything. If you do not tell me anything I can simply not evaluate it -> I also do not randomly put theory before case, that is up for you guys to argue. Overall, I would recommend just sticking to the case given my wavy evaluation of theory, but if there is actual proven abuse in the debate round then it is best to run it in some form or another.

Kritiks:

Never heard a Kritik before in a round. Best not to run this, I don't understand this concept still to this day. You can try, but explain everything in great detail.

Overall, be respectful to your opponents, it goes a long way for speaker points as well. Best to run a traditional, slower case debate with really solid impacting and statistics. If you collapse into voter issues and effectively rebut the opponent's points, you have a good shot at winning the round.

Good luck to everyone.

I am a parent judge. I listen to the arguments and only judge based on the arguments presented.

I have been judging public forum debates since 2021. Here are my expectations

1. Lay Judge Background: As a lay judge, I am not deeply familiar with the technicalities of competitive debate. Please keep your arguments simple and avoid complex debate jargon.

2. Clarity and Pace: Avoid spreading and maintain a clear, moderate, and comprehensible speaking pace. I may struggle to comprehend points delivered at a high speed.

3. Data-Driven Approach: With my background in engineering, I am inclined towards a data-driven or evidence-based approach. I encourage you to provide solid evidence to support your contentions and to critically challenge your opponent's evidence.

4. Preference for Quantifiable Impacts: I have a preference for arguments with quantifiable impacts. Make sure to clearly articulate how your evidence supports these impacts

CSU LONG BEACH JACK HOWE 2022 UPDATE: I haven't judged circuit debate since 2017 so I'm out of practice. If you have me in the back of the room, please go slower - ESPECIALLY ON ANALYTICS. I won't be able to understand you if you fully spread your pre-written analytic blocks, so please slow down. I'm the head director for Bellarmine's program so I spend most of my time these days coaching speech and slow debate. 

FOR STATE & NATIONALS: If I am judging you in debate at the CHSSA State tournament or NSDA Nationals, please do not treat me as a purely circuit judge, especially if I'm on a panel with other judges who are clearly not circuit-oriented. I believe that those tournaments are excellent forums for a type of debate that prioritizes judge adaptation and a slower, more lay style of debate. So, do not feel you have to go fast to try to cater to me. At these tournaments, I'll hold you to much higher standards in terms of the evidence quality, the specificity of the link, and the logical coherence of your positions. I will love you if you successfully criticize contrived internal link scenarios, the squirelly/shady arguments, and blippy line-by-line analysis in your CXs and speeches.

How to get high speaker points and win my ballot:

My greatest frustrations with the vast majority of debate rounds are two-fold: 1) a lack of comparative engagement with the other team's arguments and 2) a lack of well-impacted analysis of why your arguments are reasons I should vote for you. Speech docs seem to exacerbate both of these problems, as teams rely on reading pre-written blocks. More and more, I feel a sense of impending existential dread as I realize that nothing meaningful in the debate round is going to happen until the 2NR and 2AR and that everything else is a game of seeing which issues get undercovered. Let me break down my two biggest frustrations:

1) comparative analysis - I understand that you have beautifully constructed blocks to certain arguments but often times, those blocks are not directly responsive to the other team's argument, and so I'm left with back-and-forth disputes with no clear framework of how to resolve them. The quickest way to get good speaker points with me is to listen critically to the warrants of the other team's arguments and give comparative analysis that explains why your warrants are superior.

2) impacting important arguments - Though debaters implicitly understand the importance of impact calc, they often think about it incorrectly. Meaningful impact calc isn't exclusively about magnitude, timeframe, and probability. That's rarely how rounds are resolved. That type of impact calc presupposes that you're ahead on the other parts of the flow. The best impact calc explains why the arguments that you're ahead on in the round are reasons to vote for you and why those arguments are more important than the other teams arguments. Often times, teams get frustrated that a dropped argument didn't warrant an immediate vote for their team. If a dropped argument is not adequately impacted and framed, and the other team has more compelling offense, then most rational judges will still not vote for you. I see this most often in framework debates against identity politics affirmatives. The framework debaters are often confused how they lost the round, despite being "ahead" on some line-by-line issues. However, in those debates, the identity politics team is often far ahead in terms of impacts and framing why those impacts outweigh any of the line-by-line framework arguments. So, to put it simply, explain why your arguments matter.

Finally, please go slower on theory than you would with other judges - I debated in high school and coach policy debate now, but I also direct a program that coaches students in speech (IE) and lay debate, so I don't watch 20+ fast rounds a year, like many judges on the circuit.

My experience: I debated in high school for Bellarmine College Prep (San Jose, CA) from 2007-2011 and went to Michigan 7-week during that time but did not debate in college -- so I was out of the circuit for a couple of years when identity politics K and planless affs became popular. Now, I'm a coach at Bellarmine. I don't judge much on the circuit now that I direct Bellarmine's S&D program. I would recommend going a bit slower, especially on theory arguments, if you want to make sure that I'm able to flow everything. That also means that you should explain your warrants and arguments more than you might for other judges.

Policy
The more case-specific you are, the better. Far too many teams do not engage with case in a substantive way. Also, don't be afraid to make analytics – smart, true analytics hold a lot of sway with me, and it’s very strategic to have them in the 1NC and 2AC. If I see that you’re actually engaging the debate and critically thinking instead of just reading blocks and ignoring what the other team said I will be much more willing to give you higher speaks. That said:

Topicality – you must do a good job of explaining your interpretation and why it’s good for debate (or why allowing the aff to be included in the topic is bad for the topic), as well as the terminal impacts to your claims about predictability and fairness and education, etc. I generally err towards interpretations that are the best for the literature base of a topic -- for substantive, deep debates at the core of the resolution -- rather than arbitrary lines which found their entire argument on generic disad link distinctions. Good topicality debates should be grounded in excellent evidence (T- subs. w/o material qualifications is a good example of a violation that does not fulfill this criteria).

DA – I love strategies that are either CP/DA or even DA/case. As a 1N/2A, I took the DA a lot in the 1NR and loved doing 2ARs against the DA. Generic DAs are okay, but I’m going to like you a lot more if you’re reading a tight case-specific DA that has good, specific links and internal links.

CP – don't be abusive or shady, otherwise I'll have sympathy for the aff on theory args.

Case – I LOVE case and I think it’s totally viable to win a debate with a simple strategy like case-DA. Case is what these sorts of debate SHOULD be about. Don’t let the 2A get away with the entirety of case and you have to defend on a CP to win! Make them defend the plan. I could even be persuaded to vote on presumption.

K debates
I'm down with Ks. I'm familiar with much of the K lit - but take time to explain the core thesis of the K in the neg block (or 2ac) and especially the link story. Contrived and jargon-filled tags that lack substance but just try to sound smart / catch the other team off guard is a huge pet peeve of mine. For the aff, definitely poke fun of the link, as well as the alt - if the K cannot explain an articulate non-generic formulation of these parts of the debate, it'll be hard for me to vote for the kritik. I'm fairly knowledgeable with regards to the K literature base, particularly Foucault, Nietzsche, Bataille, Marx, critical IR, but that means I hold kritiks to a high standard of explanation. If you are reading some variation on Lacan, for instance, you'd better understand exactly what kind of argument you're making. There are many points in fast debate rounds when I feel an impending sense of existential dread but one of the more egregious examples of such moments occurs when teams completely and utterly bastardize a brilliant philosopher with a kritik and have no idea what that author's argument actually is.

Also, please do not read framework at the same pace that you would read a card. Especially when you are talking about the role of the ballot, slow down a little.

Identity debates
I'm open to debates on identity politics. Again, I didn't debate when these types of arguments were gaining currency so I don't have as much familiarity but I'm open-minded about them. I do believe they force debaters to grapple with ideas that are ultimately good for the community to confront. The most important thing for FW debaters in these situations is to not just focus on the line-by-line. In these sorts of debates, the identity politics teams typically win through in-depth overviews that impact turn essentially everything on the line-by-line. You HAVE to respond to their top-level impact claims - it's hard to pull the trigger in this type of round on dropped argument on the line-by-line if you haven't been addressing the framing of the debate itself.

If you have more specific questions, please ask me before the round.

He/him

Affiliation: Leland HS '16, currently coaching for Leland HS

Competed 4 years HS parli(lay)/extemp, 3 years Congress(local+nat circuit), 1 year college parli(APDA). I've been judging for about 8 years, and coaching for 5 years.

I usually judge congress, with some occasional parli/PF.

General things:

-Don't be racist/sexist/ableist/discriminatory.

-Presentation skills(essentially make sure I can hear and understand you) matter for speaker points, but organization/clarity of your case/argument structures matter more. Appearance should not and will not be a factor.

-Organization/clarity is key--signpost, use clear taglines, make it very clear where I should be on my flow.

Parli(and some things applicable enough to PF):

-I'm not going to time for you(so time yourselves), though I may have a stopwatch going for my own personal use. Generally, once you go past 15-20 seconds overtime, I'll just stop flowing.

-Pretty much all of my experience is with lay/case debate, which I strongly prefer/can understand best. I have voted for theoretical/kritikal arguments before, but don't expect me to be knowledgeable or well-read. Run those arguments if you really want to, but be prepared to do more explaining at a more basic level than you usually do. Keep things simple/clear/clean/organized, and that'll give me the best chance at understanding/voting for your arguments.

-I can't really do speed-If you go too fast for me, I'll call "clear" and hope you slow down. If you don't, I provide no guarantees for the state of my flow.

-Impacts are very important. Please have them. Impact calculus is also very important to me. Please have it, because that significantly influences how I vote. I'd also suggest you have a clear/consistent/strong internal link chain, because your impacts should make sense.

-Write my ballot for me. To put things poorly, some of the best rounds that I've judged are the ones where I've done a minimum of independent thought and work-give me your impact weighing, make clear the voters, and highlight critical parts of the debate and explain why they fall in your favor.

-POIs/Crossfire: Useful/purposeful POIs are appreciated, but don't be rude or impolite. I would rather that at least one(maybe two) questions be taken, but given time constraints, not taking any questions is perfectly fine, and won't impact your speaks. POIs generally aren't put on the flow, but if something interesting gets brought up, I'll try to take note-if you want me to write something from POI/cross down I will, but responses/rebuttals should be brought up in your actual speeches.

-POOs: Call them. If a team introduces an entirely new argument in the LOR/PMR, I'll try to make sure it doesn't make it onto my flow, but I can't guarantee that I'll catch it unless a point of order is called.

Congress:

UNDERSTANDING MY CONGRESS BALLOT/RFD/FEEDBACK: Generally I'll just copy/paste my flow of your speech, with other notes/feedback/critique interspersed-hopefully, this lets you see which aspects of your speech and argumentation were most notable from a judge perspective, and how it influences my feedback. Your individual speech scores will reflect my judgement of that individual speech, and are not necessarily reflective of your overall performance in a given round.

CONGRESS NOTES:

-I see congress as a more holistic event compared to other debates, and will judge as such. Your speaking/presentation skills/quality of argumentation/questioning performance/overall level of activity and engagement with the chamber all matter.

-Presiding: I give good POs high ranks. The PO should not only be fair/fast/efficient, but also should make things very clear and understandable in their decisions and maintain decorum/control in the chamber. If there's clear bias or notable/repeated mistakes, expect low ranks. Know proper procedure. You don't necessarily need to know Robert's Rules of Order front to back, but you should have a very solid grasp on the common general motions/procedures in round. Please remember to call for orders of the day at the end of a day/session. (Note: If I'm a parliamentarian for the session, I'll be largely non-interventionist barring a point of order. Mistakes will still be noted.)

-Clash and rebuttals are important, especially with mid/late-cycle speeches, and will increase your likelihood of getting higher ranks. Clash is not just stating your point and a list of other legislator's names-it is actual engagement with and responsiveness to specific arguments made in the round.

-If you're giving the authorship, while you may not be able to refute anyone, your speech should establish enough background to allow me to understand the context of the rest of the debate. Give me the mandate for the legislation and the initial advantages. Do it well, and even an authorship that generally can't have clash/rebuttal will rank highly. There should not be multiple minutes of dithering because no one wants to give the authorship.

-Know how the flow of debate is going, and adapt your speeches accordingly. What would have been a good constructive speech early in the debate will be far more poorly received in later cycles, where crystallization/weighing/refutation speeches are more appropriate. Even if your speaking is competent, if you don't substantively contribute to the development of the overall debate, you won't get a good rank.

-Be polite/appropriately decorous. There's a not insignificant element of congressional role-playing in this event, and that should reflect in your speeches/argumentation/questioning.

last updated for chssa state quals:

will evaluate the debate as a lay judge unless both teams agree to a fast debate. please do not spread unless both teams are on-board and in agreement. in a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation.

my paradigm is pretty short because i try to be very tab rasa lol. you can run arguments that are factually not true if you'd like (climate denialism, etc.) but just know that because of my own personal biases that i cannot help despite trying to be very tab rasa is that my threshold for evaluating those arguments is probably a lot lower than other arguments.

about me: debated policy four years at leland. in high school i competed in both lay and circuit policy (i've debated stock issues and ran Ks, CP, DAs, theory, FW, etc.). that being said, if you're more comfortable with stock issues, debate stock issues. if you're more comfortable with circuit, then go circuit. i don't care what you run as long as you debate it well and you can explain your arguments. creative arguments will be rewarded (speaks!)

i don't have an argument preference—i will vote on anything as long as you tell me why i should vote on it over your opponents' arguments. i never envisioned myself running a k aff, but my partner junior year wanted to run one so we ended up doing it. as a former debater, i know that judge intervention is annoying, so it's up to y'all to tell me which arguments to prefer and why (framing!) my personal preferences and thoughts about arguments don't play a role when it comes to deciding who debated better in a round.

critics / coaches who I respect / admire / had a large influence on my debate career: Michaela Northrop, Stacy Dawson, jon sharp, Mark Hernandez, Mylan Gray. you should also check out my former partner's paradigm (Allen Kim), who has a far better articulated paradigm than mine, and we generally hold similar views on good debating.

also, i try to make my facial expressions expressive so yall can tell what arguments im jiving with / which arguments i'm unclear on or have doubts about. please don't take it personally! i personally preferred being judged by individuals who were responding to my arguments, which is why i try to do the same now.

imp. disclaimer:

please be nice to each other! at the end of the day, we're here because we want to learn and debate is fun, and i think pettiness and toxicity ruins debate for everyone. there's a clear line between witty humor or sarcasm and rudeness. don't cross it, or it'll be reflected in your speaks.

ask me any specifics before the round! hnh.debate@gmail.com

Thanks for checking my paradigm if you happened to check.

Firstly and importantly disclosed, I am an immigrant (moving to US only after 30) and English is not my first language. Please consider it and set your tactic right for ESL (English as a Second Language) as a judge, if you're a debater.

Please listen carefully what opponent says and please construct your turn more relevant to what other says, rather than only speaking what you 've prepared or repeating what you've already told.

Please refrain from just insisting or repeating lots of evidences as to support your claim, as they won't mostly buy me, cause I can't verify them whether they are true or not while I am listening to your debate. Right ?

I hope you will use more common sense than sci-fi articles, researches, newspapers, which requires lots of pre-knowledge. I won't even remember what you said after the debate. Right ?

To me, the debate is not whose claim is right or wrong, but whose appeal is more compelling to vote for.

You will earn my vote by the way you speak, listen, or gestures, and how you invalidate others claim or support your points well ...etc
(balance of all) and your consideration to ESL as a judge.

Volunteering for judging Public Forum debate with limited experience.

I'll be looking for balance, balance between well established arguments and well organized refutes, balance between team members on the contribution and how each would compliment each other over the rounds.

I am an experienced parent judge (lay style, not circuit style).

I started judging in Jan 2022. Please minimize excessive spreading.

I like well-constructed, linear arguments that bear directly on the debate topic.

I do not generally comprehend "meta-rhetoric" (that is, arguments about the merits or validity of the debate question itself).

My email address for sending evidence and cases is joe_lee@yahoo.com

Hello,

I am a parent judge.

I hope you guys enjoy your debate and have fun always.

I believe this is a good learning and a good community to support each other.

please respect each other and support one another.

Thank you for your a lot of effort.

I am looking forward to seeing you soon.

Regards,

Jung

I pay attention to citations and references but don’t time or flow.

I enjoy off the flow speeches. Use eye contact and proper gestures.

Please speak clearly but no spreading.

I appreciate contentions that are explained clearly and in an organized manner. Prefer fewer meaningful arguments over many less impactful ones. Take a few sentences to explain more important arguments, otherwise I might miss them. When referring back to cards made in earlier speeches, it's helpful to mention the essense of the studies rather than just the name of the author. Strongly prefer reasonable analysis over taking arguments to the extreme ending up in nuclear war.

Hello Everyone,

I have been volunteering as a parent judge in S&D tournaments for the last 5 years. My personal beliefs border on moderate philosophy. I am very open to listening to arguments on either side of the spectrum and I especially like the ones that are logical and convincing. I don't like it when people speak too fast since most of them are trying to scram in a bunch of arguments at the same time which otherwise don't stand on their own.

I also like the flow of the speeches, a simple and easy to understand structure, and, the ones that follow the time requirements.

TL;DR - Parent judge who was a national circuit policy debater in high school and college long ago (see experience at very bottom of paradigm). Judged mostly open/varsity parli Fall 2018 - Spring 2022 with increasing amounts of PF in the last year or two and occasional LD & Policy judging throughout . Sections below for Parli, PF, and Policy.

General Overview: I will evaluate framework/criteria/theory/role of the ballot issues first. Unless argued/won otherwise, I default to judging as a policy maker weighing aff plan/world against status quo or neg counterplan/world using net benefits and treat debate as an educational game. I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals (summary/final focus in PF) even if you don't call a POO (Parli). I'm fine with tag teaming (but only flow what the actual speaker says). Speak from anywhere you prefer as long as everyone can hear you. When speech time expires, you can finish your thought, but I will not flow any new arguments started after time expires (no new args in grace period). Cross-ex/crossfire will not be considered in my decision unless you reference it in a speech (that will bring it into the round). You can go fast but probably not full speed (not 200+ wpm). I will call clear or slow as needed. If you run K's, please clearly link them to the resolution/aff plan/aff arguments and explain (K's post-date my debate experience). Signpost. Clearly justify/link theory arguments (high bar for you to win frivolous theory). Don't care about your attire. I rarely look up from my flow during rounds. No need to shake my hand.

If allowed by the tournament rules, please add me to your email chain (if applicable) using edlingo13 [at] gmail.com

==============================================

PF Debate Notes:

I am familiar with the basic structure of PF and have extensive experience judging and competing in other forms of debate. But I am still learning some of the PF-specific terminology. Even though I have only judged perhaps a dozen PF rounds before, here's a few notes I hope will help you.

- Because I am flowing, I don't need you to do a whole lot to extend dropped arguments. If you are pressed for time, and, for example, an entire contention is dropped by the other team, you can just say "extend contention 2 which is dropped". It can help to reiterate the arguments to help fill in details I may not have gotten right on my flow or to draw my attention to particular impacts, but there is no need to individually extend every element of the contention. You can save the analysis for weighing.

- Please do your best to clearly weigh impacts in final focus. I know time is short. However, if you leave it up to me to weigh the advantages of both sides against each other, you are taking a big risk. Best to explain to me why you believe your impacts (harms/benefits) outweigh those presented by the other team. Though not required, I am fine with some weighing also happening in earlier speeches (summary, even rebuttal). For example, if after constructives you think you clearly outweigh, no need to wait until final focus to point that out.

- I don't flow crossfire, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in crossfire to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

- Where there are evidence conflicts (each side has evidence saying the opposite), please do your best to explain why I should prefer your evidence over that of your opponents (study vs. opinion, better author credentials, recency, etc.).

- In general, do what you can to provide clash. If each side just reiterates and defends their own case, that leaves a lot up to the judge. If you want my decision to go your way, best to provide that clash/analysis so I know why you believe you should win the round.

==============================================

Parli Debate Notes (though much is applicable to all forms of debate):

** Note to Tournament Directors - Please add Flex Time to High School Parli debate (see sections 4.C. & 4.H. of the NDPA rules for a definition of Flex Time). I think it will increase the quality of debates/clash in the round, give judges a bit of time to clean up their flows & make notes for later feedback to debaters, and ensure fairness in how much time is taken for each speaker to start.

Default Framework:

In the absence of a contrary framework argued/won in the round, I will make my decision as a policy maker comparing the aff plan/world against the status quo or neg counterplan/world.

Unless argued/won in the round otherwise, I think debate is an educational game. I believe the educational part is primarily for the debaters and only secondarily (at most) for the judge(s) and/or audience. This is one of the reasons I have trouble with K's that are loosely, if at all, related to the resolution being debated. The game aspect of debate implies a need for fairness/balance/equity between aff & neg sides.

With the above defaults (and realistically biases) in mind, I will try to come into the round tabula rasa ("blank slate"). Certainly I won't intentionally bring my political biases into the round. I will try to minimize using any outside knowledge of the topic, but realistically some of that may creep in unless background information is clearly explained in the round.

Especially if you don't like the above framework, please do provide your own in the round. I'm far more likely to make the decision you expect if I'm using framework/weighing criteria that you know (above) or have argued/won in the round.

Theory:

Fine by me. But as with everything else, please explain/justify the theory arguments you make. Don't like blippy theory you toss out in hopes the other side will drop your one line VI/RVI or, similarly, some pre-canned, high speed theory block that even you don't understand (and I can barely flow, if at all).

Speed:

As long as you can still be clear, I am fine with any speed. I will call "slow" or "clear" as needed during the round. But, it's still best to slow down on tags and issues you believe are critical in deciding the round. Especially in the first tournament or two of the year and the first round in the morning, best to go a little slower for me. If you want me to get a clean flow, keep things to a max of perhaps 200 or 250 wpm rather than 350 or 400. Don't spread in a monotone. I know from experience that it is possible to add (brief) pauses where there is a period, slow down on tags, and vary your speed while still averaging 300+ wpm. If you are going to go very fast, it is your responsibility to practice it until you can do so with clarity and in a way that can be flowed.

Kritiks:

K's post-date my competitive debate experience. I have read up a bit on them and seen them used in a few rounds (parli and policy rounds). If you run one (or more), make sure you have a clear link to the resolution/aff plan/aff args. It's also important that you clearly explain the K to me and to the other team (including why it applies in this round and why it should be a voting issue). Just spreading through a K that even you don't understand in the hopes I will understand it and your opponents will mishandle it is very unlikely to be successful. On the other hand, if you understand it, clearly explain it, and answer POI's from your opponents if they seem confused by it, I will seriously consider it in my decision. If you plan to run a K-aff, please disclose to your opponents at the start of prep (or earlier). If you don't, a theory argument by the neg that you should have done so is very likely to win.

Counterplans:

Counterplans seem like a natural fit for Parli to me. Especially with a topic that gives the aff broad leeway to choose a somewhat narrow plan, CPs are a good way to make the round fair for the neg side.

Dropped Arguments:

I will extend arguments that your opponents dropped for you (I think this is now called protecting the flow), but it's still best for you to extend them yourself so that you can explain to me why/how those dropped arguments should factor into my decision. When you extend, I don't need you to re-explain your arguments or extend every individual point in a block that is entirely dropped (though no harm in doing so). How you believe the dropped arguments should impact the overall round is more important to me.

New Arguments in Rebuttals/POO's:

I will ignore what I believe to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, so you don't have to call a POO. However, I do understand the general POO process. So if you want to make certain that I will be treating something as a new argument in rebuttals (and therefore excluding it from my decision making process), go ahead and call the POO. I'd prefer that you don't call a lot of POO's (more than 3), but certainly won't count it against you if you feel the need to call each one out. Though odds are if you are calling that many, I already get that we've got a rebuttal speaker who doesn't realize I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals.

Tag Teaming:

Fine by me. I will, of course, only include what the actual current speaker says in my flow.

Speaker Location:

Stay sitting, stand up, or go to a podium. It's all fine by me. However, if you are a quiet speaker in a noisy room and/or I or the opposing team call out "clear", "louder", etc. please speak in a direction/location that you can be heard by all. I'm fine with taking some time before a speech or stopping time during a speech if we need to adjust everyone's location so all speakers can be clearly heard. If someone can't hear the current speaker, I'm fine with them calling out "louder". If the speaker can't easily adjust so everyone can hear them, go ahead and stop time and we will take time to rearrange so you can be heard without having to shout.

==============================================

Policy Debate Notes:

- Debated 4 years of policy in high school (in CFL/California Coast district, went to State & Nationals, won State), but that was long, long ago.

- Defaults: I will default to judging based on stock issues as a policy maker. For theory issues, I will default to treating debate as an educational game (game implies fairness/equity). On both counts, I am open to alternative frameworks/roles of the ballot.

- Theory, framework, K's need to be developed/clearly explained to me and your competitors or you will have an uphill battle trying to win them (doesn't mean you won't if the other teams drops it or grossly mishandles it, but I do need a basic understanding of your argument in order to vote on it). Likewise, calling something a voting issue doesn't make it one unless you explain why it should be a voting issue.

- I know very little K literature.

- I won't be able to keep up with a full speed/invitational/tech debate these days. But you can certainly speak at a rate that the "person on the street" would think of as quite fast. I will call clear/slow if I'm having trouble keeping up.

- I don't flow cross-ex, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in cross-ex to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

==========================================

Experience:

My competitive experience is almost exclusively policy debate from the late 70's and early to mid-80's. Four years in high school policy debate (1 yr Bellarmine followed by 3 yrs Los Gatos High). Quarters or better at many national invitational tournaments (e.g. Berkeley & Harvard back when they weren't on the same weekend ;-). 1st Place California (CHSSA) State Championships. Invites to national level round robins (Glenbrook, Harvard, UCLA/USC, Georgetown) -- back then the tournament director invited those teams they believed to be the top 9 in the country (perhaps a few more if some teams couldn't attend). In high school I briefly experimented with LD. During my senior year in college (UC Berkeley), I debated one year of CEDA debate. Went to perhaps a half dozen tournaments. Won a couple of them, made it to quarters/semis at some others. Helped the Cal team reach #2 in the national CEDA rankings.

Parent judge. Speak slowly and explain arguments simply and clearly.

I am a new parent judge. Please talk clearly and slowly. Have fun and enjoy the round!

I am a "lay" judge. Please speak clearly, avoid speed, explain thoroughly and do not make assumptions about my knowledge of the topic. I prefer well articulated argumentation. Please don't be too tech-y with me, I don't know what Ks or T or phil are.

lay

I am a first year parent judge. I did Oxford debate in high school. I would prefer moderately paced taking and no spreading. I will not be able to keep up with you if you start spreading. Since I am a first year judge, I will need you to clearly spell out your arguments, rebutals, and points during the round. Make sure you tell me why you or your team should win the round and why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Thank you and good luck on your rounds!

I am a parent judge with some experience in judging Policy and Public Forum. When I judge, I will not read your evidence as reading a newspaper but listen to your speech. I am ok with a faster speed, but please be clear when you speak. I will try my best to remove personal biases but focusing on your arguments presented.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

Hi I'm Eowin a student at SFSU I'm a relatively new judge with some experience in observing debates

Please make sure that you speak loud and clearly and if you can also time yourselves

Good luck!

This is my 2nd year judging. I am comfortable with both slow (lay) debate and medium fast debate. I understand different affirmative advantages as well as disadvantages, counter plans and topicality. I do not know how to judge theory or kritiks and I am unfamiliar with them in general. I like it when teams are clear and tell me for what to vote on.

If you would like to spread, please add me to the email chain at gayatri.naha@live.com . However, if you are going at lay speeds, it is up to you if you want to include me on the email chain. If you have included me, please let me know so I can check my inbox. However, spread at your own risk, as the faster you get, the harder it will be for me to understand your argument. I am a parent judge after all, and I tend to like slower rounds more. If you decide to speed up, be cautious at how fast you are reading your arguments.

Most importantly, remember to respect each other and have fun in debate.

I am a completely Lay judge with no circuit judging experience. If you want to debate circuit, please add me to the email chain so I can read your case and try to follow along (somnath.mani@gmail.com)

For both Lay and Circuit, please make your impacts clear and exactly why I should be voting for the affirmative /negation. I am not great with speed so I prefer if you talk slower.

Hello!

I have been a parent judge since 2020. I appreciate if the participants can pace themselves in a way that I can follow along, and be respectful of their opponents.

Good Luck!

Amit

Here's my approach to judging. First and foremost I assess each debater on the merit of their core arguments as well as their use of supportive evidence. I also look for how the debater rebuts their opponent arguments. Finally I am looking for each debater's overall organization, clarity and presentations style. I suggest to keep the arguments simple so they can be explained without involving too much theory like spreading.

Background: I primarily did PF in high school (as well as other speech events + Congress). Currently I'm a speech + debate coach. 3x National qualifier.

In all forms of debate, I prioritize clash and impact weighing. Tell me where to vote on the flow. Tell me how you've won your debate.

Parli: I love a good k. I dislike friv theory as it wastes time and contradicts the purpose of debate (education).

PF: Cards without valid reasoning to demonstrate how they support your argument do not prove your point. Please signpost, warrant, and weigh.

LD: I prefer a traditional approach to LD. Set up a framework that explains how your value weighs more or solves for your opponent's case. Use the framework as you weigh voters. Prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to words/speed. LD shouldn't be treated like circuit policy.

Policy: I do my best to keep up with speed, although I'm less familiar flowing policy than other debate formats. I'll consider kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages.

Speech: I vote based on emotional authenticity, delivery, content (topic, speech cutting), organization, and blocking. I care about unique topics in platform events and believable acting + compelling character arcs in interp.

Decorum: To me, debate should be inclusive and welcoming to students of all identities and experience levels. If you make it hostile for someone, I cannot ethically vote for you, no matter the flow. Laughing at your opponents; excessively whispering during others' speeches; or making implicitly sexist, racist, or ableist arguments will affect your speaks and my ability to buy your argument. I will deduct speaker points if I encounter students from the same program running the same arguments word-for-word. Share ideas in prepared debate events, but write your own cases.

I am a PF parent judge. You can call me a mostly "lay judge". I judge based on four main categories.

1) Research: You should have a decent amount of prep done. It should be important that you have a good amount of cards, sufficient enough to back-up your case, as well as in rebuttal.

2) Presentation: You should be able to convey your message. I look for good inflection in tone, and emphasis on the right words. No Spreading Please. Also, please don't go too fast. You should have the right amount of content, and should not be rushing through your speeches. Also, I am not too picky on time. I only cut speaker points, if you go more than 15 second over time.

3) Crossfire: Please give everyone an equal opportunity to speak. If you take up the majority of the time, or interrupt your opponent, I will take off speaker points.

4) Context/Content: You should have the right content. You should be able to have a good amount of both offense and defense. Also, I prefer numbers over words in evidence. I also would like signposting, and off-time roadmaps. It makes it easier for me to understand where you are.

5) Summary: This happens in both Summary and Final Focus. You should be able to sum up what has happened in the round. Basically, I want you to summarize all of the points you gave, and extend them. You should be able to summarize all of your blocks, frontlines, warrants, impacts and evidence in your favor.

Good Luck!

Please make sure that your arguments have logical consistency and that your presentation has integrity.

Also, presentation skills play a large part of my evaluation.

New parent judge - Speaking clearly would be appreciated.

I am a parent judge who prefers debating by the five stock issues (but not a must).

This includes inherency, significance and harms, solvency, topicality and the disadvantage. (and counter-plan)

As long as you speak clearly, stay on topic, be more convincing than your opponents, handle yourself well during cross-X, I'll vote for you.

Cheers!!

I am a first time parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly for all your speeches. My daughter is in PF, so I'm only familiar with PF, if I happen to be judging other types of debate please let me know the timings and topics. Please be respectful and kind to your opponents, and have a great round!

I am a parent judge. This is my second year judging the debate.  Here are the items I try looking for

• Strength of arguments

• Claims, reasons, and supporting evidence

• Refutation of opponent’s arguments

• are they having fun and enjoying the competition? 

I am also learning from both teams debating  as a Judge 

I am a parent judge. This is my first year judging.

I value logical reasoning, how easy it is for one to follow the train of thought, and how well you speak/conduct yourself. If your opponent commits a fallacy or makes an inaccurate/unfair statement, it is your responsibility to call out.

If your argument consists of many points, please arrange them so that the most important one is presented first. When making a point, be clear about whether it is a new contention, a part of or an example of the last contention.

Hi, my name is Neelima Namburi.

I am a flow parent judge, so please avoid spreading and make sure you weigh a lot in your final speeches. It would be nice if you could send your speech docs before you speak.

Email: namburin2020@gmail.com

In my judging, I prioritize three things.

1. Speaking Clearly. Make sure you speak clearly and slow down for taglines so I understand your case. If you want to go a little faster, make sure you send your cases and speech documents to my email.
2. Arguments. Have well fleshed out arguments where you explain the warrants and have a logical link chain.
3. Final speeches. Always weigh. Ensure that you always talk about what argument your are going to refute in your rebuttals. Move cleanly from 1 contention to another and try not to jump around on the flow. Do not bring up new arguments in your final speech.

Debate is supposed to be a safe space. Don't bully anybody. Have fun debating!

Speech Paradigm

I'm primarily an IE coach (though I do coach a bit of OO and debate as well). I judge speech on the basis of good speaking skills (varied tone/inflection, appropriate facial expressions, solid eye contact, etc.) and how engaged you seem to be with your own work. Passion, authenticity, and good storytelling are crucial parts to giving a good speech of any kind. I feel like I judge speech the same way I would judge a TV show that I am watching. Is the content interesting? Is the person delivering the content engaging? Am I losing my attention span mid-way through the speech and wishing I was playing the "Cats & Soup" app game on my phone instead? Or am I so engaged in the speech that I forget literally everything outside of what's happening right in front of me? It's basically about telling a good story/narrative and telling it in a way that enraptures everyone around you.

In general, I find that a good way of figuring out how your round is going is gaging your own interest in what you're saying. Are you boring yourself to death? If so, your audience has probably lost interest. Engagement is a two way street and if we can see that you're genuinely passionate about whatever it is you're talking about then that passion will transfer to us and we'll enjoy the round with you.

Anyhow, that's about it! I'm mostly just judging your speech on how much engaging it is and how passionate you seem to be about it. It's as simple as that! Speech is amazing, but don't be too hard on yourself if a round doesn't work out in your favor. These things happen and it's okay. Your reaction (defeatist vs. gritty) above anything else will determine your long-term outcome in your event. Have fun, learn something new, enjoy yourself, appreciate your successes, and pick yourself up from rounds that didn't go ideally as planned ("fall down seven times, get up eight" as the saying goes).

Sending lots of good luck your way

Debate Paradigm

I tend to judge rounds based on how clearly someone has structured their arguments and how effective they are at proving the impacts of their case. I want to be able to understand what the argument you made is and how you got there. Signposting is always appreciated.

I appreciate logical arguments and solid explanations for why you think your argument matters. For example, if one of the impacts of in your argument is "nuclear war", how exactly do we get there? If the resolution is, for example, something like "The USFG should pass a bill mandating universal healthcare" and you negate the resolution and one of the impacts in your case is "passing this bill would lead to nuclear war"-- I'm not gonna buy the argument unless you clearly explain the a-to-b-to-c steps of how having universal healthcare leads us to such an extreme impact. Having big impacts is great, but they have to make sense too

In general, I find that a good way of figuring out how your round is going is by gaging your own interest in what you're saying. As you're speaking, do you find that you boring yourself to tears/yawns? If so, then your audience has probably lost interest. Engagement is a two way street and if we can see that you're genuinely passionate about whatever it is that you're talking about then that passion will transfer to us and we'll enjoy the round with you.

Public speaking skills are also important to me and I always appreciate use of appropriate tone, inflection, facial expressions, and eye contact while someone is giving their speech. Also, when it comes to spreading, I understand the importance of wanting to get as much information in as possible, but if I and the rest of the audience cannot understand what you're saying because you're speaking too fast and not very clearly then it kind of defeats the point, imo. So, if you do decide to spread, just make sure you're speaking very clearly. I honestly prefer that contestants not spread, but if it's done well (which is kind of rare lol) then it's okay.

Anyhow, that's about it! I'm mostly just judging your case on how much sense it makes and how well you articulate it. It's as simple as that! Debate is a wonderful thing, but don't be too hard on yourself if a round doesn't work out in your favor. These things happen and it's okay. Your reaction (defeatist vs. gritty) above anything else will determine your long-term outcome in your event. Have fun, learn something new, enjoy yourself, appreciate your successes, and pick yourself up from rounds that didn't go ideally as planned ("fall down seven times, get up eight" as the saying goes).

Sending lots of good luck your way

Julie Noh (she/her). I'm a parent judge. Please email me your evidence and include me on the email chain at julienoh@gmail.com

My paradigm for debate focuses on:

Clear and concise communication from the debaters. I'm looking for logical reasoning and evidence-based arguments and quality debate. I expect debaters to use credible sources and avoid making sweeping generalizations or unsupported claims. If you spread, make sure you can be understood!

Respectful discourse. Engage with your opponents' arguments in a respectful and constructive manner, rather than simply dismissing or ignoring them. Debaters should ask questions and seek clarification when necessary, and respond to their opponents' questions in a clear and straightforward manner.

Time management and organization. This is both in terms of structuring arguments and delivering speeches within the allotted time. Debaters should be well-prepared and have a clear understanding of the key issues at stake, impacts, as well as a clear plan for how to address them effectively.

I leave you with this haiku:

Speak with conviction

Evidence and reasoning

Challenge with respect

My name is Sathvik. I did circuit LD and Parli for 4 years in High School (and won the TOC in parli my senior year of HS). I am fine hearing everything (I haven’t been that involved in debate since 2021) even though when I debated I mostly LARPed/policy and read some theory/philosophy with an occasional K. Feel free to go fast-ish, I will flow from the doc. I am not the biggest fan of identity based K's but will not intervene against them. Tech > Truth. I love tricks and theory and any new type of argument I haven't heard before. Most importantly, be nice and have fun! Speaker points start at 28.8 and go up or down based on quality of speech and strategy.

Email:sathvikn@stanford.edu

tldr:

• policy coach, tech > truth, tabula rasa critic of argument (details below but basically this means tabula rasa with complete claim-warrant-impact arguments &a premium on logical analytical work - quality logical analysis can easily beat subpar evidence)
• be excellent to each other - "Keanu Reeves & Alex Winter explain "Be Excellent to Each Other" ": this video gets the spirit of things right (minus Alex Winter's gendered language) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv0i8YasmEM
• adaptation to panels + doing your own style = good & respected (i'm just as happy in a stock issues or case / DA round as in a circuity policy or K round as long as there's clear clash, weighing,& analysis, not just a card & block war)
• if you do fast policy debate, i prefer the depth and clarity of an 80% of toc style speed and fewer off [happier with the depth in a 4 or so off situation] but you do you
• but please no blippy unwarranted args - esp not for theory (needs initial claim-warrant-impact to be a voting issue)
• everything below mainly includes background info, advice, and predispositions which you can override w/ skillful debating as long as you hone in on the basic ideas above

about you:thank you for being here and for your commitment to this activity! before we even meet, i already have so much respect for you - for your time spent working on this life-changing activity that builds essential life skills and shares important messages and advocacies! i'm here to listen and respond and will put 100% effort into that for you during your debate / performance! please communicate with me if you need any sort of support or accommodation during the round!

about me:

• she/her...and you can call me Michaela; michaelanorthrop@gmail.com – put me on the chain

• current policy debate & spontaneous events speech coach at Leland High School in San Jose; have coached policy debate on a spectrum from slow lay judge format to fast circuit style nearly every year since 1999 but have focused less on circuit style the last few years - more lay & semi-fast / mixed pool debate for regional / state & nsda / cat nats

• former head coach for all speech & debate events; experience coaching all of them

• competed in hs & college speech & debate (policy, extemp, congress, duo, oratory, & parli) in the mid-to-late 1990s

• tabroom experience is deceptive; i judge 50+ practice rounds a year for our team

• coaching areas / experience:

• 2000-2003 - head speech and debate coach at Lynbrook H.S. in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2003-2006 - head speech and debate coach from at Chantilly H.S. in the Washington D.C. metro (D.C. metro and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2006-2008 - assistant coach for policy debate at Wayzata H.S. in Minnesota & Twin River (formerly Henry Sibley) H.S. (Minnesota and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2015-present - policy & impromptu coach at Leland High School in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments)

most general paradigm for all debate events (please see below for more specific paradigms for Policy, LD, PF, Parli, and Speech - it’s a lot more specific below)

• i'm a critic of argument open to most arguments you might want to advance (see exceptions below in terms of arguments which marginalize or seem to create harm) with more policy strat experience than K experience and very little high theory experience.

• i used to run Ks on the neg but my experience as a competitor was before K affs really hit the scene, so though i'm open to hearing K affs and have judged some K v framework and K v K rounds, i wouldn't call them my wheelhouse. i'd say 90% of my judging experience - just based on types of tournaments judged and the timelines for those - lines up with either policy strats or Ks on the neg as opposed to 10% K affs / clash rounds. see details below for more of my thinking on K affs & framework debates.

• unless persuaded into another vantage point and role, i first view myself as an educator seeking the outcome of advocacy skills and informed activism in / beyond the debate space

• If you're not familiar with “critic of argument” as a paradigm, it’s probably most helpful to interpret it as a tabula rasa judge who is open to whatever role of the judge / ballot you want to set up but who defaults to the side with the overall best-warranted logical argumentation (with well-substantiated analysis and judge direction held in nearly equal weight with strong evidence) and the side with the best control of clear comparative impacting throughout the debate (not just in final rebuttals).

• i think this is not much different from what a lot of coaches a few decades into the activity are saying except that i flag it as what we used to call it (critic of argument paradigm): yes do line by line, yes tech > truth, but also get out of your blocks and compare stuff; it's not just having a solid line by line or having more arguments or flagging that they dropped more than you did...but saying why your line by line is better and why your arguments >>>.

• Typical concerns about a critic of argument paradigm are: How do we know the judge won’t intervene? What are “quality” arguments? Is this just a strategy contest comparing the first constructives? Nope. Here are some other core beliefs which check against those concerns and provide more information on how i judge argument quality:

• tech > truth: i vote off of the flow guided by your comparisons of argumentation strength and your assessment of the significance of arguments extended or dropped… with the caveat that the tech (right out of the gate, not just by the final rebuttal) needs to have clearly articulated substance (claim-warrant-impact) to be a voter. dropped arguments are true, provided they were originally presented as a complete argument (claim, warrant, impact).

• evidence quality + analysis quality instead of evidence automatically being weighted over analysis: Quality evidence (breadth and strength of warrants, relevant source with expertise for the claim at hand) is important to me. So is analysis. Contextualized analytics with clearly isolated warrants demonstrating logical reasoning (empirics, cause and effect, argument by sign with clear justification for the link, or other clear categorical reasoning) easily beat vague evidence missing clear warranting other than having a source. Evidence with more warranting > evidence with no warrant other than the source. However, source quality is persuasive as a separate metric. The basic point here is that arguments like “I read evidence, so you must prefer it over a high school debater’s analysis” aren't persuasive for a critic of argument. Warrant breadth, isolation, and application via analysis is persuasive. Flagging fallacies also moves you up the believability spectrum.

• the best stuff as far as i'm concerned (highly rewarded w/ speaks and tipping me towards your side before you apply any other particular structure or goal to the round):

  • demonstrating strategic thinking in speeches and cx

  • in-depth discussion and comparison of evidence (source quality, internal analysis, warrants);

  • detailed, clearly substantiated analytics;

  • clear advocacy (applies to condo / dispo as much as any other advocacy - tell me what this advocacy means and why it's good);

  • cross-ex as an art form which i'm flowing and applying highly to speaks and then to the round if you apply cx concessions during speeches;

  • a good balance of ethos, logos, and pathos - which breaks the speaker / audience barrier a bit, generating audience goodwill and communicating empathy which elevates your speech acts / projects

  • See below under particular event paradigms for specifics according to common argument categories.

• i love comparative overviews telling me your path to the ballot via the avenues above, the flow, and clear impact calculus, starting some of this party BEFORE FINAL REBUTTALS
  
  

Other General Points Across Debate Formats:

• rate: speed is fine but needs to be clear; no predisposition for or against a rate as long as it's clear but I'm happiest and doing the best processing and evaluation when debaters choose a *moderately* fast rate [see special note below - command F Debating for Panels - about mixed panels / local lay tournaments though! i want you to include / consider the whole panel!]

• for online debate, a caveat to the above: due to the special constraints of judging online (home wifi issues, multiple windows / programs to manage on the computer while tracking the debate, etc.), i really prefer a moderate rate of delivery at most - what i view as about a 7/10 vs. full-speed TOC-style rounds. feel free to run a quick pre-round calibration w/ me to get a baseline as i realize this is subjective.

• If you're not clearly communicating (too fast, not enough articulation or separation of words, etc.), I'll indicate that once by typing "clear" in the chat or in person by saying "clear." If you don't change and i've already indicated an issue, don't expect me to flow.

• Debate needs to be a safe space for all participants. Be kind. We're all here to learn and grow. You can be assertive, authoritative, and forceful without being dismissive or rude. Be inclusive and respectful of others' expressed concerns. Consider the assumptions behind your claims and arguments carefully as well as their impact on all involved. Ad hominem and exclusionary behavior are unacceptable. At a minimum, you will lose speaker points. Personal attacks or marginalizing behavior that seems intentional or that's repeated without apology / recognition after an objection is raised may also be grounds for a loss, especially (but not only) if your opponents raise the issue.

• i am not going to vote on an individual's behavior *outside* my ability to observe it within the round. this includes any flux time before or between rounds at tournaments. this is not to say that you can't use examples about what a team has *run* at other tournaments to substantiate T or theory or credibility arguments or to add pressure about a team's authentic advocacy during cx based on their prior arguments; feel free to do that

POLICY DEBATE SPECIFICS

the commentary below isn't meant to be prescriptive but instead serve as guideposts - the thinking i'll tend to apply absent specific guidance on an issue; you can always make a push for me to see it from your perspective! in that case, what i wrote about my default paradigm (critic of argument) comes into play for how to best persuade me into a particular vantage point

Fiscal Redistribution / 23-24 topic experience:

• some policy-focused strat familiarity and experience: i led a middle school policy debate workshop this summer on this topic. we focused on policy strats and the NFHS / NSDA novice case areas.
• i spent some time reviewing various summer camps’ literature and doing personal research; this was mostly policy-focused
• year-long involvement with our team's policy strats in lay and mixed judge pools

Style / Approach: Your rate, style, and argumentation are your own decisions (with the caveat above about mixed / lay panels as well as thoughtfully considering any expressed concerns for access and content). i'm happy to hear about whatever you think is important. i do especially enjoy thorough case, theory, and T debates, but i'm no more likely to vote on them vs. other positions.

Number of off case / depth vs. breadth:

• it’s your call, but as a critic of argument who values argument development, i'd say you'll generally fare better with me in a 1-4 off round than a 5+ off round. i'd much rather see a few well-developed arguments.

• if your shell is undeveloped and under-highlighted, you will have a lot of catching up to do in the block and i won't be filling in conventional blanks for you on missed steps in a disad or K shell. i'd rather hear more internal analysis in fewer quality cards than lots of cards highlighted down to bare bones.

CX: love it, pay attention to it, actually flowing it for reference, but waiting to hear you integrate it in speeches to factor it in beyond speaker points and general credibility

Overviews - love them! i think impact calc and setting a clear lens for the round at the top of a speech and / or on top of the core issues you're going for is strategic starting in the 2ac and in most subsequent speeches. (just make sure the line by line is developed enough to substantiate this work!)

Clash rounds: i don't have a strong default for sequencing arguments, so please clearly articulate criteria for how you believe clashes of advocacies should be resolved with strong warrants as to what level of impact / implication comes first and why. tagline advocacy won’t be enough. cross-x will matter. escape your own perspective enough to make comparative claims

Theory - enjoy it but cannot be blipped - i don’t vote on *tagline* theory debates, even if conceded; not inclined to revert to status quo / judge kick unless 2nr advocates it but sympathetic to 2ars if that happens and definitely open to advocacy shift arguments on that; please warrant any "drop the team" arguments heavily

T / framework

• i default to competing interpretations with an eye on education unless given another method of evaluation

• i REALLY dislike the trend toward underdeveloped standards and warrantless voters. i prefer instead to hear distinct, warranted standards and voters, case lists and articulation of the quality of debate and other impacts those case lists create, and the *importance* of the ground you've lost.

• i have no preference for potential abuse vs. in-round abuse arguments so long as you warrant them.

• i think a clean articulation of a counter-interp that hones in on one impact turn and how the counter-interp solves it is a pretty straightforward approach as long as you are articulating why this outweighs

• perfectly willing to vote on old school T metrics like jurisdiction and justification if you tell me reasons that would be good in the debate space or in life; i’ve loved T debates forever including reading 80s backfiles so do with that what you will…T theory is cool!

• Framework specifically:

• K affs which focus on impact turning education args have been pretty compelling to me

• both sides can provide a lot of clarity for me by throwing down on a TVA and what it does and doesn't resolve

Case debate

• yes please; i love a good case debate (not to say that a K cannot access this love...but i enjoy hearing about the fundamentals and nuances of a case)

• yes i will vote on presumption (if you tell me how & why i should) and case defense can be very helpful in the overall decision (assigning relative risk, forefronting your own arguments)

K affs: looking for a clear thesis, connection to the resolution, clear articulation of method or solvency, and a clear role of the judge and ballot

Performance specifically: i've judged very few rounds of this; you'd have to be pretty specific in telling me how to evaluate it and the role of the ballot and judge

Off case generally

• no real preference for what you run (Ks, DA/CP, whatever else) but looking for strong analysis of the evidence and well-developed overviews clarifying your impacts / implications and overall position starting in the 2N

Disads:

• yes zero risk is a thing; i heavily lean towards the link strength of your evidence + analysis (critic of argument lens here is relevance + significance + proof)

• love to hear about how the world of the disad implicates case claims and solvency

• strong uniqueness and link specificity explanation > giant uniqueness walls

Ks

• yes, no problem, excited to hear these but i'm not steeped in high theory lit so you need to use overviews and analysis to develop those particular arguments for me

• the link story and overall reasoning of the position need to be clear, as well as your suggested role for me as a judge and the role of the ballot

• love and reward debaters who do the work to contextualize specific links to case / speech acts instead of relying on generic links

• i really prefer a structured debate here (clear sectioning of framework, perm, link debate, implications, alt, etc.)

• long overviews are fine and probably most helpful in resolving the ballot as long as you get to the line by line to justify and substantiate the overview work

• in a pretty balanced debate, aff probably gets to weigh their plan and neg probably gets some offense from their discourse

• i need to hear details about what your alt is and does to give it much weight; evasiveness is hecka bad for your ballot odds

Counterplans

• if your CP doesn't have a solvency card / advocate, you're way behind and probably have to justify that with something like how small the aff is + some reasonable indication of solvency based on facts in the round (e.g. aff evidence)...or exploiting a plan flaw…but in general, i think the playing field needs to be level and counterplans should have solvency given affs should have solvency

A few args i'll admit to not liking:

New affs bad isn't usually persuasive to me. i don't reject it out of hand but it's an uphill battle. i value research and innovation. T, significance / impact weighing, and args against the evidence quality are probably better ways to go if you think their new aff is abusive or bad.

Disclosure theory is similarly uphill; as a coach who believes in the life skills of debate, i believe you should have a generic strat and some confidence in your analytical skills. i will vote neg on analytics or logical application of general evidence to a specific case, so you're not disadvantaged in front of me by not having case-specific evidence. i don't think there's information you're definitively owed before the 1ac speaks...nor are you owed time to prep with a coach before your round given that your opponents may not have that opportunity...though i do think reciprocal agreements should be respected and any disclosure misdirection i can verify / observe will result in low speaks at a minimum.

SPEAKER POINTS

• i try to fit into the rubric of a particular tournament’s level of challenge and objectives; in lay local debate, i tend to defer to the adaptation goals of that community and adjust accordingly; in circuit, certainly i hold the line more on substance and relative skill in the pool

• speaks are earned by a combo of:

• style (art, creativity, accessibility, memorability, ethos/pathos/logos balance)

• + substance (tech, strategy, demonstrating knowledge and control of the flow + clearly writing my ballot)

• + adaptation (because i’m here for you and you can be a little here for me - and i think this shows your ability to pave a way to persuasion and willingness to make a speech act connect; as a critic of argument focused on education, to me that seems like part of the mission; you make a clear effort to reach out to my understanding of and goals for debate; it’s flagged; it’s obvious; bonus points in paneled prelim round situations if i can tell you're doing this for the whole panel)

• Generally, i think the College Debate Ratings speaker point scale from a few years ago is a good guide for toc-qualifying tournaments but here i overlay my personal rubric from above so you see more of what i’m looking for per level:

• 29.7+ – exceptional; top few speakers; you’ve blown me away in style + substance + adaptation

• 29.5-29.6 – should be top 10 speakers; the force is strong with you across style + substance + adaptation

• 29.3-29.4 – still high points for top 10 speakers; very strong in at least one subset of style + substance + adaptation and other areas are still high

• 29.1-29.2 – median for top 10 speakers; by here, you may not have the full package of style + substance + adaptation but you are excellent in at least some of those areas

• 28.8-29.0 – roughly 75th percentile at the tournament; bubble territory; i see a bright spark in at least one of the areas of style + substance + adaptation but the breadth isn’t there yet / today

• 28.5-28.7 – roughly 50th percentile at the tournament; emerging strengths in style + substance + adaptation but some clear deficits in skills or effort across the areas

• 28.3-28.4 – roughly 25th percentile at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation; clearly uneven performance

• 28.0-28.3 – roughly 10th percentile speaker at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation

• 27.5-27.9 – having a tough day / round or looking early in your journey for style + substance + adaptation; some skills which seem basic for the tournament mission aren’t clear yet

*************************************************************************************************

OTHER DETAILS & DEBATE FORMATS:

Debating for Panels:

State Quals / NSDA National Quals / Panels with Lay Judges: i'm an educator who believes in access and participation. If you go warp speed, choose a hyper-technical style, and / or present esoteric arguments and in doing so exclude a lay judge, i will be peeved and your speaks will be low. i'm fine with you picking a moderate rate and trying to hit the middle most of the time by occasionally getting more technical, but i'm a proponent of including all your critics. i also see a value in lay debate and stock issues, so if you do that, i'm not going to be bored or think you're not a smart debater. This isn't to say i believe you must take a stock issues approach to mixed panels - just saying i'd recommend you err towards what includes the panel's understanding of debate.

debate events besides policy: i primarily coach and judge policy but have coached and judged all debate events; my paradigm below has sections for LD, Parli, & PF; you might want to read the Policy section above to get more insight about particular positions; ask if you've got questions...but i'll go w/ the standards the debaters set as opposed to judging your LD, PF, and Parli rounds "like a policy judge" unless you give me no guidance, in which case i default to being a critic of argument

for LD Debate:

• i've most often judged traditional "California style" LD but i'm open to other styles

• my default is to look for contentions which are clearly impacted to the criterion based upon warranted, high quality evidence and / or analysis

• will listen to theory arguments and consider them if they are substantiated and impacted...but also...i will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules such as "no plans" / "no counter plans") in those particular settings if a student raises an objection regarding event rules

for PF Debate:

• my ideal PF round has debaters setting a clear framework / objective / goal for the round and pointing their contentions and their impacts towards this goal

• my rfds - absent guidance otherwise - tend to hone in on how the debaters resolve the framework of the debate and the relative weight of their impacts

• conceded args / defense / whatever is NOT sticky - you need to say it in summary for it to be valid in final focus (i don't think it's fair for me to have to evaluate what was responded to directly / indirectly or enough vs. not enough - requires too much subjectivity - so the objective standard for me is concrete extensions)

• can you pls just share your ev w/ one another before speeches rather than making everyone wait for these vague and lengthy specific card requests? pls???

• cross-fire / grand cross-fire are very important to me in terms of argument testing and argument resolution and i'm flowing them; however, debaters should carry these concessions or other components into speeches and weigh them out in the context of the round's framework / objectives / core claims if they want cross-fire content to be a voting issue

• theory - sure if substantiated and impacted, though i think PF lacks adequate time for impacting such arguments without placing yourself significantly behind on clash

• will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. "no plans" / "no counterplans") as directed by debaters' objections or formal protest (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules) in those particular settings

• cards, not links or vague paraphrasing - "[author name] says X in 2022" where X is not a direct quote or at least mentioning a very specific data point / argument rather than a broad claim is absolutely not evidence to me; i'm dismayed by the amount of paraphrasing i've seen in the event lately; paraphrasing brief claims without warrants or drop quotes...or simply providing a pile of author names...these things truly aren't persuasive if there's no quoted evidence or warranted analysis based upon specific conclusions; this isn't to say you need giant paragraphs like policy evidence but actually cite specific details and quotes with warrants for your claim if you want me to view that as a supported claim. i am not going to go through your separate evidence doc to find the support for you if you haven't read it into the round. you don't get to summarize a whole book or article w/o detail. NSDA rules (which apply to CHSSA & CFL tournaments as well as NSDA tournaments) are very clear on this point. See NSDA High School Unified Manual (Feb. 2023 updated version) (command F "Evidence Rules for Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Big Questions Debate" and in particular, rule 7.2.B.3 on p. 30: "If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round.")

for Parli Debate:

• mainly looking for clear warranting & impacting as well as linking plan provisions / thesis to benefits or the agreed upon / debated out goal of the round

• will apply other frameworks based upon debaters' warranted advocacy and clash

• theory is fine if substantiated and impacted; T / other theory / off-case positions are welcome if clearly warranted

• either "dismiss the argument" or "drop the team" claims need to be very heavily substantiated and demonstrate clear potential or in-round abuse with demonstrable impacts

• generally no RVIs absent substantial work in justifying them

Debate:

I am a parent judge who doesn't have any experience in judging circuit/fast debate; please refrain from spreading or some of the jargon used in those faster styles.

For Policy Debate specifically, I evaluate the round based on evidence and stock issues; I will take your framing into account, but I will vote for a more credible, logical, and understandable case most of the times. If you bring up any other technical arguments outside the stock issues, please be clear and specific for me to follow.

No Kritik please!

For LD:Please state your value and criterion clearly and don't rush through them!

Bess Olshen (she/her)

Gunn '22 | Stanford '26 | Policy coach for Gunn

Email: bessolshen@gmail.com—add me to the chain.

General: Do what you do best. I want to see debates where both teams engage in good faith and read well-researched, complete arguments. Thorough explanation is essential; I will try to leave my predispositions at the door.

Speed: Any pace is fine. I loved debating lay rounds in high school. Make sure to be clear and coherent if spreading.

Case: By far my favorite part of debate in high school. Happy to judge a lay stock issues round.

T: Make sure to clearly define terms and case lists. I find predictable limits-based arguments most compelling.

DA: Aff-specific links are best, even if analytical. Zero risk is possible.

CP: Read the CP text slower and explain its function consistently. I will default to judge-kicking. Theory other than conditionality is usually a reason to reject the argument.

K: Historical examples and complete explanations are helpful—these debates often devolve into assertions and jargon. Specificity in the link debate is key for both sides.

K Affs: I generally believe that teams should read a topical affirmative, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Clarity and consistent explanation of the 1AC are essential. I will be more persuaded by arguments about predictable limits and research burdens than those about ground, skills, or education.

K v K: Almost no experience with these debates—I mostly read policy arguments in high school. Clarity and explanation will win you the ballot.

Have fun!

I started judging in the 2019-2020 season, and my judging experience includes over 50 rounds. I've mostly judged Parli but also the other debate events like Policy and Lincoln-Douglas.

I know most of the debate jargon, but I still want you to explain things in plain English. I value clear low-jargon communication in business, and I think debate should be communication practice for real life.

I can follow rapid speaking, but I appreciate organization, clarity, and carefully worded arguments. You will do better with me if you take your time and go for clarity. I look for the points that are most important or should have the most weight, so help me understand what part of your argument you think really matters.

Light theory is ok, but be prepared to carefully spell out why it applies and why I should use your theory argument in my evaluation.

This is supposed to be fun, so humor is welcome. I look forward to a great round!

Please do not say anything inappropriate, racist, homophobic, or anything offensive to your opponent. Please be kind & respectful to your opponent, and do not interrupt your opponent during cross-examination. No offensive terms or personal attacks

I consider evidence, and argument interaction very important. Evidence must be quantitive with clear and credible references. Supporting evidence is critical. I also pay attention whether opponents questions and contentions are addressed or not.

Please speak clearly. Also please define any acronyms you will be using throughout at the beginning. Make sure your key points and values are clear.

I am a parent judge who started in 2019. I have judged mostly parli bc that is my child's format, but I have been roped into LD and PoFo, so I have familiarity with those events as well. I am most comfortable judging parli. I do my best to understand and properly flow debaters’ arguments. I want to give everyone a fair chance in debate, based on the merit of their arguments and the delivery to me. I have a few requests and guidelines for you, as debaters.

Content

truth>tech

I don't really buy the whole If You Give a Mouse a Cookie string of events, like offering AP classes in HS will lead college TAs to all end their lives. (not being disrespectful or flippant regarding suicide - this is an actual argument I have heard). I have heard so many prepackaged arguments about the most benign policy leading to mass poverty, poverty is cyclical, it takes seven years off your life, etc. If it is something that a reasonable person could see would lead to everyone falling into abject poverty, I would buy it, but I don't buy the overterminalizing. Funding playgrounds will not lead to nuclear war. Adding Finland and Sweden to NATO will not lead to extinction of humanity. (One really good, intelligent debater who was in the unfortunate circumstance of finding herself on the Opp side of an Aff skewed res in octos or quarters had to actually resort to that as a last ditch effort, and while I appreciate the endeavor, I could not buy it.)

Theory

Please don't be theory-happy. Use it only if other side has made an egregiously irrelevant or extratopical argument or interpretation. I feel like teams have gotten all too eager to use this and of all the theory shells that have been run by me, I have not found a single one compelling.

Kritiks

Big risk in front of lay judge - I don’t expect that you’d try it in front of me. am not smart enough to understand these. If you choose to read one, I'll try to understand it, but you are likely wasting your time (and may fry my lay judge brain!). From what I see, people spend a lot of time working on these and just waiting for a time to bust them out rather than actually putting work into a good debate. But go for it if you feel like it.

Lying

Please don’t lie or fabricate evidence. It’s better to lose a round for a lack of evidence than to lie your way to victory. The whole point of debate is to be educational to both sides of the argument and lying voids that altogether. Lying is cheating. It can get you in trouble. If I catch you lying, I will take appropriate action. Without lying, debate is much more enjoyable and fair for all parties.

Signposting

Please signpost! Since I am new and rather inexperienced at flowing, signposting is very useful. Signposting allows me to be more organized. If you do so, I will be able to judge your debate more fairly, with more understanding of each argument.

Format

Please be clear with every aspect of your arguments, from links and impacts to delivery. This helps me understand and judge the round properly.

I understand that non-speaking partners may need to support speakers when it is not the non-speaker's turn, but I find too many interruptions, constant and audible feeding of content, and taking over for the speaker to be irritating, distraction, and signs of poor preparation and lack of professionalism. At best, I will not flow or consider any content presented by team member when it is not their turn and at worst, I may dock you for it. If you must provide your speaking partner with your thoughts, please try to do so quietly, unintrusively, and if possible, non-verbally.

My Style

I take judging seriously, but am not power trippy. I am pretty relaxed and understand that you have put hard work into this tournament and into this round and have gotten up early to do it. I appreciate that. I think it's great that young people are doing this and you have my respect and admiration. I understand that it takes guts, even for more experienced or less shy debaters. If you are new, I want to encourage you, so please do your best, but if you are struggling, I will not look down on you. Use these tournaments, especially when I am your judge, as learning opportunities to work on shedding inhibitions and becoming a stronger debater.

I write A LOT. I try to get down every word a speaker says, and thank goodness, because I have had to use my copious notes to decide whether an argument or stat was brought up previously when an opponent claims it was not! Since I am scribing away, I may not look up at you much or make eye contact. If I don't return your eye contact, please don't take it personally. I encourage you to look at the judge and at your opponents and audience since this is what is intended for a real life application of debate, such as in an actual parliamentary, political, or courtroom setting. Especially for those who are more shy or new, please take advantage of this smaller and perhaps less intimidating setting to practice making meaningful eye contact to help you in the future.

If I look at my phone during a round, I am not texting or playing 2048, as I most likely am every minute between rounds ;-) I am checking exact wording of a res, time, or something regarding the content. I take my judging duties very seriously and am always mentally present during rounds!

Other Notes

I appreciate you putting your time and energy into debate. I want to do my best as a judge to make it fair and enjoyable.

Please Don't:

Interrupt others

Run racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or other hateful arguments

Be overly invasive or picky with POIs (one novice debater used one in her first tournament to question the speaker about his discrepant use of 72% and 74% when referring multiple times to what portion of the US's cobalt imports come from China - c'mon. In this case it didn't warrant a POI.)

Speak too quickly for me or your counterparts to understand

Be a jerk to your opponents, even (or especially) if they are struggling and especially if you are a stronger team/debater or older or more experienced. I appreciate that it takes guts to get up there and speak. If you snicker or smirk with your teammate or send (zoom) or write (in person) each other rude messages about the other team and share derisory laughs, I will go exothermic. I will let your coach, your school, and tournament directors know.

Please Do:

Follow the norms of Parliamentary Debate

Feel free to remove your mask if tournament rules allow it

Be respectful

Have fun and not be overly aggressive

Thank your opponents

Be ready on time for the debate

I am a lay judge. Adapt your argumentation as such. If you use any debate jargon, please clearly define it. I take notes while you debate, but please speak slowly and clearly (no spreading please!). I evaluate the debate based the quality of your arguments and responses, and in a case of a close debate, your speaking skills.

Hi! I am a parent judge and a former attorney. Please be kind and courteous to your competitors and do not go too fast.

I am a parent judge with very little knowledge on Parliamentary debate, so please keep the jargon to bare minimum. Thanks!

Hey! I'm Alex and I'm a freshman at Berkeley majoring in econ. I did Parli for all 4 years at Menlo-Atherton HS and now compete with the Debate Society of Berkeley. I was fairly successful - won SVUDL 1 (21') + finals at Cal Parli (21') and Stephen Stewart (22'), but I had my share of 0-5s, 1-4s and 2-3s at the start of my career. I'll disclose and give feedback after the round (so long as the tournament doesn't yell at me for it), but if you want additional comments after that, I can email you more of my thoughts. You can also send me an email (alexparikh-briggs@berkeley.edu) if you want more specific feedback/help with something that happened in round.

Non Parli:

If I end up judging you for an event other than Parli, please just err on the side of caution. Idk the nuances of these events too well, but that isn't to say to treat me like a lay judge. Everything below still applies (mostly).

Misc:

tech>truth. I hate intervention, so I literally won’t intervene against anything unless it’s racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. That being said, please just respond to bad arguments so I don’t have to vote on them.

Speed: I will admit, I’m not the greatest with speed. I can handle faster than conversational for sure but I probably can’t handle double breaths. General rule: I think as long as you aren’t going as fast as you possibly can it should be ok. I’ll slow/clear if needed.

POI/POO: Use POI’s. I will flow them. Make sure they are a question, but as long as you do that, I’m fine with tricky/interesting POI’s.

• POO’s: Just call them if you think it’s new. I’ll do my best to protect, but if I screw up, I don’t want that to cost you.

Time: I’ll time and give 0-30 seconds grace (I’ll ask both teams how much grace they want b4 the round starts and we’ll do what you agree on). The millisecond you go overtime, I’m not flowing.

Tag teaming is chill, maybe not every sentence though.

• On that note, I’ll give speaks based on execution of strategy and your overall contribution to the round. This means I don’t care how pretty your speech is, I just care about what you’re saying. I’ll be pretty generous and probably give an average speech around a 28 and adjust from there. Feel free to swear.

If I have nothing to vote on at the end of the round, I’ll presume neg (this shouldn’t happen). If there is a CP, then I’ll presume aff. If the aff then does a perm “do both,” it goes back to NEG. Ask me about this before the round if this is confusing.

Please collapse in rebuttal. Tell me what you want me to vote on.

• If you’re the LOR, DO NOT REPEAT THE MO. (I did this several times, it’s ok, but try not to).

Case:

I did all the different styles - APDA/East Coast, more “Flay'' west coast, and “tech”/NPDA west coast debate. This means that whatever style of debate u want to have is fine with me. That said, here are a few things:

l’ll go off of net bens if I get no other framing. Feel free to be squirrelly, just be ready for fairness/theory arguments.

Every argument should have some form of claim, warrant, and impact. Obviously, feel free to beef these up and use whatever structure you want (Uniqueness/Link/Impact is what I did mostly)

Evidence is cool, just make sure you can explain to me why that evidence is the way it is. For example, if you read me the argument “1 year of poverty takes off 7 years of your life” but can’t tell me why that’s true, I can’t vote on it/evaluate it.

Do weighing. This means DIRECTLY, not implying, why your impact is more important than the other side. I have no defaults. If one team weighs and the other doesn’t I'll just prioritize that framing. If one team goes for magnitude and the other goes for probability, whichever team does meta weighing is what I prefer. If there is no metaweighing, well… I’ll probably have to intervene sadly. Use different forms of weighing like scope, reversibility, etc. Your opponents won’t know how to handle this. I know this is hard, so just do your best. I struggled with it as well.

I really like CP’s. My partner and I literally read advantage CP’s whenever it was possible. Given this, I’ll evaluate whatever CP you want to read, LIKE ACTUALLY, ANYTHING. Just make sure it’s well constructed. Be prepared for your opponents and I to ask you for a text. If it needs to be a paragraph, so be it. I'm down for whacky arguments that you don't think most judges would buy. If it’s not a policy round, just call it a counter advocacy to avoid the trichonomy debate, I'll treat it the same. Same thing if the resolution starts with “This house.”

• If you're the Aff and you’re gonna perm, please tell me whether it’s a test of competition or you’re "doing both"/taking the advocacy. I don’t default here so you need to explain it to me.

• Condo is fine, but be ready for theory.

• Don't do all this work making a nice CP and then lose on a perm. Make sure u think about this during prep. Competition on net bens is fine, u just have to win that then.

Theory:

Definitely my favorite debate argument. I will listen/vote on any theory argument you read. This includes friv t (my threshold for voting on theory is very low lol). I literally ran the interp, during an online tournament, “All participants in a debate round must have their cameras off.” One of the voters was climate change - apparently having ur video on has a 97% greater impact on the environment.

Absolutely no defaults on theory - tell me it’s apriori, tell me drop debater/argument, tell me no RVI’s, tell me competing interps (reasonability is fine too, just give me a brightline), etc.

• On that note, if you’re against friv t, go for an RVI. I don’t understand why people are so against it in parli. You should be able to win the theory argument (friv t is usually easy to respond to) and in that case you win the round.

Again, any shell you can possibly think of is fine. If you run a shell that I haven’t heard before, I’ll boost ur speaks by a full point. I don't really understand how 30 speaks theory works, but if you make it make sense to me, I'll probably just give both of y'all 30 speaks.

The format of your shell, while I’d prefer interp/violation/standards/voters, doesn’t matter. I’ll vote on paragraph theory as long as all of the elements are sort of there.

I'm lumping this with theory because that's where it seems to appear most: IVI's. I'm willing to vote on these, but I need them to be layered and have pre-fiat education/fairness impact that is pretty large. Thus, my threshold for voting on IVI's is much greater than for theory (usually cuz these are just blipped out in 20 seconds, if they're actually explained then probably on par with theory).

K’s:

I will admit, it was hard for me to engage in K’s in high school because that almost always meant my partner and I would get spread out. That being said, if you can slow it down just a tad, I’m totally willing to vote on it. I’m not really familiar with much of the lit you might be using other than cap stuff. Because of what I said above, accessibility matters a lot to me. If you’re running a k, take lots of questions to make sure the other team can engage with you. Also, if they keep saying slow and you just don’t slow, it will be very hard for me to vote for you.

Valid ways to respond to K’s (for teams that aren’t the most familiar):

Read counter-framework/Attack Framework

Attack the Alt

Read Theory

Attack Links

Attack Impacts

I also am not gonna default that K’s come before case, you need to tell me this.

I am a parent judge with >7 years of judging experience in LD, PF, Parli and Policy debates as well as individual events. As a typical lay judge, my primary emphasis lies in evaluating the logical coherence of arguments, which should be well-supported by solid evidence. I flow and prefer clear speaking with no spreading. Additionally, I believe in the significance of maintaining respect towards opponents throughout the round.

Ground Rules:

1. Specify the amount of time each speaker will have to speak.
2. Explain the proper decorum that participants are expected to follow, such as speaking one at a time and refraining from interrupting other speakers.
3. Clarify the process for making points of information and asking questions.
4. Outline the procedure for challenging a speaker's argument.
5. State any other relevant rules or guidelines that the participants need to be aware of.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Will be scoring the debate, such as by taking into account the quality of arguments, delivery, and research
2. and aspects of the debate such as organization, persuasiveness, and evidence.

I am a parent judge but I did Policy debate all four years of high school and in college.

I will flow but expect you will signpost appropriately.

I'm not a fan of Ks but I will hear you out if you argue them.

I'm fine with spreading but make sure you are being understood.

Strong rebuttals carry a lot of weight with me and I will vote on a clear summarization of contentions, links and impacts.

He/Him

1. Experience

*I did parliamentary debate in middle/high school

*I attended various tournaments mostly in the NPDL circuit

*I have an intermediate understanding of theory

1. General Prefs

*Flay judge

*do not spread. I won't flow it.

*Off-time roadmaps are okay

*debate order of operations(How I decide who wins): PEMDAS

P:aPriori voting issues: abuse, skew, theory, etc.

E:Exceptional IMPACTS(a mediocre arg impacted will beat a good arg that was mentioned in passing)

M:general arguMents/flow

D: Details(evidence, anecdotes, etc)

A:Addition(crucial)

S:Speaker points(If its too close I will just give the win to whoever has more)

*I like clash

*I dont believe its possible for anyone, including myself, to be a tabula rasa. But I will try to compensate for my biases.

*No overly speculatory arguments

*speaker points graded on: the quality of your argument structure(are you detailed?), using LESS jargon(jargon is fine but I am looking for explanations to prevent gatekeeping), the organization of your speech, strategic stylistic choices made, persuasive word choice, wit, humor, and respecting opponents.

*I will NOT give speaker points for: how you dress/posture, whether your camera is on, the volume of your voice, your passion(Although I will enjoy listening to more passionate speeches), the speed you talk(as long as you're not spreading or talking at 0 miles per hour), accents or "speaking clearly", how "happy" or "agreeable" you are. Everybody, no matter what style of voice they were born with, has a chance to get a perfect score.

*no speaking out of turn(I know it gets messy in Point of Orders)

*joking and trolling should never ever be directed at opponents. any ad hominems or inappropriate behavior will be an instant loss/I will report you. Banter and trolling should be directed at ARGUMENTATION.

*swearing or inflammatory language is fine as long as it is not overtly offensive or adds emphasis to something.

*Please thank the opponents, judge(s), audience, and teammate in your speech or off-time roadmap. Please say gg wp after the round(good game, good round, nice work, or well played) just some affirmation.

1. Notable Biases

*I am biased towards contrarian, interesting, and nuanced positions.

*I am biased against appeals to authority and ethos

*I am biased towards order over chaos

*I am biased towards funny, memorable, and intuitive arguments

*unconditional: I am biased towards good faith debating

*my Political Compass (I know its not super accurate, still might be interesting for you to know)

*Pew Research Political Typology: Ambivalent Right

*ENFP-T (I know its psuedo-science)

1. Parli Specific

*Give good and clear framework always.

*If neg does not understand or agree with definitions, they should ask clarifying questions and I will accept good faith redefining mid-round.

*gov should make it their goal to make a reasonable and fair framework. Please do not ever attempt to skew the round in bad faith.

*LOGIC OVER EVIDENCE(all evidence must also be either obvious general knowledge, easily proven through valid LOGIC, or agreed upon by both sides. I will also accept at face value if I personally have heard(and believe) the evidence, but if there is no logic to back it up and the opposing team confronts it then I will drop the card) The idea is that if you present evidence, no matter what, you have to give some sort of analysis to explain the evidence. You cannot say "oh I saw this in the New York Times" and move on.

*No new arguments/abusive analysis in the last speeches

* Even if I understand complex jargon and theory I will not flow it if there is no layman's explanation given. This is to prevent gatekeeping.

*you must accept at least one POI in your speech, preferably more*

*POIs should preferably be short quips. If they are unnecessarily long or argumentative, It will impact the round(Exception: definitions and framework questions)*

*No vocal tag teaming/partner POIs. It's okay to pass notes and documents to your partner or opponents at any time in the round. (example: if the opposition requests a written copy of the Gov plan). You can also whisper to your partner when they aren't speaking. Please do not distract the speaker. Laughter is always fine unless it's rude.

*kritiks are winnable only if they are educational/relevant and not manufactured.

*Please JUSTIFY the framing of the round. Not every round needs to be only Net benefits/utilitarianism. If no framing, weighing mechanism, or criterion is given, I might just default to deontological framing.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

I was part of my high school debate team and I love debates. I am a person who is extremely data driven, so if you have legit data , you have my vote.

I like clear off time roadmaps, bulleted lists, summaries, timeliness and being respectful to each other. Profanity or Arguments will not get my vote.

My order of preference:

1) Case: I am a huge fan of case. This is the true spirit of debating. So if you are Aff, support with any past precedents or data and if you are neg, present AP.

2) Theories: I am not a huge fan but if it is a theory that has a compelling value, then I am willing to hear it

3) Kritik: This is an enigma to me, never faced one but open to learning more.

I would appreciate no spreading because I can't keep up with the language and typing. Avoid jargons as well. I am more of a tech judge as I try to be a blank slate and take your arguments and data at face value. Although I may take them at face value, that doesn't mean that you can get away with running some friv theory or a copied Kritik from some database. If you want to run theory or kritik, put some effort to have a good off.

TLDR: Please no spreading, Ideally do Case debate and Kritik and non-friv theory are not appreciated. Also, I am a blank slate/robot and will take arguments at face value.

Parent judge, please try to go slower and err on the side of overexplaining jargon on the topic. Warrant out and impact all of your arguments. Good reasoning and explaining of your side will win you the round.

First-time parent judge. No K's, tech. Speak slowly and clearly and do not use jargon.

Welcome to the competition! Debates and speeches are exceptional events and a fun way for students to engage discussing social, economic, and a wide range of topics.

I have been judging both speech and debate in the current stint for 3 years with 4 years of prior judging experience. I am a parent judge. I am a former competitor as well.

Please follow your methodology relevant to your event and respect your fellow competitors. All the best!

I am a parent judge. Try not to run theory unless you truly believe that something is wrong in the round, such as a rule being broken. Always be courteous and respectful to your opponent. I evaluate tech over truth, and will evaluate the round on the framework that you as the competitors give me.

From San Jose CA. My son is active in debate and I've judged speech and debate competitions for ~6 years.

Speed- I prefer elucidation and clarity to speed.

I like fewer more well developed points versus lots of varied but weaker arguments.

I dislike rude behavior, verbal or through gestures.

I really enjoy the creativity that teams bring to their debate topics and the diligence they bring to the preparation.

lay judge, dont go fast and be respectful.

I want the debaters to speak at a medium pace and also clearly, so that the content can be understood by all. I also want the debaters to be considerate and exhibit a healthy respect for one another.

A parent judge with six months of experience in judging.

I prefer well-laid-out contentions and point-by-point rebuttals. I generally flow and will take note of significant drops. Also, ensure that you are weighing impacts at the end of your speeches. Please be courteous to your opponent and clear in your presentation.

I am a lay judge and this is my first time ever judging. I would like a clean top of case and a clear explanation of links. Please weigh impacts! I will try to protect the flow but please call POO’s. Lastly please keep the debate respectful!

Nicholas Rosenbaum (nrose1@stanford.edu)

Stanford University '24

Lane Tech '20

order of contents: tldr (applies universally), policy by arg/debate type, LD

TLDR:

-- The platonic ideal of a judge is a valueless, disinterested critic of argument of maximal intellectual ability and openness. Teams who agree that all debaters ought to be entitled to this type of judge and judging (or as close as is humanly possible) should pref me. Good and smart/intellectual debaters of all stripes of style and substance should pref me. I have no reason to believe my personal convictions about debate, the world, etc. should hold any significance to the round I am judging. I will vote for literally anything.

-- Unlike many in the debate community, I want to be judging you. I really enjoy judging debates and do so diligently and with critical attention. With that said, bad debates are just not where I want to be— pref accordingly.

-- I think I am very good at rendering fair, correct decisions and often get upset listening to seemingly idiosyncratic RFDs, products of laziness and/or subjectivity. Hard working debaters have their toil, deserving of reward, negated by whims they could not have possibly expected or tailored to. I know debaters deserve so much better, and I do everything in my power to provide that. The path-of-least-resistance (predictable according to an offense-defense paradigm, i.e. non-idiosyncratic and predictable) path I take to my decisions are visually discernible from my flow.

On clash debates:

My voting record proves that I am 100% agnostic in these debates. I am as apathetic voting on 'extinction outweighs' as I am 'extinction doesn't matter in the face of the revolution'.

Just as I can't unduly hack for classical liberalism, I also won't do for you the work against it that many these days are taking for granted. Instead, everything from first principles, acknowledging certain args are easier (requiring less work) to win, like maybe human liberty good?

I am well-versed in the k as a practice in debate, and I know quite a lot of lit quite well. I most frequently went for settler colonialism and, among debate applications, probably know the most about afropessimism, but I always enjoyed a high theory injection for what it let me do. I now study a lot of German thinkers & political philosphy at university, do scholarly work spec. on Nietzsche, etc.

Insert typical ‘my background does not mean I will hack for the k; on the contrary, I know when..’. Once again, this is good for those who want to go HAM on smart stuff (for you needn’t worry about leaving me behind) but bad for ill-concieved strategies, those hoping to gaslight judges into equating multisyllabic tropes with profundity, etc. I do actually appreciate informedly-used jargon (using one word to express an assemblage of ideas) and abstraction generally. The throughline, again: good debate is good before me, and vice versa.

My senior year at a very small program, I (2N) primarily went for kritikal arguments & t/fw on the negative and wrote kooky fringe policy affs.

---

-- how to win: win an argument (or set of arguments) and win why you winning said argument(s) means that you have won the round!

-- I conceptualize debate as a deliberation-based intellectual competition where my ballot signifies an endorsement of one team's argument as true in the sense that it is proven preeminent over the opposing team's primary argument in the larger context of said round.

-- critical intellectualism and smart decision-making above all else! A 2ar that makes risky, bold decisions to hedge their bets versus an obviously lethal, winning 2nr is my favorite thing to watch. Even if it's not enough to win, ruthless strategy is the best internal link to higher speaker points.

-- flow and base your speeches around it.

-- I'm a good flow and am very comfortable with fast debate, but remember, fast =/= clear; I will only say clear twice per speech. I do not follow along in the speech doc.

-- even-if statements>>>

Policy

K vs Policy Affs:

Yes! Probably my favorite type of debate. The neg shouldn't be lazy with their links, and the aff should be smarter debating fiat arguments. I prioritize explanation and specificity above all else.

Please clash on the level of framework. This hugely important section often becomes ships passing in the night with the neg reading some epistemology DA and the aff talking about procedural things, neither side making inroads to other team's arguments. In many of these debates, whoever wins this section of the flow wins the debate, so invest!

I have read in debate (and actively research and read for pleasure) various flavors of settler colonialism and anti-Blackness, imperialism, capitalism, semiocapitalism, IR theories, Asian and Jewish identity, militarism, queerness, Berlant/affect theory, Baudrillard, Virilio, Kroker, Nietzsche, flavors of debate pomo, and many others. I read and think about critical theory a lot, so I likely have a working literacy in whatever body of literature you want to read.

You do not need an alternative if you are winning framework OR if your links are material DA's to the aff's implementation where the squo would be preferable OR if your theory of power overdetermines the aff's potential to be desirable OR if you can think of another reason you don't need an alt. With that said, I do like when alts are coherent to the strategy of the k or heavily influence framework.

"Critiques are not counterplans, nor are they plan focused. "Links must be to the plan" "Perm double bind" and "private actor fiat is a voting issue" are not persuasive unless dropped OR if the negative reads a K that ends up being explained as the world peace CP or movements CP." - shree

"Judges who say they won’t vote on death good are anti-K liberals who don’t know what the argument says." - eugene toth

Framework vs K Affs:

TLDR: I am agnostic in evaluating these debates, and I vote SOLELY off the flow. I am great for either side in these debates, see TLDR.

I have been on both sides of this debate. Purely theoretically— that is, in an equally matched round, not any real round— I lean negative, as I probably find the perfect framework + case/presumption strategy more convincing than general answers. Nonetheless, absolutely here for aff teams that disrupt the assumed terms of the debate to such an extent that probably true negative arguments lose their compelling power. Doing less than that can still result in an aff ballot, considering many neg teams will not be close to my above-described ideal. So the aff can and will win many of these debates, but disproving the neg's claims beyond asserting that the case is good is absolutely essential.

Assuming a smart negative, affs probably will need to prove why the process of resolutional debate the negative is demanding them to adhere to is bad or why the aff's model solves the neg's offense.

I think a we-meet stemming from the debaters 'doing'/discussing something related to [resolution topic] rarely passes the smell test. The words resolved, USFG, and [topic word] deserve attention, so (in order of preference) impact turn or we meet/counter-interp, but a strategy based just on being thematically germane to the resolution is probably quite vulnerable.

I can find TVAs that capture aff literature and read it on the neg arguments very convincing.

I am very open to 'debate bad' claims. I don't agree, but who cares? Even better for the aff are 'policy-centered discussions of this resolution are bad' claims.

Related to the above point, I am most persuaded by k aff answers to framework that take an extreme and unapologetic stance. Playing the middle ground is risky, because let's be honest, you almost definitely underlimit the topic etc., so just tell me why that doesn't matter.

Fairness can be an impact if articulated as one. Yes, it is an internal link to the positive benefits of debate, but I buy it if framed as as a prerequisite to anything good coming out of the activity.

I think it's fundamental for the negative to have a role in the debate. I think this need becomes especially magnified in debates where the aff proposes a method of self-care. I believe that the aff's strategy is probably good, but if it would be inappropriate for the negative to negate the value of the method and similarly violent for them to exclude the aff from debate, I don't see how a debate can occur, and I'll be very sympathetic to negative arguments about the inhibition of clash/fairness/any good byproduct of a debate happening.

Tell me whether I should be voting for a model of debate or just acting as a referee on this round. This frame of reference is something I utilized in every fw, t, and theory debate, and I think it is super valuable for judge instruction and helps clean up messy debates.

K vs K Affs:

Can be very interesting, and I'd love to hear it if you understand and can execute your argument. I am not interested in poorly executed k strats chosen because you think I'd prefer it or because they will confuse your opponents. This applies everywhere, but strategies premised upon confusing/annoying opponents are bad for debate, and I would rather not hear them; obviously, there are a few exceptions in the lit (we’ll always have the dada aff, keryk <3).

If either team wants this to be a "method debate," clearly delineate what that means, how I decide, etc. I view debates comparing method solvency alone as often missing the central component of winning links and other forms of offense, so tell me how to navigate the decision.

Word PIKs and other shenanigans - totally justified and a smart strategy. Truly no rules in these debates; the affirmative set the anarchic precedent, so I'll buy anything from anyone (again, just means no prejudices on my end; it's all always about what y'all debate out).

DA:

I think most politics DAs are garbage from the lens of political science, but debate =/= reality, and I really enjoy listening to an expertly debated politics DA. Read lots of cards and incorporate smart analytics/logic.

Receptive to aff ptx theory

Links exist on a spectrum; the "chance of a link" has to be qualified and then incorporated into the risk assessment component of impact calculus.

Expert turns case analysis is invaluable.

CP:

So as to incentivize contextual judge instruction, I’m not going to put fourth a rule on whether or not I’ll default to judge kick. Tell me what to do or face my discretionary decision.

I think lots of counterplans that steal much of the aff (interpret that as you wish) are bad for debate and unfair and the aff should hammer them. However, my personal opinion doesn't inform my voting; the aff still needs has to win theory or, even better, competion. As a judge, I kinda enjoy these debates cuz techy and words, but at the level of the activity, I beg for the aff to level the playing field with sense.

CPs should ideally have solvency advocates in the 1nc, but whatever. I do think CPs lacking solvency advocates magnifies the strategy skew of conditionality.

Sufficiency framing is ridiculous. Not that it's wrong, but it's just like eh, why even say this? Solvency deficits will always need to be weighed vs a risk of the net-benefit. I'll end up having to do this, so you're better off telling me how I ought to do it and net-out.

Topicality:

Yes please IF the debates will be techy, organized, and clash-filled; both or either team reading blocks through the rebuttals without refuting the other teams arguments in depth is very boring and not something I want to watch.

*I don't know community norms on the topic, so argue from first principles. Also slow/break down acronyms and other esoteric vernacular if you want me to render the most accurate possible decision.

Theory:

As a 2n, I resent 2A's that explode theory arguments shadow-extended in the 1ar because they've lost everything else. Theory blips are probably bad for the community. With that said, I understand doing what you have to do to win, so I will vote for whatever, but I'd ideally prefer coherent strategies.

I have literally no predispositions on whether condo is good or bad. I tend to think the problem is the abusiveness of counterplans, not the number thereof (cuz let's be real, that's what aff teams are actually objecting to, albeit under a different name), but I enjoy a good condo debate from both sides.

I will vote on any theory argument if executed properly. I don't like how many judges will in practice only vote on condo, even if the usually throw-away arg was dropped or seriously won; this practice is sneaky and bad, and I promise not to replicate it. I literally will vote for anything. If you’re actually up for the task (ask yourself), please do convince me why 50 state fiat in a CP kicked in the 2nc is a reason to vote aff. Doing so requires great skill and risk (making it much of the final rebuttal), but if done well, speaker points will rain because I think good theory debate is cool. You have to be so thoughtful and clashing to do it, though.

In-Round Conduct:

I will not adjudicate on things that happened outside of the round. There is no way for me to make an accurate determination in these cases. My ballot does not endorse any debater's character.

Do not steal prep, even a little! It is so prolific. It is rude to me, your opponents, and will result in tanked speaks.

Do not clip cards.

Clarity

LD

My experience is in policy debate, so I am not familiar with trad or local LD, but I've judged a handful of nat circ LD rounds, including outrounds. My senior year, my partner and I were flex (mostly policy affs and k's on the neg). The policy community considers/prefs me as a flex individual. I am well-versed in all argument types, but I most enjoy clash (policy aff v k or k aff v t/fw) debates. I also enjoy and am very comfortable judging straight policy/LARP debates.

preferences:

k

larp

theory

[big jump]

phil

tricks

trad

any other (lay) stuff i wouldn't know about

I am very competent at judging fast, techy debates; debaters that embody this or otherwise want to be judged by someone with extensive experience in policy debate across the ideological spectrum should pref me. I am most qualified to judge TOC style and tier LD debates (ie those closest to circuit policy). These are also the LD debates I most enjoy being in.

Tricks: I will vote on them, and I have no preconceived ‘this is too stupid to vote on’ threshold, but I still would prefer not to be in these debates. Impacting beyond “they dropped this” is absolutely essential, and I won’t vote on any trick I don’t have flowed. As I said above, I was/am a very fast debater and want to judge fast debates, but if I miss #7 of 30 one-line analytic voting issues, sorry.

Phil: I study quite a bit of continental philosophy at uni lol

See the rest of my paradigm for my more developed thoughts. Both the TLDR and argument-specific policy sections apply to LD.

I am a parent judge, do not spread. Present yourself confidently and be organized. Don't interrupt each other in cross-examination.

Add me to the chain and send docs: ssaharoy@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge and doing this for last 3 years

I'm bad at flowing so pls don't go too fast

For me clarity is more important than speed

Speak at an understandable pace. Have fun!

Name: Timothy Knox School

Affiliation: Fremont

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 2

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 2

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 1

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum

What is your current occupation? Canvasser

Speed of Delivery: A fast pace is fine, but don't spread. If there are any further questions both teams may read part of an old speech before the round and I'll say so if you're going too fast.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Whatever you believe is the best tactic for the particular debate. I suppose I lean towards big picture.

Role of the Final Focus: Distilling the debate down to the few questions that I should consider in my decision.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: As they say about voting: early and often. Don’t just say “Extend our Johnson 18 evidence” without then clearly articulating what it is in response to or simply the fact that it hasn’t been responded to.

Topicality: I loved debating topicality when I competed in Parli. However, I don't expect nor wish to see it in Public Forum. Unless of course, the other team does do something significantly abusive to warrant it. Please deliver in Interp-Violation-Standards-Voter format.

Plans: This is PF so no. You all should know that.

Kritiks: Same as topicality. F

lowing/note-taking: I flow on paper.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument over style. However, in close rounds style is what will prevail even for flow judges.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? The more speeches it's extended in the more likely I'm going to weigh it in my final decision. If an argument isn't extended in summary, I likely won't vote on it. I don’t find rebuttal to FF extensions to be convincing.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? I don't require but recommend it when reasonable.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Unbelievably unlikely. Arguments that are extended throughout the debate even if won only marginally will be preferred. There’s an exception if both teams then run it as a voter.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. "Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out." - Dr. Mungin my professor.

I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 4 years.

I will be flowing.

Good luck !

I am a parent PF judge.

I will try to flow. Don't speak too fast and speak clearly if you want me to follow your contentions. Don't be rude.

I am a lay parent judge with a little bit of judging experience in policy.

Please no circuit arguments or spreading, and make sure to explain all of your arguments.

Remember to be kind to your opponents and have a fair round!

Hi

I have started participating in debate tournaments as judge since 2021. I have judged LD and Parli in CFLs. I like debate participants finding weak point in their opponents argument and exploiting that to prove their point. I get to learn a lot through debate and topics getting discussed. I enjoy the seriousness of time keeping and structured format. Looking forward to judging more.

I am a parent judge who has judged for about two years. I won't understand super fast talking of any kind, so I advise you to speak at a normal pace.

I will only vote based off what is said in the round, and will not make any assumptions myself. This means that you should assume that I know nothing about the topic, which is probably true. If you want me to consider an argument, I suggest you bring it up in the final speeches of the debate. This is mainly where I will make my decision, so I think clearly stating your reasons on why you won here is important.

Other than that, have fun.

Parent judge with minimal experience. Please talk slowly, be organized, and let me know if you have any more questions.

Please speak slow and be clear in analysis. 2nd year parent judge

Debate is an educational activity. Do not gamify it.

Public Forum should be accessible to the public.

Lincoln-Douglas should engage with relevant philosophies and their practical consequences.

Parliamentary should be creative, off-the-cuff argumentation.

Policy should explore policy-making and its impacts on society.

Focus on the basics of persuasion that carry over to real life.

a. Speaking extremely fast is rarely persuasive.

b. Exaggerating impacts is never persuasive.

c. Speak clearly. Stay calm.

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

Debate:

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

I am a parent judge judging for the last 3 years. I have been mainly judging LD but have occasionally done other forms as well. I take a lot of notes so please do speak at moderate speeds and explain your arguments logically. I like powerful speakers but please be courteous to other contestants and provide appropriate evidence to substantiate your contentions. Please do not stretch the truth since that could count against you. Have lots of fun!

Hello, I am a parent judge and this will be my first time judging a debate competition.

Be Clear + Concise + Kind + Logical. Have Fun.

I am a 2nd year parent judge. 

I look for facts and examples.

Please be respectful and don’t talk over one another.

Please speak clearly, instead of fast.

Please don't run critical affirmatives in front of me. Please go at a conversational speed. I can't understand/ be able to flow spreading. If running a theory, please walk me through it so I understand you. I will judge based on how persuasive an argument is. I will also take evidence into account. I’m not big on debate jargon. Please be polite to your competitors. I also will a lot of times judge on if an argument is responded to.

I am a parent judge with limited experience in LD and policy. I would like all participants to speak clearly and at a pace that is easy to follow.

I am an engineer with two decades of experience in computer networking and security. Please assume I have no background knowledge of the topics being debated

Hello everyone,

I am a parent judge who has judged a number of tournaments over the last year. Here are a few of my tournament do's and don'ts.

1. Truth> Tech. I value logical linking and clear explanation over technical debate. I find that tech is often used to skew participants out of the round, and as a judge, I find it someone difficult to follow. With that being said, I will take theory into account if there is a legitimate abuse, and if I can understand what is being conveyed (basically, you can make your point surrounding the abuse clear without the overuse of jargon). I will never layer tech first unless there is a very very clear reason why articulated by the side that is running it.
2. I am not a huge fan of excessive jargon. I prefer not to have to decode another language while you're speaking. I am familiar with many of the basic terms, but at a point, it detriments your point and gets lost on me.
3. Weigh, weigh, weigh, and terminalize. When I look to my flow at the end of the round, I tend to look at impacts first, and then logical linking. You have to tell me why your arguments matter, otherwise they are just words that you're saying.
4. Please be kind to each other!

Parent judge that has only judged a few debates. Please no spreading and use stock issues. Have fun!!

Hi all, I’m looking forward to judging today. I’m a first time parent judge, so I prefer if teams speak slower, organize their speeches, and emphasize the arguments that they want me to focus on. Please also be respectful to your opponents and try not to talk over each other in crossfire. Feel free to ask for any of my other preferences before the round. My email is: yuorsun@gmail.com

Dear Participants,

Welcome to the debate round. I am looking forward to knowing your thoughts by conscientiously listening to your viewpoints on the topic under discussion. I have a fair experience in judging debate rounds and am a parent judge as well.

Please, try to talk at a voice level respecting the audience and allotted time. Also, stay relaxed and calm which will help you be more productive in the rounds. I am confident you will do your best.

Good Luck,

Taruna

Hello all, I am a parent judge and enjoy judging all formats.

Please speak clearly and to the point. I can handle speed but would prefer that you not rush as I might miss the most impactful argument. I will prefer that you have valid arguments along with being good debtors. My decision will evaluate all scopes of the debate: framework, reasoning, arguments, evidence, etc. Ensure to drive home the point why your impacts are better achieved over your opponent.

I’m a parent judge who has been judging parli at a handful of tournaments since 2019. I’m comfortable with case debate; counterplans are fine; I’m open to hearing theory. I normally don’t disclose at the end of each round, sorry!

- My own opinion on the topic will not affect how I judge.

- I enjoy arguments built on fact and logic.

- I enjoy original ideas and enthusiastic performance.

- Feel free to confront, but with grace and respect. 

- Good luck!

I am a relatively new judge with some prior experience in observing debates.

I appreciate debates that provide context and clarify which arguments I should prioritize in my decision-making process. I also prefer debaters to time themselves and talk clearer (slower) to provide more coherent arguments.

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round!

I don't pay attention during cross fire. Anything brought up in cross fire has to be brought up in the next speech for it to be weighed. All impacts need to be clearly stated.

Just speak clearly. Anything over 150 wpm will not be flowed.

I am a parent judge. This is my first time judging a tournament.

Please speak slowly and clearly when presenting your argument. I value logical, well thought out arguments, with backing evidence.

I am a lay judge, so whenever you talk about anything, please make sure that you explain it thoroughly. I know little to nothing about this topic so just keep that in mind.

How I will vote.

1. The first thing that I will take into consideration is whoever proves more convincing to me, whoever proves that the benefits outweigh the harms or that the harms outweigh the benefits.

2. Whoever debates better. I would also vote for a team that refutes all of their opponents points compared to a team that drops all of their opponents points. Whoever keeps their case alive at the end, and destroys their opponents or whoever convinces me to vote for them in this way will definitely earn my ballot.

Not as important but I may include some of this in my decision

1. PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES. For example: If you take like a minute of prep extra and YOUR OPPONENTS POINT THIS OUT TO ME, this will affect my decision. Please use your respective amount of time for speeches, there is a 10 second grace period after every speech, and 3 minutes for prep.

2. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL. Although this is competitive, it is still done for fun. There shall be no disrespect shown to anyone else, as this is a formal setting and must be looked upon as.

3. PLEASE NO SPREADING. IF you do so, I may not catch everything which will affect my decision.

Do your best!!!

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.

I am a parent judge.

I am a PF lay judge. Few notes:

-State your points clearly and concisely with researched backup arguments, avoid jargon

-Make sure to cite your evidence

-Please be respectful of your opponents

-Make sure to time yourself

-Will provide written feedback after the round, no verbal feedback

All the best!

I'm a parent judge.

I am a parent judge. I expect you to demonstrate your knowledge and depth of the content as well as the ability to make a confident argument towards your stance.

I cannot judge what I cannot understand so clear and logical communication is key.

Also, keep track of your own and other team's speech/prep times.

Basically just be nice and enjoy your passion towards debate.

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:

"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.

There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.

Basically: debate like it's trad LD."

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

1. Delivery Style
1. Slower pace with clear articulation
2. Focus on the key points and reinforce them
3. Avoid spreading, your talk must contain meaningful information
2. Evidence
1. Must be quantitative with clear and credible references
2. Wider range of sources is a plus point
3. Argument
1. No offensive terms, no personal attacks
2. Must be sensitive to opponent’s stance/beliefs
3. Do not break logical fallacies, be sure to point out if your opponent violates one
4. Make sure you signpost and point out which of your opponent points you are responding to
4. Cross Examination
1. Be respectful and do not interrupt
2. Answers should address the question
5. Personal Preferences
1. Explain all abbreviations / acronyms / jargon
2. Summarize your key points clearly at the end

I like to see structure - lay a roadmap and get into the speech.

Stay civil, polite and courteous throughout the round, despite how the round is going for your opponent.

I do not like rudeness or snide remarks, we are all trying to learn together.

I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.

Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:

1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).

2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.

Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.

I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.

I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.

Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).

Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.

Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.

Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.

Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.

Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.

I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.

Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )

If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.

In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).

It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.

I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.

+ speaks for Lebron.

email: verma_classes@outlook.com

Parent lay judge with not much experience judging circuit debates. 

Please be clear in your speeches for me to follow you and flow. Also, please provide docs.

Above all, be kind.

I have been a judging PF from 2018 onwards. I have judged varied tournaments from Novice to Varsity levels.

Present your story clearly.  My preference will be clarity over ambiguity.

I don't mind if you speak fast.

I also weigh based on maturity of the thought, clear communication and metrics relating to your argument

Please tell me what the resolution is before the round begins.

I am a new parent judge. I have no prior experience judging. That being said, please speak slowly and clearly, with no debater terms. Explain things thoroughly so I know what I am voting for.

Introduce yourself before every speech, telling me your name, what speech it is, how long it should be, and what you will be going over in the speech (an off-time roadmap).

I would prefer no yelling during the round, and for everyone to be civil and respectful to one another. Being disrespectful will not get you very far in the round. However, clash is expected, and is okay.

Everyone time yourselves after letting me know how long a speech should be. For prep time, let me know how long you have taken, but keep track of it yourselves.

I look forward to watching a respectful and clean debate. Good luck!

PARADIGM STATEMENT

Email: vyasjigna@yahoo.com

1. Don't speak too fast as I will not hear the argument.

2. Please explain things; I am a lay judge.

3. Be clear and communicate effectively (No spreading please). If I can't understand you, I will assume you don't know your topic.

4. Make sure you introduce yourselves before you start.

5. Debaters should keep track of their prep time and speech times but I may monitor them and time myself.

6. Time yourself and tell me loudly when you are starting.

7. Keep your own prep time, inform me that you are taking prep, and tell me how much time was taken after.

8. Speak your contention very clearly at the beginning of your points.

9. If a coin flip is required, the debaters will flip and decide and inform me after which side they are on and speaking order.

10. Rudeness will hurt your speaker points. Don’t be condescending.

I'm a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Please don't spread.

Time yourself and your opponents.

I am a parent judge. hungfw@yahoo.com

Please don't speak too fast and don't have any complicated debate jargon that is not explained.

Good luck!

I used to be a policy debater and preferred lay debates. I care about evidence quality and argument comparison. Resolve clash for me and do impact calculus.

I’m a parent judge, I’ve judged a couple tournaments. Please speak at measured speed. I have a wide array of topic knowledge.

I have served as a judge for debate for four years and I prefer slower speech with proper short pauses.

For congressional debate, I would love to see new arguments that really advance the debate.

For speech, I prefer the structured approach with emphasis and rigor logic.

Zita Wang

I am a parent judge. I judged speech and debate in different tournments in the past three years.

Take your pace, provide framework, and love to hear your summary about why you should win.

Be confident, run your flow, respect your competitors, and have fun!

I am a parent judge with some experience in judging but not with fast debate. Please avoid using terms that novice parents do not understand.

For Policy Debate specifically, I evaluate the round based on the clarity of your point, evidence, and ability to handle cross-examination of issues. I will consider your framing but will vote for a more credible, logical, and understandable case most of the time. I also prefer summarizing your argument and points at the end of the debate.

~~~~General~~~~

I am a first time parent judge--please speak slowly.

Remember to have fun!

~~~~Speech~~~~

I will not give you time signals (although I can if you ask)

I am layperson, but experienced judging PF. I am somewhat hard of hearing, so please try to speak clearly and sufficiently loud to be heard.

I am a first year parent judge.

-Please be respectful of your opponents.

-Please provide me with your roadmap and guide me through your arguments.

-Well developed argument is more important than the number of arguments

-Speak at a moderate speed so I can follow all your points.

-Encourage to use cited evidence, examples and numeric values, if available.

Hope you enjoy the competition.

I'm an intermediate-level parent judge with several years of experience judging mostly PF.

I believe the primary goal of debate (and speech) is to communicate effectively and persuasively. Make compelling arguments supported by solid evidence and reasoning and use examples to illustrate your points whenever possible. Aside from constructing your own case, make sure you adapt to your opponents' arguments and avoid talking past each other. Remember that it's not a sign of weakness to acknowledge an opposing viewpoint.

I understand some of you prefer rapid-fire delivery but please prioritize clarity and enunciation over speed and density. This way, I won't miss any of the key points you are making. Keep in mind that I cannot give you credit for things you said but I never heard.

Please do not introduce new arguments in the final speeches of the debate. I will not consider them.

Most importantly: always be respectful to each other, relax and have fun!

In my judging round, I would like to hear:

1. clearly emphasized opinions, which would be repeated in the middle and at the end of the speech.

2. convincing facts or reasoning to support the opinions/attitudes.

3. in debate, pointing out why opponent's arguments are not right/sufficient

4. polite and attractive language, better with some humor

a few points:

• I am a flay judge.
• I flow on paper, so please speak with poise and do not spread
• a combination of rhetoric, structure, and body language win on delivery/the lay appeal
• on the flow side, I vote based on (1) collapsing. providing me with the clear/cleanest points to vote on in a debate will win my ballot-(2) quality + depth of your contentions. this means that I will highly value the link chains/impact worlds (whichever is relevant in the round)- and (3) dropped contentions. make it extremely clear which points your opponent has dropped/conceded (and why they matter!), as I will take these into high consideration
• when your opponent is speaking, please stay respectful
• if you want to communicate with your partner, please try to "look like you're talking at a whisper." what I expect/mean by this is to not look like you're talking normally at a normal volume- it can be distracting for both your opponents and the judges.
• instead, I really don't mind any other communication as long as it's out of the frame or make it look like you're whispering- simulating an in person tourney
• remember, each debate is a learning experience, not a symbol of how adept you are because so many other factors+ implicit biases go into each RFD.
• good luck!

I am a parent judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly, avoid jargon, and make sure to signpost.

I’m a new parent judge, first year, please be on normal conversational pace.

I will vote on clarity, logical arguments and understandable explaining.

Help my decision by emphasizing your key arguments and applying comparative weighting in your summary.

Enjoy debating!

Arguments and rebuttals should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery.

Arguments may be grouped and should each be addressed individually.

Rebuttals should address the important issues and extend arguments individually.

No preference about evidence but prefer When/Who if possible and needed.

Adrian Youngquist (they/them)

I have been coaching LD for Palo Alto for 5 years, and before that, I was an LD debater there.
Email: adrian.youngquist@gmail.com

For lay tournaments: I believe that lay tournaments should be lay–flay. I am capable of judging a fast round, but I really do not want to. I will drop speaks if you instigate a fast round. Debate flay—you can speak like a fast newscaster but don't sound like an auctioneer.

For non-LD debate events: I've judged them, I know the format (most familiar with PF, less so with others), all of the below applies, except I will not be at all familiar with the topic lit.

I will vote on pretty much anything unless it is offensive, but if your case is strategically abusive, your speaks will suffer.

Impact your arguments. If your argument has no explicit impacts and solid links to those impacts, I won't vote on it. Have a clear ballot story, and do plenty of weighing. I won't weigh, extend, or cross-apply for you, and if you don't tell me how to evaluate the round, you probably won't like how I do evaluate the round. If your opponent does weighing and impacting and you don't, even if their weighing and impacting is poor, they will almost surely win. Debate clearly with well-explained links.

In general, I'm well-read in the topic literature (for LD). I'll probably know when you're making things up or misusing your evidence. I will vote on bad evidence if your opponent doesn't call you on it as long as it's not blatant cheating, but I won't be happy about it, and your speaks will suffer.

I was not a circuit debater, but I have experience with circuit arguments, and I will vote on them. I'm not comfortable with fast spreading, but some speed is okay. If you're extremely clear, 300 wpm is okay. Otherwise stick to a little above 200 max. If you see me stop writing, you are unclear, too fast, or saying something that doesn't merit writing down. (Also see my note on lay tournaments.)

LARP debate is fine. Exception: I hate extinction link chains. Unless the topic is explicitly about something like nuclear weapons, climate change, or a similarly large threat, I don't want to hear it. If there are more than two–three links, I don't want to hear it. These arguments usually just get in the way of substantive debate. Cards are almost always power tagged. I lower speaks significantly for any bad link chain that just attempts to inflate impacts.

If you are running something complicated like a nuanced K, explain it well, slow down on the analytics, and run it at your own risk—be warned that I don't have experience with the literature or this type of debate. I will vote on it, but don't expect me to understand something if you don't clearly explain it. The same goes for complicated FWs, though to a lesser degree. Explain things well and don't expect me to vote for you/believe your arguments just because you use big, fancy words.
I prefer topical debate, so if you want me to vote on a non-topical K, performative case, or other non-topical argument, you need to explain your ROB extremely well. Know that this is not my preferred type of debate, and as above, run it at your own risk.

I'll vote on theory/topicality, but I strongly dislike frivolous/abusive theory. I default to competing interps, but in cases of frivolous theory I am very receptive to arguments for reasonability. Don't run theory just for the fun of it.

Speaker points: I believe that speaker points are meant to encourage and discourage norms in debate. Your strategic decisions, argument quality, weighing, and round framing, as well as the way you treat your opponent, will determine your speaks. I don't assign speaks based on perceived speaking ability.

- Abusive arguments will severely lower your speaks.
- It should be a given, but do not be offensive. If you are lucky, only your speaks will suffer. If it is bad enough, it will lose you the round.
- Be polite and don't be a bully.
- Don't force a circuit round at a lay tournament, especially if your opponent is clearly uncomfortable with it
- Stay within the time limits. Go ahead and finish your (short) sentence after time, and it is okay to answer a question after time runs out in CX (you don't need to ask me, please). Past that, I will not flow anything you say, and your speaks will suffer.
- My pet peeve is misused statistics. Analyze statistics well or point out your opponent's misanalyzed statistics and I will give you bonus speaker points. Egregiously misuse statistics and your speaks will drop.

On email chains: Your adding me to an email chain and giving me a copy of your case does NOT give you license to read less clearly or skip parts. If I do not catch something during your speech, I will not put it on my flow. I use your case for technological difficulties and informational purposes only—referring back to evidence when specific parts are disputed, exact wording of tag lines, plan texts, and interpretations, etc.

Greetings, debaters!

Since my entry into middle/high school debate in 2018, I've cultivated a profound appreciation for the art of argumentation. Here's a brief overview of my judging paradigm:

1. Debate Style:

• I am comfortable with various debate styles, including Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, and Public Forum. I hold a particular regard for well-structured and organized arguments.

2. Speed and Clarity:

• I can navigate a debate at a brisk pace, but clarity is paramount. Fast speech is acceptable, provided it doesn't compromise the clarity of your arguments.

3. Framework and Resolution:

• A robust framework is crucial to guide the debate. In Parliamentary debates, I value a clear plan with well-supported advantages. In Public Forum, a sturdy value criterion and well-linked contentions are essential.

4. Evidence Quality:

• I prioritize well-researched and credible evidence. Clear citations and the ability to explain the significance of evidence are of utmost importance.

5. Creativity and Innovation:

• I actively encourage creative arguments and unique approaches to cases. Thinking outside the box can be a valuable asset in securing my ballot.

6. Cross-Examination:

• I value effective cross-examination that seeks to clarify and challenge key points. Be respectful and focused during the crossfire.

7. Adjudication Approach:

• Debates are approached with an open mind. Convince me with the strength of your arguments, clarity, and strategic thinking.

8. Topicality and Fairness:

• I expect debaters to engage with the topic and uphold fairness. Avoid strategies that compromise the integrity of the debate.

9. Speaker Points:

• Speaker points are awarded based on clarity, persuasiveness, and strategic acumen. Being well-prepared and engaging is pivotal.

10. Flexibility:

• I am open to different debate styles and arguments. Adaptability is key, and I appreciate debaters who can adjust their strategies based on the flow of the round.

Remember, my goal is to fairly evaluate the round, and I look forward to witnessing your skills in action. Best of luck!

Hi, in order to make it easy for me to understand your case more thoroughly, please kindly speak at a reasonable speed since I am a parent judge. Thank you.

recent college grad, no debate experience myself; I got into judging for my cousin.

flay more lay, i try to take notes

probably won't have topic knowledge

please don't spread

no experience with theory/ k

time yourselves & don't be rude!

have fun :)

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and slowly.

I appreciate your being respectful and courteous to your opponents.

Good luck!

The following is written by my son but he just rephrased my opinions in a more understandable way

This is my 3rd year judging debate so not a lot of experience

State your sources, evidence, impacts, harms, etc in a clear and understandable way

Pretend I do not know anything about any topic, so explain everything!

Go slow and focus on getting your message out in a clear way

No K's or Theory, I do not understand them (sorry)

Be nice and polite, you are here to debate an educational round, not to dog fight with each other

Don't interrupt unless it is a clarification/POI

Overall have fun and enjoy the round!

Parent judge. Experience with Parli. I try to maintain as detailed a flow as possible. Don’t care for debate jargon.

Speak clearly, at a reasonable pace and volume. I don’t like feeling like you are yelling at me!

Clearly state and weigh your impacts, provide clear logical links, POO any rules violations.

Not experienced with Ks or Theory. Best not to run it with me and if you do, youmustexplain it well and in detail.

A big pet peeve of mine is when team members talk to each other loudly or in a distracting manner (think high-fiving each other, laughing, making faces, etc.) while the other side is presenting their arguments. I understand you need to plan your response, but you must do it quietly to avoid distracting me or the other team.

Be respectful to your opponents and me. I will give you lower points if you are not.

And don’t forget to have fun!

2024- 2/4/2024

I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old.

General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.

World Crafting:

Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.

Argument Framing:

Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.

The K:

I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afropress, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.

Theory:

Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory most of the time, but it is your round, so do you.

Tech vs. Truth:

Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.

Rudeness is a No-Go:

Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. For real

Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:

Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.

Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:

Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.

Voting Issues:

Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal

TL;DR

Be clear

Weigh

Impact calculus

liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com

>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions

• Quality over Quantity - focus on weight of impact, explain it clearly
• Clear evidence with weight of evidence - source, reputation etc. (one highly reputable source better than five random sources)
• Stay away from technicals unless absolutely necessary
• Be respectful, clear, and concise in disagreements

Hello, I'm Christina Zhang. I don't have much prior debate experience, so I would count as a Lay Judge. Knowing that please arrange your prep accordingly.

General:

Just call me Judge. Please do not call me by my name.

Please signpost. If you do no signposting it will be exceedingly confusing. If the I don't know what you're saying then I can't weigh your arguments.

Arguments:

1. Tech & Truth: A standard Advantage/Disadvantage round is probably the simplest, and while I do acknowledge tech over truth, I still do tend to occasionally favor truth over tech, so even if one side drops an argument, that doesn't mean I will automatically weigh it against them if the assertion is not properly explained enough.

Ie. You bring up nuclear war, but never properly explain it well enough and don't address simple things like Mutually Assured Destruction, even if the opponent completely drops, I might not weigh in your favor and just strike it from the round.

Basically if it doesn't make enough logical sense, then I won't consider it.

1. Impacts. If I don't hear a properly quantified impact it might not have nearly as much weighing power.

Just saying: "Grows the economy", "Increases QoL" or "Saves lives" are not proper impacts. "Grows the economy by 153 billion USD over the next 2 years", or "Decreases cardiac deaths by 10%", or "Increases GDP per capita by 5%", or "Prevents 4000 deaths" are properly quantified impacts, so will be weighed to their fullest extent.

Theory:

I don't know any theory, so please don't run any theory. I'm not very experienced, so keep everything simple. Just because you win on theory on the flow doesn't mean that I'll take theory into heavy consideration or even at all

Kritiques:

Just don't run them. If you run a K, there's a good chance I might not understand it so even if you crush the opponent on the flow, you'll still probably lose. Debate is about accessibility and understanding, so if the layperson can't understand what's happening, you'll likely not get you point across.

Please speak clearly and deliver in a pace that a lay judge can comprehend. I prefer you provide me with a roadmap before the speech so I can follow each of your arguments and their supporting evidence. Good luck and have fun!

Firstly - please do not spread: debate is for education and logic, speaking fast not only doesn't enhance that, but may detriment what education can be produced for both sides. I would prefer you speak slower as that gives both me and the opponents a deeper understanding of what you are truly saying.

In terms of other delivery, use proper articulation, tone, and I take into consideration a large amount of delivery skills such as nonverbal body language and tone (especially in speaker points).

I feel the need to put the disclaimer that I have trouble buying K's, as I was not extremely well-versed in kritikal debate, especially as it is something arguably more recently surfaced.
With this being said, I understand that kritikal arguments are a mechanism for debaters to spread these advocacies, however, I may not understand this post-fiat advocacy enough to have a crystal clear ballot, which makes voting quite hard.

Kritikal arguments are on one spectrum of technical arguments that I may not know well enough about to buy (as once again, K's were never a thing back then, and have become more usable after the pandemic, etc. so I am still learning), and am not likely to buy it under these given circumstances.
Some other tech args that fall along the same lines of the ["please don't run, I will not understand/buy and it will only frustrate you"] radar are things like Friv T, which is very harmful to real education and ends up becoming annoying. In general anything that seems "quirky" and reflects in opposition to more traditional Parliamentary formats will be looked down upon. So once again, please do not run them as I will be very saddened, and refer to using the fundamental debate structure as the AFF/NEG.

I will protect the debate space first and foremost. Do NOT use personal attacks, homophobia, racism, misgendering, transphobia, etc. as there is 0 tolerance for this especially in the debate space where we are here to learn. I won't regulate how you choose to debate as long as debaters handle themselves accordingly with reason to rules, speech time (including grace period within reason), respect, etc. but if blatant violations occur or are brought up, I will step in.

Please adhere to well-delivered, logically sound arguments, clash, and impacts and evidence that are reasonable, warranted, and supported. Arguments are meant to make sense. Don't say a bunch of evidence with no purpose or logic to analyze and tie it back, after all, although numbers may sound good, if there is no real argument, it's much easier for me to rely on analytics that truly are well-explained and link chains that make sense.

I am tabula rasa, meaning that I will not produce exterior knowledge or factor-in outside opinions when making my ballot. At the end of the day, I will flow what you and the opponents tell me, and how you clash, rather than my own opinions (no matter if I agree or disagree).
I evaluate arguments partially on their presentation and how they are delivered, but also the ways they are explained and logically backed upwith evidence and analysis.

Clash is vital, as that is where we can learn and discuss, so please use your ground and weigh clash and impacts. At the end of the day I shouldn't have to guess or gamble who wins the round, you should be using proper impact calculus and weighing of impacts to tell me why/who wins. With that being said, I expect debaters to warrant their evidence and actually explain it in their constructive, or in rebuttal when refuting. In addition, please signpost clearly, it makes flowing and understanding your points much easier.

In terms of framework, there are tight burdens to ensure AFF has set topical, reasonable, and agreed upon framework. If you fail the burden of framework as the AFF, it will make it very difficult to regain feasible ideas of your advocacy, as your side, as well as the entire round, is lacking any real image, weather it be a lack of definitions, clarity, weighing, plan (and plan specifications such as timeframe), etc. Once again, because I try to be tabula rasa, losing framework basically makes me unable to evaluate the following speeches properly or until framework is set.

In terms of counterplans, I find some CPs to be slightly confusing especially depending on the context of the round (or if the round is loaded with more niche topics). With that being said, you can still run a CP, just at your own risk. My largest requirement for a CP is that it has to be very very well explained, given all the framework and elements that I would expect from the AFF, presented in the first NEG speech, and must be shown to pass the test of perm to be both better and competitive.
I am also aware that PIC's are a form of CP's, however, many debaters fail to distinguish to two well, making them more confusing. At the end of the day, if you can explain them well, I will try my best to evaluate them, however, if I am left confused and to guess the perm, then I will be discouraged from voting for it (given that the AFF has substantial points against it). Once again, I don't want to have to "guess" who wins, so the same applies for any CP advocacy.

Finally, if you have any questions about my paradigm, other things that were not explicitly listed under this paradigm, or just questions in general, feel free to ask before the round (in reasonable time)! I will try my best to answer all questions.
Lastly, debate is a very prestigious art and sport, so despite being caught up with all the chains and dedications of it, don't forget to have fun! Good luck all.

Philosophy: As a judge, my primary goal is to impartially evaluate the arguments presented by both sides of the debate. I firmly believe in the importance of logical reasoning, critical thinking, and the presentation of coherent, well-supported arguments. I strive to maintain neutrality throughout the debate and base my decisions solely on the merits of the arguments presented.

Listening Approach: I approach each debate with a commitment to active listening. I will carefully consider each speaker's points, weighing their validity and relevance to the resolution. It is essential for debaters to articulate their arguments clearly and concisely, allowing me to grasp the core of their positions.

Expectations: I expect debaters to adhere to the principles of logic and reason in their speeches. Arguments should be supported by evidence, logic, and sound reasoning rather than relying on emotional appeals or fallacious tactics. Clarity of thought and expression is key to persuading me of the strength of an argument.

Evaluation Criteria:

• Logic and Reasoning: I prioritize arguments that demonstrate logical coherence and are supported by relevant evidence.
• Clarity and Organization: Debaters should present their arguments in a clear and organized manner, making it easy for me to follow their line of reasoning.
• Relevance to Resolution: Arguments should directly address the resolution and contribute meaningfully to the debate's central theme.
• Respectful Conduct: I expect debaters to engage in civil discourse and respect their opponents, avoiding personal attacks or disrespectful behavior.

Decision-Making Process: I will carefully weigh the arguments presented by both sides, considering their strength, relevance, and persuasiveness. I may take notes during the debate to help me remember key points and evaluate the overall flow of the arguments. Ultimately, my decision will be based on which side presents the most compelling case in support of their position.

Final Thoughts: I approach each debate as an opportunity to engage with complex issues and learn from the perspectives of others. I encourage debaters to challenge themselves and each other intellectually, fostering a productive exchange of ideas that contributes to a deeper understanding of the topic at hand.

I am a parent judge with some speech and debate judging experience. Please talk slowly and make your logic and argument clear.