Extemp:

y'all know what to do. Prioritize delivery > content for now. However, if you have exceptional content, that will be recognized.

CX Paradigm:

***Full disclosure: I'm not in Policy anymore...I'm not too familiar with the new resolution, so make sure to def acronyms/shortened phrases in your constructives so I can follow.

I'll be judging Rhetoric like a normal lay judge because that's who you'll have for the rest of the year. Have a consistent story throughout all ur speeches. Also, make sure to clearly extend args. Don't make the flow too cluttered. Whoever has clearer args + weighed better wins obv.

Be kind.

I am a parent judge who likes clear and concise arguments that help the flow of the round

For debate, please refer to Derek Qian's paradigm

For speech, please refer to Derek Qian's paradigm

Lay judge, no spreading. I have judged Congress to oi to policy. I will always write long form notes on in round speeches, but I may not set up my flow like conventional debaters.

sai.ankireddi@gmail.com

Add me to the email chain at: sudhubelur27@mittymonarch.com

Disclaimers for Preffing

• I am freshman debater at Archbishop Mitty
• I have done one year of varsity speech and debate, and I have competed in the events Policy, Congress, OA, and NX
• spread if you want - if I don't understand, I will yell slow or clear; but feel free to speed through evidence

my judging preferences:

1. If you cause any harm in the debate space, I will drop you immediately. Any racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, or any offending comment in any way.

2. I am tech over truth (I will buy any argument made AS LONG AS YOU EXPLAIN IT TO ME properly unless you don't warrant it)

3. For everything, organize your uniqueness, links, and impax; and please don't have convoluted link chains; it has to be somewhat believable; and signpost.

4. impact everything out or it doesn't matter (extinction always outweights)

5. Run Theory if you want. I'm fine with K's, but please warrant them out. If you want to run any complex theories, trix, or friv theory, explain them to me during it, because I don't have experience evaluating those.

6. everyone gets a 29, make an atla/aot/jjk/shadow and bone reference and i'll give you a 30. speaks end up being arbitrary and ableist/sexist anyways so just have fun

7. stick around for feedback, i'll always try to disclose. email me at sudhubelur27@gmail.com if you need anything else or want to raise questions about safety in the round

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.

Congress, extemp and impromptu at Bellarmine College Preparatory. I did policy for over a year and did both parli and pf for a couple tournaments.

For debate

I will flow all the arguments, but I need you to tell me why I should vote for you.

Impact out your arguments; otherwise, why should I care.

If you are rude, you will not win; debate is supposed to be fun, so don't make others hate it because of you.

You can spread but send me the doc. If your spreading you better be clear otherwise I won't flow it.

I like ethos inside of debate.

Bottom line - make whatever argument you want but impact out your arguments and be kind.

Congress

Congress has been my main event the past three years and I've reached sems at Nats, TOC, finaled at state

content: I want to see a very in-depth debate with quality sources. Don't falsify ev. Have clash don't give your speech in a vacuum.

delivery: Be respectful and have good rhetoric. I feel like using rhetoric is undervalued in congress but it's one of the most important aspects.

cross: ask good questions. Don't stall.

Hey Everyone! I graduated from Presentation High School in 2021, where I spent my four years there mostly specializing in Congressional Debate, but I do have experience competing in PF, World Schools, LD, NX, and Impromptu.

Congress Paradigm

To me, Congressional debate is the perfect marriage of Speech and Debate -- combining the best of both worlds. I value clash and refutations above all since it is, first and foremost, a debate event. That being said, your speaking skills and speech structure are also important. I always enjoy good rhetoric and when debaters drop bars or one liners because it is the perfect opportunity for you to show us your style.

Please use and cite your evidence! I vote mostly based on the warranting you present. Do not make your entire speech an emotional appeal -- you can incorporate some elements of pathos, but you definitely need logic, reason, and evidence to support and back up your claim. I prefer to rank debaters that demonstrate comprehensive understanding of topic knowledge and the impact of the legislation.

During authorships or sponsorships, please lay out the reason you need the legislation before explaining how it improves the status quo, and provide the framework for which to evaluate the debate. Every single speech after the authorship or sponsorship should have refutations. I love when debaters present a unique lens of analysis or perspective that changes the scope of the entire debate, especially during crystals. Congressional debate does not offer as many opportunities to directly engage with others, so cross-examination is crucial for asking methodical questions and providing quality responses that further your perspective or argumentation.

Most importantly, HAVE FUN and be kind to each other. You may refute the arguments of fellow debaters, but do NOT name call or be disrespectful. Always remember your oath to this country and your constituents -- the people who elected you into office to represent them.

Note to Presiding Officers: I expect you to know and adhere to proper procedures and protocols (Robert's Rules of Order) to run a fair and efficient chamber, while ensuring decorum. Do NOT abuse your power or attempt to manipulate procedure to drop others, etc. If you do a great job as a presiding officer, I will rank you.

...and on closing thoughts...Good Luck! & Dad jokes are punny :)

...

Public Forum Paradigm

Yes, I flow. Please provide me with a framework during the constructive speeches and establish why I should favor your framework over the other team's later in the round. That being said, you should still apply your case to both your own and the other teams' frameworks.

If you drop an argument in Summary, do not bring it up in Final Focus because I will not take it into account. I will also not consider any new constructive contentions brought up in Summary and Final Focus. Please show me what worlds look like in the affirmation and negation before you weigh them. You should be weighing and collapsing in Summary. Please terminalize your impacts! I love impact calculus and case turns. Your Final Focus needs to include voter issues; and, please explain their relevance; else what should I vote on?

I expect all debaters to participate in grand cross. I understand that you may want to use that time to prep, but cross examination is still important, even if it does not technically appear on the flow. Please bring up the points you win from cross examination during your speech. Back in my day, PF allotted for 2 minutes of prep time, but you have 3 minutes, so you should do your prep during that extra minute instead.

This goes without saying, but evidence is paramount, so please use and cite your evidence! Also, while my business professor will contend that Cash is King, here, Clash is Key. I appreciate when debaters thoroughly break down and address the warranting of their opponents' argument and prove it to be untrue rather than just tell me that their opponents are wrong. If both sides have evidence, why should I prefer your contention over theirs? Do not expect me to draw the lines for you.

Ultimately, Have a Great Round, be Respectful, and Good Luck!!

I am a lay judge with very minimal experience judging policy debate. Hence, I appreciate rounds with an emphasis on clear and effective communication of subject matter and arguments.

Looking forward to it. Good luck!

RK

I am an experienced parent judge, and I have been judging Congress for 4 years on all levels - district, league, state, national (Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, ASU, Glen, MLK) - and seen some of the best kids in the circuit.

General: I value clash, round/audience engagement, presentation and referencing prior speakers. Do not give constructive speeches late in the round. Be assertive, but not aggressive. Keep questioning respectful and short - please do not preface.

Authors/Sponsors: explain the bill, why it works/solvency, what it does, why it’s needed. Authors can rank highly too! If there are final appeals, use this opportunity to summarize the round effectively.

POs: Be organized and know procedure! If there are elections, you should not be running unless you truly know your rules. I try to rank PO’s if you run a fast, fair, and effective chamber - PO’s don’t have to be perfect, but try your best not to mess up precedence and recency as it slows down the round.

Best of luck!

I'm a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly and give me clear reasons like voting issues about why I should vote for you. I won't vote off an argument I don't understand.

The most important thing to IMPACT OUT all of your arguments. Don't just tell me that a Federal Jobs Guarantee will be expensive. Explain to me WHY this argument should win you the debate and why it is more important than the Aff's claims. By the rebuttal speeches, tell me what arguments you are winning, why they are the most important arguments in the debate, and why that means you have won.

The next most important thing is to EXPLAIN your arguments. Do not just read a card and move on. Explain to me the implications of the evidence, and why it's relevant to the debate.

Delivery obviously matters, but I tend to place greater importance on well-prepared strategies, and thorough analysis/explanation.

my views align with Aswin Surya

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.

New judge, I understand Policy terms, but be clear with terms in other debate events

Looking for a good debate where the resolution is clear, and there is good, strong evidence and analytics coming from both sides.

Don't run too circuit-y arguments without outlining everything clearly so that I am able to follow and understand links

Tech>truth

I eval no case

only theory

Name: Priti Singh

Pronouns: she/her/hers

General Information: Please keep in mind that I am not a flow judge, so I may not remember every single argument you bring up during rounds! I will listen to CX, but I won't take the information/empirics shared in CX into account while deciding who wins. However, if anyone is disrespectful or blatantly rude during CX - I will deduct speaker points.

Along with what you present, how you present is equally important - clarity, pace and posture count.

reminder: PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD. If I cannot understand what you are saying I will just assume your opponent cannot either.

What’s up! my name is Aarya Srinivasan and I’m a junior at Archbishop Mitty.

Add me to the email chain: aaryasrinivasan25@mittymonarch.com

I have done three years of varsity speech and debate, and I have competed in the events Policy, LD, Parli, Congress, IX, and Impromptu.

My judging paradigm is mostly just offense/defense, but if both sides want a slow round I will judge it lay.

Since my main event is policy, I am tech over truth, which means that I will believe anything you say in the round regardless of how true it is in the real world as long as it is argued well. Spreading is chill, but I dislike irrational link chains so make sure that there aren’t some crazy gaps in between your cards. If both sides do NOT agree on a fast round, RUN THEORY!

For my preferences, I enjoy listening to logical and complex arguments backed up by well researched evidence. Quality Cards are KEY, make sure that you do not mistag or misrepresent your evidence. Know the warrants to your cards, if you can’t explain WHY something is the case you’re prolly not gonna be very convincing. I will not judge intervene to disqualify bad evidence/lying, but I will likely drop your speaks.

Also, it’s no fun to watch a round where nobody clashes, so make sure that you call out specific arguments your opponents made and then respond to them. I also like to see debaters have a command of the topic, so be confident and passionate when you’re speaking. And above all, be nice, and have some fun.

If you have any other questions about how I'll evaluate the round, just ask.

LD/PF/Parli:

Not super experienced with any of these events, but TRUST I will understand whatever you decide to run. I more or less know about the PF and LD topics, but still explain your points clearly.

Tricks are cool - if you're going against them run theory I'll vote on it. Also you can run an RVI vs the theory I'll vote on it if its good enough cuz it disincentivizes frivolous theory.

K's and Phil is cool just explain your phil well and explain how it contextualizes the round don't just vomit a ton of lit at me and expect me to give you the win.

CX is super important, I don't necessarily flow it, but it helps speaks a lot.

Write my ballot in the final focus. Makes my job easier lol.

POLICY SPECIFICS:

These are guidelines. Don’t change what you’re running after reading this, this is just to know some of my opinions on things. Run what you know, and can debate best.

I will vote on literally anything (Death Good, Spark, Nihilism, Warming Fake, etc.) Just debate it properly.

Theory - Love theory debates on the Aff and Neg. Reasonability is not a response, you have to explain why it’s reasonable. But go ahead and be as dirty as you want lol debate is a game, if you can defend your interpretation of debate I’ll vote on it.

T - I love T. Affs that barely connect to the topic are pain to debate, so go ahead and try to penalize them by running a good T shell.

CP - Run literally whatever, but be able to defend yourself if you run a Process CP or PIC. I ran 4th Branch and White Supremacist CP all year so I love a good cheaty CP, and the resulting theory debate too.

K - Be very clear on Framwork, Alt, and ROB. I have experience with Set Col, Cap, Security/Militarism and Model Minority. Anything else will likely need you to explain yourself in plain terms, If I don’t understand the lit terms you’re using I cannot vote for you.

K -Affs - Don’t have an issue with these. Make sure to have a good response on the ROB vs Ballot Pic because that’s what I end up voting on a lot of the time.

DA - These are pretty standard. UQ, Link, I/L, Impact.

Case - I feel like the case debate is a lost art. So many Affs have terrible link chains. Solvency Takeouts and Link Takeouts are great and can literally be made as analytics to decimate an opponents case and force them to waste time by clarifying in their next speech. Go for Thumpers on literally every extinction impact. Impact Turns are also really fun.

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.

Do your best!!!

Hi! My name is Navya, and my pronouns are she/her.

I’ve been doing debate for the past four years at Archbishop Mitty High School (I’m a senior) — I’m most experienced in Congress, (debated on regional and national circuit) National Extemp, (mostly lay extemp) and LD, (ONLY LAY.)

But, I’ve also done Impromptu, OA, OPP, POI, and Parli. (So fundamentally, I’m comfortable with all speech and debate events, and I’ll try to judge impartially and fairly.)

DEBATE PARADIGM

• PLEASE DON’T SPREAD. I can keep up with moderately fast speaking, but if you begin spreading I will drop my pen and stop flowing. That probably also means an auto-lose, SO WATCH SPEED!
• I’m normally tech over truth, but if your link chain is barely flowable and you have terminal impacts I will probably drop it from the flow and not use it to decide final ballots. Terminal impacts are great, but internal links should be EASILY flowable if you want to me to use them as voters
• I VALUE PRESENTATION. I’M NOT A CIRCUIT DEBATER, AND I DO MANY SPEECH EVENTS. I’m like a parent judge in this way, in that I will take your presentation into consideration when writing my ballot. I understand that delivery isn’t everyone’s strong suit, but outstanding presentation will stand out (ik that’s redundant) to me.
• I don’t normally flow CX, but if major concessions are made then I’ll flow
• COMPORTMENT MATTERS! I want a respectful debate. Any ad hominem attacks or blatantly rude harangue will result in an auto 20L. I also won’t tolerate any sexist or racist arguments, point blank.
• FOR CIRCUIT: I PREFER POLICY AFFS, as I’m not experienced in circuit, so please explain well if you’re running T shells or Ks. I know the basic Ks like Cap and Fem, but please make it very clear if you do choose to run circuit offs. I will usually buy Topicality if run against a K aff, bc I do find Ks abusive to the neg.
• I will drop a debater/team that runs AfroPess if they’re not people of color!
• For LD, I LOVE VALUE CRITERION DEBATES. But, please remember to connect back to vc in 2AR & NR, if you’re collapsing on it. AND obv directly compare which vc I should be prioritizing—because I will be voting solely on which side better empirically upholds vc, and that means also knowing which vc to use. Also, if you want vc to be a voter, ensure that you’re WEIGHING ON IT. (ie: if you’re running Rawls, don’t weigh on scope obv.)

CONGRESS

• I’ve competed Congress for 4 years at the league and national level, and I’m pretty lenient as to what styles of congress I rank higher, bc everyone debates differently
• Obviously, congress isn’t straight debate, so I do value delivery very high—presentation will often help decide final places
• I LOVE fresh rhetoric, and I might rank u higher j bc you use strong rhetoric to humanize an otherwise esoteric impact or internal link
• disclaimer: I’ve watched my fair share of final rounds, so if you’re reusing someone else’s rhetoric I’ll prolly know
• If you’re giving late round speeches, PLEASE don’t rehash and try to paint it like something that hasn’t been talked about earlier, USE CLASH! The later your speech, the more clash there should be, and the less you should be relying on your legal pad.
  - ALSO: I don’t consider just referencing another Senator’s name during your speech as strong clash. It’s good, but clash should consist of targeted, direct responses to another Senator’s case.
• If you’re giving a crystal, PLEASE WEIGH IMPACTS OR INTERNAL LINKS
• I rank PO’s well, but usually not in top 2. Ofc, it differs by circumstance, and if you’re an extraordinary PO then I might just rank you number 1! I expect PO’s to be proficient with most-all parliamentary procedures, and manage recency well. The chamber should NEVER have to correct PO! I usually start PO at a 4, and add ranks for efficiency/drop a rank for every mistake. I may drop the PO a rank if I notice mistakes that the chamber did not call them out on, so don't think you get a free pass just because you got away with it
• I pay lots of attention to CX! I expect congress CX to be very respectful, and if I see you throwing insults or accusing someone of “lying” during CX, I will drop you a rank

EXTEMP

• this should be self explanatory, but extemp is a MEMORIZED EVENT! So, don’t use notes! If you have to look at your notes, I won’t give you a 1
• Delivery matters! I regard presentation in extemp very highly, and I want you to speak with poise, good posture, and gesticulation
• You should be saying your question sometime in your speech (this should be obvious)
• PLEASE sign post points after intro!
• I love a good intro, try to refrain from using canned quotes or jokes!

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 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.

English is my second language so please use simple terms;

Please be clear with your argument and don't talk too fast;

Remind me of your speaking order and the format of the round.

Thank you and see you soon.