This is my first year judging debate. I am an Engineer by profession so logical arguments backed by information resonate well with me. I am not going to be actively looking at speaking skills. But slow, clear speaking and sign posting will be helpful for me to follow through. Please avoid abbreviations as much as possible

Please speak slowly and clearly

Two things: (1) Do NOT speak too quickly and (2) signpost.

I am a parent judge in my first year of judging. I appreciate the quality of arguments and a normal pace.

Debate Philosophy:

I approach debates with a focus on flowing arguments and evaluating them based on the flow. While I prioritize technical arguments over truth, I do expect clear and logical communication from debaters. Clarity of thought and logic is paramount, and I value well-warranted arguments over-reliance on evidence alone.

I weigh the claims by whether they are supported by two kinds of reasoning:

11. Truth: Why the claim is true.

22. Impact: Why this claim is important in the debate.

"Claims" apply to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes on my flow later. Providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily mean your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example is important to the debate as a whole.

Weighing Arguments:

Debaters should focus on weighing their arguments and demonstrating why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents. This includes considering scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability, or employing metaweighing techniques. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the round to aid in organization.

Topic Relevance:

I prefer debates to stay on topic and avoid off-topic or theoretical arguments aimed at disqualifying the other team. Definitions by the government/affirmative team are allowed, but abuse of this privilege will be penalized.

Argument Evaluation:

Warranted arguments are crucial for winning my ballot. Unsubstantiated claims are difficult to vote on, especially when effectively rebutted by the opposing side. It's essential to be charitable to opponents' arguments and engage with the best version of their claims rather than strawmanning them.

Public Forum-Specific:

In Public Forum debates, I prioritize logical reasoning over reliance on evidence cards. Debaters should focus on identifying weaknesses in their opponents' link chains rather than reading from prepared blocks. Clash should be evident by the rebuttal speeches, and second rebuttals should address all offense or risk concessions.

Evidence and Email Chains:

I do not typically review evidence or participate in email chains. Debaters must convince me of their arguments without relying on my review of evidence. However, if requested, I may assess evidence for accuracy.

I am a writer, activist, and proud mom of a high school debater in Berkeley, California. I used to be a policy debater back in the 1990s at Londonderry High School in Londonderry, New Hampshire. Thanks to my experiences as a high school debater, I've enjoyed fruitful careers in journalism and now political strategy and community organizing.

My judging preferences:

• No spreading or speed-reading.

• Use all time allotted to carefully build on your arguments and counter all of your opposition's arguments.

• Start all speeches with a roadmap: Definitions, contentions, rebuttals, and framework or weighing mechanisms for the debate.

• All POIs should be verbal and judge encourages debaters to take them at some point during their speech.

• Be cognizant of introducing new arguments at the end of the debate. I'm pretty good at picking up on these and will award extra points to debaters who successfully point them out as well!

• This judge enjoys taking detailed notes--"flowing"--the rounds, and is happy to give oral feedback at the end of the debate. I will not disclose in earlier rounds so as not to demoralize anyone. I want y'all to finish strong.

• High school debaters ROCK--Good luck!

Hi, I'm Barley Benson, a long-time adjudicator and coach. For me, debating and adjudication is not just a skill or extracurricular activity, it is a way of life. I started adjudicating professionally 8 years ago and it has been a surreal and life-changing experience. Above the awards and accolades, the skills gained via debating are immense and life-aiding, skills like speech prowess, the ability to discern ideas, and being solution-oriented are quite essential, thus the adjudication in the pursuit of these skills should be top-notch. In my experience as a judge, speakers who are aware of the regulations of the particular competition in which they are competing, which usually require them to address the opponent's arguments in addition to their own, tend to perform better. Although I do take equity seriously, I also expect speakers to do the same. When speakers are informed of the tournament's framework, speaking roles and presenting compelling arguments become easier. This gives them the ability to behave appropriately, which in turn gives them insight into how the judge decides the argument. This reflection is a result of expertise gained in adjudicating a variety of debating styles and formats, including public forum (PF), world school debate championship (WSDC), Australian Parliamentary (AP), British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), and Australians. Ultimately, I believe in feedback as it is essential for improvement and that is a crucial focal point to as an adjudicator because all debaters deserve to improve, I believe.

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!

I am a parent judge. I judged over 100 competitions.

I will rate the competitors based on two main parts:

-Composition:

If the content is effective writing or not.

Does the competitor's speech organize clearly and easy to follow?

Does the speech contain ample solid reasoning and logic

Is the speech too general or does it focus on specifics?

Does the speech make too many generalizations or assumptions about the audience?

Does the speech contain evidence and examples?

Does the speech have good rhetorical choices?

-Delivery:

I would like competitors to use effective oral presentation skills. I will check if the competitor is comfortable with delivery such as having a clear voice, good intonation, or a nice tone.

I will also check if the speaker uses effective body language or not such as hand gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact.

I have a background in astrophysics and am currently working on a computer vision project at a tech company. As a non-native English speaker, I'm not experienced in debating, so I request that you speak at a pace that allows me to fully understand. I'll be attentive to ensure I don't miss any points and will focus on identifying the key arguments. It's important to make compelling arguments, treat your opponents with respect, and manage your time wisely.

This paradigm is a little outdated in that I haven't gotten around to adding my prefs for other events so you can ask me in round. It hasn't changed much as far as LD or PF though.

Hi there, I've been judging debate (LD, PF, Congress, Parli, WSD) for about 6 years. I am tabula rasa when it comes to judging a round; don't expect me to know the topic. It is up to the debater to provide a framework that best upholds their arguments. I flow but if you spread, send me (and your opponent) your speech doc. That said, I don't want to look through pages and pages of your speech doc with a couple of words highlighted on each one. If you couldn't tell, I'm more familiar with traditional LD and have little experience in circuit debating. I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I like evidence and logical link chains with clear warrants. I like clash. I don't like falsified evidence, misleading evidence, disclosure theory or bad theory. I'm less familiar with K's, so make sure I can thoroughly understand them if you decide to run them. I'm pretty flay, so make your preferences accordingly. Please be respectful to one another. Being rude, disrespectful, racist, homophobic, and aggressive is not cool and will result in low speaks and/or loss.

Good luck everyone!

If you're racist, homophobic, et., I'll vote you down.

Debate:

I did Parli for most of my time as a competitor. I judge through a policy lens, so please give me very specific impacts in each of your "worlds". All theory is open game if its done well. If no one brings up theory or metadebate, I won't vote on it. Whatever you tell me becomes reality- so build your reality well and remember to address all parts of the opponents' reality! Please be kind and respectful to one another.

Tell me what to vote on, or else I'll just default to whatever I think is most important. If you tell me that one impact is more important than the others, and have good reasoning to support that, I'll vote on it. Comparing your side's "world" vs. your opponents "world" will make my decision much easier. How will voting one way or the other actually manifest in reality?

Impact calculus really helps me decide how I will vote. If you have a really low probability high magnitude impact (like nuclear war), tell me why that matters more than your opponents high-probability, low-magnitude impact.

Speech:

I vote based on the following criteria:

Structure- If you have a hook, intro, thesis (if necessary), a few points and a good conclusion. For interps, just having a good intro and clear points is good. '

Content- Having interesting content is my second way of ranking people. I especially like personal anecdotes.

Rhythm / Clarity / Tone- Having consistent word density, memorizing your speech well, and hitting the 'highs and lows' of your speech are all important to me.

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!

Avoid spreading, if I can't understand you I can't give you credit for it.

You're responsible for timing yourself and your opponent.

If your opponent states a contention that you disagree with, make sure to say so.

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.

First time parent judge. Explain arguments clearly.

I am a lay judge. Please do not speak too quickly. No k's or theory.

UPDATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022: Please be aware that as of February 24, 2022, the post-Cold War geopolitical/international security world underwent a monumental (and likely permanent) change. If you are going to make any arguments -- whether you're AFF or NEG, asserting internal links or existential impacts -- built around a conventional war in Europe; America's, NATO's, or Russia's propensities to escalate; the threshold between conventional and nuclear conflict; etc., please ensure that your evidence is up-to-date and timely (and, yes, that probably means written sometime after February 24, 2022) and/or please be prepared and able to explain logically and analytically how any older evidence/logic still applies in light of real-world developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Also be aware that if you read evidence (or make an argument) that fails to take account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will almost certainly accept your opponent's analytical arguments -- provided they're logical and persuasive in post-February 24 terms -- as more valid than out-of-date evidence and pre-invasion academic theorizing. And your opponents should feel free to ask you, in CX, to explain how and why any pre-February 24 evidence/arguments are still applicable to the position you're advocating or negating. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the world of geopolitics and international security has been radically altered over the past six months. Also, be aware that I spent a large chunk of my 30-year diplomatic career working on NATO issues (including stints at NATO headquarters and on the NATO desk at the State Department). While I don't expect high school debaters to understand or appreciate every detail or nuance of how the Alliance functions on a day-to-day or issue-to-issue basis, please do your best to avoid completely mischaracterizing NATO decision-making or policy implementation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note on Timekeeping: In all forms of debate I expect competitors to keep their own time (to include tracking prep time for both themselves and their opponents). Also, debaters should keep track of their opponent’s time (including prep). I will make an exception for novices at their first few tournaments, but otherwise time yourselves, please.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After retiring from a three-decade career in the U.S. Foreign Service, I returned to high school debate as a (volunteer) coach and frequent judge in 2013. I'm no longer the head coach at Oak Hill School (as of June 2020), but I still provide some assistance (to South Eugene High School) and judge fairly regularly. Beyond that, I teach public policy and international affairs -- as adjunct faculty -- at the Univ. of Oregon.

CX Paradigm (you should read this even I'm judging you in a different debate format because it speaks to my overall approach): My judging style and philosophy has evolved significantly over the past decade. While I still consider myself more of a truth-over-tech/policymaking-paradigm judge, I don't believe -- as some would suggest -- that policymaker automatically equates with a simple utilitarian approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within a government or other policymaking body, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to an alternative framework if one of the teams can convince me that that alternative framework should or best applies.

And while I have an inherent bias toward the realistic (particular as it involves global security issues such as nuclear weapons, NATO and Russia, and the nature and distribution of power and influence within the international state system), I'm fine with K debate. That said, although I know my Marx/Engels/Lenin pretty well from my academic training and Foreign Service experience in Moscow and the former Soviet bloc, if you want to run French post-modernist arguments -- or anything of that sort -- you'll need to explain it to me in terms I can understand and appreciate. And that may mean slowing down enough to make yourself more comprehensible and persuasive. I would also advise you against running any sort of performance AFF...I'll judge it if you run it, but it's as difficult for me to evaluate as Dramatic Interp. For better or worse, I still view the resolution as the starting point of any policy debate, and I still believe that an AFF case needs some version -- however abbreviated -- of a case and a plan. And case matters. A significant percentage of the AFF ballots I write end up noting that NEG essentially conceded case...that shouldn’t be the norm. (And, yes, on the other side of that I still very much believe that presumption lies with the NEG...and that going for it is a legit approach that can easily win a debate for NEG if AFF fails to meet its burdens.) Unless something is truly and grossly abusive, I am not particularly keen on RVIs or similar arguments for a behavior as opposed to a policy issue on the flow.

As for T, I am more than open to T arguments and will vote NEG on T if the AFF can't make a coherent topicality defense. But be aware that I have a very inclusive topicality threshold (to put it in 2014-15 oceans topic terms, if a case involved salt water I was ready to accept it as reasonable... provided the AFF made that argument).

I'm good with aggressive spreading, but recommend you slow down enough to allow me to hear and easily flow your tag lines and organizational structure; sign-posting may seem old-fashioned, but if you want me to flow your argument in the correct spot, intelligible sign-posting remains an important element in the process. Pet peeve addressed to 1NCs: LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS, please. 'Next' is not a label. Off-case, tell me whether you're reading T, a DISAD, a CP, a K, or something else. Similarly, ‘case’ is not a label. Tell me where you want your argument flowed. It may seem 100% clear to you, but it may not be as clear to me (even if I have your speech within the email chain). Assuming there is an email chain, I expect to be part of it: eddinska@gmail.com.

Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is completely overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.

Lincoln-Douglas and Parli Paradigm: I'm pretty much tabula rasa in both these formats, happy to judge the debate as it's presented and debated. I will always be a flow judge (who values line-by-line clash as much as possible). But I'm generally more 'progressive' in judging LD and Parli than I am in judging Policy. Go figure. In both LD and Parli, I very much appreciate theory/framework arguments. I also think both LD and Parli debates benefit from explicit plans/advocacies, which thus opens up the NEG option of CPs/counter-advocacies. Ditto K debate in LD and Parli...go for it, provided you know what you're doing (and can present the K clearly and coherently). Basically, the more LD and Parli resemble Policy, the better.

Public Forum Paradigm: You should follow the rules, of course, but I'm comfortable with pushing the limits (in terms of advocacies and counter-advocacies and such)...that said, I'm open to the other team pushing back on PF rules/norms regarding plans and CPs and such (i.e., to debate the very theory of PF). In a more traditional PF round, I see framework as a key element; it's important to establish (and win) your framework (and then, having secured the framework, explain how and why it matters to your case). I will always evaluate the debate off my flow, so line-by-line clash and full coverage of the key issues are important. That means that what passes for spreading in PF is fine with me...you don't have much time for each speech, I know, so use what you have to the fullest. Again, PF is kinda/sorta Policy Lite, and I'll always prefer -- but not insist upon -- a more Policy-like approach.

Dinesh Elaprolu

I have been involved as a debate judge for last 2 years. I am familiar with both Middle School debate and Parliamentary debate.

As a judge, I believe my role is to evaluate objectively and not introduce my personal beliefs or opinions in my decision process. I want the students to follow the ground rules and be clear with their arguments and evidences. I will flow the round, so I expect clear reasonings and properly cited evidences in my decision process. As per the rules, I will not allow new evidence or arguments in the final speeches. I am comfortable with any speed, provided the debater can articulate his reasonings well.

I expect debaters to treat each other and the judge with respect and as I mentioned above my decision will be based on debaters performance and not my personal beliefs.

Please feel free to ask me questions after the round and I will try my best to clarify your doubts.

I am a parent judge who started judging earlier this year. Please do not spread or use jargon (without explaining). I will be taking notes and attempting to flow.With that in mind, I am not a flay or tech judge, treat me as a lay. Also please signpost and/or give off/on time roadmaps (especially for rebuttal). Just explain everything and don't be tech-y.

TL;DR: first time parent judge, trying to take notes, explain stuff enough.

1st year parent judge, new to debate. Be slow and clear when you speak and try not to use tech language.

Logic and analysis over examples.

Be respectful and have fun debating.

Hi! I'm a first-time parent judge.

Praveen Gondra: I look forward to hearing your debates. Don’t rush your speech and try to take up your speech time.

Hello, I am a parent judge who is new to judging debates.

Because I haven't had experience, I may have trouble understanding arguments if the speaker is talking too fast. If you want me to write something down, it would be very helpful to say "judge, you should write this down", or tell me in any way. Things that I look for are clear and logical explanations, while also demonstrating respect.

Hi, I'm a parent judge with experience judging east-coast parliamentary debate. I am primarily a flow judge, and I can handle speed (although I prefer if you do not spread). When presenting arguments, I value quality and well-developed link chains over quantity. Clear signposting really helps me, so please be explicit about which contention or refutation you are addressing.

I try to base my decision on the strength of your reasoning and impacts, rather than my personal beliefs. However, if you have any questions about my decision, feel free to ask, just be polite about it.

Please do not run theory or Ks with me. My experience is primarily with east-coast parli, so I'm not familiar with these types of arguments. If you believe it's absolutely necessary to use them, explain them clearly and logically.

I am a sophomore at the University of Chicago… and I’m not like other judges.

Prepare yourself for a WILD matchup. I’m dedicating my entire Sunday to this (after being promised I would be paid, no less), so I’m hoping I get a nice steak dinner out of it.

What is the easiest way to get me to cast my ballot for you? Use economic logic. I should not need to explain that further. (Please refer to Greg Manikew’s Principles of Economics for additional information.)

At the end of the day, I vote with both my head and my heart. Be a strong, passionate, and rhetorically appealing speaker. Make me feel something. Change my worldview. Shoot for the moon and, who knows, you just may reach it.

Most importantly, please refer to me correctly. I am not your friend. I am your judge. Respect me accordingly.

Judge Samantha Greenberg-

I am a first time lay judge. I judge on arguments and clear impacts. No Kritiks or theory. I appreciate quality over quantity, and respectful debating.

"I am a seasoned professional in the realm of debate, holding expertise as a debater, judge, and coach with over a decade of dedicated experience. As an educator, I am highly qualified to work with both students and adults alike. To me, debating revolves around the cultivation of analytical skills and intellectual discourse governed by the principles of logic and adherence to the specific rules of engagement associated with the chosen debate format. I possess extensive knowledge across a wide spectrum of debate formats, including but not limited to Parliamentary debates, World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC), Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), policy debates, and many others."

I keep a rigorous note, I prefer argument over style but both are fairly important and I listen very attentively although I would encourage fair pacing and flow.

Email Address: 9cassassin@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

"Here are some key considerations that will encourage the strongest analysis by the end of the debate, as opposed to arguments that may waste time, are unfamiliar, or lack strategic value:

Kritiks : a good K is cheat code and a bad K is your enemy.

I appreciate well-articulated kritiks that align with the debate context. However, if the kritik lacks relevance to the topic or the arguments presented, it might not carry as much weight in my decision.

1. A thorough explanation of the links, impacts, and alternatives in kritiks will significantly enhance your chances of persuading me. Ensure clarity in your articulation to strengthen the impact of your kritik.
2. Connect the kritik to the broader debate narrative, demonstrating its significance and how it interacts with other arguments in the round.
3. Be mindful of the pacing when delivering kritiks. If presented too quickly without ample clarification, it may hinder my ability to fully grasp the nuances of your position.
4. Use real-world examples or analogies to illustrate the implications of the kritik, making it more accessible for both the judge and your opponents.
5. Consider the depth and quality of your responses to potential counterarguments against the kritik. Anticipate opposing perspectives and address them convincingly.
6. While I appreciate innovative and critical perspectives, ensure your kritik aligns with the rules and norms of the debating format being used. Clarity and adherence to format rules are crucial.
7. Feel free to engage in a dialogue about the kritik during cross-examination if it enhances understanding and provides an opportunity for clarification.

Policy: Here are five solid cheat codes

1. Deep Research:

   • Thoroughly research and understand the topic. The more knowledgeable you are about the subject matter, the better you can construct and defend your arguments.

2. Effective Evidence Usage:

   • Use high-quality and relevant evidence to support your arguments. Ensure that your evidence is recent, credible, and directly supports the points you are making.

3. Clear Argument Structure:

   • Organize your arguments in a clear and logical structure. Clearly state your claims, provide evidence to support them, and explain the implications. A well-organized structure helps judges follow your arguments more easily.

4. Adaptability:

   • Be prepared to adapt your strategy based on the responses of your opponents. If they present strong counterarguments, be ready to adjust your approach and defend your position effectively.

5. Strong Cross-Examination Skills:

   • Master the art of cross-examination. Use this time to challenge your opponents' arguments, highlight weaknesses, and gather information that can be used to your advantage in later speeches.

Cross-examination :how to spy on your opponents to reveal information and secrets, they don't want you to know.

Here are some tips for conducting effective cross-examination:

1. Pay close attention to your opponent's responses during their speeches to identify areas to probe further.
2. Enter cross-examination with specific goals in mind. Whether it's exposing weaknesses in their argument or eliciting concessions, clarity in your objectives is key.
3. Formulate questions that are direct and easy to understand. Avoid complex or convoluted queries that may confuse your opponent or the judge.
4. Use questions to guide the narrative in a direction favorable to your case. Steer the conversation toward your key points and away from your opponent's strengths.
5. Craft questions that may lead your opponent to concede certain points or admit weaknesses in their arguments. These concessions can be powerful tools in your subsequent speeches.
6. Instead of giving your opponent room to elaborate, frame questions that require concise responses. This helps maintain control of the cross-examination.
7. Maintain a professional and respectful tone throughout the cross-examination. Avoid personal attacks and focus on the arguments rather than the person.
8. Take note of responses during cross-examination that you can use to your advantage in your subsequent speeches. Effective cross-examination should contribute to your overall strategy.
9. Be ready to adapt your questioning based on your opponent's responses. If they reveal unexpected weaknesses, capitalize on them.
10. Practice cross-examination techniques and review successful cross-examinations from experienced debaters. Learn from both effective and less effective examples.

Strategic Relevance: Focus on arguments that have clear strategic importance in the debate. Avoid going off-topic or introducing irrelevant points.

Clarity Over Speed: Prioritize clarity over speed. It's essential that arguments are comprehensible, and spreading too quickly can hinder this. Make sure your arguments make sense and are well-articulated.

Quality Over Quantity: Rather than flooding the debate with numerous arguments, aim for depth and quality in your analysis. Well-developed arguments often carry more weight than a large number of shallow ones.

Speaker Points: While you may not consistently receive super high speaker points, aim to make substantive contributions to the debate. Engage in meaningful clash and provide clear reasoning for your positions.

Evidence Use: Utilize evidence effectively during the debate. Reading cards is acceptable, but it's not always necessary to read them after the debate unless there's a disagreement. Use evidence when it enhances your argument's credibility.

Re-Highlighting: Consider re-highlighting when it adds value to your argumentation. Be discerning about when to use this strategy.

By adhering to these principles, you can contribute to a more focused, comprehensible, and analytically rich debate experience."

"As a judge, here are some key qualities and advice I value:

Active Listening: I genuinely listen to your arguments and appreciate when debaters engage in thoughtful discourse.

Objective Evaluation: My judgments are based on the merits of the arguments presented, not personal bias or preference.

Strive for Excellence: Push yourself to perform at your best, but also remember to enjoy the experience of debating.

Inquisitive Mindset: Don't hesitate to read and ask questions. A curious approach can lead to deeper understanding and more compelling arguments.

Open-Mindedness: Be open to all perspectives, but apply critical thinking and discernment to evaluate them effectively.

Defend Your Positions: Be ready to defend your ideological commitments with well-reasoned arguments and evidence.

Confidence: Confidence in your arguments and delivery can make a significant difference in the outcome of debates.

By embodying these qualities and following this advice, you can enhance your performance and contribute to a more rewarding debate experience."

I want to underscore the importance of impact weighing in my role as a judge. It holds a significant place in how I evaluate the entire debate, shaping my perspective on the arguments presented and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Impact weighing is the tool by which I assess which arguments carry the most weight and significance in the debate. It acts as a framework through which I analyze both offense and defense. Effective impact weighing can bolster your position and provide a clear path to victory in the debate.

I encourage all participants to give due attention to impact weighing during their speeches. Explain why your impacts are more critical than those of your opponent and show how they outweigh or mitigate the opposing arguments. Skillful and persuasive impact weighing can greatly influence my decision and enhance the overall quality of the debate.

Remember, practice and feedback are key to improvement. Regularly engage in practice debates, seek constructive feedback, and refine your skills over time. Good luck!

Thank you for your dedication to delivering high-quality debates.

Best regards,

Mohammed Habib.

Hello debaters! I'm Magda Hall, and I'm one of the parent judges. This is my first time judging a parliamentary debate competition, so I'm here to learn alongside you.

This is my first time judging. Please speak super slowly. If you think you are going slow, go 5 times slower. Also please keep your own time. I'm super excited to be your judge! Good luck!

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

I am a parent judge.

Hello there!

My name is Idris Ibrahim, and my judging career which spans for over four years has seen me muster up a significant amount of experience in a wide range of debate formats/styles such as; the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, and Speech Events.

Judging Pattern:

I always approach any debate I'm about to judge as a globally informed citizen, whilst making sure I toss any conceivable personal biases I may have about a topic aside. This means that to convince me in a debate room you must make sure your arguments are credibly realistic and persuasive within the scope of the debate. A couple of things to bear in mind about my judging pattern -

• State your contentions/arguments clearly and back them up with enough analysis to prove your case.

• Make sure you're creating a fair means of engagement towards your opposition. This means that I do not expect you to just present your contentions in a vacuum and expect them to win - I also expect that you challenge the contentions of the opposition and create comparatives to show why your contentions are superior.

• Ensure you highlight your arguments in a well-organized structure - I do not expect that in the middle of contention A, you then transition to contention B abruptly. Take your time to fully explain your contentions while also being time-conscious.

• Role fulfilment is also important. So make sure you fulfil your roles perfectly.

• For Speech Events - I appreciate absolute creativity during your presentation. I expect that you use all that is within your means to execute whichever role you're taking on in whatever speech event I am judging you in. I take notes of your eye contact, body language, energy, and expressions while speaking.

Side Notes:

• I have a slight preference for medium-paced speeches. This does not however mean that if you're naturally a pacy speaker, you're automatically disadvantaged when I'm judging you. I would give your speech equal attention and assessment on a meritocratic basis regardless of how fast you speak, but if you can, just take deep breaths as you present your speech rather than zapping through.

• I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.

Whenever you come across me in a debate room, I can guarantee you quality judging and the most accurate feedback (either written or orally) , I also hope that in my little way, I contribute towards the growth of your speaking journey.

I've been judging tournaments since 2017 - mostly debate (LD/PF/Parli) but some speech events as well.

Things I like in debate:

- Debating on the resolution

- Running traditional framework and making it clear with clash and weighing mechanisms

- Good, explicit speech structure and signposting

- Strong clash

Things I do not like in debate:

- Spreading

- Kritiks

- T-shells / theory

- Falsified evidence

Things I am probably OK with in debate:

- CPs and basic LARPing, where permitted by tournament rules

Things I am probably not OK with in debate:

- Highly implausible impacts

Please include me in email chains; if I don't hear it, I won't flow it.

Ask me for my email address at start of round.

timothy.jin@berkeley.edu

he/him/his

i used to debate in HS so I'm comfortable with most arguments; circuit and lay

parli:

please do not use net benefit as a fw unless you plan to explain what the fw is in depth

Experience: Two years of policy in high school, in fourth year of APDA/BP in college at UChicago.

Theory: It's annoying, I will vote on it if necessary but will be looking for other places to vote, so be convincing if you do run it.

I am tech > truth, but please still substantiate and warrant your arguments, if they are not warranted then it will reflect in speaks and decision and will impact how the round is weighed. Dropped arguments are absolutely conceded, but make them good arguments to begin with. Crazy arguments are fine if you give warrants (e.g. you must convince me that the U.S. has one billion nukes, instead of simply asserting it). I will not vote on good arguments for which warrants were not given if I can help it.

Evidence: I am of the mind that evidence should support your arguments, they should not be your arguments. That is, you can say "X will happen because Y source says Z occurs, and Z causes X." This is a fully fleshed out argument, and then you can weigh X against other impacts. Obviously the way your arguments and evidence is constructed will probably vary a lot, and that's fine. Being convincing is the most important part so this is not a hard and fast rule.

Framework: Give one if you want, otherwise I just use cost-benefit analysis. Conceded frameworks are taken as true and I will use them to vote on the round; if you're giving a counter framework then you must prove why yours is better.

Generally: My average speaks is a 28. Collapse strategically and on what you win on; my ballot is decided by what are in the final speeches. If you talk about something in those speeches, I take that as a sign that you want me to vote on that issue. Some speed is ok if you're clear, if I can't hear then the things I didn't hear just won't be on my flow. Do not spread. I prefer live docs with speech docs/evidence pasted before each speech, including rebuttals and summary. On crossfire, I am not flowing but I am listening, and if you want to use a crossfire response in your speech then by all means please do.

Don't just say the name of a card. Have a very brief summary of what the card says because that is how I remember it.

And weigh, weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

Be nice and respectful, use the proper pronouns, give content warnings where needed. Just be a decent person please; not being a decent person will be reflected in speaks and/or in decision. And of course, have fun :)

Email: samuel.johnson.fop@gmail.com

Bio: I am a graduate of and debated 4 yrs of NPDA for Point Loma Nazarene University and served as Assistant Director of Debate at Grand Canyon University. I currently serve as Head Coach at iLearn Academy and still judge around the NPDA circuit.

Updated LD Philosophy: I enjoy and can keep up with spreading. But this quick whisper-mumbling stuff is nonsense. If you think a. that's really spreading b. what you're saying is intelligible, you're kidding yourself. You can go fast but you gotta up the clarity. Forcing me to read all of your cards instead of listening to the speech to understand is asking me to do way too much work and I must infer any analysis being given. It also makes it significantly harder for me to understand the nuances of how the arguments interact and I would prefer not to miss something important.

TL;DR: I strongly believe that I don't have any strong beliefs when it comes to debate rounds, I ran all types of arguments and faced all types of arguments. I see every round as an individual game and don't try to leverage my preferences into my decisions. Go for what you will. I won't complain.

Speed: Speed is usually fine depending on your clarity. I have more comments about it in the LD section. Online, depending on how fast you are maybe 80% is better in case you want me to get everything.

Theory/Framework: These are fine. I include this to say, that I don't mind your squirrely or K aff, but I'm more than willing to listen to the other side and you should be prepared to respond to framework or theory.

K's: K's are great. K's have a place in debate. I enjoy K's because I believe I can learn from them. The only issue is I am not great at being strong on critical literature bases. I believe that people who resent that type of debate altogether are stuck in an ultimately noneducational way of thinking. That being said, I'm not afraid to vote on "this doesn't make any sense". Just because it's a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible.

I will say if I had to choose between the 2 I'd rather have a straight-up policy round.

CP: Just do it right if you're gonna do it? idk the goal is not to get permed right?

Condo: I don't see condo as an issue. I won't forbid myself from voting for condo bad if it's argued for well enough or the strategy really is being that abusive. Some people have ideologies, but I think that's more of a meme at this point.

I am not a big fan of RVI's at all. I will only look to vote for one if it was unresponded to or within a unique context. But my least favorite and seemingly most common is spending X amount of minutes on a frivolous T, then saying you deserve the win for wasting your own time. If it is truly frivolous then either they won't go for it or they'll lose on it if they do. I will not reward it and I find it surprising at the number of judges who don't think twice about it.

Speaker points: I'm not a fan of speaker points so I plan on being a bit of a point fairy

General Expectations of Me (Considerations for Your Attention)

I typically operate at a "flay" level on average and "flow" level on good days. Here are things you shouldn't expect from me:

1. Assumptions About My Knowledge: Always explain things fully as I may not be familiar with what you know.

2. Post-round Feedback: You're welcome to post-round me, and I'm open to feedback, but it won't necessarily change my decision. All influencing factors must occur during the debate.

3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions:I'll disclose in elimination rounds unless instructed otherwise. In prelims, disclosure is not expected unless explicitly stated.

4. Clarity Over Speed: I flow on paper, so speaking too quickly may cause me to miss points. Remember, defense isn't sticky in PF; coverage and clarity matter.

5. Debate Philosophy: I prioritize technical arguments over truth by a narrow margin. I aim to identify the debate's winner based on the participants' performance.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Speaker Points:

- I judge on the standard tabroom scale. Clarity, fluidity, confidence, and decorum are crucial.

- Avoid yelling at opponents during cross and maintain proper decorum throughout the round.

Structure/Organization:

- Signposting is essential for clarity and coherence. Lack of signposting can lead to confusion.

Framework (FW):

- In PF, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless specified otherwise. In LD, a clear Value and Value Criterion are necessary.

Regarding the Decision (RFD):

- I judge tabula rasa, relying only on what I hear in the round. Dropped points and extensions are crucial but must be clearly articulated.

SPEED:

- I'm a paper flow judge and don't flow on a computer. Avoid spreading or speed reading; clarity in communication is vital.

---

Should other considerations arise, I'll update this list accordingly

I am a new parent judge.

Please signpost and speak clearly. Speaking reasonably fast is ok as long as I can understand and follow along; otherwise, I cannot fairly judge.

Avoid too much jargon. Preference for Case Debate (prefer if you avoid Kritik and non-friv theory).

I'm a first-time lay judge. Please do not run K's or Theory

Hello,

My name is Jaewon.

I am a parent volunteer with one year of experience judging mostly for PF and Parliamentary Debate.

I like:

- A moderate pace, not too fast or too slow.

- Solid and clear reasoning to support your argument, based on concrete evidence and simple examples.

- Delivering your argument forcibly and convincingly, showing your pathos.

I don't like:

- Reading your lengthy writing on a laptop screen with a monotonous tone. Effectively communicating means speaking passionately and persuasively to audiences.

- Ranting and yelling during CX or rebuttal.

- Beating around the bush. Get to the point of the argument and attack it.

Good luck to everyone!

Hello! I'm a parent judge with about a year of judging experience (primarily congress). Please do not spread, speak clearly and enunciate well. Be courteous and civil with your opponents. Thanks!

I'm a lay judge, requesting respectful debate and valuing quality over quantity. Appreciate a slower pace, please.

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.

IF YOU EVER HAD ANY INTEREST IN READING A MUCH MUCH SHORTER VERSION OF THE AMAZING SOPHIE RUKIN'S EGREGIOUSLY LONG PARADIGM...HERE YOU GO!!!

IF YOU GET ONE THING FROM READING MY PARADIGM:

Debate is supposed to be a fun environment to grow and learn. I am not ok with anyone taking away from that with offensive language or mannerisms (no racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc args), and it will not be tolerated. I am genuinely so happy this is how you chose to spend your free time and I am so happy to be your judge; do not choose to make it a negative experience for yourself or anyone else around you. If you ever feel uncomfortable in a round, do not hesitate to reach out. I am here to talk no matter what, whether that be before, during, or after a round. Debate is not that serious and your well-being is much more important to me :)

TL;DR:

I’ll judge any debate you want to have. Signpost, collapse, and weigh. Adequately engage with the best version of your opponents' case. Call the POO. Be comparative — tell me the counterfactual. Don't make me vote on blips. Be honest, be nice, and have fun.

A quick note on debate anxiety:

I really understand that debate is stressful. Trust me, whatever worries you feel, I have felt them too. But I promise you are going to do great, and you are probably your own worst enemy. Remember, anyone can beat anyone!!!!

Background:

I am an undergrad at UChicago who graduated from the Horace Mann School (HM) in 2023. At HM I did Parli for four years. I use he/him pronouns. I’m a flow judge, but if you’re from the west coast you would probably consider me more of a lay judge.

Some Preferences:

Speed: I’m ok with speed, though my keyboard is kinda broken so don’t go too fast. I’ve never seen an East Coast round that is too fast for me to flow.

Signposting: If it is possible to signpost, signpost it.

Warrants: Just do it. If you make an overarching claim, I am very responsive to rebuttals saying something is underwarranted, and if pointed out, I will buy your claim less.

Impacts: Do it and terminalize them. Please always tie them back to the motion — it makes my job as a judge 10 times easier. You should make sure to talk about impacts in all 4 constructives and bring up new ones in members.

Weighing: This is the first place I look when casting my ballot. If you weigh and your opponents don’t, I will probably vote for you. Bad weighing>no weighing. If you are a novice, no worries, just try your best (some helpful things to think about might be probability, timeframe, severity)! You can’t just tell me why your arguments are important; you have to tell me why they are more important than your opponents’. Eg why is your argument more probable than theirs? Weigh in members if possible pretty please. Also, metaweigh if you can. You can set up your weighing as early as PMC; you should do it because it puts my brain in the direction you want the round to go. Eg if in PMC you tell me climate change is the most important impact and will outweigh all future content, I’ll already be thinking about that when I hear LOC.

For opposition speakers: If you bring up a whole new case in MO or do not do any rebuttals in LOC (find the right balance), I will allow PMR to pretty much respond in any way they like to your points. Use your time wisely; don’t be exclusive.

Extending: I think if you want me to vote on something it should probably be in PMR or LOR. I will count shadow extensions from LOC or PMC but I don't love it and 99% of the time you are undervaluing the work your partner did in their member (I promise they had content you can extend). That reminds me! First speakers should be nice to their member partners. Their ideas are just as valid and important; please don't ignore them in your collapse (love you emily and eesha <3).

Casing: I love creative cases so so much. If you are creative your speaks will skyrocket. Challenge the premises your opponents' cases lie upon. Be charitable, but not too charitable. Preempt in your first speeches if you can.

Roadmaps: I don’t need them but I don’t mind them either; whatever floats your boat

Rebuttals: Be intuitive; Try to take your opponents’ offense with turns. New content in members is fun :)

Definitions: I hate abusive definitions. DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT run abusive definitions. Be fair. If a fair debate can happen with your definitions, then be creative and go wild. If I consider your definitions to be unfair, I have a VERY low threshold for abusive calls. Your opponents don’t have to cite one of the ways a definition can be abusive. I don’t care that you have read the rule book, want a cookie? Don’t be exclusionary.

Debate, IE & Related Experience – Policy debate and extemp in high school. Policy debate during first two years of college, and then IE (extemp, impromptu, persuasive, informative) during last two years of college. Taught public speaking classes to undergraduates while attending law school. Civil litigation attorney having done numerous depositions and trials as well as many pre-trial, trial and appellate arguments.

Judging Experience – In the last several years, I have judged at numerous debate (mostly parliamentary) and IE tournaments throughout the country. I judged at a few IE tournaments prior to then.

Behavior – Competitors should treat each other fairly and with courtesy and respect at all times.

Speed – While I do have experience participating in and flowing “spread” debate, my preference is for -- at most -- a relatively quick but still conversational pace. Anything faster seriously risks detracting from persuasion and comprehension.

Arguments -- One strong and well-developed argument may outweigh multiple other arguments = generally favor quality over quantity. Using metaphors and other imagery (and even sometimes a bit of well-placed humor) may strengthen your arguments. Effective weighing in the rebuttal speeches may often affect the decision.

Roadmaps And Signposting – Pre-speech roadmaps tend to be heavy on jargon and of limited use. In-speech signposting, however, can significantly facilitate the effective presentation and transition of arguments.

Points Of Information – While I value the potential impact that POIs may have, I do not have any minimum number of POIs which need to be asked or answered. I would prefer though that at least the first 1-2 reasonable POIs -- if asked -- be responded to briefly at or relatively near to the time of asking, as opposed to refusing to take any POIs or vaguely promising to respond later “if there is time.”

Points Of Order – A POO is necessary if you want me to consider whether a new argument has been made in a rebuttal speech. After the POO pro/con argument has occurred, please plan to continue the rebuttal speech since it is unlikely that I would rule on the POO before the end of the speech.

Parent Judge

I am a parent judge who has recently started judging parliamentary debate. My preferences lean towards strong refutations and the ability of each side to substantiate their points. I appreciate a clear and fluent presentation style that avoids confusion. With nearly 17+ years of experience in the software engineering field, I am familiar with effective communication methods that resonate well with people.

Be respectful. Be clear. It's about quality and strength of argumentation not about speed and volume of arguments made.

I am a parent judge.

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 don’t like spreading so talk at a decent pace. You can be a bit aggressive but you will lose points for being rude. Frequent interruptions are not taken favorably.

I am novice volunteer judge and I am a new-bee judging in speech and debate competition, so please be slow while speaking.

Also, please follow the pattern and come up with a structure in your speech and provide evidence for the arguments that your were making whether you are talking on the pro or on the con side.

Try to go in-depth on the points that you are choosing and emphasize on how it relates to the topic that you are speaking for.

Good Luck

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to zmoss@bishopodowd.org

Short Paradigm:

tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice

It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method and offense against their weighing method.

I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.

Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."

Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.

I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.

Long Paradigm:

I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.

Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.

Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.

Topicality

To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.

Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).

flae judge
ask for prefs before round

Maddie, she/her

2016-2020: Fairview High School, mainly PF but some LD/Policy/Extemp/OO/Duo

2020-2021: Fairview High School, PF coaching

2021-current: Yale, Parli

2021-current: Palo Alto High School, Exemp and Parli coaching

General Debate Stuff:

• Truth > tech unless you give me a strong reason otherwise

Please DO

• warrant, i love a good warrant
• be kind and respectful; make sure everyone can access debate
• collapse - you’re never winning everything
• weigh!!

Please DO NOT

• run progressive stuff against novs without explaining it - in every event except policy, I will not vote for progressive arguments (theory/kritiks) that are run on novices who clearly don’t know what you’re talking about UNLESS you distill it down to an understandable level. I understand the value of progressive debate, but I’m not a fan of exclusionary practices.
• misrepresent/powertag/lie about evidence - I will disregard the argument entirely if I feel that you’re not being honest about your evidence.

PF:

• Prefer traditional PF, will judge progressive
• I don’t flow cross; if something important happens, bring it up in a speech.
• I try to not intervene on arguments, but this does not extend to claims that would be obviously false to anyone (i.e. China does not exist).

Parli:

• I love a good topical gov and a straight opp, but if you run CPs/Theory/Ks, I will judge them. Please impact well and explain the roll of the ballot!

LD:

• I often think value/criterion debate is not super important to the round, particularly when you’re winning under both. Don’t spend tons of time on V/VC clash if it’s not relevant.
• Even though it’s ethics/phil debate, you still need clearly explained impacts.

Policy:

• My email is maddie.nagle@yale.edu. Please add me to an email chain, but I will not pull up the doc to follow in round.
• To be honest, I probably can’t keep up with full spreading unless you’re extremely clear. You probably don’t want me judging your round if you talk fast and quiet/unclear :)
• I don't tend to find nuclear war impacts with tenuous link chains particularly compelling (read above: truth > tech)

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.

Not my first time judging, however still quite new. I encourage coherency over speed.

Active debater, public speaker and judge(2019–present)

He/Him pronouns

Always add me to your email chain olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

I love PF so much and judge it more often.

FLOWING

I view myself as a flow judge, but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial. If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel. A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for analyzing and weighing the round during the Final Focus.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs is very crucial to me, while debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

SPEECH AND PACE

• I can’t follow everything in PF if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and myself comprehends you. Your efficiency and eloquence in subsequent speeches will shape your scores.
• Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
• Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
• I'm not particularly fond of theory becoming a standard in PF, especially disclosure theory. If there's a significant violation and theory is the only recourse, I might accept it, but expect reduced scores. Ideally, address the issue in a manner more aligned with traditional PF standards.

BREAKDOWN OF SPEAKER POINTS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

DECLAMATION

I’ve just judged a round of this and I’m so much in love with it. Be authentic with your topic, appeal to your audience’s emotions, be eloquent, use a good lighting so I can properly judge your gestures and body movements, have a good cutting, introduction and conclusion and you’ll be good to go. I’ll most likely give you a 100 if you prove yourself worthy of it.

I as well judge other formats like Lincoln Douglas, speeches, World schools and parliamentary debates. Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

Hello, my name is Owolabi Victor Oluwatobi. I am a debater, public speaker and seasoned coach.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, these includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary debate and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I prioritize when speakers attack only the arguments and not attack fellow speakers, I also take equity issues as important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely.

Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles or speakers that speaks at average pace or gives me a heads-up before speaking extremely fast.

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.

In debate, I value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do.

Also effective use of fiats, counter prop and other important techniques.

I also appreciate when summary speeches prove why speakers win, by emphasizing on the arguments, justifications and logical implications, no new arguments should be brought up.

I also encourage speakers to keep track of time because arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

For online tournaments, speakers are encouraged to turn on their cameras except in extreme situations which they should take excuse for.

As much as possible, I always try to be open minded, take all relevant notes, have clear decisions and helpful feedbacks.

Let’s have a great time!

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

Here are my paradigms:

• Avoid overuse of the word 'like'. This has become a bad habit of a lot of people, especially teenagers (and unfortunately mine too).
• Do not talk fast. Talk at a reasonable speed. I believe that a big part of being a successful debater is being efficient. Work to get your points across while talking at a reasonable speed.
• Look up the definition of the word 'literally'. If you misuse it, you will likely lose (one of my pet peeves :-)).

I am a community member and prefer organization. Please speak slowly and do internal sign posting. Do not spread.

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, and this is my first time judging. The main points are that you should be very clear with your arguments, and avoid using tech - treat me as a lay judge. Best of luck to all debaters!

Hi, I am a parent judge who is new to judging debate rounds.

Things I look for:

• Logical explaining of arguments
• Good impacts
• Talking at a reasonable pace

Directing me with prompts like "you should write this down" are also going to be very useful for your side.

Bonus points for being respectful and having a positive attitude.

Hi, I am a first time judge. I will be flowing on my computer, no spreading. I have no tech experience.

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.

I am a first time lay judge. Speak at a moderate pace, signpost, and weigh your impacts and I will vote for the side with the most impact.

New to Judging, appreciate normal pace, meaningful elaborations, quality over quantity and RESPECTFUL debating.

I am a relatively new parent judge who has judged few other debate events before this - I want to establish some guidelines and expectations for debaters in this round. My goal is to ensure a fair, organized, and respectful debate experience for all participants

1. I prefer when debaters provide a clear and well-defined roadmap for their arguments at the beginning of their speeches. A roadmap helps me follow your arguments and analysis more easily, enhancing the clarity of your presentation

2. I strongly discourage the fabrication of events, statistics, or evidence. It is essential that debaters base their arguments on reliable and credible sources.

3. Please be mindful of the time limit set

4. Tag teaming is allowed but please repeat clearly what your partner says

5. Please note that I do not prefer theory and Kritiks in debates.

6. I do not tolerate racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or other hateful arguments

Please signpost and speak clearly. Don't be mean, don't lie or misconstrue your evidence. I judge heavily on impacts, weighing mechanisms and time frame, probability etc...

Hello!

I am a college judge and I have debated PF in high school. I've also done Duo Interp and doing British Parliamentary now. I like to see a lot of engagement and lots of clash. Please be respectful of your opponents.

Case: I vote on case, not much theory.

I like to see signposting foremostly and I also like to see clear arguments with warranting, a link chain, and impacts. Constructive speakers need to be clear in each argument and back up each step of the link chain with empirics. Address everything that is relevant. Please do not spread and PLEASE WEIGH. I also don't really like definition debates.

Rebuttals:

Try to cover each argument and respond. Make sure to rebuild your own case as well. Weigh comparatively and using weighing mechanisms.

CX (PF):

Be respectful and ask content based questions. Do not talk over each other and make sure you don't take all the time for yourself.

Have fun!

Hi everyone! This is my first time judging but I have watched quite a few rounds so I am somewhat familiar with the format. Please make sure to speak super slowly. I will make sure to flow and take good notes. Please try to keep your own time and let me know if you have any questions before the round. I am so impressed by all of you and super excited to judge!

I'm a lay judge who has been judging for a few years now. I flow the entire round and will vote almost exclusively on the flow. I value quality over quantity ie I would prefer fewer well-warranted arguments over more poorly-warranted arguments.

Signposting is super important to me. If I can't follow where you are on the flow I will flow your argument in the wrong place and maybe evaluate your arguments wrong; I promise you don't want that.

I am generally not a fan of anecdotal evidence and prefer logic and warranting over personal experience or examples. Please don't try to pull at my heartstrings (they don't exist :)).

I slightly lean tech>truth but if you don't know something please don't make it up. If I know you are blatantly lying I will probably not vote for you.

I can handle speed but if you're gasping for air then you're going way too fast. No theory or Ks. I have zero experience with them and will probably not evaluate them correctly.

I'm so impressed by your dedication to this activity and I'm looking forward to judging!

I am a parent judge with little to no experience in judging. I would prefer a normal/slow talking pace and clear structured arguments.

I'm a former university debater and currently a post-grad student-judge with 7 years of experience in judging various debate formats. I have graduated high school last 2015. I have judged parliamentary debates (British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, and Parliamentary Debate) since uni, having judged 20+ parliamentary debate out rounds. I have extensive experience in judging other debate formats such as Worlds Schools, Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, IPDA, NPDA, and Congress. I also have extensive experience in judging speech formats as well such as Impromptu, After-Dinner Speaking, Poetry, Extemporaneous, Informative Speech, and Persuasive Speech. For more information, you may email me at mishaalcsaid@gmail.com

I'm okay with spreading.

Theory: I'm open to theory arguments being ran as long as they are tied back to how it is relevant to the resolution and impacts are provided

Kritiks: Openly welcomed given that they are linked to the resolution and impacts are provided

Speed: I can track speeches regardless of pace and speed.

Complexity of arguments: I'm open to arguments of varying complexity.

Arguments and rebuttals of varying breadth and depth are generally welcomed as long as they are tied to the resolution.

Public Forum

Speed: Okay with varying pace and speed

Preference of arguments: None specific, as long as they are explained well and their impacts are proven

K's and theory arguments: Open so long as their impacts are proven

Tech > truth: I will evaluate the argument/s provided that the logic and impacts are proven and the opponents' arguments are engaged and rebutted

Evidence: Direct quotations on trustworthy sources and statistics are highly welcomed especially when they are linked to proving the extent of the harms and benefits of your case or your opponents'

CX, Crossfire, Grand crossfire: Questions that cast a shadow of doubt to the opponents' case are welcome. Be creative and sneaky.

Summary and FF: Should be consistent and evolve with the progression of arguments and rebuttals raised during the debate. Evaluation of questions and responses during CX and crossfire should be integrated as well, if necessary.

Hi, I am a parent (aunt) judge, judging for the first time here. Years back i had done this in India and looking forward to assess these debates. I am an ex-airhostess, majored in Indian Classics and Dance Dramas. Currently working as a dance teacher and choreographer.

What I look for in debaters: 1. Speak with Certainty and Clarity.

2. Use of Captivating facts/arguments.

Hello debaters,

My name is Leena (she/her) and I am a "lay" or parent judge who knows the basic format of parliamentary debate. I will do my best to pick the team that argues most efficiently and effortlessly in the round.

A couple of personal preferences for the debaters:

- I would appreciate if when speaking, not to speak super fast so a regular person couldn't understand what was being said. I am unfamiliar with most debate jargon and would prefer it if someone explained terms and definitions to me in a simple way.

- I am a fan of persuasive speaking. If you can break down a complex argument in basic understanding, it will be a lot easier to work on.

- As for theory, I am not experienced when it comes to matters of debating about the debate itself. If you happen to want to run theory, prepare to explain it in great detail, as there is a risk of my misunderstanding.

- Please be respectful during the debate. Don't be mean or disrespectful in language/behavior throughout the round, or it may result in lower speaker points.

Above all, a debate is a friendly competition. Remember to have fun!

I am a new parent judge. I prefer lay appeal and sign posting. Please explain any complicated terms and I do not prefer theories and K's.
Speak clearly and at a moderate pace.

Remember debate is a learning experience so please be respectful and have fun.

Hello!

I am a parent Judge.

I have been judging parliamentary debate since December 2023.

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.

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I think I’m more likely to vote for anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read a bunch or are super contradictory.

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

In my debate space, it's crucial to value fair and thorough engagements, involving logical concessions and fair comparisons. Respect is paramount – steer clear of rudeness and discriminatory language. Avoid excessive speed in presenting arguments, speak clearly for effective communication. Remember to justify claims and be mindful of your debate burdens.

Ensure you incorporate a clear roadmap and strategically place signposts throughout your speeches. Effective organization is crucial, particularly for my ability to assess efficiently.

In my judging philosophy:

- Cross-Examination (CX): I don't flow CX. Use it for clarification and identifying clash. If something arises, bring it up in your or your team’s next speech.

- Progressive DebateWhile not an expert, I've picked up some progressive tech over time. On Ks, if well-structured and clear why it's prioritized over the case, I'm open. If not, I'll judge on the case. Avoid CPs in PF and minimize in LD. Theory is beyond my judging capacity; don't run it.

RFD in Public Forum: I vote based on well-defined, linked impacts. All must be extended across the flow. If your Summary drops an impact, I won't consider it in Final Focus. Framework and weighing can influence impact importance, but I don’t vote off Framework.

- RFD in Lincoln-Douglas**: Framework is crucial for impact weighting. I evaluate how each side fulfills the FW and its impacts, similar to PF but with more emphasis on competing FWs.

- Speed: I'm a paper flow judge. Speaking too quickly increases the chance of missing points. No spreading; it's disrespectful and lacks value in communication.

Engaging in acts that go against equity, such as homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc., are NOT condoned and may lead to a deduction in speaker scores. Please don't hesitate to reach out via email if you have any concerns or issues related to such behavior.

Email : royalrhetoricsrr@gmail.com

Best of luck!

John

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!

Hello!

I am Dominic Stanley-Marcus. I am a debater, a judge, a debate coach, and a classroom teacher. I have a bachelor degree in Educational Psychology from Rivers State University, Nigeria.

As a judge, I make it a mandatory objective to ensure a safe space for everyone to debate. This comes with establishing the rules of the house with clarity and candor and reporting any sort of violation of the set rules and regulations to the respective equity team. This isn't included in my metrics for assessing the winners because I also understand that my position as a judge is to be a non-interventionist average intelligent voter. I have been trained to be unbiased and objective as a judge, yet, being disciplined enough to call out wrongs at any time seen within a debate round.

The criteria for winning my ballot as a judge include but are not limited to the following: the persuasiveness of argument, style and delivery, clarity of purpose and logical engagement with the contending themes in the debate and confidence in both speech elements and burden of proof. On a basic level, I want debaters just show to me why their argument (s) is true and why I should care about whatever the arguments seek to achieve. Being an ordinary intelligent voter, I believe this metric is such that is fair for all, an advanced debater or a novice debater.

In terms of my personality traits and how they come into this paradigm. As a certified educational psychologist, one crucial personality of mine that can be exploited in a debate session is my listening skills. I am a very good listener. This also means that I pay close attention to speaker's speeches and not just judge accents, speech impediments or whatever could be their speech disabilities. This is an important quality for me as a judge because it makes me create room for everyone in a debate space such that speakers aren't marked down on my ballot because of problems beyond their capacity to control. By being a good listener, I ensure that fairness is upheld and metrics for winning a debate round ensure that individual differences are factored in.

Another quality I can boast of is being a mentor. I believe that part of my job as a judge is 'pointing people right'. By this, I ensure that my oral adjudication and feedbacks are as educating as necessary and possible. I thoroughly show the teams why they win or lose, yet, commend them on areas that they did great and where they also have to improve on. In the same vein, I show them why they should care since the debate is about growth and intellectual development. This makes debaters learn both in their victory and their defeats.

Lastly, I am open to challenges as a judge because that also presents an opportunity for me to grow and evolve. This is why flexibility remains my watchword to enable me to learn new things as quickly as possible and still deliver equally as expected.

Thank you.

Parent judge with a fair amount of experience.

Speak as slowly as you need to in order to make your arguments clear. Generally the time you save by speaking too fast is not worth it, especially if I can’t understand what you’re saying. The confidence that you show when you don’t rush is as valuable, if not more valuable, than the handful of additional points you might make speaking faster.

I find it very helpful when you give a roadmap in terms of your overall argument, and also when you make clear at the start of your speech how many points you intend to make to support your argument. If you remind me as you go through your speech which point you are speaking to, even better. Similarly, when you are responding to or rebutting your opponent’s speech, be clear as to which point you are addressing.

My practice is to include everything you say in my flow and I focus on tech and truth largely equally. You can lose a round if you don’t respond to an important point that the other team makes, even if I think their point is wrong (unless it’s wrong about a very basic and obvious fact), but I’m going to focus more on the totality of the arguments and which are most persuasive rather than an overly-strict view of what you do and don’t respond to.

I will give Gov some leeway to define the terms of the debate and to set the framework, but not if they do so in a way that makes a real discussion of the issue impossible because it is overly one-sided.

I think POIs can be useful in clarifying arguments, but I don’t like it when they are used in a way that is really intended to interrupt or distract an opponent. Don’t do that.

You need to devote substantial time to weighing in rebuttals, but you don’t need to wait until then. Weighing — which I view as you telling me why a particular point in your favor is more important than other points that may not be in your favor — can be done throughout the round.

I try to judge based on substance not delivery (other than the speed point above) but the words that you choose, not repeating yourself unnecessarily, and using humor where appropriate, can make your argument more persuasive.

No Ks.

Be nice always.

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

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

I am a lay judge with about a year of experience judging. I will flow and greatly appreciate signposting throughout. In the end, I will vote on the impacts of the arguments that flow through, so try to make it clear to me where something goes on the flow. Too much speed make will make it harder for me flow accurately, so use it only when necessary.

I favor logic over truth, so if you do not know a lot about a topic but apply logic to what you do know, I will work with that. Just make sure your logic and causality are strong. That said warranting is important and strong factual warranting is undeniably persuasive, so if you have examples use them. But don’t make things up and I prefer you don’t look things up. If I don’t think an example would be common knowledge to a well informed person, I’ll give it less weight and it will be a lower bar for your opponent to refute.

On definitions, Gov definitions control, but I strongly favor using common sense meaning and dictionary definitions, so please don’t try to drastically change the nature/scope of the debate. It won’t work to your favor! I will consider different / alternative frameworks so definitely address your opponents framework if different from the your own. I don’t have much experience with K for theory arguments so am unlikely to vote on these or to disqualify anyone.

Some details: Please introduce yourself! I’m fine if the intro and a very brief roadmap are off time, but it should be so quick that it doesn’t matter. Don’t over do POIs. Keep any POOs in the final speeches very brief.

Most importantly, respect your opponents and engage with them and their arguments with civility. I’m unlikely to vote for a side that shows disdain or belittles their opponent or their arguments. Point out the flaws but if your argument is better, show me why

Hi my name is Amrita Thomas, I’ve been judging parliamentary debate since the beginning of 2023. I am a parent judge so I’ll try my best. But I don’t know the bigger debate terms. So please explain to me in detail. Thank you.

Speed and signposting are crucial. Avoid card dumps and ensure clean docs. Distinguish between card reading and analysis. Ethics matter - no cheating or card clipping. No screaming, and repeated interrupting in CX is a voter.

Tech over truth. Read cards, but don't misconstrue evidence. I prefer speed but slow down on analytics not in the doc. Theory is great if well-done; collapse to theory in 2NR/2AR. Encourage disclosure; false disclosure is bad.

Disads: Prefer aff-specific links, overview on DA/Case collapse.

New in the 2: Not a fan unless justified. Counterplans: One condo CP/K is fine; more lowers threshold. Judge kick default, but can be persuaded otherwise. Won't vote solely on solvency.

Kritiks (Neg): Assume I'm unfamiliar; explain K and alt clearly. Well-versed in cap, militarism, security, and fem. Specific K links are more compelling. FW is essential.

Kritiks (Aff): Evolved on K affs; framework arguments important. Kritikal advantages are cool; explain what my ballot does.

Case: Love turns; vote if properly impacted and weighed. Quality evidentiary analysis rewarded.

Fun Speaks: Clever, appropriate humor gets higher speaker points. Rewriting this shows understanding and commitment to debate norms.

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.

Former Parli debater at Los Altos High.

Scroll down for event specific stuff. Parli is broken up into Case/Theory/K if you're curious about anything specific.

General Philosophy:

1. I will flow everything and am fine with speed. I do protect the flow but will flow after time until opponents call it out. You can ask me to refer to my flow or cross apply arguments.

2. I am fine with jargon in Parli and LD. Probably fine in PF as well but I may ask you to explain.

3. I will try to give as much feedback as possible at the end of the round/provide a detailed RFD and don't hesitate to ask questions.

Speaks:

1. I don't really care about speaks and won't take them super seriously. Unless I see an amazing performance I'll just give the winning team 29s and the losing team 28s.

2. Speak clearly, do not spread your opponent out of the round. I'm fine with speed but make sure your opponents are as well.

PARLI

Case:

I was mostly a flow case debater when I competed. I guess I'm "truth > tech", but I really just mean you have to properly explain and warrant out your arguments for me to buy them. I try not to intervene unless it's a very messy round, and I will vote for arguments I hated.

1. Collapse in your rebuttal speeches please. I prefer you to weigh impacts as well as it makes my job easier as a judge. Frame the round if you have time as well.

2. Have internal links please. I had seen a lot of people not have internal links even in open.

3. Tabula rasa. I won't bring previous opinions into the round to a degree. Obviously my previous political opinions won't influence a round, but I will accept obvious truisms (the sky is blue) as not doing so forces one side to have to do unnecessary warranting.

4. Net benefits is my default weighing mechanism for the round regardless of type (fact, value, policy, etc) if the affirmation does not specify a weighing mechanism.

5. I assume presumption flows neg unless someone tells me otherwise (which I am open to buying) , but I don't really want to vote on this.

Theory:

1. Theory is fine. Competing interps > reasonability. I definitely buy reasonability if you have a clear brightline and can argue for it.

2. I don't buy dress theory.

3. Put all interps in chat.

K:

I'm fine with K debate in general if you must, but I have read very little critical literature so just keep that in mind. I'm probably not familiar with your lit base. Don't spread your K's and take POIs.

CP:

1. Counterplans are fine.

LD

1. I "did" LD for six months about four or five years ago so am very very vaguely familiar with the format.

2. Read the Parli paradigm and cross apply anything that would apply here.

3. I don't expect you to have your case memorized.

4. I do understand jargon - don't define.

PF

Just gonna quote Aman Shah's paradigm here, but I AM open to theory/K/CP so knock yourself out:

- Crossfire: I will listen to Crossfire and it will count towards speaker points. Please do not demean your opponents in any way, shape, or form. Just answer questions concisely and to the point. Please also make sure that you give your opponent equal time during crossfire. Be kind and fair! Allowing others to have questions, respecting their time, etc. will exponentially help your speaks. Also, anything you say in cross that you want me to be flowing as part of the debate must be in your speeches.

- Weighing: Super important! Make sure to compare both worlds in summaries and spend time weighing in final focus as well. This is a main portion of how I will decide the round, so if you do not weigh, it will be an automatic win for the other team. Mention voter issues! Why should I give the ballot to you?

- Framework/Standard: For PF, I will automatically assume that its net benefits.

- Type "Jordan Poole is the greatest basketball player of all time" in chat at the start of the round so I know if you read this .

- Jargon: Please explain technical terms in your speeches to both me and your opponents, to a reasonable extent. I am a senior, have not prepped this topic, and am NOT knowledgeable on this topic, so please do define obscure jargon/names of programs in your speeches, otherwise the point will be lost on the flow and I will not extend it.

- Arguments: You can run basically anything as long as it is not offensive in any way (racist, sexist, etc.). Please warrant your evidence! Although it is technically okay to bring up new evidence/arguments in second summary, just don't. Debate etiquette exists and it's really crappy to bring up new arguments in second summary. It could affect your speaks in a negative way.

Hello, I am a parent judge who is new to judging debate rounds.

I look for the following in rounds:

-Logical explanation of arguments

-Good impacts

-Talking at an understandable and reasonable pace

Prompting me by saying "you should write this down" will greatly help your side.

More credit to you for having a positive attitude and being respectful.

After debating at the national level in high school, I broke at major tournaments debating for UC Berkeley. After law school I became a public defender specializing in death penalty trials, and then was appointed to the Superior Court, where I hear advocates every day. My professional orientation informs my debate judging with a real-world orientation. In 2014, I founded the New Roads School debate team and coached parli for six years. Two of my teams reached the NPDL top ten. Now, volunteer debate judging is my way to pay forward the gifts I received from debating, to which I attribute my successful legal career.

I prefer the most reasonable argument to the most extreme. As a ‘policy maker’ I weigh impacts and I am ‘Tabula Rasa’ in that I am an open-minded skeptic.

Tabula Rasa assumes a conventional understanding of the status quo which does not require warrants because these neutral assumptions appropriately narrow the scope of discussion. Any claims supporting or refuting a case must be supported by warrants whether on not the judge has knowledge. Each side has the burden of persuasion on claims they assert.

Use of debate theory in argumentation and employment of kritiks is theoretically sound and can be interesting but these devices may circumvent the resolution and tend to turn debates into sophistry. They also tend to be poorly warranted. I could vote for a kritik or meta-argument, but only if very well warranted. Theory addresses norms, not rules, so I am open-minded, but I also would consider abuse a reverse voting issue. I prefer reasonable case debate with impact calculus.

I don't mind speed but don’t forget to be persuasive, not to mention 'loud and clear.' When your words become inaudible they won’t make it to my flowsheet and the beauty of your argument will be sacrificed to the ugliness of its delivery.

Tag teaming doesn't bother me, but I only flow the speaker and try to ingore the teammate.

On my ballot, dropping is a concession, but not equivalent to proof if the original warrant was insufficient. Also, the weight remains arguable. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.

Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Sometimes this seems lost when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal explaining the significance of your argument and its result in evaluating the resolution. Debate is not just about being right, but about persuading people you are right. Though I vote exclusively on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge, even if they say “tech over truth.” For me, what is persuasive would tend to be a reasonable weighing of human impacts.

I’m looking for a debate that is educational, preparing advocates for the real world. Rapid delivery of complex argumentation and the logical gymnastics of theory do have some educational benefits, but so does development of the persuasive character of speech. The best debaters join these skills, using theory only to support their position and not for its own sake. Debate is not a ‘speech event’, because it is judged on the flow of argumentation, but without persuasive speaking, debate becomes an esoteric and inaccessible academic activity. Its greatest value to you is learning to advocate in the real world to make the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your debate and helping guide you toward your own goals as an advocate.

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!

Please speak slowly and clearly, everything you have to say is valuable. Always be polite. Carry yourself like a great competitor and a positive person!

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!

3rd year flay parent judge

both sides need to eat more fruit they look malnourished

paradigm lol https://docs.google.com/document/d/13yNM4bIspRBuLD2AH2PAhv5JZzOYJIPEd2rTdz59TwM/edit?usp=sharing

✨✨✨✨

tf why does only the sparkle emoji work