I am a parent judge. I judge off of the flow. No Spreading and don't use a lot of jargon. Weighing and framework is important for me. I will give higher speaker points for debaters that maintain professionalism and are calm and respectful.

Hello!

Please add me to email chain if needed: irene.academic2027@gmail.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a third year debater (2 semesters of Public Forum and current semester in policy) as well as fourth year speech (1 semester of impromptu, 3 semesters of DI, and 2 semesters of HI). I was nationally ranked in PF in middle school (MSTOC) as well as a TOC speech qualifier in 8th grade, and I debate with Quarry Lane/Christopher Thiele. My mom is a parent judge (Jingjing Pan).

Not much to say here - beyond general etiquette (which I WILL dock speaks if you are not being courteous and cannot read the room), just do the best you normally do, and I will judge based on your skill + clarity.

A few specifics:

- I'm tech > truth.

- For PF, please give me roadmap and overview/weighing as well as bring your point to me. If you have no idea what you're talking about/not educated about the topic, it's hard for me to see the "big picture" and even harder for me to give you the win in a round on a point or argument you won. I'm also not that familiar with the topic, which further means you should elaborate and be clear. Speaking fast is fine for me, spreading is NOT. Be sure you and your opponent reach consensus on speed, crossfire, email chains, etc.

- For Speech, be sure you are (or at least sound) excited about the point/story/idea you're delivering to me. A performance without soul would just be a lecture, which won't get you very far. Make your enunciation/movements clear if you choose to use gestures, and for blocking, I won't really consider it as a added bonus if you aren't making it REALLY clear what the action is (since I can have a hard time distinguishing). Remember to address your audience - a few interactions from time to time, if utilized right, can also be pleasant.

- For LD, Congress, Parli, etc. - Never done it before, but have a general sense of structure. Similar to everything I've said above, be clear and present your idea well, and the ballot will naturally fall.

Remember to have fun, play with forensics, and respect each other! :)

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.

Hey, I'm a pf debater for Quarry Lane.

tech>truth

If you're reading this, I'm probably your judge at a Quarry Lane invitational novice debate.

I'm generally ok with whatever, so instead of listing things I like, I will list things I don't like:

I don't like it when you introduce new evidence in final focus

I don't like it when you don't weigh

I don't like it when you drop your opponent's arguments

I don't like it when you prep with your mic on (for online debates)

I don't like when you don't extend your own arguments in summary and final focus

I don't like it when you are racist/homophobic/etc.

More advice:

Extend your arguments in both summary and final focus

Anyway, the point of debate is to learn- so you are going to be making mistakes and that's ok.

Good luck!

Hi my name is Charvi Saxena. I have two years of prior experience in the speech events of HI, OO, and impromptu. I mostly judge based on structure, and content, and based on the speech event -> accents, blocking, examples, data, etc. Please reach out to me at charpay1408@gmail.com if you have any questions.

PF:

Sub A) TOP OF THE CASE STUFF

If you cannot provide a counter definition, I will vote on your opponent's unless it is truly incredibly ridiculous. For definitions, if you both have a cited definition I will prefer the person that either a) has a more credible source or b) the team that provides the better logic as to why their definitions make more sense in the context of the round (I prefer option b and think spending extensive amounts of time on trying to throw out evidence is usually a waste). "True for the purpose of today's round" when opponents don't provide counters but simply say 'This isn't true' is something I like to hear. In that way I'm somewhat tech HOWEVER truth still does matter, you must have a warrant, and if an argument is completely ridiculous you won't win on it.

Sub B) Contentions

Same thing that goes for top of the case, have warrants and have logical arguments. Yes, PF is primarily an evidence debate but logic is still important. Please please please I beg of you to signpost. Contentions should be clear and have quality cards, cards also shouldn't be too repetitive, I prefer quantified impacts HOWEVER they are not the only kind of impact and trying to say your opponent has no impact on a certain point because it cannot be directly quantified doesn't always work. IF YOU MENTION SOMETHING IN FF IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP IN SUMMARY. I will not flow any impact that you mention in FF if it was not at least mentioned in summary. In FF please collapse points rather than going down the entire flow, that is what the summary speech is for and you don't have enough time for it in final focus. While you are collapsing you should do 2 things, 1) Weigh each point according to whatever weighing mechanism and compare your impacts vs your opponent's and 2) Present them as voter issues (EX: "Judge if you are voting on X, you have to vote on our side because of Y"). Overall, make sure you have impacts and have warrants for those impacts. Don't use excessive debate jargon, or if you absolutely must, please explain it. This is PF, the entire point is that it isn't highly technical like policy.

ON Ks and Ts:

IN PF I will pretty much never vote on Ks, I think that they're usually just an excuse to get out of arguing the res

Ts I will vote on if they're reasonable, probably don't run a full and actualized theory shell, but if your opponents are being abusive then go for it. I usually won't vote on disclosure theory however I will generally vote on spreading.

Speaking:

Don't Spread, please, PF is supposed to be a more traditional style debate, the fact that you can squeeze in 7 contentions but I can't flow it isn't impressive. If you spread, and your opponents call you out on it, and you continue to spread I will just stop flowing and give the ballots to your opponents. If I can't flow it, how am I supposed to weigh it?

LD:

I love LD, and I especially love a good logical and philosophical debate. Evidence is important but if you don't have logic to back it up, it really doesn't mean much. Also, in LD unlike PF, logic blocks are great and if you can find a hole in your opponent's logic you should absolutely mention that.

Top of the Case:

1 Value, 1 Value criterion, they should go together and your value should be topical, being able to defend your framework is the most important part of LD, and I value framework debates a lot. Conceding your framework is a risky move so I would avoid it, but it also isn't an automatic L. Just like in PF, Definitions are important. You should have them, you should also know how to logically defend them. In LD, if all you can say is, I have a card for my definition, but cannot give me a reason as to why it stands against your opponents, I will probably not prefer your definition.

Contentions:

Mostly refer to PF, don't be repetitive. I like a lot of analysis in LD, and you have the time to do it. I like if you can cross apply neg points when rebutting aff, especially in your neg constructive since they're fresh in my mind from your case. I won't make conncetions for you that you don't make yourself.

Ks and Ts

I'm more open to full theory shells in LD than in PF, but be careful

Ks are more valid here, still usually aren't well run. Be careful

Parli:

Never done it, but I have a fair grasp on how it works,

Top of Case

Obviously depends on res type. Defs are important in most resolutions, if nothing else, then to clarify for the judge. Framework can vary. For Fact resolutions, it should just be truth (no need for a VC). I like you to have both a Value and VC for most debates, I think it clarifies the round.

Contentions

Parli is a logic based debate, evidence is vital but especially moving into rebuttal logic is king. Make sure you properly weigh your points throughout your speech and connect them back to your framework. Be consistent.

Housekeeping in Parli

Parli is great because of its uniqueness, one of these aspects is the knocking on desks to indicate a good point and for reiteration. It's nice and it shows you understand what you're doing, however, please don't make it excessive. If you're knocking constantly and loudly I will doc speaker points because you're likely messing up the flow of the speech, especially if it's your opponents. Show passion, but don't yell, and stay respectful.

Policy

I love traditional policy and circuit to a certain extent. I am up to date on whatever the current policy topic for the given time may be.

General

You can afford to be a little aggressive, this does not mean you should be plain rude. If your opponent is clearly struggling and you use it as a way to lift yourself up by bullying them, your speaks will be as low as I'm allowed to make them and it will be VERY hard to win my ballot. I don't mind whatever way you format, but I'm generally a fan of doc sharing on both sides. I'm also not against analysis on top of your evidence if it helps me connect the dots in the same way many are.

Aff

Aff Ks can be fine but are often poorly run, please run them well as I think they're a really interesting and important part of Policy debate. I should be able to understand your inherency even if you don't signpost it (But I don't really get why circuit debators don't). Spreading is fine if I have your case but it's most certainly not enjoyed. If I don't have your case and you spread to the point I don't know what you're saying I literally cannot vote for you. Please have impacts in your inherency. Plans should be specific enough for the Neg to be able to counter them and if you choose only to specify your plan in your 2AC I'm going to be annoyed. I understand this isn't really against the rules, but it's kind of mean. Disclosure on the wiki is good, disclosure 30 minutes prior to the round in circuit is good, I will vote on disclosure theory in policy only. I don't really care about structure so long as everything is clearly explained although I'll admit I don't fully understand the idea of organizing with Advantages first and plan second, but you do you.

Neg

You're job is much harder than that of the Aff. If your CP is not mutually exclusive, don't even run it. This seems obvious but you'd be surprised. I am probably not going to vote for you if you run 10 off (keep it to like 3-4) and I think running more than 1-2 counterplans is slightly ridiculous. Ks are good, I like them, you should run them. T is important, run it well. Arguments on topicality require definitions to substantiate them weather those be the definitions of the Aff or new ones from the neg. Oh also I kind of hate condo and am probably going to vote aff on condo-bad so just like...strike me if that's going to be a problem.

TLDR for all Events

Follow the rules, stay kind, weigh impacts, and be clear. Make connections for me.