(He/Him)

I'm a senior at Phillipsburg High School.

I've competed primarily in the Public Forum since I was a freshman, and have competed at about half a dozen national circuit tournaments and NCFL Nationals.

I don't like email chains but if you make one, add me to it: @josephabragao@gmail.com

As for judging PF

• tech > truth and I'm fine with any speed.
• Weigh comparatively. My RFD should essentially be whatever the team that weighed better said.
• I feel like I'm pretty generous with speaks but if you're rude your speaks will reflect that.
• I’ll flow your theory but I believe we need to put the public back in Public Forum.
• Use offtime roadmaps AND signpost.
• Do a full 360 spin when reading turns.
• Worldstar from here applies.
• I just lied about all of this I am a lay judge.

I do appreciate very good idea generation, very comparative cases and responses.

It is very nice that students are also able to utilise good case strategy.

Dear Debating Community,

With over a decade of experience as a debater, judge, and coach, I'm excited to share insights aimed at improving the quality of debates and fostering analytical skills. My expertise spans various debate formats, including Parliamentary, World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC), Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), and policy debates.

Effective Debating Strategies:

Kritiks: Enhancing Persuasion

- Ensure kritiks align with the debate context.

- Clearly explain links, impacts, and alternatives.

- Connect the kritik to the broader debate narrative.

- Maintain clarity in delivery pace.

- Use real-world examples for accessibility.

- Anticipate and address counterarguments.

- Adhere to format rules.

- Engage in dialogue during cross-examination.

**Policy: Strategic Approaches**

- Conduct thorough research.

- Utilize evidence effectively.

- Organize arguments logically.

- Adapt strategies based on opponents' responses.

• Master cross-examination techniques.

Strategic Relevance: Stay Focused

- Prioritize arguments of strategic importance.

- Emphasize clarity over speed.

- Focus on quality over quantity.

- Aim for substantive contributions.

- Use evidence judiciously.

- Employ re-highlighting strategically.

Judge's Perspective: Valued Qualities

- Practice active listening.

- Evaluate arguments objectively.

- Strive for excellence while enjoying the process.

- Maintain an inquisitive mindset.

- Apply open-mindedness and critical thinking.

- Exhibit confidence in arguments and delivery.

Impact Weighing: Guiding Evaluation

- Explain why your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

- Master impact weighing for persuasive arguments.

In conclusion, regular practice, feedback-seeking, and a commitment to improvement are essential for success in debating. Best wishes in your debating endeavors!

Warm regards

Email: temini532@gmail.com

Conflicts: None

Greetings,

I'm Shashi, and qualified for judging various debate formats including the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, and Speech Events.

My Approach to Judging:

I approach each debate with a global perspective, setting aside any personal biases to ensure a fair evaluation. To sway me in a debate, your arguments must be both credible and persuasive within the context of the discussion. Here are some key aspects of my judging approach:

• Clearly articulate your arguments and support them with a thorough analysis.
• Foster fair engagement with your opponents by challenging their arguments and offering comparisons to demonstrate superiority.
• Organize your arguments in a coherent structure, avoiding abrupt transitions.
• Fulfill your role effectively within the debate.
• For Speech Events, demonstrate creativity and utilize all available resources to deliver your presentation effectively, including eye contact, body language, energy, and expression.

Additional Points:

• While I slightly prefer medium-paced speeches, I evaluate all speeches based on merit regardless of speed. However, taking deep breaths can enhance clarity and coherence.
• I value respectful and cooperative interactions among competitors and discourage rude, hostile, or intolerant behaviour.

When you encounter me as a judge, expect fair and thorough evaluation along with constructive feedback aimed at supporting your growth as a speaker.

I'm a student debater from Public Forum and will flow rounds. I don't have a problem with speed as long as it's not crazily over 200 WPM. Not very familiar with theory so if you run it, keep it basic. Be respectful and be brave with your decision-making in round.

- Speaking Style: Emphasizes clarity and flow in speeches. Encourages structured line-by-line, clear plan/counterplan texts, and highlighting important evidence.

- Argumentation: Values logical analytic arguments, even without cards. Prefers clear plan/counterplan texts.

- Disadvantages: Focuses on comparing risk between disadvantage and advantage chains. Advocates for traditional uniqueness and link claims over brink + link uniqueness. Supports agenda politics.

- Counterplans: Recommends avoiding consecutive permutation arguments. Open to process counterplans but believes conditionality benefits outweigh costs.

- Topicality vs. Policy Affirmatives: Inclusion of resolutional language doesn't guarantee topicality. Caselists are helpful for interpreting limits.

- Kritiks: Values strong alt debating. Framework arguments should address weight of impacts.

- Planless Affirmatives: Affirmatives should provide a counter-interpretation and discuss their model of debate.

- Speaker Points: Relative and reflective of technical skill and style.

Closing Thoughts:

"I value clarity, logical arguments, and clear plan/counterplan texts. In debates, risk comparison matters, and I support traditional uniqueness and link claims. I appreciate strong alt debating and believe in procedural fairness. Speaker points reflect technical skill and style.

Thank you, debaters and coaches, for your dedication."

1. Debate career?

I have previous judging experience with NHSDLC the past several mothns. Judging PF online and offline tournaments.

2. Fast-talking?

Fast-talking can be impressive and effective in some cases, but it can also be overwhelming and difficult to follow for some people. As a general rule, I prefer a moderate speaking pace is preferable as it allows the debater to communicate their points clearly and ensures that I can follow along.

3. Aggressiveness?

Aggressiveness can be useful in some debates, particularly when the topic is emotionally charged or controversial. However, it's important to maintain a respectful and professional tone, even when challenging an opponent's arguments, also ensuring your points are well delivered. Personal attacks or insults or gestures like throwing hands when an opponent is speaking are never acceptable and can undermine the credibility of the debater.

4. Determining the winner of the debate?

To determine the winner of a debate, I consider several factors, including the coherence and accuracy of the arguments presented, the quality of the evidence provided, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery, not forgetting well argued out logical responses.

I do not admit new arguments in the summary speech. Any supplementary information included in your summary speech won't garner extra points. Your role is to consolidate the main points of conflict in this round, facilitating a better understanding of the issues that have been discussed.

In general, the debater who can provide the strongest and most well-supported argument, while also successfully rebutting their opponent's points, is likely to win the debate.

Ultimately, the goal of a debate is to engage in a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, and the winner is the one who best achieves that goal.

hi!

I'm Tanveer. I've done quite a bit of PF, basically ur typical flow/tech>truth judge. i forget to time consistently. please time.

email is tanveerdeol80@gmail.com

if there's smth i missed or you don't understand just ask fr

important things:

1) i can deal with speed fine, just be clear

2) please weigh, like please. y'all need to basically write out my rfd in your last two speeches and show me clearly why you want me to prefer your args over theirs. SCOPE IS NOT REAL WEIGHING.

3) i have like the most basic understanding of theory, i'm not the biggest fan of it but i will evaluate it if ran well and if it actually adds something to the debate/points out a substantial abuse. if it does neither, i discourage you from running it

4) don't be overly rude, i will destroy your speaks. get nuked pr much

5) frontline (job of the opponent to not let them bring it up again, like i will evaluate smth that is dropped and brought up again if the opponent does not clearly state "they dropped/drop ___" or "they drop our responses") it is your discretion on where you want to frontline, like i won't force you to frontline in second rebuttal or smth but if the opponent brings up the fact you dropped smth in rebuttal then it's too late frfr

6) signpost (give offtime roadmaps iyw, just don't let me get lost)

7) i will never call for cards unless both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of ev

8) have a clear narrative, be consistent with what you are saying and defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through (extending both warrants and impacts at minimum). don't run args that r contradictory or just weird, have good strats

I only vote off of CX and I plan on sleeping through constructive

I will be flowing at least until 2nd summary.

I'm traditional; if you do prog expect me to only care like 30%

clash + quality > quantity responses

lay appeal is a big factor. you should have been working on that & improving all season. if i get bored ill prob vote for better/more persuasive speakers.

-------------------

if you throw in "meera is the best 2nd speaker BR has ever seen, including abhay" in FF i'll consider giving +speaker points

if you break your laptop before round i will sympathize and give your team the ballot

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.

Hi, I’m Amit! I’m a PF debater at Brooklyn Tech. I’m not too picky, but there are a few things I prefer!

email: amitkakumanu2009@gmail.com

(credit to Emma Smith for parts of this!)

How I make decisions-

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance. I feel like explicitly identifying your cleanest piece of offense in the round, winning that clean piece of offense, completely extending that clean piece of offense (uniqueness, links AND impacts in BOTH summary and final focus), and then telling me why your cleanest piece of offense is more important than your opponents' cleanest piece of offense is usually an easy way to win my ballot.

General Stuff-

- Do all the good debate things! Do comparative weighing, warrant your weighing, collapse, frontline, etc.

-- Warrants and full link chains are important! I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round and won't do the work for you on warrants/links. Please do not assume I know everything just because I've probably judged some rounds on the topic.

- I won't read speech docs, so please don't sacrifice speed for clarity.

- I have a really low threshold and 0 tolerance for being rude, dismissive, condescending, etc. to your opponents. I'm not afraid to drop you for this reason.

Evidence-

- I personally feel that calling for evidence as a judge is interventionist. I will only do it if 1- someone in the round explicitly tells me to in a speech or 2- reading evidence is literally the only way that I can make a decision (if this happens, it means both teams did a terrible job of clarifying the round and there is no clear offense for me to vote on. Please don't let this happen).

Progressive Stuff-

- I'll vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them if I absolutely must.)

- I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should ONLY be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse and reserve the right to drop you for frivolous theory. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.

- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a content warning before the round.

I am the best typical flow judge you will see on the face of the planet. My ballot will go to the team who wins on my flow.

General:

1. I’ll evaluate anything that isn’t offensive. If your case has uq argumentation, make sure to have good warrants.
2. Send speech docs to me and your opps. Idc how fast or slow you’re speaking, i want to save time and mitigate first speaking disadvantages.
3. I don’t evaluate cross nor do I pay any attention during cross. If you want to bring up something mentioned in cross in one of your speeches, I won’t promise It’ll contribute to my ballot.
4. Extend anything you want to be evaluated into summary and FF.
5. Signpost pls: if I’m lost during one of your speeches, I’m tanking ur speaks and not flowing.
6. There will be a grace period of 10 seconds for each speech. If you go beyond that, I’m not flowing, and I’m gonna tank ur speaks.

Flow:

1. Go for one or two responses by back half. I prefer quality over quantity
2. Don’t be stupid and abuse back half — I’ll know when you do.
3. EXTEND AND WEIGH PLS. If you don’t do either, you’re cooked bud.
4. Extend offense in back half.

Speaks:

1. I default at 28.5 and go up or down depending on speaking/strategy.
2. +0.5 for a Don toliver reference
3. +0.2 for praising Abhay Sankar and packode.
4. +1 for being chill.
5. -2 for abusing back half
6. -5 for being offensive

Theory:

run theory idc, for the most part, ik how to evaluate it. Don’t run Ks though.

tech only, truth does not exist

add me to the chain: atharvamakodejudging@gmail.com

General:

• Send docs if you're over 225
• will evaluate anything that isn't ___ist
• i'm not evaluating cross unless something is brought into a speech
• extend anything you want to be evaluated in both summary and final
• defense is not sticky, idfk who came up with that but frontlines you go for must be extended
• spark and dedev are fun
• NO INFINITE PREP TIME GLITCH
• Please signpost bruh, if you've lost everyone in the round there's no guarantee I'm flowing; not my fault if you're disorganized

Substance:

• QUALITY>QUANTITY, by the end of the round you should be going for only 1-2 responses, implicate and warrant them, tell me what they mean, it's easier to vote off 1 or 2 good responses that are well contextualized
• Summary and final better give me full argument extensions for wtv you're going for, that means uq, links, ILs, impacts, etc.
• weighing and metaweighing are great, pls weigh, i always starting eval with the winning weighing
• extend everything you are going for, probably nothing is sticky
• DO NOT UNCOLLAPSE and DO NOT ABUSE SECOND FINAL ????

Speaks:

• start at 28.5, increase and decrease based on strategy
• +1 speaks for chess pickup line in first/second cross
• +1 speaks for skipping grand cross (if you have something to actually ask, don't skip it though)
• +1 speaks if you dedicate the round to Abhay Sankar before constructive
• (if you are running spark only) +1 if the link is kinetic weapons

(you can only do two of these speaker point boost things, this isn't an infinite speaker point glitch)

Prefs (1-5):

1: substance, non-friv theory

2: friv theory

3: tricks

4: topical Ks

5: perf Ks, high literature

I understand the structure of Ks, what they are, and for the most part how they function. HOWEVER, I have no experience with them and don't know the norms. Probably don't run them, if you do I'll still evaluate, but you will probably not like the decision.

Theory:

Make sure to extend shell into rebuttal -- going for every standard is probably a dookie idea. Personally, I believe open-source disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. However, I WON'T HACK FOR THESE. If I think you win the flow, I'm voting for you. If you win paraphrasing good, +1 speaks.

Defaults for theory are as follows (again, i'm not hacking for it):

• No RVIs
• Competing Interpretations
• Drop the debater
• Fairness > Edu

If your opponents disclose full-text or paraphrase, please run theory on them. If you manage to lose that debate, idk what to tell you.

Ask before the round if you have any questions.

tech >>> truth

yes i want to be on the email chain, viraajdebatemail@gmail.com or vmarathejudging@gmail.com

i will eval anything you put in front of me to the best of my ability, but

1. i am bad at flowing over ~225 words per minute, send a doc if it's higher but im not flowing off of it
2. i am not your guy for prog judging besides theory -- if you really want to, i'm sure i could evaluate, but you might not be happy with the decision
3. please weigh COMPARATIVELY -- don't just say your impacts again, as that will make me sad :(
4. don't be ____ist or ___phobic -- i will drop you with 0 speaks you mickey
5. impact turns are funny (spark and dedev are best ones, but warming good is really funny)
6. when reading a turn, weigh the turn compared to the original argument -- why do i prefer the turn? on magnitude? timeframe? give me a reason to break the clash
7. extend through summary and final -- if it's not extended i'm not evaluating it
8. speaks start at 28.5 and increase/decrease based on round strategy and funniness
9. please have warrants

if ur chill, i'm chill

if your name is abhay, atharva, mayur, or paritosh, i am dropping you with -30 speaks and i am reporting you to tab

Starting out 2024 as a notable unbiased judge

Email: blessingnkojo@gmail.com

You can catch me sparing at ALDD (speechforces) when am not Coaching at RSUDS

Crucial points about my philosophy on debate:

- Equity:

I believe that the fairest debates are those where there is no discrimination or use of derogatory language towards opponents or their arguments. Every argument should be respected and considered.

Things to avoid:

1. Do not classify any argument as nonsensical or stupid.

2. Do not make generalizations based on identity, race, or gender, as this can be stereotypical and provoke retaliation.

Things to do:

1. Be specific when analyzing people or places to avoid generalizations.

2. Approach every argument with a critical lens, refer to it, engage with it, rebut it, and respectfully counter propose. Now that this is clear,

please read before speaking if I am judging you…

Typically, I start evaluating during the second speech in any debate round. Therefore, I am more impressed by students who demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful note-taking), and intelligent cross-examinations, rather than those who rely on speaking quickly, using confusing language, jargon, or recycling arguments.

I have become more open to philosophy-style arguments in the past year. However, I have not extensively studied any specific literature bases. Philosophy arguments that are solely used to trick opponents will not win my vote. However, I am open to well-developed philosophy strategies. Since I am an ordinary intelligent voter, you need to ensure that your explanations are clear and robust in explaining how to evaluate your arguments.

Counter Proposals: Especially in policy debates, but not limited to them, counter proposals that aim to change the focus of the prompt (resolve) will be disregarded as they do not meet the necessary criteria. Use a counter proposal only if it is absolutely necessary or if it aligns with the spirit of the debate. My evaluation of a good counter proposal is just as important as my evaluation of the original prompt.

Goodluck..............

tech only, truth does not exist

add me to the chain: abhaysankardebate@gmail.com

• Send docs if you're over 225
• will evaluate literally anything that isn't ___ist.
• speaks start at 28.5 and increase/decrease on strategy
• extend anything you want to be evaluated in both summary and final

Prefs:

1 - Substance, non-friv theory, fun impact turns (spark, wipeout, etc.)

2 - friv theory

3 - topical K's

4 - tricks

5 - performance K's

Substance is cool, so is theory, just make sure to extend shell into rebuttal. I don't have much K experience so be warned. OS Disclosure is great, fulltext is lame. You should probably cut cards too.

My defaults (if there's no offense/arg in the round)

• competing interps
• DTD
• no RVI's
• fairness > education

If there's zero offense in the round, I'll probably default first speaking team, but idk depends on my mood (if I have to default, neither of you deserve the ballot in the first place so my method of defaulting doesn't matter)

Also, I hate fulltext diclosure. Either open-source disclose or don't do it at all. It is rare that teams who fulltext disclose win. If you win a fulltext good round in front of me, I'll be impressed.

If it's a friv round against your friends and everyone's having fun (including me), 30's to everyone.

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.

lay judge

Judging is a critical aspect of ensuring fairness, accuracy, and quality in competitive events across various disciplines. The following paradigm aims to provide a comprehensive framework on how I assess the participants fairly and effectively.

1. Clarity of Evaluation Criteria:

Define clear and specific evaluation criteria tailored to the nature of the tournament.
I ensure to understand the criteria thoroughly to maintain consistency and fairness in evaluations.

2. Fairness and Impartiality:

I emphasize the importance of impartial judgment irrespective of personal biases or affiliations.
I encourage to focus solely on the performance or presentation without prejudice.

3. Transparency:

I maintain transparency throughout the judging process by explaining the criteria to participants and providing feedback when possible.
I disclose any potential conflicts of interest and ensure they do not influence judgments.

4. Feedback Mechanism:

I provide a constructive feedback to participants to facilitate their growth and improvement.
I also offer specific feedback based on the evaluation criteria.

5. Ethical Considerations:

I Emphasize ethical behavior among participants, including confidentiality, honesty, and integrity.
I Prohibit any form of discrimination or unfair treatment based on personal characteristics.

6. Continuous Improvement:

Solicit feedback to all participants to identify areas for improvement in the judging process.
Regularly review and update the judging paradigm to adapt to changing needs and emerging best practices.

Thank You for going through this Paradigm. ALL THE VERY BEST.

In debates, I strive to be fair,

With judgment both just and aware.

listen to speeches,

With no biases, breaches,

To ensure all arguments are laid bare!