hi!

I am a parent judge so please do not do anything that you wouldn’t do for a parent judge, and I have a few rules of thumb.

1. Please do not speak too fast and make sure you are clear while you speak.
2. I listen to everything during the round, and I will judge based off whose argument is more convincing.
3. Please be respectful and kind to both me and your opponent's.
4. Please have fun and try your best and good luck to both of you guys!

I have competed in public forum debate for three years. I am a tech judge and will vote based on flowed responses.

I really don't care about crossfire. Unless ur being rude or say something crazy I will not pay attention. You will need to bring it up in your speeches if you want me to flow it.

I like arguments that are more realistic. Not to hate on nuke war or extinction but I personally just think they are goofy. I won't be biased against u if u bring it up tho u just have a bigger burden of linking it super well. I would prefer a smaller magnitude impact that is more linked to ur contention than a contention that is poorly linked in order to have a nuclear war death impact.

I like impacts. I want to see the effect of your contentions. So please weigh!!

im sorry if you get me as a judge for policy I will try my best but idk much about it. However no Ks. Don’t spread too much. Remain topical

Be respectful to each other!!

Overall have fun and don't stress.

Hello!

I am a third-year Speech and Debate coach who has specialized in CX and IE's. In a competitor, the most important attributes to me are kindness, sportsmanship, and professionalism (behaviorally). Please feel free to reach out with any questions that you have about my feedback.

Sincerely,

Jessica Black

Hi! I am a parent from Basis Peoria who is fairly new to debate.

Policy:

Please speak slowly and signpost, otherwise I will not be able to follow your arguments and I will not vote for you. If there is something in the round that you want me to consider, bring it up very clearly so that I understand. Keep your case organized and don't use any complex debate terminology without defining it. Also, dont be condescending or disrespectful to your opponents :)

Good luck!

Hi, I’m Frederick and I debated in both Public Forum and Congress for three years. State champ PF, went to nats in Congress.

Email: fchangho@asu.edu

Overall, pretty standard tech.

The easiest way to win my ballot is by having clear warranting throughout the debate. Evidence is great and all, but please have reasoning for WHY that evidence matters in the round. You need to be able to explain the logical progression in your link chains every time you mention your arguments. Don’t say NYT 19 and move on and expect me to go along with it.

Weigh. But make sure your link chain is intact and you’ve made clear extensions through the round.

Signposting is good. Organization is important.

If you get a concession in cross, bring it up in speech.

When possible, frontline in rebuttals.

No prep time for card reading is okay, but don’t take too long to pull up a card for your opponent to read. If there are card issues that you want me to look at, tell me to call for them too in speech. I will choose to view them at my discretion.

NO SPREADING.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponents. If I need to intervene b/c someone’s consistently talking over another in cross, you’ll be on pretty thin ice. Watch your own time. Watch your opponents’ time. Don’t talk during others’ speeches or make any rude gestures.

Off-time roadmaps are okay, but you don’t need to tell me what you’re doing in your first rebuttal for example.

Clash. Address opp’s arguments and explain to me how yours interact with theirs + why yours are better. Simple way to win.

PF-specific

PF’s intent is to be accessible to the average Joe. Don’t do anything that hinders that.

Generally tech>truth, but please don’t pull up with some nuke war argument that vaguely relates or anything else that requires a significantly unlikely chain of events.

I would rather vote for a well-warranted argument without an impact over a poorly-warranted one with a good impact.

Key voters are great for staying organized, but if you choose to do line-by-line just remember to signpost exceptionally well.

I don’t pay attention during cross. Unless something blatantly wrong happens.

LD-specific

Before I ever judged LD, I had only ever seen 3 LD debates. I’ll be able to follow along with your arguments, but progressive will be relatively difficult for me to evaluate in the scope of the round unless your warranting is pristine (which it should be anyway). Disads, CPs make the most sense to me. Topicality shells and K’s, somewhat. High risk, low reward if you run theory.

Hello,

This is Montu Dalal. I am a parent judge. My requirements for these debates are

1) Talk slowly

2) Don't interrupt each other during your speeches

3) Your pronunciation should be clear

4) Don't use much technical words and try to stay on the topic

5) Don't run cap K

I am a parent judge.

Speech:

Generally all speech event somethings in common that all need to have as below. If they are missed, it would be difficult for you to win my 1.

1. Memorization except Radio
2. Timing
3. Manners/professionalism

After that, I'll be looking at the three main things that build onto those fundamentals:

1. Speaking skills
2. Content
3. Confidence

And following are extra cherries on top.

1. Humor (unless HI that's must have)
2. Facial expression

Policy Debate:

E-mail: k10000s@gmail.com

I would like to be on the email chain and I prefer pdf format.

Since I am a parent judge and quite new to policy debate, please speak slowly and clearly. Don't forget to signpost during your speech. In the rebuttals, please be very clear about why your team should win the round. Keep your case organized and don't use any complex debate terminology w/o defining it.

Please be respectful to everyone. I won't vote for you and will report you to tab if you are racist, sexist or discriminatory in any way.

Some miscellaneous things:

1. I listen to cross. If you or your partner struggle to answer questions during cross, it will be reflected in both the way I view the round as well as in speaker points.
2. Despite being a parent judge, I tend to lean towards tech > truth. What matters more to me is not necessarily whether data is factually right or wrong, but whether each team calls out that evidence for being right/wrong with a fully fleshed out explanation for why that should matter in the broader scope of the round.
3. Speaker points will be mostly based off of fluency - the clearer your are with your speeches and the less stumbles you have, the higher your speaker points will be. That being said, the content of your speeches will also factor into your speaker points to some degree, since I should not be rewarding thoughtless speaking with high points.

Good luck and have fun~!

Do not spread (talk too fast). I am a very inexperienced judge and if I can’t follow your arguments because you are speaking too fast I won’t be able to vote for you.

No K's, Theory (except Topicality) arguments - they are very confusing for me to understand. Speak at a slow pace and heavy presumption against Topicality arguments unless the Aff is outlandishly untopical. Make sure to send me whatever you will be reading in your speech. My email is:

sumit_pruthy@yahoo.com

Being selected as part to represent yourself or your school in the competition itself is a big accomplishment, so congratulations to both sides !!!

Please do not spread.

If I feel like you are talking too fast, I will ask you to be clear twice. After that, if I can't understand you I will simply put down my pen. I believe that spreading is poison to the debate community. I do not want to be added to your email chain, as I should not have to read your case in order to understand it. If there is an evidence dispute or I feel like there is any other reason I need to see a card, I will ask. I find off-time roadmaps to be a waste of time, and while you are speaking I will always keep time and immediately drop my pen once your time is up.

I value topicality above all else. Debate should be an educational experience focused on the resolution. Regarding Ks, your arguments should not simply be ones that you could repeat ad-nauseam for any topic and a lot of Ks don't pass that test. In fairness, a Neg K can be topical and I will evaluate it accordingly if so. However, K Affs by their very nature generally do not meet the burden of defending the resolution and are there is a high probability of me just dropping you if you run one. Regarding Theory, be very careful. I recognize there are things that either side can do which are abusive or frivolous even if the base argument is topical. If you can thread that particular needle when responding, more power to you.

For weighing, I prefer probability over other mechanisms and I am receptive to timeframe as well. I'm fine with reasonable magnitude weighing too. However, we live in a reality in which extinction has not yet occurred despite the countless number of dire warnings given by debaters over the years. I feel like debaters are intelligent enough to understand the distinction of something that could arguably be true vs. an impact that is just included in your case as a magnitude bomb.

Finally, tech is of course important in any debate round, but I also recognize that there are also some things that are objectively true. If you have a card telling me the sky is green, that does not mean I have to accept it as the truth, even if your opponent does not have a specific card refuting that (because why would they?). However, for any reasonable argument that isn't straight-up factually incorrect and flows through, I will absolutely find them credible regardless of any previous opinions I have on a given topic.

The bottom line is that if you're being intellectually honest and recognize that a debate round exists within the confines the real world, that will maximize your chances of picking up my ballot.

Hello! My name is Uzoma Okeke and I am a lay judge for BASIS Peoria.

I'm quite new to judging debate, I had a little experience with PF last year.

Just go slowly in your speeches and ensure I understand your argument. That will give you the best chance of winning the round.

I am completely new to judging speech. I like informative topics and engaging speeches. You should have a good, conversational pace, be loud, and be confident.

Email Chain

Add me: dgpaul8@gmail.com

Please include tournament and round number in the subject line of the email.

T/L

Tech > Truth always - There is a lower threshold for refuting an "argument" that is clearly untrue, but it is your burden to clearly explain why it should be evaluated as false

I will make the least interventional decision, meaning:

1. T is the highest layer - the rest is up for debate
2. What's conceded is true, but will only have the implications as argued by you
3. More judge instruction - Communicate the locus of your offense and defense clearly. If the final rebuttal is thoughtlessly extending and answering arguments without a unified argument, your likelihood of winning is low. Have intent - I will not grant any logic or rational to you if not explicitly said.
4. My vote is always influenced based on how the round goes down - I have no preconceptions

DAs

U/Q is up for debate - my vote is influenced based on how you debate

No preference over specific links vs. generic ones - just tell me why your link is relevant

Don't drop straight turns, and don't double turn yourself - that being said, you have to tell me they did it for me to evaluate

As the affirmative, if you drop a disadvantage, I'm still willing to hear weighing arguments from the rebuttals as to why you outweigh, but I will assume 100% risk of it happening

CPs

I think sufficiency framing is a valid argument - that being said, you must explicitly make it, and if you can't defend it, I won't buy it

'Judge kicking' the counterplan is merely to evaluate the disadvantage against the plan, in order to test whether the plan is in fact better than not only the counterplan but also the status quo. The ONLY burden of the negative is to disprove the desirability of the plan. The desirability of the counterplan should be irrelevant if the status quo is better.

• I will assume judge kick, but if presented with reasons not to, it's up for debate

T

The threshold for winning against frivolous T-interpretations is lower, but you better be sure that it really is frivolous

Won't vote on RVIs

I'll view your standards however you debate them - ie. show me why fairness o/w education

T v. K-Affs

The negative needs to have good reasons, argued effectively, why being topical is a good thing. Consequently, the affirmative needs to have good reasons, argued effectively, why it's not - I'm not preconditioned to vote either way

Ks On the Neg

I'm fine with all kritiks - whatever you want to argue, argue it - my only brightline is that you argue it better than the other side

Argue whatever framework you want to - the team that wins framework decides how I view the kritik debate - doesn't equate to an automatic win or loss - just depends on the framework interpretation

Extinction o/w is a good debate - show me why it does, and show me it why it does not - I'm open to swinging either way

What matters most is that you make your point - these debates boil down to a battle between positions

Theory

No preconceptions on whether conditionality is a good or bad thing - A good affirmative can explain why it's bad, and a good negative can explain why it's not - if it is completely 50/50, which I personally do not believe it, that means the negative won on conditionality - the affirmative is burdened with proving it is bad (51/49).

Most condo 2ARs are new - if you really want to go for it, make sure your 1AR sufficiently covered it - blowing up a a little blip in the 1AR is a hard sell

Debate the standards - don't just read down blocks

All other theory arguments are fine - exception to incredibly frivolous theory arguments - even if dropped, if they hold no arguable, serious, realistic weight, I'm not going to vote on it

Cross-Examination

I do not flow cross-x

It can be fun to watch

Bring up anything you would like me to evaluate from cross-x in your later speeches - I won't automatically assume anything

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being engaging to watch, being smart, being clear = higher speaks

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making bad arguments, not being clear = lower speaks

30 = best debater I've seen

29.6 - 29.9 = top debater at the tournament

29.1 - 29.5 - break deep into outrounds

28.6 - 29.0 - capability to break

28.0 - 28.5 - solid team, some learning to do

< 28.0 - some work to do

Ethics

Being racist, sexist, or violent in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate is bad.

Role as an educator outweighs role as a disciplinarian - I err on the side of letting things play out and correcting ignorance after the fact - This ends when it threatens the safety of round participants

You should give this line a wide berth

Hello! I used to be a debater as well in high school so I'm familiar with the structure of how these debates generally go. With this in mind, please keep this debate as respectful by avoiding offensive comments and inappropriate behavior.

I have no issue with speed, but if you do choose to talk fast, make sure to enunciate. I don't flow questioning, so it is important to bring up any points made in those minutes in the following speeches for them to actually be considered. Furthermore, for each speech I'll grant five seconds of grace before I just ignore any points made after that time period.

I am fine with both evidence and logic based evidence, but make sure you're actually making a coherent argument and not just throwing it out there. If using evidence, make sure that you are NOT distorting the evidence. If the opponent calls you out on a card and it ends up being contested, I am not afraid to call for the card and determine it myself.

If you are using a complex/unconventional argument, make sure to explain it thoroughly. What I don't understand only hurts you. All in all, make sure arguments are actually relevant to the topics.

Hello, my name is Morgan. I have been judging speech and debate for the last three years but was never a debater myself. Please talk clearly and at a reasonable pace. Make sure your arguments aren’t confusing, I cannot judge something I can’t understand. I flow during debates and will refer back to that in order to leave good feedback. Good luck!

I'll send my flow in the email chain if asked after rfd!

Introduction:

Hello! My name is Aden Smith! I did policy debate for 3 years as a 1A/2N and I'm currently doing policy debate at ASU. I've also done every debate event at least once, so if I'm not judging policy I still know what's going on enough to judge. I don't have any hardened biases, so my paradigm is mostly just my views on debate, and if that affects how you execute your strategy in rounds, then more power to you!

Round Docs:

I want round docs, whether I am judging CX, LD, or PF (calling cards if prep smh)I think we should have an email chain. It means that I can keep a more accurate flow and also make competitors more accountable to have quality evidence :). My email is: adenpaulsmith06@gmail.com.

Miscellaneous:

1. Condo is probably good?

2. Spread your heart out!

3. I am a chronic speaker point inflator, so I'm not gonna list those out.

4. Please send a word doc, having to download your google doc for you makes me sad.

5. Read your rehighlights, I feel like that's obvious.

6. If I put on headphones while writing RFD it's not because I hated the round, just need to concentrate.

7. Tech>Truth, and I mean that.

8. Don't be bigoted, I have like 2 jobs: 1. Choose a winner and 2. Ensure a safe space, I've got job 1 down, please make job 2 easy for me :)

Topic Knowledge:

K's: I have either ran or read your lit base at least once, so ~go off queen~ and you do you! For more specifics I have run: Asian melancholia, model minority, Orientalism, Queer, Poesis, Sonics, Security, Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, Nietzsche, Marx, Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Coloniality, Psychoanalysis, Kroker, Sharma, and Spanos. I have read the literature for: most genres of anti- blackness, feminism, Hinduism, Indio- sonics, anarchism, Kant (although don't run it I have no idea what that man is saying), biopower, disability, necropolitics, racial capitalism, and some more I can't think of right now!

CX: I've done some minimal reading from helping teams prepare for tournaments, but I wouldn't say I'm exactly up on the literature base for this year. If you have a court jargon term that has become prevalent with the IP topic, just explain it in the overview and then I should be fine.

LD: The September/ October topic isn't that deep (another reason that the wrong topic was chosen, but that's a different rant). I have read some cases for this topic, and will be judging somewhat frequently in LD. I'll know what's going on, just overview for me and I'll be fine.

PF: My first question is who put me in the PF pool? After that question I'll assess my life choices. Finally, I'd like to say that it's PF, it was made for a lay judge, so if they can understand it I sure hope that I can wrap my brain around it to a standard degree. There's also only so much that can go on in the following 40 minutes for me to understand, so I more than likely will be ok, and if not then I'll take some extra care in making my ballot to make sure a good decision is rendered.

Case:

1. Neg needs to be applying some pressure on case to where I at least have some suspicion about the Aff's impacts, or 2AR will have the easiest time of their life saying case outweighs.

2. I really like a good impact turn, just make sure that you are doing some good weighing on it and not just using it a mute button to one impact.

3. Solvency is an underrated argument, if it was good enough I'd totally vote on a terminal solvency deficit 2NR.

Trix:

1. I said tech over truth didn't I?

2. Give me a good speech doc though please, because there's gonna be a lot of random warrants going around and I need to keep track of them.

Theory:

1. Especially in LD, I'm probably more likely than most judges to vote on a theory shell. Like if PIC's are bad, and dropping the debater is good, then why not vote Aff?

2. Please put your theory shell in the doc, you aren't cool because the other team missed you 2 condo bad standards.

3. I'm pretty neutral on new Aff's bad and disclosure, just win the argument.

Phil:

1. I think phil is pretty cool... I'm just really bad at judging it... sorry.... you can run it if you want... there's just a 75% chance you get judge screwed.

Kritik's:

1. This is probably the type of round I feel most comfortable judging to the point where there is a noticeable skill gap between me in a K round versus me in a Policy round.

2. K Aff's aren't fair, its a bad idea to try to win that they are, Either win structural fairness, violence, or education and you are chilling on the T-USFG page.

3. T-USFG is a good strategy if you are able to win that fairness outweighs, but also that's literally the one argument that the Aff had to prep, so I've never really understood why Neg's go for it, I'd honestly prefer a KvK round even if it's just cap.

4. Both teams need to overview well, there's alot going on in these rounds so I need y'all to synthesize the story you are going for.

5. I think that K Neg's can win without winning pre-fiat framework if they play their cards right and weigh post-fiat.

6. I need a clear explanation of the Alt before the 2nr or its new.

7. Aff's against K neg's should feel free to defend their representations, I think heg good, security good, china good, and cap good are valid strategies.

Topicality:

1. I'm very willing to vote on a well executed T debate.

2. A good neg T-interp needs to give me a caselist if they are going for limits, and probably a TVA to moot Aff education claims.

3. Reasonability if probably a valid argument?

Disadvantages:

1. I really love a good Politics round and it would make me happy if you gave me one :)

2. The two most important things in a DA to me are a coherent story (which means a good overview) and weighing, because its really sad when I buy 100% of the DA, but the Aff outweighs, so weigh for me please.

3. Intrinsicness is probably a valid argument and you can maybe perm a DA if you try hard enough.

4. Risk assessment is an important factor when I'm viewing the weighing debate.

Counterplans:

1. I like generic process counterplans, like alot.

2. I think the Aff should focus less on competitiveness and more on if the counterplan actually solves and any deficits to the counterplan.

3. I think the really long counterplans with a ton of planks are funny.

4. Counterplans should probably be either textually or functionally competitive, its the aff's job to tell me if they need to be both.

Debated for Brophy for 4 years with Brandon Sumner (Brophy SS)

I'm a first year out currently coaching for Brophy GS

I’ve been a 2N and 2A

Top level

*Do whatever you do as best as you can do it – I judge accordingly

Tech>Truth …almost all the time, I will evaluate whether an argument was answered before I evaluate its quality but if there is ink somewhere else that you can cleverly apply to your mistake, I will hear you out

Theory

You have to slow down. I take theory seriously and need to catch everything

CPs and DAs

I hate badly run politics, if you’re running politics you better know what’s up and make it in-depth

Read the most abusive CPs you think you can get away with, just be ready on your theory game

I love when debaters go for DAs vs K affs – just make sure to nail the aff on a substantive link (or get clever with some theory to ensure a link)

K

I am well versed in K lit but I will not do explanatory work for you

K on K debates – I have no presumption on whether or not a perm is justified, that’s up to the debaters (the same goes for all theoretical positions, but I feel like this one in particular needs to be emphasized)

Speaker Points

*Disclaimer – Do not be alarmed for your speaker points or think I hate you if I say clear at the beginning of your speech (even if I say it multiple times), I have empirically had trouble flowing certain speech patterns so I may correct you until I can flow your style – but that will not reflect in your speaks)

I do not have a formula for speaker points as of yet. Until I do I will try to be gracious with them.

Be courteous, be funny, be confident