I am a parent judge, not experienced in speech and debate. Please speak slowly and clearly. If I can’t understand you, it doesn’t count. I may ask clarification questions before the round and during the round as need be”

Hello debaters!

I am the speech and debate coach for Fallon Middle School. As a coach, I am most interested in strong fundamentals. I like well-researched, thoughtfully constructed cases that are well sign-posted.

Hi! I'm Cailyn

I'm a current HS pf debater and I did one year of MS parli

Things to note:

• I can flow fast speakers but they are definitely not prefered, i would recommend going at a reasonable pace that is easy to understand
• I do believe evidence over statements, but with clashing evidence I need some analysis and comparison
• so please please have some clash- it really helps quantify the debate
• in terms of weighing, please state it clearly at the beginning of the round- and argue for your weigh if it contradicts with the other team
• I do like pois and heckles, but please don't make it excessive, and follow the rules
• at the end of the day just have fun and don't stress about it too much!

Hi! I'm Kaelie. I'm a junior and have been doing policy since freshman year. Also did 2 years of middle school parli debate.

Put me on the email chain! mykaelac2025@headroyce.org

Just do what you do best, I understand it's hard to stand up and speak to a bunch of strangers. I am pretty open to all types of arguments as long as you can explain them to me.

I read a K aff on the aff and usually go for Ks and T on the neg, but I should be able to hold my own judging DAs and CPs.

I'll probably be able to hear you at most speeds, but if you think you're going too fast, you probably are. Make sure to be clear and sound confident.

Good luck and make sure to have fun!

Middle School Debate

PLEASE SIGNPOST FLOWING'S ALREADY HARD DON'T MAKE IT HARDER FOR ME!

POIs and heckles

- Love them, so please do it as often as you can (obviously stick to the rules). I think its super important for the clash in the debate and shows me you're engaged and listening to your opponents' speaking.

Impacts/Weighing

- It's super important to me to have fleshed-out impacts and do impact comparisons. I want to know why your assertions matter more than theirs and evaluate debates based on who has done a better job explaining why bigger/more probable impact under their weighing mechanism.

- Weighs, when done well, can be works of art. I love weighs that are engaging and persuasive. PLEASE do weighing mechanism comparison, it makes my job so much easier as a judge.

Evidence

- PLEASE DO NOT MAKE UP RANDOM SOURCES -- I CAN TELL WHEN YOU MAKE UP A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE!!!!

Refutations

- These are probably one of the hardest things to do in a round, but a good refutation will put you far ahead in the debate. I like refutations of the flow, and please at least try to refute the arguments, even if its just with your own points.

Speaking

I have a pretty high threshold for speed. That said, please don't go too fast, slow down and articulate each word.

Debate is a fun activity so please be nice and don't be disrespectful.

Hello!

Im Alexander Chen, Sophomore in High school. I did middle school debate and am currently competing in varsity public forum.

• this is middle school debate, it’s not the end of the world when something goes wrong so please keep kind, respectful, and just upbeat. I know It can be stressful so take a couple breaths and relax when you can.
• i judge foremost on the flow, if you leave huge gaps in your opponents argument you will lose
• weigh, if you don’t know what that is please ask your coach. I NEED comparative weighing
• - ex: I outweigh on magnitude because a million is more than 1 thousand . Not 1 million is a lot
• speaker points are determined by pace, how clear you speak, what you say, how you treat opponents and team mates and if you bring me food you get speaker points (good food means more points)
• I think pois are fine because there is no other cross examination, however excessive use is annoying and will lose you speaks. Make the content good and don’t rush out the question, even taking a second to calm down and get the question across clearly is worth it
• im tech so run whatever arguments you want. if you say something I will believe it unless the other team contests it
• Have fun!

My name is Brendon, if you could just address me by so.

I did competitive debate in middle school, and I love watching debates. Currently, I am in my school's public speaking program, specializing in impromptu.

I will try to give hand signals (The timings will change). Do not go over 5:10 seconds and after 5 minutes I will not write anything down, but will take it into account. Anything after that, I will blankly stare at you and not take in anything said.

The way I decide winners of the debate is not by who spoke best, but by who was able to take down and prove one's point better. This is used through a range of sources.

Make sure you take down your opponent's points and clash with them. If you're points are similar in topic, but different in outcome/reasoning, make sure you compare, and prove why your reasoning should be preferred.

When weighing; (If you do not know what that is, please ask your coach), make sure you're not extremely broad ex: "We will be weighing this debate on which is better for the world". The reason you don't want to have a broad weigh like that is because I'm already looking through those lenses. Instead, try to be specific to your points. Such as: "We are weighing this debate on the disproportionate harm, on the education system, compared to______" (not a great example). The reason to do this is to help me understand how to view your points. However, if your opponents bring up a different weigh than you, prove why I should look through your lens instead of theirs.

Speaker scores: Will be scored on several factors, I will score from 68-80 (or whatever is the max score).

The first thing I will score on is how you present yourself. If you're nervous, timid, not looking up, and unconfident, you will receive a lower score. I like to see confident, clear, loud, and correctly paced speaking, if you can speak like that, you will receive a higher score.

Another thing I will give points for is POIs: USE YOUR POIs, your team gets three for a reason. It shows engagement and listening skills, understanding of the topic. Also, make sure you present yourself correctly. Be confident and assertive.

When taking Pois make sure you speak to me, instead of towards your opponent, you aren't trying to prove anything to them, but to me.

Off the stand: do not be disruptive (I will call you out), and have respect for your opponents (while speaking especially). Even if your opponents are being disrespectful, it shows a lot of character for your team and yourself to be more mature.

Flow: make sure all your points lead smoothly into the next. I don't want to be jumping around so make sure to summarize towards the end of your speech.

Lastly: Understanding of topic/engagement. Engagement means, staying relevant to the debate, through rebuttals and changing arguments.

Side note: if you have me in the later rounds, please understand I might be tired/exhausted from the day, odds are I ran in the morning and will be crashing on caffeine.

Thank you, Brendon

shubh doshi

head-royce '26---policy debate team

email---shubhd2026@headroyce.org

referencing drake or steph curry in your speech will get you +.1 speaks

TLDR

i like creative arguments---read arguments you wouldn't normally read in front of a different judge.

tech > truth---truth breaks ties

my speaker points usually range from a 75.5-76.5 for middle school debate and 28.3-28.7 for policy debate---however, strong debating, argumentation, and performance will be rewarded accordingly.

Hate speech = auto L

Evidence violations/cheating can debated out but 90% of the time it will be an L

People/paradigms to look at to better understand the way I view debate: Tessa Harper, Preston Shaw, Buck Arney, Malone Urfalian, Joshua Harrington, Marquis Ard, Sydney Pasquinelli, Max Wong, Ilan Boguslavsky, Vy Linh Nguyen, Debnil Sur.

MIDDLE SCHOOL DEBATE

Top Level:

good clash will usually end up in a decision you like---poi's, strong refutations, case turns, etc.

quality>quantity---2-3 strong arguments are way better than 10 short/incomplete subpoints

the competing interps/weighing mechanisms debate is a very underrated aspect of this format---win a good w/m tailored to your arguments and you're way better positioned to win the round.

i probably have decent topic knowledge from coaching head-royce debaters but don't use this as an excuse to under-explain things

i will flow the round and vote based on my flow which means you should definitely flow as well

please ask questions and postround me---but if you abandon my flow as the decision-making metric for the debate i won't be very amenable to aggressive/argumentative postrounding about how i voted.

please structure your speeches---allow pen time and answer arguments in order

for the THIRD SPEECH---weighing impacts, "writing" my ballot, answering warrants, and extending arguments>>>>reading evidence

list of things I like (higher speaks):

3rd speeches with top level weighing and ballot-writing (telling me why you win)

efficient and high-level line by line refutations

clash and good pois

structured speeches that I can easily flow and refer back to

jokes/being funny

list of things I don't like (lower speaks):

3rd speeches without weighing

2nd opp speeches with new assertions

rude/annoying poi's

pointless/abusive heckling

POLICY DEBATE

DA’s:

Disads need to be substantiated with evidence and contextual links to the aff. For the AFF, this debate comes down to impact calc and card quality. Win a try-or-die argument and you will likely win the round. For the NEG, I will be very persuaded by a good turns case analysis.

CP’s:

I am not very familiar with competition debates, so err towards over explaining rather than under explaining. Counterplans should ideally have a few good solvency advocates in the 1nc. I like creative process and advantage counterplans, win the perm debate and you will win the round.

Theory:

Conditionality is good---read as many off as you want.

Ad-homs are bad.

Policy v. K:

For the AFF:

"I believe that all debates are performances and you are responsible for what you say and do in round...you should be prepared to debate the justifications and epistemologies of your arguments as well as the way you have performed in this debate."- Iyana Trotman

^^ You can debate that out and change my mind, but this is my predisposition going into rounds.

Impact turns are usually way more persuadable than the link turn + perm strat that most teams go for. Most K debaters will mishandle answering cap good/heg good.

Framework is decided for one side but you can still win under your opponents' model.

Strong 2AC link debating and line-by-line sets you up very well.

For the NEG:

I'm familiar with most lit bases, but that doesn't mean you should underexplain your theory of power/kritik in the block.

I will vote on framework/the fiat k but I would rather see the 2NR have interesting link debating and a turns-case/impact analysis.

The link debate is the most important part of these types of rounds. Pull lines from the 1AC, rehighlight AFF cards, and have a well-thought out link story throughout the debate.

Policy v. T:

Specific T debates > Generic violations

Competing interps > Reasonability

Ground > Limits

A true We Meet > A questionable counterinterp

1-2 high quality definitions > Spamming 10 def cards in the block

Will listen to any T argument, a lot of my 1NRs were extending parametrics

K AFF’s:

For the AFF:

You need to be able to coherently explain your theory of power. 2ACs should have clear line-by-line on case.

Good 1ACs have a clear theory of power, specific topic links, an impact, a clear advocacy statement with solvency, and ideally 1-2 framing cards.

I think performance affs are cool but you should be able to defend why your music/poetry/etc. is important and contextual to the arguments you're making.

If you don't spill up, you should be able to coherently explain why this debate round is key.

Simply no linking every kritik and disad is cowardly. UTILIZE arguments in the 1AC as offense against shitty counterplans, disads and kritiks.

Have sufficient answers to cap good/heg good/etc. If these impact turns go mishandled, my threshold for a neg ballot is at the floor.

For framework, you should have an answer to SSD and TVA(s) CONTEXTUAL to your aff.

2ARs should have some level of defense---solely going for offense is viable but the 2NR will have had to completely mishandle the T debate for that to work out.

Going for your impact turns as net benefits to the counterinterp>>>just going for impact turns. Making the debate about models is usually strategic.

I don't think T is "violent" but good debating and contextualization to your aff can persuade me that it is.

I prefer carded framework disads. If your disads are uncarded at least extend a 1AC author at the end so I have some sort of evidence to refer to when deciding the round.

For the NEG:

I think neg teams should utilize arguments like T-Should, Capitalism K, and the Ballot PIK/Presumption more as 2As usually have terrible answers to them.

The case debate is often under-utilized in these rounds. Rehighlights and cards that disprove the AFFs theory of power and advocacy are very persuasive. Simply reading 5 state good/topic good cards that you're not gonna extend is a waste of time.

Being dismissive especially in these types of rounds will usually be spun as offense against you. I will likely vote AFF 5 seconds after the 2AR if an in-round "microaggression" or violent evidence indict goes dropped/unmitigated. "Sorry" usually solves, but it depends on the intensity of the situation.

Be mindful of debaters who's arguments primarily revolve around their identity/personal experience. K strats/arguments that aren't T-USFG are usually more strategic against these AFFS.

If your strat is to go for T-USFG, you need to answer the specific disads made in the 2AC. Not every disad is policing or state bad and you will likely lose if you respond to them this way.

Fairness is an impact but it starts pretty low.

Going for clash is a better strat but you need to explain why your form of clash is uniquely good and key for things like education, change, etc. You should have strong internal links and be able to defend that your model is better for them.

I am a big fan of TVAs with specific plan texts and solvency advocates that access the AFFs scholarship/literature and somewhat resolve the AFF's impacts.

Rehighlighting and pulling lines from the 1AC that concede legal reform is a good thing/state is accessible will put you very ahead on the T debate.

MSPDP (Middle School Debate)

About Me: I used to do this format (competed from Fallon). I now do Public Forum in high school and have a gold bid to the Tournament of Champions (nationals). Debate is my passion.

If something is not responded to, I will believe the argument for the sake of the debate even if it does not appear true.

I will fairly evaluate any argument you make (I mean it).

Go as fast as you want - I can flow it, just be clear.

POIs and heckles are a great tool and good ones will help improve your speaker points. Responding and accepting POIs and heckles will also boost your speaks. Just remain within the limit that EBDL says.

Generally, I give high speaker points.

Good weighing will give you the biggest strategic advantage (remember weighing has to be comparative - not just our impact is big but an explanation of why your impact is bigger than the opponents). I think probability weighing is stupid though (feel free to ask me why) but I will still begrudgingly evaluate it if no other weighing is done.

Public Forum

Tech > Truth

Full tech - read any argument you want I can evaluate it

Defaults are triggered if no warrants are read or the clash is completely unresolved.

Substance: Extend, collapse, and weigh. Whoever wins weighing and wins their case wins the round. If you win weighing but lose your case, I vote for the other team. Also, it's fine with me if you want to go for DAs, turns, or other creative things.

Theory: Go ahead and read any type of theory - if it's frivolous your opponents can just beat the shell. Default to yes RVis, competing interps, drop the debater, text over spirit, respond in next speech, theory uplayers. Also, reasonability is utilized in a way that simply does not make sense, if someone tells me to use reasonability to evaluate the shell, I will intervene to decide if it's a good norm, and if it is then I still drop the other side - reasonability isn't an auto win, it's about using intervention to check friv.

Topical Kritiks: Go ahead I can evaluate it. I am most familiar with Cap and Sec. Also, feel free to kick the alt and go for K turns case or the judge's role of rejection.

Nontopical Kritiks: Also go ahead I can evaluate it.

PIKs: I can evaluate it and have read PIKs before.

IVIs: Go for it I've read these too.

Head-Royce 2026

Policy --> LD :(

Middle school debate:

I'm good for anything and I have a lot of debate experience.

No counterplans

Heckles = 3 words max

POI = (+) points if it's good, (0) points if it's bad, and (-) points if it's during protected time

If POI is during protected time and no one points it out, (-) points for team answering POI

Actually justify your weighing mechanism and actually compare your impacts when weighing

Third speech is for weighing not for line-by-line - third opp especially should NOT be spending 90% of their time answering arguments

Obviously lying/making up evidence/being mean is (-) a LOT of points

TIME YOURSELF AND THE OTHER TEAM. IF YOU GO OVER BY 10+ SECONDS WITHOUT REALIZING -1000000000 POINTS.

send docs

add me to email chains add: n.karur.p@gmail.com

Just ask me questions I don't mind if you don't wanna read this

Substance-----------------------------------------X-------Prog (run whatever u want, but make sure its warranted and impacted this goes for both substance and prog.)

Tech-X------------------------------------------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Conditionality good-----------------------X--------Conditionality bad

Politics DA is a thing-X-----------------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most-------------------X---------------Link matters most

Fairness is an impact-------X--------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Try or die-----X---------------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Seriously who doesn't like clarity

Presumption---------------------------------X-------Never votes on presumption (only if its a wash, I presume neg unless presumption warrants are read)

Resting grumpy face-------------------------X-----Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------------------X----------------------More ev

Cross about impacts----------------------------X----Cross about links and solvency, and having fun (ofc ofc)

I pref fast rounds, but im down for normal speed too its just more entertaining when its a fast round cause i acc have to pay attention and flow.

Alr here's the generic stuff (stole this from Ivan and tweaked it and below that u can find more specifics)

## General Approach
- Tabula Rasa
- Tech over truth, 120%
- Will evaluate any argument run (I mean it)
- Prefer progressive debate. (Default: Theory > K > Case) But open to K > Theory, etc
- Experienced with current topics
- Fast rounds preferred

## Pre-Round Expectations
- Label email chains properly (e.g., "Nats 24 R3 F1 Email Chain Emerald AG V. Durham BH")
- Have pre-flows ready
- Be on time
- Wear what you want + Sit/Stand (No Preference)
- Be as assertive as you like

## Speed and Clarity
- Any speed is fine
- For online rounds: Will say "Clear" twice if needed
- Provide speech docs for spreading for opps. I don't like to flow off doc so i'll be fine unless its unclear.

## Arguments and Structure
- Clash is important w/ warrents
- Weighing is crucial - helps determine ballot
- Collapsing/crystallizing is essential
- Don't go for every argument on the flow
- Signpost and use brief roadmaps (max 5 seconds)
- Meta-weighing (comparative weighing) appreciated
- Unique weighing early in the round preferred

## Speech-Specific Expectations
### Rebuttal
- Read as much offense/DAs as desired
- Implicate arguments in line-by-line
- 2nd Rebuttal must frontline terminal defense and turns

### Summary
- 1st Summary: Extend turns + Case, terminal defense if time allows
- 2nd Summary: Extend as much defense as possible with author names (case too)

### Final Focus
- 1st FF: New meta*weighing allowed if ops weighing was introduced in 2nd summary, no new implications unless responding to 2nd Summary
- 2nd FF: No new weighing or implications
- Summary/FF parallelism appreciated

## Cross
- Will listen but not flow arguments unless restated in speeches
- Be strategic and smart with questions
- Some sass and fun in cross is appreciated
- Don't be too uptight

## Evidence
- Fine with email chains for evidence exchange
- Don't ask for too much evidence (at that point just send entire docs)

- Don't steal prep (I won't care unless the ops call you out)
- 2-minute limit for pulling up cards
- Will only examine evidence if asked, seems dubious, or major clash occurs
- Send docs with cards before every speech for higher speaks

- If chosen to flash cards, time yourself + Ops when reading them

## Progressive Debate
- Experienced with theory more than K's but im down to vote for either

- Default: Theory > K > Case (but can be changed)
- For tricks: Win truth testing, don't default to comparing worlds obv.
- Don't just read tricks after defaulting to comparing worlds (considered a defaulted perf con)
- Enjoy prog rounds over substance ones, but don't be discouraged if you're new to it I'd love to help out after round

- No need to extend the shell in Rebuttal, or extend Default CI/Reasonability or no/yes RVIsif both teams agree.

- I've voted for anything, even friv theory (ie: comic sans)

Heres the long ah more specific paradigm... And if u dont wanna read this or ur just lazy just ask me pre-round.

• TLDR below

Pref Sheet:

1— Substance

2 — Theory/T

3 - Tricks

4 — Stock K's

5 — Identity K's

I'll eval anything, run ANYTHING (I mean it, genuinely anything, but dont get cooked by an ivi)

Now some yap which I know most of yall ain't reading so I made ^^

HOW TO WIN (with me as a judge):

I look to weighing first (unless theres no offense and its a wash, then i presume first> neg, unless warrants are read)

Then i look to any offense that weighed (remember everything has to be extended with warrants into summary and final).

If the round was a wash, i look to see if theres any risk of solvency for the aff, and if there isnt i presume 1st speaking team.

TLDR Tabula Rasa, Tech > Truth. I like weighing, I'll evaluate prog, ill eval tricks, run wtv framing u want, ive hit kant b4 i think its stupid but i'll vote off it if handled bad. 50/50 chance I adapt on a lay panel. Just depends on my mood. Basically do whatever you want.

A general thing; keep things outside of debate, outside of the debate community don't bring it in here, be as aggressive or chill as u want in cross. Try and entertain me, your gonna regret being too serious.

I Am Fully Experienced In Whatever The Current Topic Is Cause I Compete Frequently. If you read a definition of the word USFG or smt imma lose it.

Rebuttal:

gimme a generic off time roadmap, and make sure to sign post, I love full fleshed turns but acc weigh them.

- go as fast as u want, send docs

2nd rebuttal has to frontline:If you don't frontline at all you've lost the round and the other team can call aTKOafter 1st summary if they play their cards right, (unless turns are read) Generated offense in 2nd rebuttal has to be in the form of turns and not just new disads. No new framing in 2nd rebuttal. If it was that important to you it should've been in constructive.

Summary:

No new evidence.(Unless it's to frontline your case in first summary)

Defense isn't sticky.(idk which idiot made this concept)Please extend defense in every speech; you can't forget to extend a piece of defense in summary and do a ritual in final focus to summon it.

Extensions are key.If I don't hear an extension it's wraps. You should also collapse in summary. ( I want warrants extended like no stuff like "we stop human trafficking prevents recession otherwise nuke war) thats not it, just spend like 10 seconds longer extending and get the warrants down.

Extensions need to include warrants - simply saying extend Smith '20 isn't enough, you need to be warranting your arguments in every speech. This is the biggest and easiest thing you can do to win my ballot. Rounds constantly end with "extended" offense on both sides that are essentially absent any warrants in the back half and I end up having to decide who has the closest thing to a warrant which means Ihaveto intervene. Please don't make me intervene - if you actually extend warrants for the offense that you're winning you probably will get my ballot.

Weighing is very important.I like seeing direct comparisons between impact scenarios and links. This means that the weighing has to becomparative.Weighing is not "we cause a nuclear war" and nothing else. I want to hear "We outweigh on timeframe because our impact triggers instantly while theirs takes x years"–that's a direct comparison. If teams present different weighing mechanisms, please meta-weigh. If neither side meta-weighs, I default to timeframe + magnitude.

Final Focus:

Everything in FF should've been in summary.

This includes weighing! If I hear weighing in final that wasn't in summary I won't evaluate it.

Unless they had new weighing in 2nd summary and ur responding to it, or metaweighing (2nd final no new weighing or implications)

I just want a solid explanation as to whyyouwon the round. You can line by line, or go by biggest voting issues. Just make sure you're extending what was said in summary and crystallizing everything.

Theory:

Run wtv

Disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, bracketing is bad. I won't hack for these positions though.

• Quick defaults: CI, no RVIs, Theory/T>K, theory should be speech after abuse (this is just defaults u can still read warrants to change this, but this is if no warrants are read for which i should prefer)
• U dont need extend ur shell in rebuttal unless its like a cross-app or spike just extend the warrant

• Ks, Prefiat Framework, IVIs

  • I will treatevidence challenge IVIsas round ending issues, but if I vote on an IVI I need it to be developed and warranted instead of a 3 second blip about why they should be voted down for doing X

  • I am alright withprefiat frameworksbut it’s better for them to bewarrantedin addition to the cards so the reasons why your framework means you should be voted up make sense even to debaters who aren’t familiar with prefiat arguments.

  • I am suspicious of “link ins are not allowed” arguments, not that I automatically vote against them but reading these arguments need a lot of good warranting for me to be open to it

  • If neither side wins or weighs between K and theory,I default to evaluating theory firstbut that changes depending on how you debate the round

  • Pre-fiat offense needs a lot more work done on them, acc explain the discourse spillover and why ur discourse is key and ur introduction of it blah blah..

Cross:

If something important for my ballot happens bring it up in the next speech.

Also i love it when yall r sassy and like chill in cross its so entertaining. (if ur opponents wanna hog the floor let them, I don't evaluate cross anyways, I hate it when someone takes cross to read ev or just drop a new response like wtd)

Make me laugh, don't be too serious and uptight have fun but still ask good questions, always fun to see an entertaining cross

Speaks:

I'm fine if you go no more than like 5-10 seconds overtime as long as its just finishing up smth, and its not you realizing you ducked up and didn't cover an arg and now u go for it in the last 5 seconds u dropped it, just get over it.

Read 30 speaks, its chill u dont gotta extend it.

I generally give high speaks (29+ range), but it's not too hard to get a 30 from me. Just have a good strategy (like going for turns, innovative weighing, entertaining speeches and you'll be guaranteed high speaks, also if yall are on the bubble and need high speak to break just lmk before round and ill give you 30's

In tech rounds please be clear I'm not gonna listen to mumbling and be expected to read off docs I'm fine with any speed as long as its clear. Lay panels, I think yall know what to do here (say bye bye to me ;( , ok but like if u win me on the tech while going lay auto 30 speaks).

## Decision and Post-Round
- Will always provide oral decisions
- Post-round discussions welcomed
- Decision only changed if wrong button pressed on tab

## Bonus (for certain tournaments)
For 30 speaks, provide me with Dr. Pepper, diet coke, or a bottle of water

Remember, I will evaluate every argument and keep rounds fast. I prefer progressive debate but can obv. handle any substance rounds as well. I presume first>neg>shorter speech times (or whoever gives good warrants)

## Last thoughts: Have fun; you'll regret being too uptight after your last career round.

Hey debaters, I'm Saki(she/her)!

I am the Co-Coach for Orinda Intermediate. In addition, I also debated in middle school and now I do Varsity Public Forum.

TIMING: I will be timing, if you want hand signals pls just ask(no guarantees bc I forget...sry)

I stop flowing after the 5:10 mark and won't consider anything after that.

POI/HECKLE: I love poi's and heckles, but please don't be abusive.

EVIDENCE: Tech>Truth: Meaning that I believe in examples and statistics over just statements. Pls don't make numbers and/or sources up, I can tell

WEIGH: Make your weigh clear and continue to bring it up throughout the debate and link it to your points. If you don't weigh I have no reason why I should vote for you

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be organized. It will make it easier to flow and I am more likely to vote for you.

I WANT CLASH! Tell me why I should vote for you and why your points are better.

Personally, a big thing for me is your etiquette. Massive pet peeve if you are rude to your opponents, teammates, or me. I see the faces you make and will mark you down for it. This should be fun, so being rude is just... not fun.

If you have any questions or tips, please just ask me anytime before or after the round! Trust me I'm rly nice!!

I just want to have a nice and engaging debate!

Overall, HAVE FUN AND GOOD LUCK!!!!

I am a parent debate judge. These are some of the things I will be looking for while judging

1. Content rich definition and points.
2. Speak clearly.
3. Empirical evidence.
4. Respect each other.

hrs '27

parli + random speech events

MS DEBATE

Speaking

I value how well you speak strongly.It makes it sooo much easier to flow, and will help you win if your argument is there.

obvi I'm not going to give u the win just cause you're better speakers, that will have nothing to do with my decision, but I do appreciate it. Don't fidget, stand straight, and don't mumble to be a good speaker.

Emphasize important words.

When I give speaks I look for how well I understood you. It is SO easy to read off a case, anybody can do it. pleasedon't do that- actually know what your saying and SPEND MORE TIME ON IMPORTANT PARTS!!!!

Debate

-I want you guys to referee the rules-state it when there are too many pois or heckles, or when its protected time. at a certain point I will step in.

-Assertions should follow basic format

- extend points, build case, make it clear

- don't refute arguments with JUST a quote.

- clash is a must. ESPECIALLY ON WM!!! so important to have a preferred wm if you want to win

- Fight on as much as you can, and with your refutations PLEASE do not "take down" an assertion with one sentence (it doesn't work.)

- 3rd speech is sosososo important if you fumble you lose

- I need you to tell me how to vote. make it clear. weighing is so important and it needs to connect to your mech-if it doesn't who cares about what you're saying?

- Weighing is much more than stating your impacts, and feel free to do it however you want as long as its sensible

If you have a mech, explain why its preferred, and do that in a better way than the opponent, you win your weighing mechanism!!

If you win your weighing mechanism, EXPLAIN TO ME how your case fulfills that wm BETTER than your opponents.

I am a high school debater. Speak clearly and weigh impacts. Talking fast is okay with me but it must be at a pace where your opponents can hear. Heckling is good with me but it must be reasonable and don't abuse it too much. Most important thing to me is weighing and refuting. Refutes is one of major things I will be deciding who I give my ballot to so make sure to have good refutes. Good luck on the round!

Extra: 2 extra speaker points if you incorporate brain rot or anime references in your speeches (this has nothing to do with who I give my ballot to).

Hey debaters!

I'm Isabela (she/her), I coach for Head-Royce MS Debate and I compete in Varsity Parli in High School. Overall, I'm looking for a round with good clash, persuasive speaking, and respectful debating.

TIMING:I will be timing your speeches, but you should be timing as well. If you want hand signs from me, ask at the beginning and I will try to remember to do so.

POI'S/HECKLES: I love POI's and heckles, but make sure they are not abusive. Keep POI's under three per 1st and 2nd speech, and heckles under three per 3rd speech. Try to avoid heckles in the first two speeches because you are allowed to ask POI's.

SPEAKING:I have a lot of debate experience, so I can handle faster speaking, but I think in middle school debate you should be speaking more slowly out of fairness for your opponents and because I think it's a more effective strategy to clearly and concisely convey your points. The MOST IMPORTANT things in speaking is ORGANIZATION. PLEASE be organized because it REALLY helps me as a judge.

Some tips for speaking and organization:

- Give a "roadmap" at the beginning of your speech that outlines your speech and the order of what you will say.

- Follow your "roadmap" through your speech and make it clear when you are moving on from different points by "signposting."

ex: "Now I will move on to my second assertion" or "on their third assertion ..."

- Emphasize important points: taglines, impacts, etc.

- Clearly enunciate your words and speak at an understandable speed.

CONTENT:

- Assertions should follow a basic, logical format.

- Back up all evidence with logic and explain why it is true.

- Don't refute arguments with just a quote and refute the entire logic chain not just one piece of evidence.

- Make sure every assertion has a warranted impact at the end that you clearly explain.

WEIGHING:

- PLEASE WEIGH

- Don't just state your impacts, but explain why your impacts are BETTER than your opponents: MUST BE COMPARATIVE

- Explain to me exactly why your side should win. I don't want to have to weigh for you in my decision, you need to do the work for me. If you tell me "Judge, this is why we win" I will much more likely vote for you.

- Link your weigh to your weighing mechanism if it's specific or weigh on other generic mechanisms: magnitude (how severe is it?), scope (how widespread is it?), probability, or timeframe (how urgent is it)

If you have any other questions or suggestions, feel free to ask me before the round!

Good luck and HAVE FUN!!!

I'm Riddhish Saravanan, a current sophomore PF Debater at Emerald High School and the VP of EHS Debate. I have 2 years of experience in High School debate already, in that time I have gone to numerous Nat Circuit tournaments and qualified to CHSSA States.

Put me on the email chain! saravanan5170@mydusd.org

Just do what you do best, I understand it's hard to stand up and speak to a bunch of strangers. I am pretty open to all types of arguments as long as you can explain them to me.

TL;DR:

Tech>Truth (I will evaluate all arguments as long as they are properly brought up and addressed in the round, I will NOT use my own biases/preferences when voting)

Go as fast as you want (provided you are clear), if you are becoming incoherent then I'll put my hand up and say "clear!" If you still do not slow down/increase clarity then that will be reflected in your speaks

Read any argument you want as long as it is notproblematic

please weigh!!!!!!!

Middle School Specific:

Feel free to use POI's and heckles but don't go overboard with them

State your impact cleanly and please explain to me why it is more important than the other impact(s) in the round

If you are going fast then explain what your moving onto or signpost(ie: transitioning from their 1st to 2nd argument should be mentioned)

Please stick to real evidence sources, and do NOT make up evidence or authors because I will know and it's not going to work out in your favor

Debate is meant to be fun and educational so please uphold those norms and be good people!!!!

Hi. Although I don't have official speech and debate experience, I have been in various other oral argument clubs, such as Mock Trial. For your round, I expect you to make your arguments clear and concise and always tie back to the topic (why is your side right). For your rebuttal, make sure you actually rebut the points your opposition makes and are responsive to those points. You'll get higher scores if you ask and respond to POIs. I really care about presentational skills so make sure to have a loud voice and proper hand-gestures. Although I would prefer evidence for each of your claims, proper logic will suffice. I also don't care if you guys heckle.

email: jasleen.shahi.singh@gmail.com
Hello! I have been doing speech and debate for a good majority of my life (since 5th grade), and have participated in a variety of events. I spend most of my time doing congressional debate, but I have also competed in PF events and policy events.
I love seeing speakers with unique, and captivating speaking styles! That being said,FACT TRIUMPHS FLAMBOYANCY. If I believe your argument lacks proper facts, your scores will reflect that.

Here's how I define facts
- Research coming from a credible source

- Credible evidence that is well embedded and clearly explained in your argument

- an event or statistic presented to the case with a CLEAR purpose. Do not throw random statistics in for the sake of it.

What I'll take into consideration during scoring

- how fast you speak! please do not go a mile a minute. I like well paced, thorough speakers.

- if you're valuing quantity over quality-- just because you have more points, does not make your argument better. Every point needs to be CLEARLY and THOROUGHLY developed and explained.

- respect shown to the opposite side. If you cannot remain cordial and professional, your scores will reflect that.

Have a great time competing!

Hello debaters,

My name is Andy and I am a high school debater. I've done both Congress and PF for the past 3 years. I did competitive debate in middle school and am pretty well-versed in this debate style. I'm okay with faster speeds, but ultimately, no one should ever be going so fast that it detracts from their speaking ability or my comprehension. Here's what I'm looking for in a debate:

• fluctuation of tone
• effective and logical refutations
• practical pace
• eye contact
• FUNNY INTRO OR JOKE
• POIs and heckles so long as within ebdl regulations
• ethos + logos evidence
• Trustworthy sources
• How well you fulfill your duty as the first, second, or third speaker
• First --> establish a foundation, be the best in terms of delivery since most prepared, provide comprehensive evidence, break down your arguments establish a weigh, impact, and stay engaged by POIing + heckling +helping your teammates
• Second --> Begin to break down the other side's arguments, expand on your arguments,rebuildyour arguments, continue to connect everything to weigh, impact, and stay engaged by POIing + heckling +helping your teammates
• Third --> Destroy other side's arguments, rebuild your arguments, WEIGH + IMPACT + COMPARISON, stay engaged by POIing + heckling +helping your teammates

Ultimately, the entire debate comes down to CLASH:

1. Ifyour team and the other team both say the same argument(ex: Aff is saying motion will help economy Neg is saying motion will harm economy) repeating your arguments endlessly is not the way to win. Compare evidence through source trustworthiness, date, which has better/more comprehensive analysis, which is more pertinent to circumstances at hand, etc. Go beyond the wall where most debaters fall and prove to me, not just that your point has evidence but it has BETTER evidence and should be taken into account instead of theirs. The same thing goes if you guys have thesame weigh,then you don't need to convince me that the economy matters but rather how you impact it more realistcally.
2. Ifyour team and the other team have different arguments you should always and firstly refute the foundation of their arguments. However, you can also clash through comparison. For example, if Aff is weighing on economy and Neg is weighing on the environment, Neg can say that the environment matters more than the economy because the environment refers to the livelihood of our entire planet and is something necessary to our survival whereas harming the economy affects less people and on a lesser magnitude. Conversely, the Aff can say that serious changes to our environment through reducing harmful practices we rely on are unfeasible in today's age and even if we accept the Neg, while they may provide a benefit in the long term, it does nothing for the millions of impoverished starving people right now who need more job opportunities, higher pay, etc

• When this circumstance occurs, you prove to me not what your argument is, but why it matters more. The best way to compare in my opinion is using the PMTS methods (probability, magnitude, timeframe, scope) and you don't need these terms in your speech but you can utilize the premise of these concepts to compare arguments.

At the end of the day, be respectful and have fun.

Hi guys!

I'm Derek. I'm a sophomore debating Public Forum and Foothill High School. I did two years of middle school parli for two years, so I'm relatively aware of what goes on in this style of debate.

TLDR:Tech>Truth

Signposting is good, do it

POI's are cool, don't abuse them

Evidence ethics matter, I can tell

Speed is fine, just be clear, if not I can't follow and your speaks will go down

Anything that makes debate not a safe space(racism, sexism, etc) and I drop you

Weighing is good, do it (pls)

SIGNPOSTING: Tell me where on the flow you are!!! If you make arguments all over the place and don't tell me where, I WONT KNOW WHERE YOU ARE AND I CANT FLOW IT

Speed:I can probably handle any speed in middle school, but if you actually try to spread my top speed max's out at 300 wpm, maybe 350 if you speak very clearly. If you go fast though,make sure you are clear. I will try to signal to you that I can't understand what you are saying, and if i can'tI won't flow anything I can't follow. Also, since it's middle school, if the other team asks you to go slower, please just be nice and do it. I don't like people abusing speed to spread people out of the round.

POIs and Heckles: I like these and good use of them is cool in round. Please follow the rules and don't abuse it, though, I won't be happy if you over heckle or anything. On the other hand, if you make good responses to POI's, I'll be happy :) and your speaks will probably go up.

Evidence: Just to get this out of the way, DON'T MISCONSTRUE EVIDENCE. I can tell.Cite your sources right, and if you make up some evidence, I can tell. If your evidence is absurd, I'll check it, and if you did a bad thing, I'll drop you, or give low speaks depending on whatever the tournament organizers want. Since this is middle school parli, evidence doesn't matter as much as in other types of debate. I will evaluate this round as close to tabula rasa as i can. That means, if you say pigs can fly, and the other team doesn't respond, I'll believe that pigs can fly. Also, I know you guys love responding with "they're evidence isn't true!!" and while I'll take that, you need to tell me why they're wrong and also give me something else to prefer over their evidence. Do warrant comparison: why your evidence/logic is preferable over theirs.

Clash: Clash is essentially just when your arguments are conflicting with your opponents. So like if you say that uniforms make people happy, and they say uniforms make people sad, you have clash.DON'T JUST TELL ME THEY'RE WRONG, EXPLAIN WHY TOO. You can do evidence comparison, that doesn't matter as much to me because of how this format works, but if you can, cool! Just give me reasons to prefer your stuff. Logic is cool, I like people using logic.

Rebuttals: Defense is not sticky!!! If you read a rebuttal in an earlier speech that you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, (if this isn't the third negative at least) YOU NEED TO AT LEAST RESTATE THE REBUTTAL. Other than that, there are three main ways to refute. First the outweigh. This generally is pretty weak but is fine, it tells me why your impacts matter more than their arguments. Second is the block. This is just their argument is wrong, which is pretty cool. Third is the turn, which makes their argument instead beneficial to you, and is the best type of response if you can do it.

Weighing: Please do this, tell me why to prefer your impacts over theirs. Most common ways to do this are magnitude, timeframe, and probability (kinda fake). On probability, I think that if you win your link chain into an impact (the reasoning for why you get to... nuke war for example), your impact occurs, even if it's improbable. If you know how to do this, metaweigh (explain why your weighing mechanism is more important than theirs). You can also explain how your impacts cause/mean that your opponents impacts don't trigger. These are good, and they tell me which impact to prioritize first.Weighing is not pandering to the judge for two minutes. Prewritten weighs are probably bad, because they don't actually compare both sides. I don't care about imagining myself in a box, I want you to tell me you save more lives than them. At the end of the round, even if I'm moved to tears by your emotional speech, if they tell me that they save 100 people and you just say zoos are bad or something, even if zoos seem really bad I also need to hear why I actually NEED to care.

Extensions/Rebuilding Case:I really don't care for this, I think it's pretty pointless, but since it's a debate norm, you should probably do it a bit. That being said, if a part of your case goes conceded I consider it functionally extended. But make sure to frontline your case.

Speaks: I want to give high speaks! It really just comes down to how you speak. If you do some cool or funny stuff, I'll probably bump your speaks up.

Hello debaters,

My name is Emma and I am a high school debater. I did two years of competitive debate in middle school and know the rules well. As you'll hear with most high schoolers, I'm okay with faster speeds but ultimately, no one should ever be going so fast that it detracts from their speaking ability or my comprehension. I'm also someone who is not afraid to give an 80 or a 72 so here are some things I value in speakers:

• fluctuation of tone
• effective and logical refutations
• practical pace
• eye contact
• FUNNY INTRO OR JOKE
• POIs and heckles so long as within ebdl regulations
• ethos + logos evidence
• Trustworthy sources
• How well you fulfill your duty as the first, second, or third speaker
• First --> establish a foundation, be the best in terms of delivery since most prepared, provide comprehensive evidence, break down your arguments establish a weigh, impact, and stay engaged by POIing + heckling + helping your teammates
• Second --> Begin to break down the other side's arguments, expand on your arguments,rebuild your arguments, continue to connect everything to weigh, impact, and stay engaged by POIing + heckling + helping your teammates
• Third --> Destroy other side's arguments, rebuild your arguments, WEIGH + IMPACT + COMPARISON, stay engaged by POIing + heckling + helping your teammates

Ultimately, the entire debate comes down to CLASH:

1. If your team and the other team both say the same argument (ex: Aff is saying motion will help economy Neg is saying motion will harm economy) repeating your arguments endlessly is not the way to win. Compare evidence through source trustworthiness, date, which has better/more comprehensive analysis, which is more pertinent to circumstances at hand, etc. Go beyond the wall where most debaters fall and prove to me, not just that your point has evidence but it has BETTER evidence and should be taken into account instead of theirs. The same thing goes if you guys have the same weigh, then you don't need to convince me that the economy matters but rather how you impact it more realistcally.
2. If your team and the other team have different arguments you should always and firstly refute the foundation of their arguments. However, you can also clash through comparison. For example, if Aff is weighing on economy and Neg is weighing on the environment, Neg can say that the environment matters more than the economy because the environment refers to the livelihood of our entire planet and is something necessary to our survival whereas harming the economy affects less people and on a lesser magnitude. Conversely, the Aff can say that serious changes to our environment through reducing harmful practices we rely on are unfeasible in today's age and even if we accept the Neg, while they may provide a benefit in the long term, it does nothing for the millions of impoverished starving people right now who need more job opportunities, higher pay, etc.

- When this circumstance occurs, you prove to me not what your argument is, but why it matters more. The best way to compare in my opinion is using the PMTS methods (probability, magnitude, timeframe, scope) and you don't need these terms in your speech but you can utilize the premise of these concepts to compare arguments.

Maxwell Wong - Head-Royce School '25 - he/they

Co-Head Coach, Head-Royce Middle School Debate. I did/do MS Debate, HS Parli, HS Policy. Max, not judge. Time yourselves.

-

The following is how debate should work:

Tech over truth.

I will evaluate the content presented to me in the 6 speeches.

Answer arguments in the order presented. Minimize overviews and extraneous arguments.

Do impact calc and weigh in the last speech.

Use your weighing mech.

Arguments must have a claim, a warrant, and an impact.

New assertions in the second opp speech = :(, but I'll technically evaluate it

no prep time.

-

if you want, ask me for a digital copy of my flow. I will always be held accountable this way.

add me to the email chain: ruyizhang07@gmail.com

PUBLIC FORUM:

Tech > truth. I only evaluate based on what's presented in the round. That means that everything has to be warranted, extended, and implicated if necessary.I WILL NOT DO THIS FOR YOU.

Please extend offense. That means in every speech explain to me what contention/argument you're winning on and why. That way, I clearly can see that's what you want me to vote on. It's okay to collapse near the end (drop an argument and only focus on one) to save time. I won't penalize you for that and I recommend it or else you don't cover time to cover the entire debate.

Defense is not sticky.please interact with your opponent's responses. Don't just say "they don't have evidence", "no warrant", or repeat your argument again. If you don't respond I will assume it's true no matter how outrageous it is.

Speed is okay but I hate flowing off speech docs and it's on you if I drop something because I can't understand.

Please weigh and metaweigh.

1. Short Circuit > Prereq > Timeframe > Magnitude > Probability. If you don't metaweigh (tell me why I should prefer one type of weighing over another) these are my defaults.
2. I don't like probability weighing. If you win the links to your impact (prove why your impact will happen) you get 100% probability even if it's something like "aliens will take over Earth and cause extinction"

If no one weighs and/or no one wins case I'll presume neg.

Prog

1. Any theory is okay. I don't care if it's friv. For anything that's not disclosure speak slower because I may not be familiar with it
2. I've never been in or judged a K debate before. Unless you can make it really really clear you probably shouldn't run a K
3. If you run a framework please meet your framework. Poverty does not meet structural violence unless you directly tell me that people in poverty are mostly minorities. Also, you still have to weigh under a framework

Speaks

Here are some things you can do to get a speaks bump:

1. Bring me food
2. Make a Minecraft analogy
3. Message my public forum partner and tell him I'm the better debater. It's on you guys to stalk him
4. Make the round fun. Tell a joke or run an interesting argument

MIDDLE SCHOOL DEBATE

Hi all! I debate public forum under amador valley. I've basically transitioned into being their coach at this point. Let me know if you want pointers after the round. I'm more than happy to talk about it.

Tech > truth. I only evaluate based on what's presented in the round. You do not need to have evidence for a response as long as it has logic to support it. That means that everything has to be warranted, extended, and implicated if necessary. I WILL NOT DO THIS FOR YOU.

Please extend your offense. That means in every speech explain to me what contention/argument you're winning on and why. That way, I clearly can see that's what you want me to vote on. It's okay to collapse near the end (drop an argument and only focus on one) to save time. I won't penalize you for that and I recommend it or else you don't cover time to cover the entire debate.

Defense is not sticky.please interact with your opponent's responses. Don't just say "they don't have evidence" or repeat your argument again. If you don't respond I will assume it's true no matter how outrageous it is.

-IMPORTANT- WEIGHING MECHANISMS AND WEIGHING

If both sides win their argument(s) the round comes down to who has better weighing. First on weighing mechanisms.

1. You have to prove to me that you meet your weighing mechanism. If you can't even meet your weighing mechanism you can't win the round
2. If your opponent has a different weighing mechanism you need to tell me why I should judge the round under your weighing mechanism and not your opponents. (etc why "Net Benefits" is a better way to judge than "Prioritizing Minorities"). If both sides agree on the same weighing mechanism you have to tell me why you meet the weighing mechanism better than your opponent. This is where "regular" weighing comes in. See below for an explanation on how I judge weighing.
3. If both teams choose to engage in a weighing mechanisms debate and you seem to be losing it, you can "link in" to your opponent's weighing mechanism and show me why you meet their weighing mechanism better than they do.

Onto regular weighing:

1. Short Circuit > Prereq > Timeframe > Magnitude > Probability. If you don't metaweigh (tell me why I should prefer one type of weighing over another) these are my defaults.
2. I don't like probability weighing. If you win the links to your impact (prove why your impact will happen) you get 100% probability even if it's something like "aliens will take over Earth and cause extinction"

If both teams don't weigh or neither side wins their argument, I will presume Opp.

Speaks

You can do these things to get a speaks bump

1. Bring me food! ez peasy
2. Make the round fun. Tell a joke or run an interesting argument. I'm tech > truth so I'll buy any argument as long it's well-reasoned.
3. Engage in a weighing mechanisms debate. I highlighted above the different options to engage in a weighing mechanisms debate. I think that a weighing mechanism debate is one of the most spontaneous things a debater can do and it really shows me your thinking skills. Bonus points if you bring up philosophy to support your weighing mechanism
4. Respond to POIs. I know you guys are trying to get your four assertions in but it's okay to sacrifice an assertion to engage in a POI debate. It shows me you can think on your feet.
5. My favorite video game is Minecraft. Please make analogies to Minecraft.
6. Tell/message my public forum partner I'm the better debater. It's on you to stalk him
7. Extend a branch to your opponents. This can be literally or figuratively.

My paradigm is really long so if you have any questions just let me know. I'm more than happy to answer any questions.