I am judging debate from last few years. Please be sure to speak slowly and clearly so that I am able to take appropriate notes. Clarity over speed. If you use debate jargon, you will need to explain it to me.

I hope to see good use of evidence and delivery. Evidence should be timely, relevant, and trustworthy. Debaters should call for evidence and refute it when possible. Delivery is critical. Debaters should be clear and
concise. I want to see that you are defending your arguments well, not just negating your opponents points.

If you can keep track of speech times, that would be helpful.

It's important that debaters be courteous to each other during the round.

Have a great debate!

Hi everyone! My name is Adam, and I’m looking forward to judging this round. I have firsthand experience in Public Forum (PF) debate from competing in multiple tournaments, so I understand the effort that goes into preparing and performing. I’m excited to see what you bring to the table!

Ground Rules:

To make sure the round goes smoothly, here are some guidelines I follow:

Time Management: You’re responsible for keeping track of your speaking time. I’ll also time the speeches, but it’s up to the opposing team to call out if time is exceeded—I won’t interrupt.

Prep Time: I’ll monitor prep time for both sides to ensure fairness. Please clearly let me know when you’re starting and stopping prep.

Respectful Conduct: I expect all debaters to remain courteous and professional throughout the round. Rudeness or inappropriate behavior will lower your speaker points.

What I Value in a Debate:

Here’s what I prioritize when evaluating the round:

Strong Argumentation: Your contentions and subpoints should be backed by solid reasoning, evidence, and clear explanations. The more logical and well-supported your arguments are, the more persuasive they’ll be.

Engaging Crossfire: Crossfire is your chance to clarify points and challenge the opposing team’s arguments. I appreciate thoughtful, relevant questions and concise, direct answers.

Clear Presentation: While debate often moves quickly, clear and organized speech is essential for me to follow and accurately flow your arguments.

Linking Back to the Resolution: Make sure your arguments consistently tie back to the resolution. This helps keep the debate focused and reinforces your case.
Fairness and Respect: I strive to judge based on the merits of the arguments, and I expect both teams to engage fairly and constructively with one another.

After the Round:

Once the debate concludes, I’ll provide feedback to help you improve. If you have any questions about my decision or suggestions, feel free to ask. I aim to help you grow as debaters, so I encourage open communication after the round.

I’m excited to hear your arguments, and I wish both teams the best of luck. Let’s have a great debate!

I am a parent judge.

Please explain your arguments clearly. I value logical reasoning and clear connections between your arguments and the resolution.

Please back up your arguments with evidence, and explain why the evidence matter.

I would appreciate it if you explain to me why your side should win.

If you speak too quickly, I may miss important details.

I try my best to flow.

Please be respectful to your opponents throughout the debate.

Please add me to the email chain: li.he.2008@gmail.com

Good luck!

I have some experience with LD judging. I have a background in college teaching.

I will try to flow, but flowing spreading will be a big challenge. Please make sure to state your contentions and sub-points slowly and clearly.

Thank you for debating. Good luck!

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

As a seasoned judge with few years of coaching and judging experience, I prioritize a conversational delivery and balanced use of jargon for clarity in communication. My meticulous note-taking ensures accurate recall of key arguments.

I equally value both argument and style, emphasizing the foundational importance of substantive arguments. In evaluating debates, I prioritize content, structure, and adherence to the topic, favoring arguments with real-world impacts and diverse perspectives.

Reflecting on my judging experience, I find that well-supported arguments tied to real-world impacts are consistently the most compelling in previous rounds.

In terms of in-round conduct, I expect debaters to maintain a respectful demeanor, actively fostering a constructive and competitive spirit aligned with the educational goals of debate.

Adhering to judging principles, I commit to impartiality, active listening, and fairness. Open-mindedness guides my approach, ensuring receptiveness to diverse perspectives without pre-judgment. Respect, adaptability, and encouragement of engagement are fundamental to my judging philosophy.

Upholding integrity, I steer clear of conflicts of interest and provide transparent criteria for decision-making. Constructive feedback is integral, offering positive reinforcement and specific, actionable advice for improvement.

Parent judge

Not very comfortable with advanced arguments and spreading

Familiar with PF, had training

Clarity is important

Hello everyone! My name is Saina (sign-uh), and I am thrilled to be your judge for this round. I am a student judge with experience in Public Forum (PF) debate, having competed in a few tournaments myself. I understand the challenges of being in your position, and I truly look forward to hearing your arguments.

Ground Rules:

Before we begin, I want to go over a few ground rules to ensure that our round runs smoothly:

1. Timekeeping: Debaters are responsible for timing their speeches. I may time as well, but I will not interrupt a speech if it goes over time. It is up to the opposing team to point out any time violations.

2. Prep Time: I will keep track of prep time for both teams to maintain fairness. Please let me know when you are starting and stopping your prep.

3. Professionalism: Throughout the debate, I expect all participants to remain respectful and professional. Disrespectful behavior or inappropriate language will negatively affect your speaker points.

What I Value as a Judge

Here are some things I look for when evaluating the round:

• Well-Warranted Arguments: Each contention and subpoint should have clear reasoning, evidence, and explanation. Warranting your claims will make them much more compelling.

• Effective Crossfire: Crossfire is an opportunity to clarify arguments and challenge your opponents. I value thoughtful, relevant questions and concise, direct answers.

• Clear Delivery: Speak in a way that is easy to follow, even if you are presenting a lot of information. While debate is fast-paced, clarity is crucial for ensuring I can flow your arguments accurately.

• Restating the Resolution: Please make an effort to tie your arguments back to the resolution as needed. It helps frame the debate and reminds me of what you're ultimately trying to prove.

• Fairness and Respect: I aim to judge impartially, focusing on the strength of the arguments presented. However, I expect both teams to adhere to the spirit of debate by engaging with each other's arguments fairly.

Feedback and Questions

After the round, I will provide written/oral feedback to help you improve. I am here to help you grow as debaters, so I encourage open dialogue after the round.

Once again, I am excited to hear your arguments, and I wish both teams the best of luck! Let’s have a great debate!

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Experienced lay judge

- I value logical argumentation and confidence in your speeches

- In the backhalf, I like to hear weighing (telling me why I should prefer your impacts over your opponents) and that is how I make my decisions.

- You are responsible for timing your opponents and yourselves

- be respectful + have fun !