I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging.

Please, no spreading. I prefer maximum three distinct points with clear warrants and significant impacts sufficient to support your stance. Listen and ensure you address the other teams counters to support your case.

Finally, this is fun and about the experience.. be cool and confident and respect others.

Hi! I graduated from Plano East in 2024, and I'm now a student at UT Austin! I'll mainly be judging Congress and Extemp:

Congress:

Content is often overlooked in Congress, but to me, it's definitely the most important part of a speech. Bring unique ideas and arguments into the debate to keep it interesting. Make sure to refute, weigh, and interact with speakers on both sides. I also value good rhetoric integrated into the heavy content, it differentiates you from the rest of the competitors in the room. When it comes to delivery, just be yourself and keep it fun.

PO: Know the Congress procedures clearly and keep the chamber running efficiently. As long as you keep the round moving smoothly, you will be ranked well. Making one or two precedence/recency mistakes is okay, but if it's disrupting the round, you will be ranked lower. I'll always rank an exceptional speaker over a PO.

Extemp:

Answer the question clearly, with strong content to demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic area. Maintain a fluent cadence and make your delivery memorable, humor is awesome!

In case I’m judging any other event, here are some general things I’ll be looking for:

Debate Events: Make sure to keep the flow organized, clearly sign-post, so it’s easy for me to understand. If you plan on spreading, that’s cool, just share the case beforehand. Weighing is a huge part of any debate event, so spend a good portion of time doing that in the last few speeches of the round.

IE Events: Similar to Extemp, as long as I’m able to follow along with your speech/piece, that’s great. A personal connection to the topic is pretty cool too.

Hi, I am a graduate who competed for Dripping Springs High School participating in mainly PF and Worlds.

Email:

brett.banks@utexas.edu- Add me to the chain, please!

Worlds:

I am a blank slate and treat this event as tech > truth. I have plenty of experience with this event so I know the ins and outs. This event is all about clash so please avoid being repetitive.

PF:

Tech > Truth within reason here. Add me to the chain.

LD/CX:

Very much traditional here, however, I am open to voting on anything. Just try to simplify any complicated arguments for me. I will almost always vote on the shortest path to the ballot.

Speech:

I honestly have no idea how to judge a speech event properly so just try to be fluent.

Debated for Dulles for 4 years with TOC, TFA, and nats quals.

pf:

Please be pre-flowed before the round!

yes, add me to the email chain: tiffany51206@gmail.com

tech > truth, defense is not sticky

-please signpost and number your responses—chances are I'll be able to follow even if you're speaking kinda fast whereas if you don't signpost I will be confused when I look at my flow and consequently may struggle to make a good decision. If you think you'll be going too fast send a speech doc

-I want to see warrants in all parts of the debate and always prefer them over blippy responses

-Please weigh. New weighing not already done is summary is weighing done too late

-I don't flow card names so if you reference one re-iterate what the actual card says

Prog:

-For theory, I default reasonability and yes rvis. i don't really care for friv theory.

-For Ks, I'm I'm definitely not the most comfortable evaluating them and that may reflect in the rfd but if you insist on running them then over-explain everything

LD:

I don't want to see anything other than trad substance debate

glhf!

tech > truth

run whatever

any speed

I'm not the best with Ks but I'll try my best to evaluate it.

Send speech docs (ideally with cut cards)

email me for concerns/questions: rboddeti4@gmail.com

I'll disclose after the round if the tournament lets me.

You can post round I won't get mad or dock speaks I promise.

For a longer paradigm, I agree with everything in Aamir Kutianawala paradigm.

Add westwoodpfdocs@gmail.com to the email chain.

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I think it is especially important to make sure cases are comprehensible. I look at speech docs if something only if evidence is questioned. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed. Please keep all this in mind if you normally utilize speedy delivery.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing and I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

I am a lay judge. Please speak in a moderate speed and be respectful to each other. I would prefer a roadmap to know what I should expect. I am not a tech judge. No shells, theories or Ks. I will be flowing on paper.

As a new parent judge, I am dedicated to being fair and impartial. I don't have any preconceived biases or knowledge about the topic being debated, so I will rely solely on what is said during the round to make my decision.

I would prefer debaters speak clearly and in normal pace (not familiar with spreading :-) I will base my decision on who I believe made the most convincing case, explained their arguments clearly, and provided the best weighing and impact analysis. Wish you all good luck and enjoy the debate!

Policy: I am tabula rasa in the sense that I believe my judging paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I default to a policymaker paradigm if the issue isn't debated. I don't prejudge arguments; I'm open to listening to any kind of argument you care to make. Be kind and respectful of others. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Warrants, impacts and clash are important. I don't like time to be wasted.

LD: I tend to be somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to theory, though I can be persuaded. I consider the standards debate (value, criterion -- and please don't refer to a "value criterion") to be very important. Big picture is as important as line-by-line. Warrants and impacts are crucial.

PF: I adhere to the NSDA rule that prohibits plans and counterplans. My primary background is policy debate, so I tend to look for impacts to arguments. The appropriate paradigm I should use to judge the round is an issue to be debated in the round. I'm not a fan of paraphrased evidence.

(paradigm written by my son)

I am a parent judge, this is my first tournament judging any type of debate.

No theory, K, anything that is not traditional public forum debate.

I take good notes, but I absolutely can not understand you if you talk too fast, keep it to a conversational pace.

I trust that you will keep time of speeches and prep, yours as well as your opponents if you would like.

I will believe most arguments, it is up to your opponents to point out the flaws. The exception is if the argument is illogical, doesn't have a clear link chain, or is plain wrong. Truth > Tech (heavily).

Last time for new evidence is first summary only when defending your case.

It's okay to drop some arguments and rebuttals to further your more important ones, in fact I encourage it. Unless there is a turn on your case, you do need respond to that. Quality > Quantity.

Signpost very clearly, if I don't know where you are, I simply won't flow the argument.

I will not listen to cross examination for arguments, bring it up in a speech if it's important. I will listen to ensure that you are being civil and for speaker points.

Clearly extend arguments through your speeches - not doing so risks me forgetting it and thinking it's new.

In summary and final focus especially, give very clear voters. The more clear, the more likely I am to vote for you, even if you are losing the round on the flow. Be convincing.

Anything racist, sexist, homophobic, harmful or insulting to your opponents, etc. will result in a loss of speaker points, how many depending on the severity. An extreme enough case will lead to you losing the round automatically and me contacting tab.

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged public forum rounds, it is only more recently that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

I am a parent judge and served as LD judge since 2023. My background is a seasoned scientist in Biotechnology, I value evidence based arguments. Please prepare accordingly.

My email address is: xiuquanluo@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. Focus on good public speaking skills and analytical argumentation with supporting evidence.

This is my first time judging debate. Please speak slow enough that I do not have to read a speech doc, DO NOT spread or I will not understand you; I will not flow your arguments and they will not be considered. Considering an argument "sticky" is taking a risk that I will forget about it (mainly for summary).

DO NOT be homophobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or discriminatory in any way. If you are rude or disrespectful I will vote you down.

As a new parent judge, I haven't formed opinions or preferences yet. The only exception would be that I have trouble understanding rapid speech, and so would prefer a slower presentation.

Explain the impacts well. A likely modest impact can outweigh a remotely possible extinction event.

Signposting helps me keep track of arguments and counter arguments.

It's my first time judging. I don’t care if you go fast. But if you’re sacrifcing quality for quantity, that’s not really going to help you.

Focus on making coherent arguments and building on them throughout the debate.

Hello! I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging. I will most likely not be flowing and make sure to go slow because if I don't hear it I will not consider it when submitting my ballot. Please be prepared when coming into the round and let me know who is speaking on what side. Be nice to your opponents or speaks will be TANKED. Don't try to get away with being condescending and belittling your opponent in cross. Add me to the email chain:andreaperezdunn@gmail.com (No speechdrop I don't know what that is). I know little to nothing about these events so in debate time your opponents, time yourself, tell me when someone is going overtime. Same for prep time, tell me if your opponent is stealing prep. Overall just have lots of lay appeal (standing, eye contact, confident speaking, etc.). Please be smart enough to know that you shouldn't be running K's, theory or anything that your guardians don't know.

Good luck everyone!

(Paradigm written by student; I don't know jargon)

Policymaker paradigm, but open to all arguments.

Quality > quantity of arguments.

Speed isn't an issue, but analysis of arguments > speed. Evidence is necessary, but reading a bunch of cards back to back isn't a substitute for analysis/explaining the impact of that argument in your own words.

I don't usually disclose the outcome of a round, as I think there is greater educational value in contemplating the round over the course of the day.

Hi, I’m a first-time parent judge with limited experience in debate. I value clear, logical, and well-organized arguments. Speak at a conversational pace, and avoid excessive jargon or unexplained terminology. I will evaluate the round based on the arguments presented, so make sure to weigh your impacts and explain why your side should win. During Crossfire, I appreciate respectful and productive questioning. I may not flow arguments made in Crossfire unless they’re brought up in later speeches. Please focus on clear communication and respectful behavior. If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round.
if needed please start an email chain and add me to : sanjeevkumar.v@gmail.com