I'm an experienced parent-judge and a former APDA debater at Harvard College. I have a fair amount of recent parli judging experience, including the finals of the 2019 NPDL ToC and the finals of the 2018 Stanford Invitational.

I track every argument carefully (in writing) and I take a tabula rasa approach — I don't consider any argument unless it's raised in the round and I don't let my personal opinions impact how I assess the round. I do weigh arguments qualitatively, relying heavily on my judgment to assess competing positions; for me, one very strong argument can outweigh multiple weaker/mediocre ones. I vote for the side who is more persuasive — the side that would convince a group of smart, engaged, thoughtful lay-people who are comfortable thinking about complicated arguments involving lots of tradeoffs.

Please crystallize and weigh arguments, and frame the round. Any decision involves tradeoffs; help me understand why your position should defeat their other side, despite (usually) there being considerable merit to many of the other side's arguments.

Theory. I'm not fluent in theory, so if you make theory arguments, you should explain them clearly and very thoughtfully. I prefer not to decide rounds on the basis of theory arguments, and I generally will weigh theory heavily only when one side (or both sides) are being clearly abusive in some way (e.g., arguing a truism; ignoring or unfairly interpreting the resolution; making offensive arguments against marginalized groups).

Kritiks. I don't like kritiks, although I understand why proponents like them. Consistent with my view on theory generally, I strongly prefer that kritik arguments only be made in rounds where the other side is being obviously abusive. In general, I prefer that each side accept the resolution largely as-is and argue it straight up.

Speed. I'm not comfortable with high-speed speeches. I find it difficult to keep track of arguments when someone is talking much faster than a person typically talks when trying to convince someone of something in the real world.

Complexity of arguments. I have a lot of interests in the outside world and I'm open to complex arguments about nearly any topic, including economics, politics, international relations, foreign policy, business, technology, psychology, and pop culture. I'm a longtime participant in the technology industry, and I enjoy complicated tech-related arguments.

Value and fact rounds. I enjoy value and fact rounds, so I don't want them to be converted into policy rounds.

Tag teaming. Tag teaming is fine.

Hi everyone! Quick paradigm: I would consider myself to be a lay judge. This is my first year being a part of speech and debate, and I’ve only judged at one or two tournaments before this (and primarily not in debate). While I do understand the basic terminology (contentions, claims, warrants, impacts, etc) more advanced terms like “Ks” and “theory” are things I’m not super familiar with. On that note, please do not do anything too “techy” because I will not be able to follow it and, as a result, I will not be able to vote for you. As a general rule of note I would prefer simple, well-reasoned out arguments. To determine if you’re doing this type of argumentation ask yourself three things: 1. Is the organization of my speeches and the flow easy to follow? 2. Do I present arguments that rely on an effective combination of evidence and logic? And 3. Do I respond to my opponent’s arguments while also effectively defending and reinforcing my own? If you do these three things and all have clear comparisons between your side of the debate and your opponent’s, you should be good to go! Finally, I am working on developing stronger flow skills. That said, I should be able to follow what is said in the round effectively and then judge based on those notes, but, again, your level of organization and comparison will have a huge impact on how easily and effectively this is done.

I have experience with College IPDA, Parliamentary Debate, and Mock Trial. I emphasize good sportsmanship and kind debaters during my rounds. The more technical aspects will not influence my decision. General argumentation, logical reasoning, and professionalism will impact my decision. Ultimately, have fun, and let's have a great debate round!

Generally, I accept any form of argumentation if presented correctly. I have been involved in this activity for the past 13 years of my life, as both a high school and college competitor, as well as a current middle+high school debate coach. Put simply, you don't need to worry about debate terminology, strategies, or anything else that some judges might not know. If you run it, I'll know about it. That said, please still treat me as a normal person that you're trying to persuade! I know that debate is perceived as a "game," but I think that the "game" is figuring out strategies to make your arguments as persuasive to as many people as possible, which often involves starting at a basic level of understanding and adding additional complexity and nuance as you go.

Beyond that, I tend to align more with "traditional" debate arguments (your classic claim, warrant, evidence, impact) structure with solid clash against your opponent's (hopefully) similarly structured arguments. The worst thing that can happen for me as a judge is a round where the teams are two ships passing in the night, because then it becomes my job to intervene and figure out how those two things actually interact with one another (and I think we can all agree that judge intervention is not good). Finally, while I am OPEN to technical debate (K's, Theory, etc.) the bar is higher for these things since you have essentially infinite time to prep them. You need to do work to explain to me how they clearly link back to THIS specific round and how they outweigh your opponent's SPECIFIC arguments. Please, please don't just treat them as a catch-all.

Otherwise, good luck! You got this!

If you'd like feedback from me regarding a verbal or written RFD I gave you, please feel free to reach out at hmalek@windwardschool.org and I'd be more than happy to help.

I was a high school policy debater about 30 years ago. My partner and I qualified for the TOCs three times and we made it to the semi-finals my senior year.

After a long absence from debate, I started judging LD about a year ago when my daughter started debate. I was surprised to see that LD is much more like policy now. As a former policy debater, that is fine with me. I will do my best to take a tabula rosa approach.

I judged a good number of novice rounds last year and have judged at one varsity tournament. Speed is fine but of course be clear.

I tend to vote for the debater who tells the best story at the end of the round. If it is a close debate, the quality of evidence you read may be decisive.

It is very possible that I will miss a blippy argument spoken at high speed. If there's an argument you think is a winner, make sure it's registering with me.

The kritik was just emerging when I was in high school. I'm somewhat familiar with critical arguments but am still learning the details. I am open to them so long as they are presented clearly and persuasively. You might be safer though going for more traditional policy arguments as I'm more familiar with them (they don't seem to have changed that much over the decades).

e-mail: james.park@law.ucla.edu

I am fairly new to judging debate but my background consists of competing in Interp events and a Master's in Psychology. This means I tend to focus on research evidence quality, performance (how well debaters utilize persuasiveness), and I tend to vote more for debaters that spend less time on volume of arguments and instead prioritize the time telling me how to evaluate their debates, what matters, what doesn't -- filtering / sequencing etc. I come from an extensive research background so I do prefer to see the reasoning, conclusion and how you were led to that decision via sources etc.