I am a first-year parent judge, but I will evaluate argumentative logic first and care about evidence quality and evidence ethics. Speaking presentation and style are for speaker points but do not substantively impact who wins or loses the debate. Please do not paraphrase when you first introduce evidence. Also, please don't speed-read. Speak slowly.

I am a lay parent judge! Please speak clearly, explain your arguments, and be kind.

Any type of racism, sexism, or other discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated.

Hello. I am a first-year parent judge. Feel free to review my record for experience so far.

1. Manner: Please be respectful to the other team. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
2. Speed: If you plan to talk fast, make sure you are loud and clear.
3. Evidence: Provide credentials/qualifications of the source unless it is self-explanatory.
4. Topic: I have basic knowledge of the topic. Please spell out all acronyms and organizations because I may not know them.

I always disclose if time allows and the other judges in the same debate agree. You can email me if you have any questions on my paradigm or RFD.

Good luck!

mikeqc@gmail.com

I am a first-year parent judge. Please speak clearly at good pace. Be respectful. Good luck!

I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing yours and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.

Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.

I am a parent judge, and this is my first time judging. My children are passionate about debate, and I completely understand your desire for justice. I will vote for the side that convinces me without any personal bias. I will evaluate your round based off of how effectively your argument is communicated and the logical linkchain you present.
Thank you, and remember to have fun!

Email Chain: sunnyfan@gmail.com

I'm a parent judge. My daughter worked with me to write my paradigm. I'm most familiar with public forum, here’s what I expect:

Basic Expectations:

1. Make sure you introduce yourselves before you start.

2. I expect all debaters to know the rules and be respectful to one another.

3. Debaters should keep track of their own and opponents prep time and speech times. Prep time ends directly before the next speech starts.

4. If you guys are going to be disclosing your cases or sending cards, please send it to me also.

In Debate Expectations:

1. Be clear and communicate effectively. No spreading or jargon please). If I can't understand you, I will assume you don't know your topic. I give speaks on clarity and confidence.

2. Anything dropped in the round can not be responded to later in the debate. This means be clear as to what arguments you're responding to and what I should cross-apply.

4. Do lots of weighing in the Summary and Final Focus; you should make it clear to me who won the round, I shouldn’t have to do the weighing myself. Using frameworks or even explaining why your impacts are more relevant will give me the vote. (ex. why should I prefer economy over lives, or saving lives over poverty?) Quantifiable impacts like # of lives saved or

5. I'm normally tech>truth. This means things like why should your evidence? Why should I prefer your warrants?

Hello all!

It's my first time judging public forum, as I am a parent judge. I've seen information on the topic, but I would appreciate it if you really explained your case, warrants, and data thoroughly, or at least until it's clear. The same goes for weighing and impacts. Make sure to really emphasize your points.

Please don't spread, talk super fast, or anything close to that speed. Instead, talk at a pace a small bit faster than normal talking speed. I strongly encourage signposting when you switch topics in your speeches. Please keep your own time.

I vote on case and evidence, as long as you can adequately explain and understand them. I do not flow or vote on cross-ex. No oral RFD or disclosure after the round, so feedback will come out afterwards.

I will do my best to make it a fair round! Thank you for your patience, and have fun!

Please add to email chain: Jim.Illingworth@live.com

I am a Parent Judge. Please don't spread. Make sure to enunciate. Be respectful of your opponents and all debtors.

I am a parent Judge.

Hey everyone!

He/his pronouns

TLDR; Debate well, run any and all arguments you believe in, be nice, respectful and have a good time. Debate is supposed to be a fun activity. People often forget that.

More Specific

I did PF and LD throughout high school, and did Parliamentary and British Parliamentary in college.

I am fine with just about any argument you can run. Clearly explain links, impacts, and solvency. I think Theory, k's, topicality and just about anything else you can run is perfectly fine and can keep debates kind of fresh. If you like an argument, and run it well, chances are I'll like it too.
However, if you are running theory, K's, or topicality in PF you will have a harder time because every time I've seen these in a PF round they have been missing key parts mostly due to the short times of PF. I may still vote for it, but consider what types of arguments are best based on your time constraints.

More basic debates can also be great. Make sure you clash and address the other teams case. Find ways to create offense and don't spend all your time on defense.

Speed is fine, but try to be as clear as possible. In our unfortunate digital circumstances there are more ways to miss what you're saying than there used to be so I think erring on the side of clarity is always better.

I don't flow CX. If there is something important that happens in CX that you deem is massively important to your case please bring it up in your future speeches.

The things I want to see in a debate are typically very clear links, impacts and weighing. You need to tell me exactly how I should vote and why. Debate rounds are always clearer and have more clash when each side can very easily explain their link chain to the impacts, and why those are more important whether it be magnitude, timeframe, scope, or probability.

Finally, just be nice to each other. Debate is a game and I think it should be fun. Be funny, add jokes, do whatever you need to help your arguments but also have fun during the round.

If there is anything I didn't cover here feel free to ask me before our round starts!

My email is brianylee2003@yahoo.com. I am a parent judge. I have no prior debate experience, but my child has competed in PF for the past year. You should assume that I am knowledgeable about the topic.

Evidence: I am not tech > truth, so if you want to argue the sky is green, I won't buy it. But I am open to reasonable interpretations of evidence, particularly if your opponent fails to contest your interpretation.

Please be honest about your evidence. Your credibility matters A LOT. If your opponent points out a weakness in your evidence, you can try to dodge it by diversion, etc., but don't outright lie about it. If you're caught in an outright lie, you WILL lose your round.

Moreover, I want to reward the team that has done its research and can back up their contentions with solid evidence. That's why it is not uncommon for me, especially during elimination rounds, to request to examine cards that I think are crucial to how I might decide the debate.

Speaker Score: Please don't speak at a supersonic speed. My upper limit for comprehension is about 200 words per minute. So if your speech exceeds 800 words in a 4-minute speech, consider shortening it.

Beyond your mastery of language and confident articulation, I'm also looking for the ability to explain complex situations simply and logically. Clarity is crucial in getting a high speaker score from me. Be careful about tossing around jargons. While I may understand it, excessive use of jargons in lieu of plain speaking may lower your speaker score.

During cross, I want to see polite, but assertive examination. Being passive may lower your speaker score.

Constructive: During this phase, I'm looking for debaters to (a) describe a problem, (b) explain to me precisely how the resolution you're advocating for will help solve the problem, and (c) tell me the impacts.

Too often I see debaters unable (or perhaps unwilling) to describe the problem beyond vague, general terms. For example, if you want to argue Chinese hegemony, tell me what specific behavior of China you want to stop or counter. Simply throwing around fancy labels like "hegemony" or "multi-polarity" won't do it for me.

The same goes to (b). To convince why your proposal will work, you need to cite either a credible expert explaining how it will work, or a historical example showing how it has worked, or at least logical reasoning and common sense why it will help. If, after four minutes, I struggle to connect the dots, it would be challenging for me to lean in your favor.

When it comes to impacts, I don't always go with the biggest one. I measure magnitude of an impact along with likelihood as well as timeframe. More importantly, if you don't do (a) and (b) well, I can't give you (c). In other words, accessing (c) is a direct function of doing (a) and (b) well.

Cross-examination: I know some judges don't pay too much attention to this. I REALLY do. To me cross is the essence of debate . During a cross, I am looking for you to probe the weaknesses of your opponent's contentions to set up your rebuttals and to defend your own positions. I expect lively exchanges involving vigorous attacks and robust defenses. I will evaluate which contentions remaining standing for each side. I will also look to see which team can establish perceptual dominance. Your performance in cross is often a key factor in how I decide speaker scores.

Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus. Rebuttal is straightforward, so I won't elaborate. For summary and final focus, I'm looking for debaters who can bring CLARITY (yes, that word again). That often means collapsing and tell me how the contentions interact with each other. Tell me what I need to focus on, why your contention wins, and why your impacts outweigh. Clarity is the key to understanding and earning credibility with the judges.

Good luck!

Now that I have judged 100+ debate rounds, you can think that I (mostly) know what I am doing.

Please clearly organize your contentions (for example) using a numbered theme, let me know exactly what the evidence is and what the links are from your evidence to your contentions. Also weigh your impact well, not only what could happen but how probable it would happen. It would be best if you could weigh your marginal impacts, that is, how much impacts can be attributed to your contention.

When you repudiate your opponent's contentions, I'd appreciate critical reasoning, such as what are exactly the logical flaws and/or why their evidence is weak. Remember, no matter how ridiculous an argument is, it will stand if you don't point out why it is wrong.

Don't use scare tactics. Don't tell me the world will end tomorrow if I don't vote for you :-)

I take notes but not as detailed and organized as your coaches train you to do. I don't take notes during crossfire. Include whatever you get from the crossfire in your speeches. Make crossfire purely Q&A. Don't try to make your questions like speeches.

Keep time yourselves so that I don't have to interrupt. Being able to keep your own time shows how disciplined you are in the debate. Nonetheless, I will run a timer as well and will give you a 10 sec grace period before I interrupt.

Finally, stay calm, respect your opponents, and avoid using any provocative or condescending language.

Have fun debating!

tekahmorales03@gmail.com

I am more of a traditional judge and love a good clash and outweighing in a debate round.

In general, debate rounds need to remain civil and respectful. I am open to any and all arguments that aren't sexist, racist, or bigoted. I won't disrespect the debater's prep and effort for the debate by restricting what can and can't be run. If it is an obscure argument, just clarify and explain it really well. other than that, you all are free to run anything you want.

I will ask teams to keep their own times and let me know when their times for prep have ended. I am a judge that is just watching and letting you take the stage to guide this round in an acceptable manner.

*Most of the things I say on here are just preferences, do what you want to*

Evidence

I don't typically look too heavily into evidence unless there is an argument that arises about what a specific card of evidence says. If you indict an author let me know why, don't just say to prefer your author over your opponents without giving any reason.

Public Forum

I have 2 years of PF experience.

Definitions

Definitions are pretty important but can vary in significance depending on the topic. If the topic has a broad interpretation of a specific word, make sure you have definitions that can help guide the rounds discussion so both teams aren't arguing in confusion. The sources for the definitions can carry significance but are not impactful on the round most of the time.

Framework

If both teams have a framework, outweighing is important. If you do not have a framework and the other team does, at least argue against it and tell me why the opposing team's framework isn't good or that you meet their framework. Any framework that goes unargued will be taken into account for deciding the round.

Speaking

I don't like spreading at all in PF, it's a policy debate tactic not meant for "forums", and if you decide to do it I will give low speaking points. However, if you do decide to spread, send me your speech on an email chain so I can flow it.

Arguments/ Contentions

I prefer quality over quantity with evidence and contentions but I am not too picky with this, just a preference. Make the evidence flow nicely with each other and explain what the evidence's impact has in the round. If you happen to have more contentions than the normal amount (2 or 3) just make sure you have it organized well to help me organize my flow.

Overall, I will vote for the team who answers and doesn't drop impact calc and framework and argues these effectively. On top with addressing and keeping their arguments afloat throughout the rounds.

Policy Debate

I have 1 year of Policy Debate experience, senior year. I also help coach policy for schools around me.

NEG NOTE

I prefer a collapse on off-case that exceeds 4+. I don't think you can give good-quality arguments when you cram in a lot of attacks when you're trying to keep those arguments on the flow. I am not the judge for you if you decide to keep 4+ off-case arguments in the rebuttals if all I really hear is "vote for - bc our - still stands." Paint the picture of the impact with an explanation of how it ties to the AFF. Do this and you'll be favored more than likely.

AFF NOTE

I do not care if you accidentally drop an adv. or two, just keep your FW, impact calc, and solvency alive with answers to your opponent's attacks. You'll be fine and viewed equally to your opponent

Topicality

I love a good topicality argument. If you persuade me enough and argue T really well, then I will more than likely give the vote to NEG, especially if the AFF's case is obviously non-topical. However, if you run a T argument do not neglect it in the round, hit it hard if you go for it.

Spreading

I don't mind spreading in policy, all that I ask is that when you read a tagline or an important argument read slowly so I can flow it. At least try to pronounciate the words in cards of evidence, mumbling or gibberish will result in low speaker points.

Kritiks

I LOVE a good kritik. However, when it comes to the alt arguments on a kritik I think it is important to at least have real arguments to support them or empirical evidence attached to them. I won't feed into the "in the NEG world..." I am a judge that looks more towards the realistic and the real round around the debate. If you run a performance k, at least have some case args and prove why the AFF is wrong or doesn't solve.

Disadvantages

All I ask, in order for me to consider the proposed DA, keep the link/ internal link alive. Uniqueness is obviously important too, but if the link proves to make the impact worse than the "no uniqueness" arg then I will favor it.

Counterplans

I don't care how many CP's you run - just clarify when you switch off on each CP's so I can get them on the flow.

Hi my name is Harinadh. I’m a flay judge and I’ve been judging public forum debate for three years. I’m pretty comfortable with speed but if I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your argument. Please warrant out all your responses in rebuttal and number them if possible. I don’t evaluate crossfire so if there is anything important you want me to consider, bring it up in one of your speeches. Make sure to summarize the round in your summary speech. I will be looking for weighing throughout your speeches. Don’t make new rebuttals in summary or final, just clearly explain to me why I should be voting for you. Overall, be respectful and have fun!

Clearly audible, speak slowly.

Background: I did debate for eight years, competed at the University of Utah in BP/Parli/Extemp/CA/Prose. Dabbled in IPDA when I had to. Graduated 2022. I've seen some stuff. Any debate style okay, I don't really care what you read, as long as it's not wildly problematic. I judge off the flow primarily and tend to give decent speaks. Tabula Rasa as much as humanly possible. I like framework in rounds to have some sort of weighing mechanism, so if you want to win gimme a framework. If you don't like the way your opponent set up a round, gimme a counter-framework and tell me why I should prefer it (IE aff is abusive, neg doesn't have one, etc.)

Tell me the speech times; I don't remember that from high school debate lol

SIGNPOST. PLEASE. I won't do work for you. Make your args and responses clear. It takes practice so if you're new, no worries at all! :) Signposting just means saying who's argument and which argument you are responding to: "In my opponent's first point they discuss x; I have this refutation to that" and it takes practice. So please, in the very least, practice!

My philosophy is basically do whatever as long as you make it make sense; if you have more specific questions you can ask in round. Otherwise, we're here to debate. Let's do the debate thing. Just do your best. :) I'm not here to judge you- well...

LD

V/VC are good things to have. Claims, warrants, links. Your K should have links; if it doesn't and you choose not to explain how it relates to the topic/your opponents case, you probably won't win. If your K does link, then you probably WILL win. Things to consider. Impact Analysis and Framework are both good to include; how am I gonna weigh the round? You tell me.

PF

Framework is cool. Impact Calc is very important in PF because why should I care about what you're saying? Tell me. I play video games more than much else these days; I don't know what the akywxvnslsplqm is. SO TELL ME. Or I won't care and thus won't weigh it. Your acronyms are useless if you assume everyone knows every acronym ever. Cards good. PF style changes every year, so run what you want here; have fun with it. That's really what debate is all about :)

Policy

You do you; link chain/speak clearly if you're going Sonic fast: gracemo314@gmail.com I can roll with just about anything here. Again, just make sure you have links/warrants/etc.

Congress

Ask questions, give speeches, get good ranks.

This is my second year judging. Below are the criteria I use as a guideline for judging.

1) I would like to focus on quality rather than quantity - this is to say, I would much rather you speak clearly in a manner I can follow you rather than you try to complete X words/min, and say something that I don't follow.

2) I grade off of the flow of the argument and weighting.

3) You have to understand your case do not just read the cards you have. Use logical thinking to sway me to vote in your favor.

4) 0.2 per rude or socially inaccurate comment.

5) Bringing up new ideas in the final focus will cost you.

Good luck & Have fun!

Hello all! I am a lay judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly and make it clear what you argument titles are.

Good luck!

Hello, my name is Vishal Shah and I am a parent/lay judge. I have a strong knowledge on this topic, but would greatly appreciate it if competitors would avoid using jargon and/or explain the terms used before the debate. Also, make sure you are respectful and kind to your opponents.

All the best to all the contestants. Having been a judge for more than a year I look for good eye contact, clear and concise arguments, respectful behavior and clear speaking. Confidence is the key, not aggression.

As a fellow parent and experienced judge who has presided over more than 30 rounds, may I respectfully recommend that you speak slowly and clearly during your presentation? It would be greatly appreciated if you could begin by defining key terms, stating your standards, and presenting your contentions in a well-organized manner. When explaining your arguments and analysis, please use language that is accessible to a wider audience and keep the round as straightforward as possible.

Lay judge! Please be slow and clear. Your arguments should not be overly complicated in the round. Be respectful to your opponents.

Parent Judge. No K’s, No theory, no Tricks, no K affs, basically assume that I know nothing about debate. Absolutely no spreading - I will understand nothing you say. I prioritize a debater who can articulate their thoughts and point out logical fallacies. I am truth > tech, if you sound more persuasive and can hold your own in cross you won half the battle. I prefer “reasonable” values and value critireons especially if they are paired with strong link chains. Use Jargon and flow arguments at your own risk. Impacts like Nuclear War will be weighed “fairly,” but at the risk of sounding repetetive, will not win you any points for reasonabillity.

Westwood HS

2022-2023 Season Update:

Senior at Westwood High School this year.

Most of the things below still apply when I evaluate a round. However, I have switched to mainly judging PF, and I have more topic knowledge on PF topics than CX since I have not debated CX for quite a while now.

If I do get put in the CX judging pool, yes, I will still know how things work, but when it comes to more complicated arguments such as Kritik or Theory, It might take me a while to process these arguments. So, please be careful when you choose your strat and be clear in the round.

He/Him, you can also just call me Sean

Put me on the email chain before the round:

condobad@gmail.com

PF:

- 30% Truth, 70% Tech:I believe the nature of PF is a bit different than CX and that truth should be evaluated. However, it does not mean that you can just throw out random truths in the round and call it a day. Empirical evidence is important in any debate and should be evaluated first. It is your job to prove to me why these truths matter in the debate and how they should be evaluated.

- Disclosure (Sending Docs/Open Sourcing): I will not make you send your case docs to each other, but I do strongly encourage disclosure on both sides. The consequence of not disclosing will be reflected in your speaks. I would appreciate it if you do choose to disclose, but please DOWNLOAD your docs from whatever software you use and then send it. I do not want to see a live shared google doc in my mailbox.

- Speed: you can go as fast as you want, but again, If you do choose to not disclose your document, I would not be able to flow your speeches if you are not clear. Also please give a roadmap before every speech.

- Theory: I have a good knowledge of the different types of theories and how they work, at least in CX. Here are some thoughts on theory:

1, Topicality (I guess you can put it under "theory"...) GO FOR IT! Topicality is definitely underused in PF and should definitely be an "official" argument in the future. I will evaluate it if it's used correctly, but If I see some randomly copied CX blocks on T...it won't go well:)

2, I am biased in some ways...If you debate theories such as "disclosure bad", "paraphrasing good", or "sweater theory", I most likely won't evaluate them in the round.

3, Perf con always exists

4, Go look at AMOGH MAHAMBARE's paradigm, he's cool.

- Kritik:To put it in short, I know what a K is, I have some knowledge on specific Ks and philosophies, I have some knowledge on how it can be used in round (in CX), and I have no idea how it's used in PF.

- Speaks:same as CX, except if you choose to not send out your docs, speaks will cap at 29.

CX:

- Generic Thoughts:

P L E A S E time your own prep time and speeches.

Tech > Truth, don't rely on "common sense"

Don't be overly aggressive in c-x, if you turn c-x into an interrogation I will take away ur speaks.

For more info, James Li has a pretty good paradigm.

- Speaker Points:

Please do not do things like disabling the navigation pane by doing special formatting in your word document, I will destroy your speaks.

I take off speaks with a .25 increment.

- Topicality: It is up to the debaters to determine how I evaluate topicality. Explain to me why T matters to the debate space, and if you read T at full speed during NR/ARs, is going to be really hard for me to hear you, so please be clear.

- Counterplans: The more explanation the better, I know most of the generic CPs.

Counterplan Theory: I will buy theory if the counterplan is super sketchy. However, it’s still up to the Affirmative to prove to me why I should reject the team.

- Theory: I do think that sometimes the neg just gets too much “cheat”, but I’m not gonna just vote Neg down if they run multiple contradictory arguments if the Aff doesn’t do anything about it. However; I will buy theories that are well structured and developed in a debate, again is up to the aff to prove to me why to reject the team, and I do not like cheap short theories, especially if you are “hiding” the theory shell. Most likely I will not vote for cheap short theories even if they get dropped.

- Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good cards to 10 bad cards, warrants of the cards are also very important. Analytical arguments under DAs are fine.

- Kritik: I’m mainly a policy debater, I understand the generic Ks (set col, abolition, etc), but again, the more specific the better. When it comes to Ks like Baudrillard, I will try my best to understand them, so the more specific and explanation the better. K flows tend to get messy, so please be clear and signpost if needed while reading K. Overall is up to the debaters to prove and teach to me within the round, if you cannot explain the K and your position at the end of the debate, most likely I will not vote for it.

I think reading K Aff in novice yr is abusive.

Case: Please debate on case stuff… Good args on case and some offcases > a bunch of offcases with barely anything on case since case is pretty much the only aff offense. A good dropped case turn will likely win Neg the round. I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic.