I am a first year parent judge.

Please speak at a moderate speed and make sure your speech is easy to follow (no technical jargon). Please be clear, concise, and organized - I appreciate clear, consistent arguments and thoughtful questions/responses.

Most importantly, please be considerate and respectful of your teammates, opponents, and judges.

tl;dr for the tl;dr—be clear and be nice :)

tl;dr—I prefer framework and definition debate, but I'll judge all styles and do my best not to be swayed by personal preferences. Any racist/sexist/transphobic/etc arguments won't fly with me. Speed is fine but clarity is essential, this is not just cadence but clear signposting and stuff like spelling out claim/warrant/impact. Be aggressive if you want but don't be mean. Please don't drop contentions and please please please don't attempt to bring contentions back from the dead. I don't want to see your case because I want to judge solely based on what exists in the debate itself. Overall I'm pretty lazy, so make my job as judge as easy as possible by being clear and clean in the debate. Above all, be nice, this should be fun.

Timing—This is probably one of the few things people care about so I'll put it at the top. I'll keep official time, you can time yourself. If you go over time just finish your sentence or thought quickly. I reserve the right to revoke this privilege and if you keep on speaking for a long time e.g. 30 seconds after your time has run out I'll stop flowing it.

Framework—This is the standard by which the round will be judged. If you concede a Value of preserving nature and a Value Criterion of maximizing the number of birds of paradise in the world, I will only judge arguments based on the number of birds of paradise they create/protect, regardless of any other impact. I realize this opens the door for contradictions to my earlier point about making bigoted arguments, and I will resolve that at my discretion. I'm a big fan of novel frameworks and don't believe any framework to be inherently less useful/valuable unless positing that framework causes harm outside of the debate, namely to competitors, judges, and spectators. Argue for your framework, assume you have won the framework debate, and explain why your contentions mean your side is preferred under that framework.

Definitions—Definitions have 2 main functions: to provide clarity and to strengthen your framework argument/develop covert arguments for your framework. Definitions to provide clarity are very important for resolutions that don't deal with common topic areas. They're also useful in showing me how you think of an issue. However, the other type of definition is the real reason anyone cares about giving definitions at all. Definitions quite literally define the terms under which the debate will take place. In this way they are prior to even framework and in my opinion provide the (hopefully only) link between the real world and the world of the debate. If you have done well in establishing definitions you have literally created the world in which the debate takes place and I can judge the debate based on the rules of that world. I understand not every debate will have such a robust world but the closer I am to only ever using my discretion to choose the definitions I prefer, the better. You may notice that this means my personal opinions/biases/etc come into play more with definitions than any other aspect of the debate. There's unfortunately not much I can do about this. I generally won't prefer definitions from more "prestigious" sources necessarily except in the case of particularly egregious example e.g. The Heritage Foundation. The extent to which I value the "spirit of the resolution" affects how I choose definitions depends on context; I'll judge novice LD at a local tourney far differently than a debate on a national circuit. I will attempt to choose definitions for the round based upon the best arguments given for those definitions. Failing that, I will defer to my personal bias/opinion. Failing that,I will defer to the "value" of the sources of the given definitions (you will note that a.) any argument critiquing the ways in which we evaluate the prestige of institutions from which these definitions originate will bring us back to my first criterion for evaluating definitions, and b.) this means that I will not inherently prefer more obvious/simple definitions, you just have to have a better argument for the stuff that's really out there.)

Bigoted arguments—This is really murky and hard to sort out within the context of debate as play. Any arguments directly stating that a given marginalized group is somehow lesser will cause you to be voted down. Arguments that lead to negative outcomes that disproportionately impact certain marginalized groups e.g. colonialism are a bit more complicated. However, note that I will be biased against these arguments to begin with, and my burden of proof for striking them down will be lower, whether I am consciously aware of that fact. All an opponent needs to do is establish these arguments lead to harm for marginalized groups and I'll be inclined to flow that to the opponent's side. In fact, a debater could get cute and say that a framework under which such arguments are good is in fact an invalid framework. I think that'd be pretty rad tbh. You may notice that this seems to contradict some of my earlier statements about debate being its own world and me judging solely based on framework, and yea it does to an extent; however, even though the debate exists within a separate world the border between that world and our own is porous, with ideas, assumptions, and attitudes being carried both ways. (This is essentially the concept of the magic circle as it exists in game studies, which I'm inclined to disagree with generally but I think its basic ideas have some level of applicability here.)

Speed, Clarity, Case Sharing—I've combined these all into one subtopic since they go together to make the same point. I'm fine with speed of basically any level, but this requires clarity of speech. The faster you speak, the clearer you will need to be and the more helpful signposting and drawing emphasis to your main points is going to be. I also do not want anyone sharing their cases with me. I don't care if competitors share cases with each other but I am purely interested in judging based on the world of the debate that both competitors create. Not only does this give me an opportunity to see arguments that the competitors may have not even said aloud, it removes a burden from the competitor to make themself understood. If sharing your case with me helps resolve an accessibility issue, however, please let me know in person or by messaging me and we can figure something out. I will always rule on the side of inclusion over competition.

Dropping Contentions, Addressing arguments, etc.—I was tempted to put this in with the above subsection because this is all related to clarity but I think there is enough here to warrant a separate topic. Please don't drop contentions. I will not flow a dropped contention. If you drop a contention and attempt to revive it through divine intervention, necromancy, etc Istillwill not flow it. If your competitor drops a contention it is your responsibility to let me know, otherwise I will drop the argument entirely and it poofs out of existence. Note that you can drop contentions and still win the round and I am not inclined to give more inherent value to a dropped contention that flows through the round; however, an uncontested argument can have ripple effects through the debate. The conclusions of dropped arguments can have implications on other points still being argued. A quick explainer of what counts as dropping an argument to me: obviously, not addressing a contention at all in your speech counts as dropping it. Saying that you will get to the rest of your opponent's arguments in your next speech still counts as dropping them. Saying "cross apply my 1st contention to all my opponent's arguments" doesn't strictly count as dropping your opponent's arguments in my book but I do find it to be weaker than saying "cross apply my C1 to opponent's C1, cross apply my C1 to opponent's C2,..., cross apply my C1 to opponent's CN." All opponent has to do is find one part of their argument where cross applying your C1 doesn't work/make sense and suddenly you're in a world of hurt. To this point, please be clear about which arguments you are addressing at all times and address arguments individually whenever possible. Make sure your arguments tie back into framework. Claim, warrant, impact structure is a great way of doing that and I greatly appreciate it.

Meanness/Rudeness—This largely goes with everything said under the bigoted arguments section, but just generally don't be a jerk. Aggression is fine and almost expected and I quite like stuff like explaining to me why exactly you won, but there's a line between playing to win and being a jerk. Remember that your actions within a debate have real world consequences. If your opponent is much newer than you and is on the verge of tears, maybe dial it back a little bit. I know that acting above it all is a power move as a debater, but a) this will not work on me and b) I expect a certain level of respect and decorum toward everyone in the room. I'm not here to power trip, but if I'm at one of these tourneys I guarantee you I'm on no more than 4 hours of sleep and just want to be treated with the basic level of politeness you'd give to anyone else. This extends to everyone else as well. I've had some competitors do this thing where they say something along the lines of "you're much nicer/better/more understanding than other other judge, they were awful." Please don't badmouth judges. It doesn't make you look good and I don't care to be flattered at the expense of someone else. Just remember this is all for fun, people are sacrificing sleep, time, etc to be here, and how well you do won't matter in a few years. I cannot remember how well I did at any given tournament but I do remember the time a debater was really nasty toward one of my newer teammates.

PF—This paradigm is designed around LD although most of the concepts still apply to public forum. Main differences for public forum are that my own understanding of the issue/personal biases toward "common sense" are ever so slightly more impactful and I really would prefer you to sneak in framework telling me how to judge the round. Again, I'm lazy. Tell me how to evaluate arguments and tell me why you won.

Hi, I'm a parent and this is my second year judging debate. In high school I did speech and went to nationals in extemp. But I did not do debate.

I appreciate signposting.

Because public forum debate is meant to be substantive and understandable to laypeople, I do not look favorably on debate jargon or technical/progressive arguments.

PF Judge

I like a good, clean debate with clash and coherent reasoning and logic.

Don’t spread (It’s my biggest pet peeve)

Speak clearly and slowly, and LOUDLY

If you are asking for evidence from the other team; make sure to bring it up don’t ask for evidence just for the sake of it.

Make sure you weigh in summary and final focus, I choose the winner based on overall consistency through the round and whichever team carries and extends their arguments throughout the whole round. Logic and coherent reasoning are super important.

Don’t just say “I have a card” explain to me the significance of it

Cross-ex should be civilized

Good luck :)

I look for clear, coherent presentation with reference to strong evidentiary sources. Be sure to listen as much as you speak, so that you are responding, and not just talking, when appropriate.

Remember that I need to be able to hear you! Speak slowly, and louder than you think you need to.

Civility and mutual respect are essential.

Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Extemporaneous Debate are persuasive speaking events. Your speech must be geared toward the average, non-technical college-graduate-level audience. You do not need to 'dumb it down' for a Reality-TV audience, but if you are talking too fast, or using undefined jargon - even common LD terms like Utilitarianism or Categorical Imperative - you are hurting your chances. And refer to arguments by their substance, not name dropping - not 'My Plato Card' but 'the philosopher-king argument.' And you must be polite to your opponent, no matter how obnoxious they are.

In LD, your value and criterion count - this is how all of your arguments will be judged, as well as any impacts. If you prove horrible war crimes will be committed under your opponent's case, but have conceded the value of real politick and your opponent effectively argues those war crimes will improve the political standing of the perpetrator, then no matter how morally reprehensible the crimes committed, there is no impact under that value. Conceding the value is fine, if you think you can win under theirs, but understand the full ramifications of doing so are not merely saving time for your clever sub-points, but conceding how they will be judged.

In Extempt Debate, you only have at most two minutes - keep your evidence to statistics and use your own arguments - you really don't have enough time for anything else - which is the point. And avoid the temptation to try to fit 5 minutes of speech into a two-minute speech - if you are speaking too fast to take notes, you are by definition saying nothing noteworthy.

For speech events - clarity is the most important part of any speech - not just clarity of speech, but clarity of meaning and clarity of purpose. If you move, move for a purpose. If you speak oddly or with a heavy accent that is barely comprehensible, it still needs to clearly communicate something; the emotions of the phrase we can't understand, at the very least.

Finally, never tell the judge she MUST vote for you - the judge must vote for whom they think won - declaring yourself the winner is generally bad form, no matter how badly you have trounced your opponent. Forcefully argue in your voters or final speech why you think you won, but no mic drop.

I am new at judging. In general, speak at a moderate speed, and be considerate of your teammates, opponents, and judges. Refrain from hyperbole. Please be clear, concise, and organized -- connect the dots for me.

I will flow the best I can and evaluate your arguments but I am not comfortable with progressive rounds. Keep the round traditional (no tricks) or risk losing my ballot. There is no need to speed read. Please do things to make your speech easier to follow. Slow down/emphasize taglines. Signpost, and Roadmap off-time for clarity.

Debate and arguments must be persuasive. If the argument does not persuade me, I have no reason to vote for it. I do not intervene so debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. Be clear about what I am weighing and what I should value most highly. Impacts should be realistic. Not every action could or will cause a nuclear war. Your argument should be clear and plausible. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

It is important to show respect to your competitor and approach every speech as an opportunity to teach and learn.

I am a parent judge

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. I need to be able to follow your arguments as is your opponent.

2. Present a well thought out, logical case - I like to be able to connect the dots. A systematic analysis, even a fair attempt at one is easier to judge than a haphazard one.

3. I dislike rudeness. You can debate and be assertive and make your points without belittling your opponent verbally or non-verbally

4 For Public Forum

a) Your constructives to set me up for your arguments - build your case, tell me the story.

b) Your rebuttals to give me reason to disagree with your opponent. Don't just attack, you need to defend.

c) Your summaries to clean up anything vague or muddled.

d) Your final focus to make me vote for you.

Liz Scott She/Her liztoddscott@gmail.com

Experienced debate parent judge, I suppose best characterized as a "fl-ay judge", however strength of argument, knowledge of your sources, defense of contentions, and rebuttal of opposing contentions will win over whether you dropped a contention in summary.

I generally have no issue with speed, but more isn’t always better. I often favor a team that makes it easy for the judges to decide by collapsing on their strongest point(s) rather than extending all contentions through Final Focus, be bold! Tell me why how have defended your best argument and refuted your opponents’.

Preference for polite engagement, please be nice. Zero tolerance for anything blatantly offensive or rude, yelling is not convincing.

I have now officially judged 1 kritik round but I have observed and am supportive of progressive debate.

I will call for cards and review evidence only if it is contested by your opponent.

If you are going to use catastrophic magnitude weighing such as nuclear annihilation or total climate destruction your link needs to be very strong. In fact, just stop using extinction arguments, I'm sick of weighing extinction against structural violence (for example).

All prep is running prep, IE, I will start my timer when you say you have started and stop it when you stop regardless of if you tell me you are “taking 30 seconds”.

Please remember that most judges are volunteers and listen to the same material all day, often crossfire is the most interesting part of the debate for the judges so don’t discount the round, it can definitely have a large impact on subsequent rounds and the momentum of the debate, however I don’t flow through crossfire so if an important rebuttal or turn comes up in cross, make sure you raise it in second speak and/or rebuttal/FF.

I am a fair judge and am looking for a cogent and civil debate. Please don't spread (speaking too fast to the point of incomprehensibility).

I am a first-year parent judge.

Please speak at a moderate speed and please avoid jargon.

Please be clear, concise, and organized--I appreciate clear and consistent arguments and thoughtful questions/responses.

And most importantly, please be considerate and respectful of your teammates, opponents, and judges.

My judging philosophy is to carefully assess logical arguments presented by both teams and evaluate based on the depth of knowledge debaters showcase during the debate. A good debate is well researched, well-coordinated, well articulated and presented at a pace that is easy to follow. Be calm and respectful of your opponents!

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to LD so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is LD not policy.

So with that is mind, life is simple, right? Your value should simply win out and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since your slowed down so I can hear you clearly. :-) Yes, I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it!

and remember, this is not policy!

I look for clear, logical inferences, delivered calmly and confidently. If possible, appeal to my heart and not just my mind.