I did PF for four years in high school.

I prefer the line by line and I will try to not do work for the debaters.

MAKE SURE YOU EXTEND ARGUMENTS, AND DO SO CORRECTLY

WARRANT YOUR ARGUMENTS CORRECTLY. DON'T GIVE ME A FRAMEWORK WITH NO WARRANTS.

Weigh your arguments - tell me which arguments matter more and why. Tell me which arguments come first.

Prefer policy style arguments - Plans, CPs, K's, DAs are very nice :D

Fairly tab judge. Won’t vote for arguments that are explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Ask me any further questions before the round starts

I debated for Churchill for two years, competing in PF and extemp. I vote based on the persuasiveness of your argument- that is to say, I prefer the technicality of the debate and who answered and won arguments over the truth of the arguments. I think PF should be judged based on persuasiveness and your ability to convince me of your arguments. I value arguments that are well-composed and can hold their own during clash.

I prefer direct argumentation during crossfire. Address your opponents points and show me why yours are better. During crossfire, please be polite. I dock points for rudeness, condescension, and aggressiveness. Blatant sexism, racism, etc. will not be tolerated. Remember that the debate also consists of your body language and how you compose yourself.

I understand that you have many things to say and points to address, but please do not spread. I haven’t debated in a while and I prefer you clearly articulate your arguments, especially tags. Especially in the final focus and summary, pick the arguments that are the most strong and be concise in telling me why they are better than your opponent’s and why I should vote for you.

I was a PF debater and I have no experience in CX or LD. I was taught pretty traditionally in terms of PF and that is how I judge. I was never taught things such as kritiks or theories, so please do not use them in your arguments.

Racism, sexism, ableism, or any similar things recieve 0 points speaks and will not win a round. Otherwise, I am open to any form or argumentation.

*everything* in debate except for the above statement is up for debate

Strong arguments won beat weak arguments dropped (usually)

I debated CX through college so I can handle any speed *if you are clear and not pushing past capability*

Tab judge. I have coached, or actively coach events, on local UIL, TFA and national circuit for over a decade. For Debate, please ask specific preference/style questions before round and in the presence of your opponent(s).

Interpretation: Very open to community standards and performer specific interpretations of literature. I try not to bring any preconceived understanding of literature into the round. I do prefer a teaser of some length before the introduction. Blocking and vocal characterization should be as distinct and clearly separate throughout performance.

INFO: I do prefer the use of a visual aid throughout the speech. Topics that are creative and challenging, or inspiring, are most intriguing and tend to separate themselves in a section. Sources are not as important in quantity, but the information should be presented in a fresh and relevant manner.

Extemporaneous: I prefer a balance of information and speech fluidity and personality. Clearly answer the question with a unified answer and give enough background/context in the introduction. Sources should be used significantly throughout the speech, but do not sacrifice a personable delivery simply to provide facts/analysis.

In PF, I like to see the following things:

1. Providing clash is of paramount importance. I prefer to hear offensive refutations over defensive ones. However, some defense can be effective. Although carded responses are great, I am not opposed to analytical responses as long as they are supported with sound logic and reasoning.
2. The summary lays the foundation for the FF. Therefore, be strategic and extend the most important arguments, preferably the offense. DO NOT EXTEND THROUGH INK.
3. Impacts matter—quantifiable and substantiated with evidence. Start the weighing analysis in the summary, and conclude in the FF.

I am a lay judge - make sense and I vote for you :).

Be kind and have a great debate.

Try not to spread because I won't be able to flow. If you don't see me flowing, you're probably going too fast.

I can follow speed, but if you are unclear I won't flow you or weigh the arguments I did not understand. To that end, know your limits on speed and do not go faster than you know can be understood.

In LD, I will vote where you tell me, but I would like some kind of weighing mechanism so  I can evaluate competing voters. I want to see some level of framework, whether that is the traditional Value/Criterion structure, or just a simple net benefits framework for a more policy style debate. I also want the weighing analysis to be done based on the framework and some kind of link story between arguments and the framework. If you are going to run Theory or Topicality, provide warrants for your interpretations and clearly explain the abuse and the impact of it.

In PF, I expect a framework to evaluate contention level arguments. If you are going to have a debate over defintions, explain why yours is superior and why it matters.

Any questions can be clarified before the round.

I competed four years in highschool and have experience competing in both Public Forum debate as well as Lincoln Douglas debate.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS PARADIGM

STYLE

Primary emphasis on the flow. However, treat the round as if it's your own - tell me what you think is important and why and if you're able to defend that sufficiently, I'm fine with anything.

1) Extend properly. Respond to refutations in order to win your arguments, and bring up drops

a) You have to tell me why concessions are important. Contextualize it on the flow.

2) Speed - If I'm not able to understand your taglines/warrants, I might not be able to flow your argument correctly. I don't want this to happen as much as you don't want it to happen so speak clearly on whatever you absolutely want me to flow. 

a) Spreading is acceptable but please don't spread through taglines, warrants, and citations (be very clear about citations). I also expect you to explain your literature in addition to presenting it. 

SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS

Open to anything. Again, make the round yours by telling me what you believe is the standard by which the ballot should be evaluated. Contextualize your argumentative approach and give clear impact calculus to give me the best voting path. 

K's - make for a great section of content in debate. I prefer an alt, but it isn't absolutely necessary (as long as you contextualize what you have you're fine). K-Aff's are acceptable and encouraged.

T - good T debate is great, but you MUST keep T debate clean on the flow. Slow down where you absolutely need me to flow or T could get jumbled on my side (you don't want that). Otherwise no specific preferences.

CP's - Fine with them

Please ask any specific questions before round as needed. 

- - - - - - - - 

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM

STYLE

Primary emphasis will be on the flow. Treat a clean flow above all else to ensure an easy ballot. This means a few things:

1) Extensions without sufficient responses to opp. answers are not acceptable (commonly known as "extending through ink")

2) Clear impact calculus ensures minimal intervention (me weighing impacts for you . . )

a. Comparative analyses can be done as early as the first rebuttal. Refutations beginning from the second constructive are acceptable but I personally consider this unfair in terms of a second speaker advantage.

3) Speed - you can speak fast and spread, but don't get the two mixed up and tell me you're going to spread when you end up speaking fast

4) Although this topic is probably my favorite, I'm treating rounds without any preconceived notions surrounding the topic area

SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS

1) Theory - attempt at your own risk (4min/4min/2min/2min speeches seem too short for effective theory debate)

2) Topicality - I prefer you not to prioritize topicality in PF (unless of course there are serious inconsistencies given in the round)

3) Role of the ballot - I vote for the better debater

4) K's - (personally I believe) there isn't enough time for them.

5) In general - I am open to any and all arguments as long as they're sufficiently warranted/evidenced 

Plano Senior (CT) '16

TFA State 2016 runner-up in PF 

Debated for 4 years for Plano Senior High School on the local, state, and national circuit with some fair amount of success. I consider myself a flow judge. I can handle some speed, but I didn't compete in Policy debate; so if you're going too fast, I won't flow it, and also won't evaluate it. 

Specific Round Preferences 

• If you're extending an arguement, both the warrant and the impact must be extended: if the warrant is not extended, I won't extend your impacts 
• Any offense you want to extend into the final focus must be extended in the summary. Defense can be extended from the rebuttal, but I prefer you touch on it at least a little in summary 
• Straight refutation in the second rebuttal speech is fine 

Framework

Framework is a great way to contextualize the round, so go for it. Please don't make it too confusing, and please have warrants if it's something unconventional. Dropped framework will hurt you. Props to you if you can win your opponent's framework. 

Theory/Kritiks

Will evaluate it if it's really really good, but I'm truthfully not a fan of theory at all and I will silently despise you and might be inclined to vote you down right away if I'm not in the mood. I don't appreciate theory, I don't think PF is the place for it. 

Evidence 

I'll call for it if 

a) you specifically tell me to 

b) it's being contested/a big issue in the round 

c) I think it's sketchy 

I'm an international teacher and former debate coach.

6 years judging at local, regional, and national tournaments

General: I'm a traditional judge. I like to evaluate stock level issues of the topic. Just make very clear weighing arguments and argument interaction. Please do not read any off position cases that are adapted from policy debate.

Speed: Please don’t spread. Moderate speed is okay, but I will not tell you clear. If I miss an argument, that is on you. So be conscious about your speed.

Specifics:

PF: I prefer to judge this style of debate. What was said above basically applies here. I will vote on offense with the best impact weighing.

LD: I will vote on the offense to the winning framework. Generic frameworks i will understand (ex: Util/Structural Violence. Remember, STOCK. So no progressive arguments like K’s. Plans/CP and DA i am ok with. General above applies here as well

I participated in Speech in Debate in high school for four years. I've been to Nats twice and NIETOC. 

Extend your arguments across the flow, sound marginally logical, and weigh your arguments in final focus and you can have the round. 

I'm not a super evidence heavy human being, utilize evidence necessary to your points, your case, and your offensive and defensive arguments. Don't over do it. 

I'm into food. Bring me literally anything with cheese on it, in it, around it, and I may feel inclined to boost your speaks. Incorperate Frozen lyrics, popculture, and/or puns, your speaks may go up again. Who knows? 

I will adopt the debaters' paradigms and hear just about any type of argument as long as analytics are given to explain. I won't intervene by providing my own links or analysis if debaters just read cards at me.

Likewise, give me a framework and tell me how to weigh the round. In LD, I want this to be explicitly stated, even if it is a progressive framework. I'm fine with a non-traditional framework. Just explain it to me. In PF, the framework may or may not be explicitly stated, but I should be able to easily extrapolate a standard.

I like an LD 1AR/1NR or PF Rebuttal to be line-by-line, but feel free to tell me what you think is more important/has more weight in the round. I like LD 2AR/2NR to crystallize and give voters-not more line-by-line. Same with PF Summary and Final Focus.

It is imperative that debaters give voting issues and impact calculus linked back to the framework. If you don't, I'm stuck comparing argument to argument.

I am fine with both progressive debate and traditional debate. A bit of speed is fine, but I would prefer that it not rise to the rates in CX. I can follow you, but I'd prefer to have time to digest your arguments. Also, keep in mind that more isn't necessarily better. Be strategic. Introduce what you think you can reasonably handle. I'm fine with debaters kicking out of arguments. Funnel arguments down to what is really important and viable in the round.

I competed in highschool in PF so I am familiar with the event. I was a very progressive debater so naturally I am open to hearing most arguments. I try my best to interfere as little as possible. You might have a winning argument but if you don't tell me why it's important it doesn't do much for me. We can have an extremely progressive CX-like round or a traditional round - it's entirely up to you how you want the pace of the round to be.

This is your platform to voice your opinions and arguments, so I don't believe I have a place to tell you what you should or shouldn't do. I only ask you to respect your opponents. If in any instance I feel that you are offensive or rude to your opponents, I will not hesitate to give you the lowest speaks possible. I appreciate humor and personality so just have fun debating and we'll all have a good time.

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round begins.

I’m fine with speed, as long as your tags & anything else you want verbatim on my flow (ie theory stuff) is clear. If I think you’re going too fast, I’ll say clear.

T- I’m all about a good T debate. My own preferences and opinions tend to have an influence in my judging of a lot of theory stuff, so I’ll try to disclose them as well as I can. I think that competing interpretations > reasonability. This is not to say that I will absolutely never pref aff on T because I think it’s reasonable- you’re just going to have a harder time convincing me if the neg puts up any sort of fight in that regard. I also don’t think that framer’s intent is a persuasive standard.

DA- run your disad. I’ll vote on a politics disad, but I’m not going to enjoy it.

K- kritiks are good on aff and neg. Weighing your impacts against the aff/the impacts of the framework are a must. You should also probably not assume that I’m intimately familiar with what you’re running if it’s a bit more obscure, and devote some time either in the block or the 2ac to really explaining it.

CP- I’ll vote on a CP, but I probably won’t enjoy it.

Condo- I’m not a huge fan of multiple (read: upwards of two) conditional advocacies. I won’t intervene, but I find affirmative theory arguments to that end to be very persuasive.

I am a third year medical student and graduate from UT Austin. I was a PFer in high school (Kingwood HS '15). I placed highly at Harvard, TFA state, and several local tournaments in the Houston circuit. I have judged at Harvard, TFA State, and UT, among local Houston and Austin tournaments. Although it has been a while since I was a debater, I truly believe it shaped me and gave me the tools to pursue my future endeavors, which is why I've stayed active in the community. While I competed in PF, I've judged LD, PF, and WSD (which I LOVE and wish existed when I was competing!).

-I judge based on flow (friendly reminder, Cross X doesn't go on flow, all cards/new arguments must be presented in speeches)

-PLEASE, quantify your extensions - don't just tell me to extend something, tell me why that point still holds

these last few can apply to WSD as well:

-I love framework and will judge a round based on framework presented (if it is done well and proven, of course)

-Do your best to signpost and keep speeches organized so I can adequately flow. I of course judge based on the arguments and flow, but I appreciate good speeches. Tournaments and competing are fun, but to its core debate is a speaking exercise. Learning this skill is invaluable, why not use every speech as an opportunity to hone that skill and practice. Good speaking skills gets you far!

-Most importantly - I STRONGLY believe Public Forum debate is the "common man's debate", anyone pulled off the street should be able to understand what you are saying (I've had bus drivers judge me before). That being said, but I don't believe K's, CP's, etc. belong in this type of debate. If you want to run that, try LD or CX :-) sry I'm old school!!!!

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fu%2C+Victor

I teach Mandarin 1 at Strake Jesuit. Good debaters are like big politicians debating on a big stage. Persuasion is necessary. Speak clearly if you want to win. Please make sure your arguments are topical. I'd like a clear story explaining your position and the reasons you should win.

Former Plano West PF debater. I don't require first speaking team to extend defense in summary for me to flow it through final focus. Offense not extended through summary gets dropped.

If you don't give me a solid warrant for your argument and your opponent puts any ink on it, I won't consider it. I will buy any weighing mechanism if it's the only one presented in the round, so if you don’t like your opponent’s weighing mechanism please present an alternative!

Please don't spread; I don't think my aging brain can handle it. I don't want to read anything during round, so if I can't understand what you're saying I won't flow it. Speed should be ok.

Please be nice to your opponent! Talking over your opponent during crossfire will result in docked speaks.

PF:

I'm like a 7-8/10 for speed in terms of what I can flow. My preference, however, is a 4-5 during the case and a 7-8/10 in rebuttal where necessary.

If you are the second speaking team and you don't come back to your case in rebuttal, there are going to be some pretty easy extensions in summary (probably) that are going to mean game over for you.

I will vote on a warranted argument regardless of whether it is a "traditional" argument. That said, I am hesitant to vote on theory for the sake of running theory. Ex: Running theory without a clear in round abuse story is probably not going to fly with me.

In general, I would say that I am just going to vote on whatever is the path of least resistance on the flow. Make it easy. Write my ballot.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD - Based on what LD generally looks like now, you probably don't want to pref me. I strongly prefer a more traditional style of debate. Will I listen to anything? Yes. Will I be annoyed? Yes.

Congress - Analysis ✔ Sources ✔ A conversational style ✔ Good clash ✔. A good PO will probably make my ballot, but I strongly prefer the good speakers. I just read Neal White's Congress paradigm, and I agree with everything he said.

 Hi, I'm Asim.

Arguments: I'm open to any arguments whatsoever. Just make sure you made each part of the argument explicitly clear.

Speed is fine. Just make sure you're flowable.

Speaker Points: Competition is good for society. Be competitive; however, don't act like a douche in round.

Theory: If there is considerable in round abuse, it will play a big factor on the vote.

Flashing is encouraged.

PF Paradigm:

The number one priority of Public Forum Debate is that it remains accessible at all times.

Debaters are expected to time themselves and their oppenents. If there is some discrepancy on time, your speaker points will be in jeopardy. Please be responsible.

Go at whatever speed you are comfortable as long as it is not spreading.

I will flow what is said during speech, but not crossfire. I expect you to extend arguments from crossfire if you want to use them.

You must provide your win conditions. I need a framework to interpret how the round will be judged. That also means that weighing needs to be considers as well.

Don't assume definitions especially in the resolutions.

I will look at evidence only in the case that both teams appear to have evidence that contradict each other.

InterPA

Tech

Diction matters more in online competition than in face to face competition. In synchronous rounds, please emphasize your diction more.

You are welcome to ask for feedback regarding your placement within the camera.

I'd recommend you make sure the camera is perpendicular to your eyes/face. The angle coming from below sometimes makes viewing facial involvement unclear.

Preferences

Content Warning before your pieces. If you have any belief that your content could upset someone, you owe it to your audience to prepare us. Plot twists are not worth hurting your audience.

I really evaluate the quality of the cut/writing in close rounds.

A cut needs to have a clear beginning, middle, and end. The beginning means the characters, relationships, and problems are introduced. A perfect teaser has these element. The middle shows the characters attempting and failing to resolve a problem. The end discusses whether characters resolve or fail to resolve the problem and then what happen because of that.

Public address speeches follow some kind of previewed and road mapped structure to the speech.

Event Specific

Info

I don't evaluate lack of VAs as negative. I evaluate overused or nonhelpful VAs as a negative.

I don't really care about how you move in your speech.

OO

I follow PCS and CES structures the best.

I am sucker for empirics. I don't believe something is inherently a problem that affects everyone until you show me with a source that it affects people more than yourself. For example, if your speech is about how "We say no too much," you better prove beyond a doubt that we empirically say "No" a lot.

DI

I'm kind of over traumatizing DIs. DI is my favorite event though.

I value verisimilitude in the characterization and the blocking.

HI

Characterization matters the most. I value clear characters and efficient movement between the characters.

I also really pay attention to the resolution of the problem in HI. If the problem is resolved in a sentence or through an apparent unknown force. I blame the cut.

Duo

I hate how its done digital and really hope no one assigns it to me.

Blocking should highlight the conflict between the characters.

I find speaking towards the camera instead of pretending the two are in the same piece to be more believable.

POI

Characterization should be clear. I shouldn't doubt the differences between the characters.

Binder tech or lack of binder tech is irrelevant to me.

Extemp:

Tech

Time yourself for synchronous rounds. I don't trust internet connections to be consistent to allow me to give you effective time signals.

I can tell if you're reading off of your computer.

Sitting or Standing don't matter to me.

Preferences

I will flow the speech.

I don't look down on speeches past 7:00, but 7:20 is a little risk

Link back to the question always. Tell me why you are answering questions.

Fluency matters insomuch that I can understand you. Short pauses and disruptions will not be marks against, but if I cannot follow what you are saying then I will have trouble evaluating your speech.

School Affiliation: Plano West Senior High School - Plano, TX (2013-2021)

Competitive Experience: Policy Debate (at a small school in Texas) and very limited Policy Debate at the New School University

Judging Experience: I have been judging at local and national tournaments since 2008. These days, I mostly judge PF, Extemp, and Interp. On rare occasions, I will judge Policy or LD.

I don’t have any overly specific preferences. Just tell me how to evaluate the round. A framework with proper extensions of arguments make it really easy for me to vote. If nobody provides me with those things, I will use a basic cost/benefit framework.

Speed of Delivery – I am comfortable with speed (as typically used in Public Forum). If I can’t understand you, I will tell you during your speech.

Flowing/note-taking – I will flow the round. If you are speaking faster than I can write, you run the risk of me missing something on my flow.

Pro Tip - I am not a lay judge, but I think we will all be happier if you act like I am.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

While I appreciate speakers who speak clearly and are able to emphasize key points, I care more about your organization and arguments.

I am generally fine with any argument, even the more unconventional ones, as long as you understand and can explain what you are arguing and why it is relevant. I competed in PF for 4 years and am currently in law school. I always appreciate people who can explain their arguments to any audience- do not assume I know everything about the topic.

In general- please signpost, be respectful, and have fun with it!

For LD: Any arguments are fine I vote off of who won on the flow.  I learned debate through LD but I did Public Forum debate so while I understand and can evaluate all arguments fully I don't have any particular opinions on how the event should work.  If you win, you win. If you lose, you lose. 

For PF: Don't run theory this is Public Forum.

Background: I debated for Clements HS in Houston for 4 years, and now judge in the Austin circuit as a UT student.

PF:

General Debate Preferences: I don't flow CX, but if something important happens, bring it up in a speech if you want it to make it onto my flow. I like for the summary to focus on the important issues and not necessarily every argument you think you're winning. Also I like to see some kind of impact analysis or weighing done either in summary or FF. Humor is appreciated as well (doesn't play into my decision), but only go for it if you're actually funny because I'll call you out if I think you're trying too hard.

Speed: I haven't come across a PF debate that I haven't been able to flow yet, so you should be fine. That being said, I prefer to vote on arguments that are explained better/more elaborately, and speed sometimes makes people think they should just put a huge amount of blippy arguments on everything. I'm not as eager to vote for those arguments. I want to be persuaded just as much as I want to see you "technically" winning arguments. 

Framework: I feel like PF isn't the place for it, cause there just isn't enough time to develop one. That being said, if you think you can have a proper framework debate I won't penalize you for it? Otherwise I default to cost-benefit analysis.

Speaks: If I think you should break, it'll be between 29-30. Otherwise I usually award based on speaking ability rather than strategy.

****Ask me before the round if you have any other questions!!<3<3

PF: 

• Please be on time to your rounds. 
• No flex prep. You have 2 minutes allotted for prep to use at your team's discretion. 
• Signpost before and throughout all speeches.
• No spreading. If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Be clear and concise with your arguments. 
• Remember to extend ALL relevant arguments, turns, and evidence through to the final focus. If the second speaker drops any of the above before the FF, I will not use them in making my decision. Include voters and impacts in your FF. 
• If running a counterplan, make sure you specifically state the uniqueness and relevant impacts coming off the plan.
• If there is an issue regarding evidence, I will ask to see them at the end of the round. Be sure to state the author/source and year when referencing your cards during the round. 
• I generally give 26 - 29 speaker points based on delivery, content, and cross-examination. However, I will dock off points for unprofessional behavior, so please be respectful to one another. 

I was a debater at Stephen F. Austin High School for four years. I qualified to state in PF in my junior and senior years. In my senior year, I won multiple tournaments in Houston and broke at the TFA state tournament.

I will vote primarly on arguments that make sense and are mentioned in every speech. To make sense, an argument must be logical with a claim, warrant, and impacts. Everything you want to be a voter should be extended from constructive to FF. Don't say something in case then never mention it till FF because I will not vote off of it. All arguments should also be defended and no extensions should be made without responding to attacks on it. Ex: If your opponents make turns in the first rebuttal, make sure its responded to in your own rebuttal, otherwise I will consider it dropped. Signpost in speeches, especially if you're jumping around the flow. Weigh your arguments in the end and tell me why to vote.

Feel free to run weird arguments but they should still be logical.

Speaking needs to be clear enough for me to flow properly. I don't do too well with speed. Feel free to stutter or go as fast as you want, but if I can't flow it, that will not help you. I'll give you a signal if I can't understand you.

Lastly, make the round interesting. I will be more inclined to buy an argument or give high speaks if I'm interested or entertained.

--Debate--

Did PF for 3 years in high school. Don't be rude, and make sure that your speech is clear and easy to understand.

Use of evidence/citations is important

Prioritize keeping the debate moving unless you have a killer point that needs to be made.

--Speech--

No preferences for extemp

Oratory needs to still feel somewhat formal though it is made up of original thought. Looking for a seamless delivery, and confident body language.

I tend to be more of a traditionalist with binder events, and so I believe that the only time your binder should close is during the intro, but I won't take points off for it.

Make sure that your movement doesn't prohibit you from being understood well.

I was on the debate team at my high school for 4 years, 3 of which were in PF and DX. I competed in the Plano circuit and won many tournaments and qualified for TFA junior and senior year, in which I broke.

I am a relatively conventional PF judge. I prefer standard arguments supported with strong evidence. I will accept somewhat unconventional arguments but the evidence you use to support them better be solid. I believe PF is won or lost based on counter evidence. I also don’t believe in the “shotgun” method of saying six to ten arguments and then “extending” them throughout the round. I also won’t make arguments for you post round. Unless it is said in round, I usually won’t try to connect things that aren’t obvious. Make sure to present a clear weighing mechanism so that I can accuratly assign weight to each contention. Give me impacts!

As for speed, I can follow pretty quickly up until you start spreading. However, as long as you are articulate things should be fine. Always keep in mind if the speed at which you are going allows your judge to flow properly. If not, slow down.

Naveen Santhosh // Seven Lakes '16; TAMU '20 // Updated June 2020

I competed in public forum debate for all 4 years of high school.

I like clarity. Weigh pls. I shouldn't have to think too much after the round ends.

Does 2nd rebuttal have to respond to 1st? Yes pls.

I am okay with speed. Being nice and funny helps your scores.

If you read anything that even hints at theory, I will disregard it and tank your speaks. My paradigm does not prevent teams from calling out abuse. Just do not read a shell and ask me to drop the debater, you and I will both be sad.

If you misrepresent/miscut/misconstrue evidence: Not good.

Have fun! Good luck!

Langham Creek '13
UT '17

Background: I debated for Langham Creek High School and I am now a student at the University of Texas at Austin. I competed in PF, in which I qualified to state in. Don't let my background stop you from doing what you would like to do. I always do my best to keep my own personal ideologies out of judging and understand the arguments you choose to run. Btw this paradigm is mainly written for LD but I mainly judge PF so feel free to ask me for paradigms before the round in PF but the general philosophy, speaker points, and other stuff sections probably have some relevant information in them.

General Philosophy: I think debate is a fun and interesting activity, in that it provides a unique forum for students to discuss a variety of topics in an educational manner. I will vote off most types of arguments as long as they are well-warranted and impact back to some sort of weighing mechanism. A clearly articulated weighing calculus is a very easy way to my ballot. It is your job as the debater to do the work for me. Keep a clean flow i.e. roadmap, signpost, etc. I use the flow as a tool to help evaluate the round but ultimately I must be convinced of the argument to vote off it.(I think my PF background heavily influences me on this) This means that I probably won't call for evidence after the round unless I really really need to come to a decision. I find that it's always best to do what you do best. Ultimately, just be nice, be funny, be you, and have fun. 

Speed: Speed is usually fine. Clarity is always more important than speed. I will yell clear twice before docking speaks and also before I stop flowing. I ask that at the start of your speech, you don't go super fast, but rather give me time to warm up and adjust to your speaking. Emphasis and ethos really help me not tune you out and understand your arguments better. Also, please slow down for tags, authors, and dense material(I actually really mean this. SLOW DOWN A LOT for tags and authors or I will miss them). Remember that if I don't understand it, I won't vote for it. Also, don't spread through speeches needlessly. Just win the round. 

Theory: I haven't seen enough theory debates or have enough background in it to default to a certain paradigm. In the rounds I have judged in which theory was run, I find myself only buying theory as a reason to reject the argument rather than reject the team. Theory read just as time suck for your opponent will cost you speaks because I think there are far more educational ways to win rounds. Given that, if there is clear abuse, I will evaluate theory. However, if you were to just make an abuse argument to throw out that argument, I would also buy that assuming it's not a huge argument that you're claiming is abusive. Feel to argue against my view of theory, I will certainly listen and evaluate your arguments. However, I would make sure theory isn't your only offense in the round. If you choose to run an RVI, make sure there is actual offense linked to the RVI, which means "I meet" arguments would not justify an RVI. Also, be very clear explaining the RVI and the impact of it on the round and give me clear weighing analysis between the standards to minimize the amount of intervention that I have to do in the round. 

Policy Arguments: These are generally okay given that each has all the necessary parts. Don't read recycled DAs or CPs that don't have specific links to the resolution. I won't vote off them and will lower your speaks. Weighing through a clear impact calculus is a must to these arguments. Don't be surprised if at the end of the round I find a lot of the debate here a wash because there was no evidence comparison and weighing. Also, be sure to spend more time explaining links to extinction scenarios and make sure they're reasonable. 

Critical Arguments: I haven't read any critical literature, but I do find them to be interesting so I will vote on such arguments. Because i'm not familiar with the literature, you're going to have to slow down a little and spend more time making sure I understand it especially the alternatives. I prefer Kritiks with specific links to the AC with an alternative, as opposed to generic Kritiks that can be recycled on every topic. 

Speaker Points: I'm usually pretty generous with speaker points. The easiest way to win speaks for me is through humor, strategy, and confidence. Making the round easy to flow and follow will also win you higher speaks. I don't want to be the guy who stops you from clearing because of speaks, so after the round tell me and I will grant you speaks accordingly (somewhere between 29.5-30). Other than that my range is typically from 28-29. If you make racist, sexist, or straight up asinine comments in round, I will give you a 20-25. Debate is fun and educational. Don't make it a hostile environment or I will tank your speaks and potentially drop you. 

Other Stuff: 
CX is important. I will listen to CX. It's an easy indicator if you actually know your case and what it's saying. Use it wisely. Ask questions, don't make speeches. 
Be sure to impact your extensions. I give the AFF leeway for this in the 1AR but the 2AR should clearly explain the impacts of the arguments you extended and how they function in the round. 
You don't need to be winning everything and you're more than likely not going to win every issue in the round. That's okay. That is why it's important to weigh between what you're losing and what you're winning to make sure it's clear what the biggest arguments are at the end of the round. Thus, framework becomes important. I don't think I do a good job deciding on which framework is better mostly because my personal, subjective beliefs become more relevant even though I try to stay objective. So just make it clear on why you're winning the framework. Also, typically framework and pre-standards aren't really voters. They mostly tell me how to evaluate the round in terms of the actual offense. Framework has offense that's linked to it that are voters. But just because you win framework usually doesn't mean that's enough to win the round. Make sure you're still winning the actual offense linked to the framework. 

Arguments, I will reluctantly vote for (with low speaks): 
1. Skepticism
2. Presumption
3. Unwarranted Pre-Standards
4. Unnecessary (Time-Suck) Theory
5. Arguments read just to confuse your opponent (and potentially confuse me)

Tl;dr-
Just do what you're comfortable with and do what you do best. Be smart, be persuasive, and use your common sense. If you think that it might be a bad argument then it probably is. Have fun. Don't be a jerk. You should be fine. 

As always, this is just basic information, but if you have any more specific questions feel free to ask before the round. Thank you and good luck!

Public Forum:

Display solid logic, coherent reasoning, and a clear depth of the analysis being presented. Utilize evidence to the best of your ability without being driven by it. All debaters should present a perceptible clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments. Do not merely read your evidence but show the impact coming off of each card (weigh impacts). Will go line by line (signpost). A firm understanding of the topic is more admirable than simply reading off a lot of information.  

I strongly advise not to spread, and to speak clearly and legibly. I prefer clear voters, and direct clash. If I can't understand what you are saying, or the arguments you make, then I may vote you down. And be polite. If I feel there is a lack of respect in the round, then I might as well dock speaker points. 

PF - Do weighing and comparative analysis for me. This is very important and makes it easier for me as a judge to make a decision; without these, there is possibility of judge intervention.

In PFD, I want to see good wholesome debate. Experience is plentiful, but I always tell debaters to tell me what to put on the ballot. Please make sure to properly extend all arguments and assume tabula rosa judging style. Evidence is extremely important and so is frameworking the round properly.

In LD, I will accept any argument as long as the analytics can support what is said in round. I am a TAB judge.

In Policy, I will only accept what you can fully understand. You can run anything you would like as long as you are able to fully explain and defend your arguments. You must offer analysis in the round. Do not just simply read cards the whole time.

I do flow, but only what I hear.

I do time, but that's addressed later in the paradigm.

I am ready before each speech so just debate like I'm not there.

I WILL VOTE ON THE FRAMEWORK MOST OF THE TIME.

My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link. Please don't say your card names, say the argument. I do not flow card names if you say "refer to my john 3:16 card" I will have no clue what you're talking about, but if you say "refer to x argument" I'll be on board. As a traditional judge, I like hearing some philosophy. I am not a philosophy expert but I do know the major points of the more used arguments and I wont count it as part of the RFD unless your opponent calls it out. If they don't then run with it I guess.

PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the bigger impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments. IF YOU SPREAD IN PUBLIC FORUM I WILL NOT FLOW. I AM A PF PURIST. DO NOT SPREAD I WILL TRULY LOOK AT YOU AND MAYBE WRITE ONE THING. IF YOU ARE A PFER AND SAY USE A PHILOSOPHY FRAMEWORK I WILL NOT APPRECIATE IT. PF IS FOR THE LAY JUDGE. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY JUDGE.

Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please TIME yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.

CX is not my favorite so I have no real paradigm for it. Just tell me why your arguments are good. I like Ks but I hate nukes(extinction).

As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve AFTER (LIKE IN THE HALLWAYS) the round or for advice.

If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.

As far as paradigms and parameters are concerned, I will be judging rounds on a public forum framework.

Empirics and quantifiable data will carry the most weight in the round, followed by argumentative reasoning in cross examination.

I do allow method extension from other debate events. This means I'm comfortable with CX-style spreading, as well as moral implementation from LD. 

Any style of debating is fine with me, and I'm also ok with speed. When I decide, I start with the FW (so have one) and work my way through the rest of the arguments on the flow.

Plano Senior (CT) '16

About Me

I debated for four years and I am a flow judge. I competed relatively successfully on the Texas Circuit, National Circuit, Tournament of Champions, and in IPPF, specifically in Public Forum Debate. In just a few words: I will not do the work for you on the flow and I will take the easiest path to the ballot. This means responsive speeches, appropriate clash, and most importantly warrant and impact extensions in the final two speeches if you want me to vote off of them. If there is framework answer it and/or tell me how you link in…please.

Other Nitpicky Things

Speaks: My points will range from 25-30.

• You will receive a 25 if you are disrespectful, rude, and just a pain to judge (don’t be that person).
• You will receive a 26 or 27 if you drop stuff on the flow, aren’t very articulate in speeches, and just in general are lacking clarity, word economy, and/or argumentation.
• If you meet all my expectations in round, i.e. you are polite, articulate, have smart arguments, etc. you will receive a 28, and you will get a 29 if you surpass these expectations.
• 30 speaks is reserved for anyone who blows me away during the round.

Theory: If you want me to evaluate it make sure it’s good and make sure the violation is there. I hate it when teams just read theory for the fun or novelty of it…you are not funny.

Kritiks: Same thing as theory if it is warranted in the situation, I will evaluate it. If it is stupid and you are trying to make a mockery of the round/event…good luck.

Speed: I did not do policy debate. Do not spread. If I stop flowing and just start staring at you that means you are going way too fast, and nothing you say will be on my flow.

Evidence: Don’t BS evidence. Use good evidence. Don’t use sketchy evidence. If you think the other teams is misusing or misrepresenting evidence either challenge if you thing it should come to that or tell me to call for it after round, and I will look at it.

Intervention: I do not like to intervene but if you leave me no choice I will. This usually happens when teams go back and forth on evidence, or no one weighs anything in the round.

Ethics: During my time in PF I have experienced my fair share of ethics situations, so as a judge I take them very seriously. If you miscut, misrepresent, or straight up make up evidence your speaks will be tanked and you will not win that specific issue. I will rarely down you because of evidence, but if you do anything ethically wrong there is a strong likelihood you will end up losing.

Finally, make the round enjoyable for everyone and if you have any more questions please ask me before the round.

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters take on very complex ideas/arguments in PF and the time limits for that event make it very difficult for debaters to fully explain these complex ideas.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pronouns: he/him

I like clean, clear, concise, warranted arguments and responses. Speed is not an issue as long as you are organized and coherent.Slow down if speed interferes with the flow of ideas.I think conditional arguments are abusive and cause me to intervene. Theory can be a voter if arguments are developed and applied. Generic theory arguments are a waste of time. I appreciate debaters making logical arguments that are specific to the round instead of reading prepared responses. A sense of humor is appreciated. Crystallize issues in rebuttals. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Use CX time to clarify issues and to establish your strategy.

Performance events should be polished. Characters should be engaging and have definite vocal and physical characteristics. The piece should have different emotional levels. Movement should make sense.

I'm a full-time teacher and coach in the North Texas area. I have experience coaching, teaching or competing in every event. I've been involved in Speech and Debate, as either a competitor or a coach, for 14 years.

PF

Theory and Ks - I'll evaluate and probably be able to understand these, but it's honestly not my preference to judge this kind of PF round. On theory in particular - please try to only run this if you believe you're the target of intentional and flagrant unfair behavior. Otherwise, I'd rather you just talked about the topic.

Speaking quickly is okay but please do not spread. The teams that get the highest speaks from me tend to talk at conversational or slightly faster than conversational speed.

If you're goal is to qualify for and do well at the TOC, you probably wouldn't consider me a "tech judge" ; I'll flow the round line-by-line in the case, rebuttal and summary but also want to see a lot of summation / weighing / big picture breakdowns of the round in the summary and especially in the final focus. I like a nice, clean speech that's easy for me to flow - tell me where to write things. Signpost more than you would think you have to.

Some answers to questions I've been asked:

-I think that it is strategically smart for the second speaking team to defend their case in rebuttal, but I don't consider it a requirement. In other words, if all you do in your rebuttal is attack your opponent's case, I won't consider all of your opponent's responses to your case to be "dropped."

-If you want me to vote on an issue, it should be present in both the summary and the final focus. The issue should be explained clearly by both partners in a similar way in each speech.

-If you say something about the opposing case in rebuttal and your opponents never respond to it, you don't need to keep bringing it up (unless it's a turn that you really want to go for or something like that).

-Speaker points - My 30 is "I feel like I'm watching someone debate out rounds at a national circuit tournament" and my 25 is "I'm going to go ask to talk to your coach about what I just saw." The vast majority of my scores fall in the 29-27 range.

LD

The question I get asked most often at tournaments when judging LD is "are you okay with speed?" The answer is yes, but you'll probably find that I understand your case/arguments better if you slow down during any analytics (interpretation, plan text, standards, spikes, etc.) that you expect me to write down or remember. You'll also probably find that unless you don't spread much, I won't achieve 100% comprehension of your "top speed." And I'm big on this one - if your opponent doesn't understand spreading, don't spread.

Another question I get asked a lot is "are you okay with policy-style arguments?" Again, the answer is yes, but with some caveats. The farther your argument goes from traditional LD or traditional policy case structure, the harder it will be for me to grasp it and the less likely I am to vote on it.

I used to have a lot of really negative stuff about theory arguments in my paradigm. My position on that has softened a bit. There is a place for theory arguments in modern LD debate, but I still generally think theory should be in the minority of LD rounds, and the abuse should be substantial, deliberate, and clearly demonstrable if a theory argument is being made.

I do not disclose speaker points.

Congress

I generally include the PO in my ranking of a round, although not as highly as the best speakers in a round. Expect a rank in the 3-6 range unless you screw up often, are an exceptionally good PO, or are POing a round full of very bad speakers.

A few particulars:

-It's a good idea to break down the what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and/or first affirmative speaker. Never assume that the judge has read or analyzed the item you're discussing!

-Refuting or extending the argument of at least one specific person by name is mandatory if you're the fifth speaker on an item or later.

-From the second you step foot into a Congressional Debate chamber, my expectation is that you are IN CHARACTER as a member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate. Breaking character (even during recess, or AGDs) and acting like a high schooler will disappoint me.

-I care about how good your best speech was more than how many speeches you gave.

-I am rarely impressed with three-plus main point Congress speeches. Unless you're in a round that has four minute speech times, this is a bad idea.

-I want to see a strong debate, not parliamentary games.

Extemp

The single most important thing to me is whether or not you answered the question. Your three main points should be three reasons why your answer is correct. Somewhere between 7-10 sources is ideal. You should present an extremely compelling reason in your intro if you are giving something other than a three main point speech; 95% of your speeches or so should be of the three main point variety. Your speech should be over at seven minutes. Grace time is for you to finish a sentence that got away from you, not deliver a conclusion. I often rank people down for talking longer than 7:10.

Oratory/Info

It's important to me that I be able to tell, based on your oratory, how exactly you are defining your topic and what exactly you are proposing we do about it. This may sound obvious, but one of my most common negative comments on oratory ballots tends to be something to the effect of, "be more clear about what your persuasive goal for this speech is." Speeches should have a personal story. They should have a literary reference. They need to include some research.

The most important thing to me about your informative speech is whether or not you are actually informing me about something. Again, this might sound obvious, but I feel like many Infos are either disguised persuasive speeches or speeches that are repeating very widely known information (and therefore, no actual "informing" is taking place). I tend to have a "less is more" attitude when it comes to Info visual aids - this isn't to say that I penalize students who have elaborate visual aids; just that if you only have a couple unsophisticated visuals you could do still quite well with me if you have a good speech.

For both of these events, I want a balance of "hard" evidence (research, data) and "soft" evidence (anecdotes, stories, literary examples).

Interpretation Events

My overarching philosophy with all interp is that as a performer, you are baking a cake. The three main ingredients of this cake are "characters," "emotion," and "story." Everything else - blocking, accents, how your intro is written, suitability of subject material, author's intent, humor - is icing on that cake. Not totally unimportant - just not the first thing I think about when I'm deciding whether or not I liked it.

On the "what's more important, author's intent or creatively," I don't have a strong opinion, other than that is important to know and follow the rules for your event in whatever league you're competing in.

I prefer in HI, POI, and Duo fewer characters to more characters; 3-5 is perfect, more than that and it is likely I will get confused about your plot unless your differentiation between characters is exceptionally good.

I'm not the judge you want if you have a piece that pushes the envelope in terms of language, subjects for humor, and depictions of sex or violence.

My attitude towards blocking is that it should be in service of developing a character or making a plot point. I find myself writing comments like "I don't know what you were doing while you said XXXX" and "you doing XXXX is distracting" way more than I write comments like "need to add more blocking."

Policy

I judge this event extremely rarely, so if you have me judging you here, treat me like an old-school, traditional debate coach. You'll do best debating stock issues, disads, topicality, and fairly straightforward counter plans. I probably haven't judged many (or any) rounds on your topic. As I said earlier with LD, spreading is fine but probably not your "top speed" if your goal this year is to qual for/break at the TOC.

1/2 of Memorial Zhang-Jacobs. I did public forum for three years and policy for one tournament (youtube search: Zhang-Jacobs Policy Round Kanye West Double Loss).