Background:

- Judged Public Forum all 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-2019 school years.

- Debated Lincoln-Douglas in High School at Houston Memorial and debated Policy at The George Washington University (attended college on a partial debate scholarship, quarters at ADA Nationals, numerous speaker awards).

- Graduated cum laude from The American University's Washington College of Law. Professionally, worked for corporations, law firms, government, and trade associations (doing policy advocacy and government relations).

- Flow Judge but don't just go off of the flow in final focus. Evaluate the round and develop a big picture.

- Full biography: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sonnyabbasi

Public Forum Philosophy:

1. Clash is very important. Respond to the other team's points. Do not ignore the other side's arguments.
2. Speed is okay as I am a former policy debater. If I can't understand you, I will yell "clear".
3. Extend arguments--I won't do it for you.
4. Tell me why you should win the round--don't expect me to do focuses in my head for you.
5. I prefer evidence and logic not just spewing of cards. If I wanted that I would be judging policy.
6. Explain your arguments including links to impacts.
7. This is simple but stick to the resolution.
8. Explain why your framework is important.
9. Show me how to evaluate the round. Go for certain arguments that you are winning in final focus and weigh those against the opponents' arguments.

I am a law student at Emory. I coached PF at Delbarton, CBI, and ISD. I competed in PF Bronx Science.

1. Please don't give line by line final two speeches.

2. Limit what you're going for in your final two speeches (prioritize good substantive warrants rather than more blippy responses). Group responses when you can in summary, and explicitly weigh in both speeches but especially in final focus.

3. If you would like me to vote on certain offense bring it up in both summary and final focus.

4. Use the summary to respond to responses made in the rebuttal and give me voters (alternatively you can devote time in the second rebuttal to front-lining). I am uncomfortable voting for an argument that hasn't developed at all since your case (unless of course you show me it's been dropped and bring it up in summary and final focus).

5. Please have your evidence available promptly. I will get fed up and start running prep time or docking speaker points if you can't find it quickly enough. In extreme cases, or if I feel like you are intentionally being unethical, I will drop you.

6. That being said, don't call for every card. Only ask to see evidence if you are legitimately concerned about understanding the content or context.

7. If you aren't using prep time (as in, they are searching for a card to show you), then don't prep.

8. When in doubt I will vote for the most consistently brought up, and convincingly warranted arguments.

9. Only give me an off time roadmap if you're doing something atypical.

10. You should have your preflows ready on both sides before you enter the room.

11. If you card dump, there is no way for me or your opponents to fairly ascertain credibility. I will not flow it as evidence.

12. I give speaker points based on persuasiveness and good rhetoric not technicalities. If you win every argument but sound like a robot, or just read off your computer, you will get low speaker points.

Experience: 4 years of PF debate for Edgemont with a bit of policy, qualled to ToC senior year. Former parli debater for Dartmouth but honestly I kind of hate parli.

Things I like: Organized cases with clear terminalized impacts, fast line by line rebuttals, collapsing in summary, rhetorically persuasive final focuses

also when teams give me flow paper

Things I don't like: Sketchy extensions, poor evidence ethics, non-terminalized impacts, taking a long time to find cards

How I evaluate the round:

There are four things you need to do in order for me to evaluate an offensive argument at the end of the round.

• Cite and extend evidence on it
• Explain ur internal links (stats are insufficient without logic)
• Terminalize your impacts
• Extend it in both summary and final focus.

If you do not follow each of these steps, I will intervene against you and refuse to evaluate the argument. Yes, that means that you can lose even if you "won" the round on the flow, because I think that as a judge and thus an educator, it is my obligation to force you to win each part of an argument to win the whole thing. So, don't say "extend x contention" or "extend y link"- you must explain them. Furthermore, doing these things does not guarantee you win the argument; you obviously need to frontline responses and turns and weigh it. Consider these steps a prerequisite to accessing any offense in the round.

Other than that, I believe in:

sticky defense, presumption goes to whoever lost the flip, prefer if second rebuttal frontlines, no plans or CPs, I am open to Ks but don't really understand them, tech over truth, no new offense in summary, no new defense in ff, moderate to fast speed is ok (I'll shout clear if I need to), reading ur opponent's ev during speeches or cx is ok, no offensive overviews in second rebuttal, prefer if no conditional advocacies, no theory unless it's really egregious, paragraph theory over shell theory, scalar impacts are stupid, fully terminalized impacts. Also weigh clearly or I'll just weigh myself and I'm pretty dumb so u prob don't want that.

I love unique arguments. Please make my day more interesting, I don't want to judge remixes of the same aff and neg for the whole tournament. If you entertain me (either with your args or by being funny) I'll prob increase your speaks.

Flashing:

(I wrote this part in 2016 so idk if flashing is still uncommon but) if you flash me and your opponents a carded copy of case complete with citations and highlighting/underlining, and reads the cards verbatim, your speaker points will increase by 1.5. If you flash but don't read verbatim, they'll increase by 0.5. Finally, if you put an outline of the case up on the wiki and not the full cards, your speaks will increase by 0.5. I will be extremely receptive to theory if one team flashes and the opponents do not- you will still have to win the theory, but it shouldn't be too hard for you to do so. I hope that this policy encourages teams to share their evidence more and thus miscut their evidence less.

Calling for evidence:

I call for ev when

a) a team asks me to during round (not when the round has ended)

b) I have read the article and think you miscut it

c) I have a really hard time believing that an author actually said what you're claiming they said

d) you hinge a big part of the debate on it and I need to verify that it actually says what you are claiming it says.

If I find that you have falsified or miscut the ev, I'll drop the ev and depending on how egregious the falsification is I will give you 0 speaks and/or drop you on face. If the evidence is confusing and it's not called out, I'll probably just accept the interpretation of the evidence that makes the most sense. That's a subjective decision that you probably won't want, so I'd advise just reading good ev.

I permit teams to use the time their opponent takes to find evidence to do prep without it counting towards the two minutes. So essentially, if you take 5 minutes to find a card, you're giving your opponent a free 5 minutes of prep. Of course, this can all be avoided if you have a file with all the cards you're reading in round that you flash me.

Finally, do not falsify your opponent's evidence. That is, if you call for a card and the card is legit, don't come up with an indict that is a blatant lie. This is as bad as lying about your own card, and I'll prob drop you or give you zero speaks.

Disclosure:

I will always disclose speaks and who won as long as the tournament permits and I URGE you to ask questions about my decision. One reason that the judging pool in PF can be so screwy is because judges don't really care about the round, don't really think about the arguments, and just give half-assed decisions that they haven't really thought over. I would love it if you asked me "how did you evaluate X argument" or something like that- I try my best to think over everything, but I'm still human and may make mistakes sometimes. Chances are if you show me that I judged something incorrectly, I'll be better equipped to judge it in the future, and you just made the judging pool a little bit better. Please don't be a dick, though. I promise I'm trying my best.

Finally, If you're being a dick to your opponents I might just drop you outright. You probably don't want to risk this. Be nice.

I did PF for Walt Whitman and graduated in 2013. I coached at Whitman for threee years, and Riverdale Country School for one year

Speed and technical debate are both fine with me, but you need to be clear. This means signposting, warranting your arguments, and weighing explicitly. I am not going to do work for you, so if you don’t literally tell me why I should vote on something I will not vote on it. I am not going to do any analysis that you do not do for me in your speeches.

I am open to any type of argument. That being said, I can be easily persuaded by opponents’ claims that particular interpretations are unfair ways to view resolutions. If you do anything risky, you need to be able to A) defend why what you’re doing is fair and B) obviously win it if you want me to vote on it. The one caveat to this is if you run anything that is discriminatory in any way (racist, sexist, classist, etc.) I will get really, really angry. Please do not do this, I don’t want to hear your genocide is good contention even if you are down four and not breaking.

Summaries:

If you are first summary, I do not need you to extend defense on arguments that your opponents’ have not gotten to go back to in their rebuttal. If your opponents do not answer that defense in their summary, I am fine as having that as a reason not to vote for them on that argument as long as you extend/explain that they didn’t answer that response in your ff. Any offense you want to go for in final focus need to be in first summary though, including turns on their case (if you don’t extend the turn in your first summary, but extend it in final focus I can evaluate it as defense on their argument but I won’t vote on it).

If you are second summary, you know what your opponents are going for so my standard is a little higher. Any defense you want to extend in final focus need to be in your summary. Only exception to this is if your opponents switch what they are going for in their first final focus (don’t do this please), and you need to remind me that they never answered the defense you had put on that argument.

Weighing:

Weighing needs to be comparative or superlative in some way. The structure should generally be phrased as x is more important than y because or x is the mot important issue in the round because not just x is important because.

Lay Judge

I come from a parliamentary debate background (high school & college) and have judged at PF tournaments sporadically for the past 6 years. The most important thing to me is weighing: tell me the most important point in the round and why it is the most important, not just why you won it.

Please explain terms (assume I don't know what something means) and avoid jargon!

I am the Coach at Carrollton High School, Carrollton, GA. I have been coaching for a number of years. I have coached policy, LD, and PF debate.

I expect debaters to weigh arguments, if you don’t then I'm going to weigh them and you probably won't like that. I like warrants in case. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I'm likely to give them some ground on it. Tell me why your response matters and delinks their case. Speed is okay as long as you speak clearly. Arguments that you want me to vote “off of” should be extended through summary and final focus. I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech. I think that debate should be about integrity and truth, meaning be aware of the language you use and the validity of your evidence. There is no place in debate for misconstruing and/or using fake evidence. The flow is important for me in making a decision. If an argument is to be evaluated it should be cleanly extended through the debate. I hate voting on arguments that were not well developed. The debate should not be about blindly reading cards without understanding them. I'm unlikely to vote on theory unless there's an actual violation in the round. Contextual analysis is always good.

I'm a member of the Columbia Debate Society and a current Junior. I used to do PF for Anderson High School.

Please sign post and logically warrant you arguments, in most cases it’s not enough to merely cite someone's opinion. I'm most likely to vote on an argument if the weighing is comparative, tell me why it matters relative to your opponent's impacts. I won't flow cross, if you want an argument to go on the flow you have to mention it in speech.

I won't time you, you all have phones, time yourself and time your opponents. good luck:)

Peter P Cancro's Judge Philosophy:

Some quick background; I've been judging debates, albeit at the HS level, for over a decade (and averaging over 100 rounds a year for the last 5 years or so). Fall 2013 will be my first semester working with KSU, and thus judging on the college level.

That said, I don't really have much of a paradigm anymore.  I'm willing to vote on anything for any reason.  The only rules that are non-negotiable are the speech times and some degree of civility/professionalism, and adherence to all legal constraints applicable to the jurisdiction(s) in which the debate occurs. 

I prefer not to call for or read evidence; it should be the debaters' job to articulate what the evidence actually says and contest its meaning. 

Any other preference I could list here would be a "weak default", subject to change based on the content of the debate round and relevant argumentation within it.  For example, in general, I will consider evidence more credible than a debater's assertions.  As a weak preference, that could be overcome by a debater's arguments and warrants contending that thier particular assertion is more credible or true than a particular card in that debate (especially if this argument is made, a warrant is given, and the other team drops it).

Other than the above, and the classical advice "don't drop things", the best way to win debates in front of me is to "get underneath" whatever level of analysis of the debate your opponent is engaging in.  For example, if no one is dropping anything, but are only clashing based on the tags of the cards, you could easily win by making claims about the warrants of the relevant cards.  If the warrants are being contested, then you could either give empirical examples that demonstrate why your card's warrants are superior (more true or more applicable to the circumstances being debated).

I hope that gives you some sense of who I am as a judge, and wish you luck competing or coaching someone to compete in front of me!

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.

LD:
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Both:
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

4 years of public forum for Bronx Science (2011-2015).

3.5 years coaching public forum at Walt Whitman (2015-present).

2 years coaching public forum at debate camp (2015, 2016).

Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak. However, I will always prefer quality over quantity and will clock you heavily for blips. The debaters make the evidence good, not the other way around.

Evidence: If it's not an out round, and you don't ask me to do so, I will probably not call for evidence. Don't be shady and DO NOT miscut your cards.

How I evaluate the round: Develop clash as the round progresses. Weigh clearly and convincingly. I'm fine with extending terminal defense, but I need offense to be clearly extended throughout the entire round. Signposting is your friend. I appreciate a well-executed logical response.

Speaks: I will clock you for rudeness and arrogance. You can get a 29.5/30 by building a strong narrative. RuPaul references get you extra speaker points

Lexington High School '16

4 years policy debate

Card clipping/cross-reading:

Clipping is defined as representing that you have read 5 or more words of evidence than you actually read.  Evidence must be both verbally and physically marked during your speech.  It is punishable with a loss and 0 speaker points for the offender.  A false accusation is punishable with a loss and 0 speaker points for both debaters from the accusing team.  In the event of an accusation, I will inform both teams of the possible consequences.  The accusing team will have one opportunity to withdraw their allegation.  If the accusation is not withdrawn, I will then decide, to the best of my ability, whether intentional clipping occurred, using all available resources (including legal video recordings, legal audio recordings, and marked speech documents, not including time tests).  Considering that this is a novice division at a regional tournament, I will only penalize teams if I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the clipping was intentional.  These guidelines would be overriden by any official tournament rules.

I did Public Forum debate at Regis for 3 1/2 years. I will flow what I can understand and follow so I'd prefer if debaters didn't speed read, but as a former debater I can follow most speeches that are moderately fast. Additionally I prefer debaters to engage each other on their arguments, instead of the debate just coming down to disputes over whose evidence is more reliable. Obviously evidence is an important part of PF, but if the judge needs to look over 4-5 pieces of evidence at the end of the round to make their decision, the debaters didn't do a good enough job explaining them or following through on their other arguments.

Put me on the chain: sandrewgilbert@gmail.com

I prefer that teams send cases before constructive and speech docs before rebuttal.

About Me

I competed on the PF national circuit from 2010 to 2012. I coached on and off from 2012 to 2016, when I became the PF coach at Hackley School in NY until June 2019. After being out of debate for 4.5 years, I judged two tournaments in February 2024. I'm not coaching, so don't assume I know anything about the March topic.

Big Picture

I'm tech > truth.

If you want me to vote off your argument, extend the link and impact in summary and FF, and frontline defense. (If there is some muddled defense on your argument, I can resolve that if your weighing is much better and/or the other team's argument is also muddled.)

Give me comparative weighing. Don't just say, "We outweigh on scope." Tell me why you're outweighing the other impact(s). Most teams I vote for are generally doing much more work on the weighing debate, such as responding to the specific reasoning in their opponent's weighing or providing me with metaweighing arguments that compel me to vote for them.

If you say something offensive, I will lower your speaks and might drop you.

Specific Preferences

1. Second rebuttal should cover all turns, and address defense on the argument(s) you go for in summary and FF. If it doesn't cover defense, that's not a deal breaker – just makes it harder for me to vote off.

2. Extend defense in summary and FF. For example, if second rebuttal didn't cover some defense on the argument(s) extended, first summary should extend that defense. Obviously, If second rebuttal didn't frontline an argument, then first summary doesn't need to extend relevant defense.

3. Collapse and weigh in summary and FF. The best teams I've judged typically go for one argument in the second half of the round because collapsing allows them to do thorough line-by-line link and impact extensions, frontline defense, and weigh.

4. Give me the warranting behind your evidence. I do not care if some author says X is true, but I care quite a bit about why X is true. I prefer warrants over unexplained empirics.

5. Do not give me a roadmap – tell me where you're starting and signpost. Make sure you're clear in signposting. I don't want to look all over my flow to figure out where to write.

6. I have some experience judging theory. If you run it, make sure it's actually checking abuse. I'll be less inclined to vote off the shell if you read it because of a relatively minor offense.

7. I've never judged a K. At the very least, it should be topical, and you'll have to accept that I'll determine how to adjudicate it.

8. If you are arguing about how the resolution affects domestic politics (e.g. political capital, elections, Supreme Court, etc.), please have very good warranting as to why your argument is probable. I have a higher threshold for voting on these arguments because I strongly believe that most debate resolutions are unlikely to impact U.S. politics to the extent that you can say specific legislation or electoral results likely do or do not happen. If you do not think you can easily make a persuasive case about why your politics argument is likely, please do not read it or go for it.

I'm proud to say this marks my 10th year of judging Public Forum. Even though I've been doing this a long time, I still consider myself a "Mom judge," but don't despair. I will do my level best to flow the round competently.

Please give me your case in a simple, logical format and give me the reasons why I should vote for you. Please don't speak super fast, since that just makes my head spin, and I won't be able to follow your brilliant arguments as easily.

I always say, I'm okay with a little speed, but if you're talking so fast I can't make out what you're saying, that's not going to be good for you. I want to comprehend what you're telling me. If you feel like you're spoon-feeding me your case, I won't be insulted. You have plenty of flow judges to impress this tournament with fancy twists and turns.

One thing I will say is, If you don't extend an argument in summary, I can't weigh it at the end.

Lastly, please be professional and courteous to each other. No eye-rolling, tongues hanging out, general snottiness. Even if you think your opponent is on the ropes, I don't want to see it on your faces. Win with grace and class.

Speak clearly

UPDATE FOR HARVARD 2023.

For email chains: clj9264@nyu.edu

I have been both the head coach and assistant coach for Timothy Christian School for 5 years. Currently, I am not coaching because I am in grad school, but still keep up with PF resolutions. I was a local/regional/national circuit debater in both LD and PF for 3 years for Timothy Christian School. I then spent five years coaching and judging on all these levels. For the past two years, I have judged LD more than anything else but have mostly done case work in PF.

As one my old debate friends/partners has said (thnx Michael):

If you paraphrase a piece of evidence and your opponent calls the card and all you have is a link to an article and you have to control F your way through the page to find what you are referencing I WILL NOT EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE. CUT YOUR CARDS

Now back to my paradigm,

LD SPECIFIC:

A fair warning that I spent the majority of my high school debate career debating PF, but I have 50/50 judged VLD and VPF since 2017.

I have always been a judge that viewed spreading as okay, but I’ll be realistic with you saying that I haven’t judged LD in a year so I’m a little rusty. Run anything you want and run what will best help you win, but make sure to add me to any email chains and slow down for taglines. If you run a K, make sure that it is CLEARLY explained because I am not well-read on most K lit. Although, run whatever is best for you, and I should be able to adapt. I will truly flow anything you run and evaluate them in the round. However, this is also a warning that if you run anything offensive to either me or your opponent, I will not hesitate to drop you, or at the very least significantly drop your speaker points.

I will say clear a few times, but then it is up to you to remember.

While I will read anything presented to me in email chains, I still find it your responsibility to effectively communicate your speeches to both your opponent and me.

PF SPECIFIC:

Keep in mind, however, that PF has changed drastically since I graduated in 2017, although I did also debate VLD for a period of time so I have that experience to draw upon, and I have been coaching/judging PF since I graduated.

Run whatever you want but be sure to be able to engage with those who may not debate the same way as you (i.e., if you have adapted to be more of a tech debater but your opponents are not, be sure that you can still engage in traditional debate.)

As for basic debate preferences, continue reading:

Some things that are necessary for you to win any PF round, whether it be tech or traditional:

1. Extensions. If you want me to look at an argument in your final focus, it is essential that you extend it during your summary.

2. Outweigh. Give me a reason as to why your 25% is more important than your opponent's $200,000. Tell me how the people you are affecting are more important than your opponent's. Essentially, do not make me assume anything and do not make me pick which is more important. *This does not mean I automatically vote util. I love a good framework debate (it’s the LDer in me), just let me knowwhy I ought to look to your evidence as opposed to your opponents.

3. Write the ballot for me. Give me clear voters during the round. Literally, tell me what to write on my ballot. Again, do not make me pick which is more important. Forcing me to make a decision will only result in a messy RFD and critiques. Tell me why your side is more important.

I will vote off of the flow, so make sure to signpost. Don't bother with an in-depth off-time roadmap, instead, just tell me where you are starting. I will only intervene on the account that there are no voting issues during the round, no weighing mechanisms, and no real arguments standing, that being said be clear and very selective. Do not feel the need to argue every single point. I understand that not everything can be covered in a three-minute summary speech. Instead, make smart decisions about what is necessary to win the round.

FINALLY, FOR EVERYONE:

Regarding speaks, make sure you are respectful, or I will not hesitate to lower your speaker points. Low speaks never equates a loss in my book, but speaks are important as I am sure you all know (esp during bubble rounds). As a debater who got into one to many heated discussions, I saw how that could affect my speaks. I love when debaters show that they are passionate, but that does not have to translate as being disrespectful.

Essentially, debate is about having fun and gaining knowledge. It is meant to be a space where we are able to respectfully argue positions and learn from others, so make sure that every round is focused on this. Also, if you took the time to read this all and incorporate a musical theater reference into the round, this may benefit your speaks :)

"Assuming a pill exists that compels the user to tell the truth, THW destroy it." — Recent fun motion

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

Read the following sections: Overview, General Paradigm, Miscellany and Weird Aside on Evidence -- all else is Parli specific.

Relevant information for PF: I have a strong distaste for theory but as per modern paradigmatic standards, I'm happy to evaluate it as warranted in the round. The bar to convince me to pick up or drop a team on a theory call is likely pretty high. I will tank you if the theory is strategic and not based on something reasonable.

Regarding evidence in PF. I actually debated PF some in High School, I'm not unfamiliar with evidence and carded debate. The maxim that evidence doesn't replace warranting is still true, though, and I will reward better warranted arguments over better carded arguments assuming the belivability of the claim is constant.

Ask me questions before the round if you have questions -- I'd love to get to know you as well -- debate is a game, but we are all members of the community of debate and I'd love to foster that as much as possible. Ask me questions about college debate if you're a senior (or not) -- I'll connect you with the debate team of your institution if you know where you're going etc. I love verbal RFDs so will probably give one. I don't understand PF speaker points so take those with a grain of salt.

I don't claim to be an expert in PF or anything close. I do understand argumentation, warranting, impacting, weighing, etc, and want to see all of that in a round at the highest quality possible.

Parliamentary Debate

If you read nothing else, read this: don't spread; don't tag team; keep stuff in your time; be wary of theory; impact; weigh; warrant.

Overview

I debated for four years as a student at Stuyvesant High School and currently debate APDA for Columbia University. I have experience teaching debate to middle school and high school students, I tab way too often, and have lead more judge orientations than I care remember. If you care, I'm the president of APDA, the oldest and best college debate league.

People tend to care a lot about these paradigms — I really don't — if you have specific questions, ask me before rounds, in GA, whatever. Please do ask if something is unclear!

I run whacky cases, I debate whacky cases, I choose whacky motions — I really don't mind a lot if it's done well and respectful and conducive to a good round of debate.

General Paradigm

So everyone likes to claim they're a tabula rasa judge. I think this is nonsensical. Obviously personal views will not influence the round, but as arguments leave the sphere of the normal and easily bought, the burden of warranting well increases.

It's reasonably straightforward for me to buy, for example, that individuals do things that make them happy, and since eating ice cream makes people happy, people eat ice cream; but is comparatively hard for me to buy that actually, instead of eating the ice cream in my refrigerator, I'm going to make a 2 day trek across tundra to obtain some of the same ice cream.

I don't mean to discourage complex, strange, or whacky argumentation; rather, I aim to encourage elegant, simple, but robust warranting.

Theory

Theory has its place (LD / Policy / new PF circuit / your dinner table maybe ?) — and it's almost never in a parliamentary debate round.

Please limit any kritiks, theory calls, whatever else theory masquerades as nowadays, to instances where the use therein is warranted. Unless something is tightly or abusively defined / modeled or one team is engaging in reprehensible behavior, there is no need for theory — debate the resolution. This is an instance where I am certainly not tabula rasa, I will almost always, except in these previous instances, assume that the theory is being used in an effort to actively exclude the other team simply because the assumption is that I, as a seasoned debater, can follow it (which I can). Except in the caveated cases, the burden is on the team using a kritik or some other theory to prove to me they are not doing this.

If you want to argue about mutual exclusivity of a counterplan, or whatever else you want to do, please be sure to not forget to warrant, and explain things in reasonable terms. Just as you're not going to go off using advanced economic terms in rounds, and instead going to explain how a bubble works (hopefully), don't just use a pick, actually explain and warrant it. And on that, a counterplan had better be mutually exclusive, or at least functionally so, given certain tradeoffs.

Expect lower speaker points and to lose in cases of over eagerly applied theory.

Miscellany

I don't want to warrant for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to impact for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to weigh for you. Don't make me.

I am not going to get into what makes a warrant 'good' or an impact effective or weighing necessary, please as your coach, varsity, mentor, or email me if none of the previous options are available to you (johnrod.john@gmail.com).

The final two speeches of a round (the rebuttal or crystallization speeches) are NOT to restate every point in the round, but instead are meant to synthesize, weigh, and flesh out impacts. Please do that. The most effective rebuttal speeches focus on two to three levels of conditional weighing. I won't vote on some random unimpacted and unweighed pull through.

Don't spread — think about a speed a non debater would be able to reasonably follow. This usually means something fast, but not double breathing. Side note: someone who enjoys spreading please explain to me how this doesn't destroy the educational value in learning how to be a rhetorical and persuasive speaker please!

Instead of focusing on a breadth of argumentation, please focus on a depth of argumentation that is complex, and includes a high level of weighing structures and effective warranting.

Tag teaming — never seen this in parli outside of the west coast. Don't do it, you'll have your own chance to speak.

POIs — take them, use them, respect them. Don't go back and forth — if I wanted crossfire I'd be at a PF tournament. Seriously. Also, these are supposed to be fun and humorous — if you don't believe me, watch the House of Commons — however, you are HS debaters and probably take everything way too seriously, therefore I'll settle for not rude.

Offtime Stuff — No. You don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it.

Weird Aside on Evidence

Please don't confuse providing evidence with providing warrants. Simply because you were able to effectively use Google and find someone who said something doesn't mean that it's a) true b) important c) relevant d) it will happen again e) isn't without opposing evidence. Please always default to explaining why something happened, not simply that it did, or that someone believes it will happen again.

I have never once picked a team up for the quality of a card, and no round should ever come down to a piece of evidence in any way, shape, or form.

I was formerly a 4 year PF debater at Stuyvesant High School, a 4 year PF coach for Hunter High School, a 4 year APDA/BP debater in college, and the Director of NSD PF for 3 years. 3 things to note:

1. I don’t need defense in first summary if 2nd rebuttal didn’t answer it and you extend it in final focus, but I do need defense in 2nd summary if you intend for that response to factor into my decision. All offense must be in both summary and final focus.

2. I give relatively low average speaker points, as I will award an average PF speech a 28.

3. Do not be afraid to grill me after the round if you think I have made a mistake in evaluating the round in any way. It will not sway me but it might teach you something and i really don’t mind at all.

I expect depth of topic, clear delivery of thought along with clear speech (no spreading please). Also, I will be paying close attention to the rebuttal. Lastly, I would like to know why I should vote for your side which is why I expect much weighing on each side.

I look for a clear argument with real, meaningful evidence. More evidence is not better evidence. Talking fast means does not give debaters a victory. If I can't understand what you said because you are talking too fast, then essentially, you didn't say it.

I am a parent.

Wikispaces no longer exists for some reason so I'm gonna try and summarize here.

I went to Scarsdale and did Public forum debate there. I am now on the Columbia Parliamentary Debate Team.

I will disclose at the end of the round. Debate is stressful enough without guessing for hours as to who won. The one exception is if its unbelievably close, and for me to tell you without thinking about it past the normal time at the end of the round, would be almost akin to guessing. This has happened a total of once I believe.

If you read a card in the first two speeches, you have to at least tell me its a card in the second two. You don't have to read a tag, but I have to know you said it earlier, so I know I can go back and find it on the earlier parts of the flow after the round. If you don't do this, I won't vote off of it.

I don't care if you go fast, as long as I can flow. I'm faster on computer than paper, but I'm not bad overall. If I ' cant get it the first time, I won't vote off of it.

I don't care if you're a jerk in crossfire, as long as someone doesn't appear visibly uncomfortable. If they do, ease up. No one should leave a debate round upset because they felt bullied. With that said, so much of crossfire is useless because people are trying to yell about who has a right to speak. Focus on getting one really solid point across. You're more likely to sway the needle.

If you want to be card-centric, do that. I'm game.

You don't have to rebuild in the 2nd rebuttal. If you do it well, however, it can be really effective.

Weigh in the summary, weigh in the final focus. Weigh in the rebuttal if you can. If you do those things, I will give you high speaks. I have no issue giving a lot of high speaks. A lot of you are high-quality speakers.

About me:

I did PF from 2013 to 2017 at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. I coached/ judged frequently as a first year out, although I've been semi-retired from high school debate since 2018. Currently, I'm a student at Brandeis University in Massachusetts, where I'm majoring in economics and history. I regularly compete in APDA and BP style parliamentary debate. I use he/ they pronouns.

Major preferences:

Unless you want me to intervene, you have to weigh competing impacts as well as links into the same impact. Weighing should be comparative (X outweighs Y because) or superlative (X comes before everything else because). Comparative weighing tends to be more persuasive than superlative because it actually accounts for the quality of your opponents' arguments instead of precluding them on face. That being said, I'll vote for any weighing as long as it's done correctly.

I touched at this in the last paragraph, but to reiterate: you must weigh your link(s) against your opponents' link(s) when you're both trying to access the same impact. In all the rounds I've judged, failure to weigh links is easily the most common mistake that costs debaters the round. (This is especially true for higher-level rounds.)

Don't wait until second final focus to weigh, doing so deliberately avoids clash and makes it nearly impossible for the first speaking team to win on weighing. I will reluctantly evaluate new weighing in second final focus if it's the only substantive weighing in the round, or if it's the only way to resolve clash over existing weighing.

As you may have noticed, the past three paragraphs have all been about weighing. That's because weighing is important. A lot of successful debaters have a habit of telling teams they judges to "weigh more" or "weigh better" without explaining how, and I despise this. If you want to improve your weighing but you're not sure how, find me after the round and we can talk.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to address defense, but they must cover offense and/or theory arguments introduced by the first rebuttal. Weighing from first rebuttal should probably be addressed, but I'm fine with you waiting until summary. Dropped defense must be present in final focus for me to evaluate it, but I don't need it in first summary (first summary still needs to extend/ rebuild defense if it was responded to in second rebuttal, otherwise I won't buy them in final focus.)

Offensive overviews, new "advantages" or "disads", and "turns" that are really just blippy new arguments with the same terminal impact as your opponents are fair game in first rebuttal, but not in second. Actual turns on their arguments are fine in second rebuttal.

As long as they're properly warranted, I usually don't care if arguments are carded. (Arguments predicated on empirical/ fact claims are the exception to this.) Evidence comparison is not as compelling as argument comparison, but I'll vote on it if you tell me to. In rounds where teams should have compared warrants but didn't, I often intervene on evidence. Your opponents get free prep time while you're searching for evidence; this is a good norm because it encourages teams to have evidence readily available

Theory is fine in the case of egregious abuse by your opponents. If you read theory and I think it's frivolous, I probably won't drop you but I will tank your speaks. I default to reasonability because this is PF and your opponents probably don't know what a counterinterp is. Theory must be introduced immediately after the violation has occurred if you want me to evaluate it. Cross (or questioning during prep) checks. Feel free to ask me how I feel about specific theory arguments before the round.

Plans and CPs are fine as long as the resolution actually proposes an action. You don't need to prove your advocacy is probable unless your opponents make an argument saying otherwise. If you read a specific plan/ CP that's very unpredictable and probably abusive, I'll heavily err towards your opponents if they contest it. (So don't be afraid to call your opponents out!)

Kritikal arguments are fine if you actually know how to make/ implicate them. I'm probably most conducive to cap, security, or orientalism (especially on the BRI topic). Read dense continental philosophy or postmodern arguments at your own risk.

Try not to speak above 215 words per minute. My upper limit is probably around 230 WPM, so go fast at your own risk.

Don't be mean. Stop making dramatic faces at your opponents' arguments, they're not going to persuade me. Avoid repeatedly cutting your opponents off in crossfire. Don't be blatantly dismissive or hostile towards your opponents' arguments when you respond to them (this is mostly directed at you, male debaters with non-male opponents).

Minor preferences (there aren't round-deciding, but please show some competency and do what I say):

Flip for sides and preflow as early as you can. (This especially goes for you, second flight.)

Please don't give me a full-on roadmap unless you're doing something really unusual. (I've judged enough rounds to know that you're going down their case and back to your own if time permits.)

Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

I don't care if you sit or stand, so please don't ask me.

I don't care if a coach, teammate, or family member observes the round, so please don't ask me.

- Lay judge with some experience judging (won't catch spreading or anything more than moderately fast speaking, won't understand terms like internal link or warrant)

- Can flow fairly well but won't catch card names

- Knows how debate works so won't evaluate things that are new in final focus, etc.

I am a PF-only judge. I prefer PF debate to be PF debate - in other words, it should be accessible and persuasive to a lay judge. Speed or unexplained jargon that would befuddle a well-educated but inexperienced judge will result in low speaks and possibly won't be flowed at all. That said, I do not attempt to be a pure "tabula rasa." Instead, I will judge from the perspective of a well-informed (i.e. someone who keeps up with national/international news) and well-educated (i.e. someone who remembers what they were taught in their high school and core college classes) layperson.

Beyond that, I expect teams to clearly layout a framework for the round and impact to that framework. I am fine with a "framework debate" if the central point of contention between teams is their framework. I flow, but primarily as a memory aid.

I will call for evidence, but only if one of the teams in round challenges their opponents' use of that evidence. Unnecessary or frivolous evidentiary challenges are not appreciated and will be penalized.

I am a lay judge and I am a teacher. I understand the flow to some extent. Please make sure you present well constructed arguments and explain your evidence and refutations clearly. If you use data, explain its significance. Thank you.

I've judged since 2014.

Logic is as important as evidence.

Evidence is essential. I will ask for cards if I'm unsure about the evidence supporting a claim or whether the evidence has been used properly. I look for quality over quantity. Be clear about sources: What's the source? Who is the author? Don't say that a newspaper (e.g., Washington Post) is the author. That's where the article was published. Don't just say an institution (e.g., Harvard) is the author. That's where the author works. The author is a person. Say who she/he is. If you think her background is important (e.g., former Secretary of State), you can say so.

Announce a weighing mechanism, especially in summary and final focus. Which arguments are most important? If you don't give me a weighing mechanism, I will be forced to give the win to the side whose arguments flow through. I'd much rather give the win to the side with the best arguments on the most important issues. Tell me what's most important and why

Avoid spreading. Focus on your most important arguments. Engage the other side on those arguments. If the other side raises less important issues, explain why and then return to the most important arguments.

Max F. Neuman (he or they pronouns). If both teams want to use an email chain, please add maxfneuman [at] gmail.com

Competitive and Coaching Experience:

4 years of PF, almost entirely on the New York City Urban Debate League, at Bard High School Early College Manhattan.

1 year of APDA at CUNY, 3 years at Columbia.

Former PF coach at High School for Dual Language and Asian Studies, Midwood High School, and Bard High School Early College Manhattan. Current APDA coach at Temple.

Listened to that NPR podcast about college policy and thought it was cool.

Paradigm:

When I'm judging a round, I really want to avoid intervening ie; involving my own thoughts or doing your work in achieving the ballot. It leads to unpredictable decisions that are unfair to everybody. To prevent judge intervention, speak high, and win, here are a few tips:

• Enjoy yourself! Debate should be fun.

• Be inclusive! Respect your competitors. If speaking about an event or group, especially one that you are not part of, only make arguments you would make if the room were full of members of that group.

• If you need to make a potentially triggering argument, please give a content warning.

• I will not deviate from tab policy, speech times, or the speaker scale. Everything else is up for debate.

Everything below this point is stuff I am flexible on, but will default to absent other argumentation.

• I am a lazy judge. I do not want to intervene or do the work to prove why arguments are true or why they matter. Please be explicit about what the voting issues should be.

• Before anyone says a word, I assume that my job as the judge is to determine if the resolution is a true or false statement, and I assume that neg has won on presumption. As soon as a debater says anything, these starting positions go out the window and the role/destination of the ballot is up for debate.

• I've been consistently involved in debate since 2013, but you definitely know the current topic and the format's evolving norms better than I do. Author names don't mean much to me, so explain what cards say. If you want to make an abuse or theory call, or even do something non-traditional like a K, I'm amenable to it if it's adequately warranted and weighed in a way that's accessible to a broad audience that isn't steeped in debate pedagogy. If something is warranted well and not responded to at all, I'll consider it true, no matter how outlandish.

• Weigh and condense. Going for the whole flow at any point after second crossfire reduces the round to a whirlwind of blips, often with very little analysis about what should sway the ballot. Impact calculus is hard to master, but entirely worth it.

• I don't care about or even know how to consciously evaluate presentation things like what you wear, the sound of your voice, rhetoric, whether you sit or stand, or that sort of thing.

• Speed is fine when coupled with clarity. If you're especially fast (like 300 words per minute or more), start slow so I can get up to speed. If I can't flow you at all, I'll say "clear" up to three times

• Explaining how something works or happens is so much better than citing a source or quantifying a conclusion. Maybe it's because I've seen so many bad debaters win rounds on evidence challenges or because I'm a parliamentary debater, but I value explanation on par with evidence.

• If some offense is in first constructive or rebuttal and then never gets brought up during the round, I'm fine with a final focus/PMR/LOR/2AR/2NR weighing it to win, although the weighing needs to be stronger than "they dropped it so it's true." I will pick up a team that says "they dropped it so it's true, and we weigh it so it matters" if the weighing actually happens.

• You don't have to extend all defense in a summary/rebuttal if you've already touched an argument; you do have to respond if the other side is going for it and engaging with your refutation. If something was in the round before, regardless of whether it was in summary or second constructive, it can be in final focus and on the ballot if you mention it explicitly. I will enforce the prohibition on totally new argumentation (in all cases except the first-speaking team answering totally new content in the second team's summary) in final focus.

• I probably won't flow crossfire because I don't think I can do so with nearly as much accuracy as the speeches. If something important happened in crossfire, mention it in a speech to be sure it's in the round.

• I am begrudgingly okay with calling cards. It would be better if everyone could avoid this by not lying about evidence (your own or your opponents'). If there has been a question of validity or a direct and unresolved clash of cards during the round, I'll probably want to see the original source after the round. If you have a citation and a card, it's okay with me if you have to pull an original source off the internet when asked. Any other internet use is super duper prohibited. If the entire round comes down to a fact claim that nobody can resolve like "Russia has 15 nuclear submarines" when the brightline for impact access is 15, I'm amenable to arguments that I should google the number, and I'll default to just resolving the next most important issue in the round if it's deadlocked around an unresolvable fact claim.

If you want my flow, it's all yours! Send me an email at maxfneuman [at] gmail.com to ask for the flow or if you have any questions, preferably on the same weekend as your round in front of me. I'll probably delete flows/forget details about rounds after that. Please add me to the email chain at the same email address.

Martin Page

Assistant Director--Debate

Ridge High School

Updated for TOC 2016

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm (Scroll Down for PF)

General Update 4/2016: I much prefer rounds where specific interactions happen rather than rounds where the strategy is to extend dropped arguments and blow them up without really addressing the other debater's position(s).  This is particularly true on the negative side--I FIRMLY believe the 1NC should spend time SPECIFICALLY addressing the AC on the AC side of the flow.  This is not to say that I won't vote for you if you don't do this, but debaters who do this will get higher speaks.  Also, please stop assuming I understand dense, uncommon positions--you need to be clear in your explanation.

Overview: I've been judging circuit LD for a while now and actively coach it, so I am familiar with many different types of arguments.  Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round/how you are interacting with the other side.   I can't think of any arguments I won't evaluate (except the offensive "rape good, racism good, etc." arguments which I will drop you for running)--my goal is to not intervene. Please make sure it is clear to me how all arguments are functioning in the round.  Slow down on tags.  Overviews are much appreciated.

Some important notes:
1--I find myself incredibly uncomfortable with frameworks that explicitly use religion as a justification (evidently called the "God" case). I will attempt to evaluate them as I would any other argument, but if you're attempting to argue that God exists in front of me and that's a reason to vote one way or another, I'm not going to be very receptive to the argument. I respect every person's freedom of religion, but I struggle to understand the place of religion in the debate space.
2--I really struggle to evaluate rounds where there is no weighing, a lack of crystallization, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. Crystallize in the 2NR/2AR. Weigh or explain why your arguments are a prerequisite or pre-empt to those made by the other side. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped--implicate the drop and tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round, and the lower the chance that I accidentally intervene/have to play "argument roulette" and pluck something off the flow to vote off of because no one told me how to evaluate the round.
3--I am not very receptive to arguments saying that your opponent does not have the right to speak on a certain issue. This does not apply to theory arguments that say "debaters must not X" or "speaking for others" kritiks, which argue that NO debaters should do a certain thing (they don't leave one debater allowed to speak on an issue and another not allowed to speak on the issue). But I am not very receptive to "My opponent comes from X background, so she shouldn't speak on this issue, but I can because I come from Y background." If this argument has no carded evidence attached to it, I will not evaluate it. If it does have carded evidence attached to it, I will evaluate it, but I consider it an ad hominem attack and will have an extremely low threshold for responses to it. However, I am fine with (and even like) arguments that say authors of evidence are less qualified to speak on issues because of their background; this type of argument discusses how out-of-round discourse is shaped, so I'm fine with it. 
4--You really need to slow down on the tags and implications of evidence in less common, phil-heavy frameworks, especially if they come from the analytic tradition or are not very common in LD. I am not as familiar with these frameworks, so make sure you are especially clear in explaining how they function.

5--I'm really bad at keeping track of blippy cross applications when you're on your side of the flow; for example, if you're extending out of the AC on the AC side of the flow and also say "cross-apply this to X card on the NC flow" the chances are I miss that or something else right after it. So I prefer these cross-applications be made when you are making arguments on the side of the flow you are applying them to. 

Speed: I'm basically fine with speed--though the very, very fastest LD rounds might be slightly out of my comfort zone. I’ll say "slow" if you’re going too fast, "enunciate" if the words are garbled, and "louder" if you're too soft. If you're going fast on the evidence, please make sure the tags and analysis are slightly slower and are clear.  My issue is most often with enunciation and lack of vocal emphasis on important points in the case, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. 

Kritiks: I really like them, including narratives/performance arguments. I enjoy role of the ballot arguments and micropolitical positions, both pre- and post-fiat.  I do not care if you are topical as long as you JUSTIFY why you are not going to be topical.  This doesn't mean you are immune from losing a T debate; it simply means I will evaluate non-topical positions.  Please make the link story clear on the negative side.  I'm better at evaluating ks and other policy arguments than I am at dealing with heavy and uncommon philosophical positions, but I will vote off the flow. 

T/Theory: I would rather hear a substantive debate, but I don’t have a bias against evaluating theory, and I am growing more comfortable and familiar with it. Please be sure to give me a clear sense of how the shells and theory strategy function in the round and interact with the other side. I prefer theory be read at a slower pace than other positions, and PLEASE slow down on interps and implications.  I understand that theory has strategic value beyond just checking abuse, but PLEASE note the following:

--I prefer (and sometimes even like) T debate to theory debate because I find it more interesting and relevant.

--I default reasonability and drop the argument.

--When a shell is missing links or poorly explained, or if I find the theory more abusive than the abuse itself (more than 4 shells in the NR, for example) I'm going to have a lower threshold for responses.

--If the neg position is actually abusive, unlike many judges, I am receptive to theory initiated in the 1 AR, but only against an actual abuse.

--I find AFC and theory that is run against an out-of-round abuse (i.e. disclosure theory) or an abuse that is not related to content (apparently "wifi theory" is a thing?) annoying, abusive, and bad for education, so I have a lower threshold for responses on these as well, and speaks will be low.  Running these things won't get you more than a 26.9.

--If there is no voter extended in the 2AR/2NR I will not vote on it unless it is the only offense in the round.  I default to voting on substance if the theory debate is muddled and lacks a voter in the final rebuttal.

Tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments:

I am not a fan of "tricks" and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for extensions of blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses, and speaks will be low.  However, I am somewhat more receptive to skep (though I certainly don't love it) and tricky philosophical arguments that are extremely well-developed--if you are running these arguments, you need to slow down.  Running skep or well-developed analytically philosophical tricks that I understand when they are argued in the AC will not negatively affect you're speaks.

When I say "lower threshold for responses" it means I think these are weak arguments or abusive strategies, so while I will always vote off the flow, I don't like these arguments to begin with, so I'm very open to logical responses to them.

Extensions: I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend a full argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient.  Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way.  Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round.  

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all fine.  If you're running a DA, make sure the link is clear and you're weighing, but in general, I like policy arguments and am probably better at evaluating them than I am at evaluating heavy and uncommon philosophical positions.

Speaker Points: I start at a 28 and go up/down from there. Please note that in addition to what is listed below, I also give some consideration to clarity of spreading (enunciation especially) and word economy. If your words are incredibly garbled, I'm not going to be particularly happy--this usually makes a difference of .1-.2 speaker points. 

26-26.9--You have a lot of work to do OR you ran AFC or disclosure theory.

27-27.9--You did a decent job, but I do not think you have a chance of breaking.

28-28.9--You will probably break, but you aren't interacting arguments enough and are not making strategic enough decisions.

29-29.9--You are one of the better debaters I've judged at the tournament.  You're clearly signposting, weighing and/or explaining how arguments function in the round.  Your strategy might have a misstep or two, but on the whole, you've executed extremely well.

30--You executed your strategy in such a way that I wouldn't reasonably expect better from a high school student.

 Some Notes on Public Forum

I've judged more LD this year than anything else, and I struggle to find out what that means for those off you who have me as a PF judge.  I will say the following: I vote strictly off the flow, I aim not to intervene, and I will call cards in PF only if there is dispute over evidence in the round or if something seemed off to me when you read the card (i.e. if you cite the Washington Post saying 90% of Americans are Democrats or something).  Some specifics:

1--I do not care how fast you speak.

2--Turns are offense.  Implicate and use them as such.

3--The summary should respond to your opponent's rebuttal against your case and generally focus on your side of the flow (i.e. focus on your offense, not defense on their case--but remember, turns are offense).  Since it's usually impossible to respond to everything that was said in their rebuttal, be strategic about which arguments you go for and please weigh. 

4--Please crystallize the round in the final focus.  If you don't weigh arguments in the summary and final focus, it will be very hard for me not to intervene, which makes everyone sad.

5--Frameworks and observations are important and should provide me a way to weigh the round. 

6--In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense (things that were dropped and clearly extended) rather than doing weighing for you.

Feel free to email me at martin.d.k.page@gmail.com if you have questions.

Hello! My name is Grace Panetta and I did public forum debate all 4 years of high school on the Massachusetts and national circuit. I'm not an especially strict or picky judge, but if you stick the following guidelines you should do well:

1. Please.weigh.your.arguments! I know how easy it is in summary and final focus to get bogged down in specific points or cards, especially if there are little things you feel are inaccurate. But if you take a step back, weigh the 2-3 most important arguments in the round, and explain to me why you're winning, my job is going to be a lot more easier and you'll probably have a higher chance of winning. I will not do the weighing for you.

2. I consider myself to be a relatively non-interventionist judge. If you or your opponents say something I know to be factually incorrect, I won't factor it into my decision unless someone calls it out as such.

3. Please don't waste a ton of time calling cards. If something sounds too good to be true, it very well might be, and you should ask to see a card if you have serious concerns about its validity, but please try to keep it to a minimum. I was once a debater too, and can easily tell when teams call cards for the sole purpose of biding time/making their opponents nervous. As a judge, I'll only call a card if it's disputed during the round. I want to waste as little time looking at cards so our round doesn't go way over time and tab doesn't get mad at me :)

4. I know the rules of PF technically allow it, but I probably won't weigh new evidence brought up in final focus very heavily. You shouldn't even need to bring up new evidence in FF to win.

Good luck to everyone competing!

Mr. Poe is a high school Spanish teacher who has judged at basically every local Massachusetts tournament ever.

• Does he flow (most crucial question): sometimes

• Sitting versus standing in cross: he wanted me to include that he “has no preference”

• Extending defense in first summary: not needed in either summary (as long as it’s been said before he says it’s “fair game”) (he also doesn’t know what this term means)

• Going new in the two: just because he might not catch it doesn’t mean you should do it

• Kicking out of turns: he probably finds it unpersuasive

• Frontlining in second rebuttal y/n: he doesn’t care (asked about it, and he also doesn’t know what the word “frontline” means)

• Weighing: the sooner the better (you can start in rebuttal)

• Speed: he says “medium speed” but I think that means lay judge level

• Extensions: you need to extend card context not just the author and implicate it in the context of the round

• Types of argument: tech > truth

• Progressive args: obviously not

• Speaker points: historical precedent - he will drop you with 25s regardless of your argumentation if you are a) rude and/or b) yelling

• Autodrop for running racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted arguments

• Humor: good (direct quote: “so long as it adds something to the round”)

• Disclosure after the round: no guaruntees

Background: I debated traditional PF/LD in Ohio, graduated high school in 2017, and did a little bit of college parli.

I decide who wins the round based on who is winning the key arguments (I like clear, quantifiable impacts). I prefer evidence over logic, in the case where only one is provided - but ideally this is not the case. I am fairly open to out-of-the-box arguments or claims, but if you are doing something weird and your opponent clearly has no idea what is going on, do not be rude or condescending (this will result in me lowering speaks). I keep detailed notes, am fine with a quick conversational pace (not spreading). I don't care about style at all as long as I can tell what words you are saying. Feel free to ask before the round if you have any specific questions!

Flow Judge - If it is not on my flow it does not exist in the round.

Speed is fine. Enjoy technically proficient debaters. Poor time allocation is a pet peeve of mine.

Will doc speakers for uncivil/ungracious opponents.

Coach (LD/PF)

Former LD/Policy/PF Debater

About me: I am a parent judge in LD, PF, and parli. My professional background is in IT.

Basics:

• Tell me why and on what grounds you’re winning -- this matters a lot
• Tell me how I should evaluate the round. Give me the standards
• ALWAYS make comparative claims about the other teams evidence & arguments (in relation to yours). Direct clash is important
• Speed is good, but clarity is far better. Be efficient with your speeches. If you can’t speak quickly without slurring, don’t speak quickly
• LD and Policy Specific -- Favorite strats to least favorite. Respect this order, but avoid if possible.
• Politics/Case
• Impact turning the whole case
• Topic specific T
• Politics/Process CP
• PIC with internal net benefit
• Ks
• Be nice. I will not give good speaks to people who act inappropriately in rounds or to their partners/team. Being offensive is not funny. I refuse to accept abuse in round.

General

Performance/Non-traditional: I default to traditional.

Speaks: 28 is average. I doubt you'll get a 30. Try not to talk into your paper/flows/laptop because I won't say "louder" unless it's really extreme and I might be missing arguments. Speak clearly and persuasively.

I'm a parent judge, and have been judging at various public forum tournaments for the past 6 years.

I have worked for 30+ years as a litigating attorney, so I understand what works as a persuasive argument. I value logical arguments supported by evidence (not just conclusory statements). Tie your arguments to the resolution, and explain based on the evidence and logic why I should vote in your favor on the merits. You should address and not ignore your adversaries' points.

Please do not speak too fast, make sure you have the evidence ready and available if it is called for, and be civil and respectful at all times.

ask before the round if you feel inclined to 

I have been a coach for over 10 years , but my team is student-led and you can consider me lay. (This was written by my students to prevent judge screws-you can thank them later.) I appreciate a more personal form of debate when it comes to judging.

Lots of eye contact with the judge (even during crossfire) and always address me as “judge” and your opponents as “my opponent (s)“ during speeches. Stand for all speeches and crosses, except grand. I will be highly inclined to vote for the other side if you do not address your opponents contentions and extend and show the impacts of your own.

Do not waste time looking for your cards. Have your cards ready and make sure that the evidence being cited is easy for your opponents to find.

During interactions with your opponents, I will dock your speaks and drop you if you act like a bully. Please, have an appropriate amount of physical desk space between you and your opponent.

When speaking, I appreciate a clear emphasis on what is important. I’ll be timing you, but please keep time for yourself.

My paradigm is pretty simple; answer these three questions:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh.

In addition, I strongly favor teams that provide a clear narrative, one that is usually anchored in a clear framework that defined key terms and concepts fairly.

I really like a properly ran cap K. Down with capitalism!!

Feel free to run anything in front of me, but I would ~prefer~ that you not run frivolous theory.

I believe disclosure is very good unless you give me a reason to believe otherwise.

Topical puns in you speech will increase the speaker points you get.

I have previous LD and PF and Policy experience but I was not a tricks debater.

I won't vote on the K if the alt is unclear - same goes for policy advocacies. Clear solvency please.

awelton001@gmail.com for questions

Debated for Washburn Rural, 2012-2016

Tl;dr: Mostly did policy, but you should debate how you're most comfortable. Speed is fine, but I'm not familiar with this year's topic so you should prob not go your absolute fastest. Prefer few, well-developed, smart args to a high quantity of shallower args. Very pro-topical affs/topicality. Fine for k's that prove the plan is a bad idea, meh for k's that do not. Framing issues are important. Buzzwords are bad. CLAIM WARRANT IMPACT. Dropped/conceded arguments are "true" but are not automatically "relevant." You still have to win an impact.

I believe debate is an incredibly valuable and life-transforming activity. For this reason, I take every round seriously – and I think you should, too. This means respect your opponents and each other. It’s ok to be assertive, but there’s a big difference between being confident and being rude.

I like: Rebuttals that paint a clear picture of what an aff/neg ballot means, Evidence comparison, Debaters who are funny/having fun, Warranted args/smart analytics, Well thought out strategies

Do not like: Reading args you don't really understand, Topicality=genocide, Death good, Ambush-y args like wipeout, General rudeness, Affs with shaky internal link chains (but if neg doesn't poke holes, I'll give aff the benefit of the doubt)

Case/Disads/Counterplans:

I've been a 2N my entire debate career. Most of my 2NRs have been the politics DA, topic DA, topicality, and the occasional kritik. My favorite types of debates are ones where the neg has prepared a specific strategy and is well-versed in the technicalities of the 1AC. I think the best neg teams can go for the squo and question the 1AC’s logic. For example – why does a collapse of one industry in the US mean the entire economy declines? Why does that mean global nuclear war? Deficits in the 1AC’s internal links are often underutilized by the neg on the case in favor of generic impact defense. Make sure to use your DA to turn the case at the impact and internal link level. This means impact calc is essential. Zero (negligible) risk is a thing. Not a fan of politics theory args. If the DA's so bad, beat it on substance, not on "the neg dropped intrisicness". These CPs are usually fine: PICs, Advantage, States. These are susceptible to theory: International fiat, consult/conditions/recommend, Word PICs. I can be convinced either way. Delay CPs are probably cheating. I can easily be convinced conditions and consult CPs are cheating, but having a solvency advocate helps. I'll reward you for specific CPs that are well-researched and prepared.

Kritiks:

I'm not well-versed in K literature. That doesn't mean I won't vote on it, you'll just need more explanation. I'm fine for generic or topic specific K's. I'm not great for complex/high philosophy K's. My biggest problems with K's are usually that the alt doesn't do/solve anything, the links are triggered by the squo, and most importantly they don't say the plan is a bad idea. If you decide to go for the K, make sure to explain your args very clearly to me. This means being explicit in how the alternative functions and how the alt resolves the links to the K and probably portions of the affirmative. Otherwise you will be susceptible to losing on the aff outweighs. I am not familiar with "K-tricks", so don't expect me to recognize your argument and vote on it absent a clear explanation. Weighing the aff is good - it is difficult for me to ever believe a framework which holds the aff to a perfect standard (in terms of epistemology, representations, etc) is one that is fair. Fiat is good - obviously voting aff doesn't usually cause change outside the round, but the notion of fiat allows for intellectually stimulating debates about the costs and benefits of public policy.

Framework/Topicality:

I have a very strong bias towards the need for a stable, predictable advocacy. K affs can gain a lot of leeway with me by being in the direction of the resolution and defending at least some links in the realm of topic literature. I am not a great judge for affs that have no resolutional basis. I usually default to competing interpretations – which is why I think T debates should be framed as two “counterplans” each with respective net-benefits (education, fairness, etc). Saying “depth over breadth” isn’t an argument – one of the hardest parts about going for T (and answering it), is making sure not to only explain the “link” but also implicate this in terms of terminal impacts (What does lack of education mean for debate? Why is that important? What impact outweighs the other, and why?). I think the best impacts to T are competitive equity and process-based education from deliberating with a well-prepared opponent. Both of those impacts are about the existence of a predictable topic as opposed to the merits of any particular topic. Limits are good.

Theory:

Don't particularly like theory debates because it's usually just reading blocks back and forth. I typically default to rejecting the argument and not the team. Conditionality is a potential exception to that rule. Theory should be impacted if you’re going for it – buzzwords aren’t enough for me to vote for your argument unless you explain it.

Good luck, have fun, and debate with heart. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.