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.

1. I don't flow cross fires, any points made need to flow into speeches afterwards

2. Any points dropped should be brought up by the other team for me to consider them

3. With that being said, carry necessary arguments all the way through the round

4. Evidence is great for supporting arguments, don't use it as your main form of argumentation.

5. I'm a PF purist, don't spread or run Ks or anything like that :)

6. Please give me impacts, weigh your impacts, and give me voters

Style:

I understand how important speaks are in avoiding the 4-2 screw, and I will try to be generous towards debaters’ totals.

I can take speed, but I will shout clear if words begin to slur together or if a debater is hyperventilating. At that point, listening becomes too taxing and counterproductive to hosting a debate. Jokes, idioms, rhetorical flourishes are highly appreciated.

Offline/Off the clock roadmaps are not encouraged unless you are about to attempt something very different in terms of speech structure.

Evidence:

Crossfire is the best time to call for cards and I will consider such requests after the round. More often than not, card calls occur when there is a conflict of evidence, and thus locking horns about it is counterproductive and is best left for right after the round. I will allow debaters to remind me of which cards they wanted me to call after the round.

I reserve the right to call any piece of evidence. Additionally, I would like to see the entire pdf/html file for any card called. Do not forget, you can use the internet to access SAVED links (refer to page 26 of the NSDA manual, Piloted Guidelines, Part A, section 2). Evidence that cannot be produced is going to be weighed as much as the personal word of the debater. Statistics should be cited with some context and their methodology explained.

Argumentation:

Frameworks in PF typically contain little novel and are little more than a roadmap. Instead, try to give me what you want me to weigh in the round in advance (utilitarian vs. deontological ethics, weigh lives in present vs future, etc.). Setting the tone for the round is beneficial for all parties involved.

Point out tight/abusive points in the next available speech. Putting off such claims will make them seem like a cop-out.

I judge by what is on my flow, and I will do my best to write down every topical argument made in the round. I understand that time in PF is very limited, so it is not critical to extend points over and over again. If debaters bring up a point in the constructive or rebuttal and it goes unchallenged, it will be considered. Weighing and doing the argument calculus is FAR more important than bringing up the same tired points for four rounds.

Summary and Final Focus should tie together, with partners making cohesive, linked arguments on how to weigh the round.

In terms of the kinds of arguments given, I am open to everything and anything as long as it is not offensive and within the spirit of courteous debate. Creativity is welcome!

Hello,

I am a fairly new judge. I work in the healthcare field. I prefer you to speak slow and concise. I also prefer for you to give me a road map before you begin. Have fun and good luck! 👍

Technical preferences:

Speed is fine as I try sincerely to flow everything you say. But to ensure I get all your information correctly, I encourage you to be coherent.

Please extend everything you want me to judge through all your speeches (I will be flowing so if something is not extended I will not weigh it when making my decision). If you have a framework, USE IT and also extend it. Every extension should bring new or useful information (ie do not repeat something you have said in a previous speech without anything new; this dries out the round and wastes your time).

If a card is called, you should be able to produce it with a citation. If not, I will not weigh the card when making my decision. I usually do not call cards if I am not prompted to. That being said, to make sure I weigh your information correctly you need to offer me the following information about every important card you use: warrants, links, and the card itself. An unwarranted card is useless as it does not explain how the card is applicable. If I do not hear a warrant I WILL JUDGE THE CARD MYSELF. If I find issue with a card I will not interpret it in your favor. Thus it is in your best interest to be clear when introducing and explaining a card. It is fine to reference a card by name throughout the round to save time.

If you run a kritik or want to point out an argument that is somehow abusive, it NEEDS to be stated in the rebuttal or earlier. I will not entertain abusive claims after rebuttal. I also do not entertain new arguments in summary or ff. Keep in mind that new arguments are not the same as new logic and analysis, which are fine to bring into the summary and ff.

Personal preferences:

I always judge argumentation, information, and cards over presentation. Do not sacrifice density and quality of information for fluffy presentation. I do not care if you are the best ranked speaker in the world if your argumentation is not cohesive or nonsensical. However, if you are clearly organized in your speeches so I can flow accordingly that is a strong plus and will also factor into your speaks.

I strongly value partner chemistry and believe in the power of a pair (if you are an ironman I will not hold this against you, obviously). Thus I strongly prefer that the last two speeches take the same approach as it is both clearer and makes your case stronger. This can be done in a multitude of ways (emphasis on the same arguments, two chronological speeches by theme, etc). I will default to the weighing mechanism of the team with cohesive final speeches if the other team is not cohesive.

I don't really care for (and don't judge) crossfires, so use them to ask information from your opponent that would help you when constructing your argument instead of trying to impress the judge. That being said, if you are rude or demeaning to your opponents by any means other than with your arguments, I will null your speaks. The purpose of debate is to have a logical and informative discourse, and as soon as the boundaries of respect are violated, the value of the discourse decreases.

Please time yourselves and your opponents. Please don't talk to your partner during an opponent's speech, but heckling is fine as long as it's not rude.

I don't like off-time roadmaps. Please don't run one unless you're going to take a really unorthodox approach in your speech.

Paradigm:

If you do not tell me how to vote, I often find the following the most useful to judge by: 1) topicality 2) solvency (ie feasibility) and 3) significance. I also reserve the right to judge by another paradigm if you do not give me one to judge by. Thus, to be safe, in the summary and ff tell me which arguments and which mechanism you want me to vote by. To be safe, do the weighing and impact calculus for me (not impact algebra.. adding and multiplying is not enough). Assuming it is warranted and makes sense, I will use the mechanism you give me to judge the round but will also weigh the information on my flow to make a decision.

PF - I have been Judging PF for 12 Years in primarily Georgia and Virginia with various National Tournaments along the East Coast.

1. I am 100% "married" to The Resolve. Please do not go off Topic as it will in no way impact my decision. After the Round Google: "Policy Debate" if you indeed enjoy arguing about what you please vs the actual Resolve.

2. While I am perfectly able to follow spreading (my daughter debated Policy for 4 years in College) in the words of Melville's Bartleby: "I'd prefer not to." Speak with clarity, and purpose and you'll have my undivided attention.

3. Feel comfortable to "road map," but please know your time is running. While you are indeed "welcome" to tell me if you are countering your opponent's case, OR bolstering your own . . . a Debater's "need" to do so perplexes me. What you say in round should make it abundantly clear to me if you are attacking or defending.

4. While I appreciate candor and a contentious round . . . your "ability" to continuously interrupt and speak over your opponent(s) in Cross-fire does not impress me. While I'd never vote a debater down for this, I have certainly never voted a team "up" for not permitting their opponent to speak in cross. Your rebuttals, wit, and ability to "turn" an arg are what really convince me the debate has gone your way.

5. If the round is razor close . . . my default tie break is often the debator(s) who used the word "like" the least. I'm kidding (sort of).

6. Have fun and just try to convince me why you are right.

Truth over Tech - but you have to be prepared to debate. I have strong preferences against nonsense, but you must be skilled enough to meet a minimum threshold for responsiveness.

😤 WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS 😤

Hello! I'm a judge for Oakton High School. I'm a parent of a debater, and since I've traveled with him to many local and national tournaments, I have decent experience judging this event.

I like clear, well-explained arguments, backed up with valid and convincing evidence. Explain your arguments clearly, why I should vote on them, and why they're more important than your opponent's, and you'll be rewarded.

If your argument is remotely false I will drop you.

Yes: Weighing (not just impact comparison). Warranting. Comparing evidence and analysis. Implicating all arguments to the ballot (offensive and defensive). Arguments that make sense. Smart collapsing. Direction of link analysis. Signposting.

YES! Starting good weighing in rebuttal. Summary-final focus parallelism. Ballot-directive language. Productive use of crossfire. Creating a cohesive narrative in the round, supported by each argument you make in the round. Weighing your weighing.

No: Weak, blippy evidence. Cards without warrants. Independent offensive overviews in either rebuttal, especially 2nd. Rudeness. Ghost extensions. Not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. Squirrely arguments that are unclear or confusing for the sole purpose of throwing your opponent off.

NO! Misconstrued cards. Extending through ink. New arguments in 2nd final focus. Saying something's dropped when it's not. Dropping weighing. Being unclear in speaking. Being actively mean, degrading, racist/sexist/homophobic.

Other

I kind of flow but not really, I take notes.

No defense in 1st summary unless if it's not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal (you should do this). All offense must be in every summary and final focus. I presume for the 1st speaking team.

If you say the words "do you have any preferences" without a specific question, I'll assume you didn't read this.

I am a relatively new judge so speak slowly and help me understand your arguments. Be clear on what you are refuting in your rebuttals and be sure to extend the important evidence through the round so that I do not forget it. Do not bring new evidence in during the final focus as the opponent will not have time to respond and be respectful to both me and your opponents. But most importantly, have fun!

I am a former policy debater. As an alum judge, I’m involved in policy, public forum, and LD judging. Feel free to speak as slowly or quickly as you would like to get your point across. I will be flowing the entire time and my decision will be heavily based on the flow of the round. Remember to lay out your voting issues because I want to know what you think was important in the round. Winners will be based on key arguments in the round and those arguments supporting evidence.

- State your framework clearly

- Substantiate your contention with impact

- Cross-fire  and rebuttals is where I watch very closely. I want to hear the teams trying to challenge and effectively defend.

- Final Focus should be relevant to what happened during the debate

Lets make sure we are slowing down for analytics and tags because I sincerely need to be able to understand you to flow you.

Hi I'm Sunday! Nice to meet you! Here's my email: odeloss1@binghamton.edu i want to be on the email chain

I'm the coloring book person

I like Ks

But I'm not against policy arguments!

i think they are both viable strategies

all i really care about in the round is clash please engage with each other substantially i don't want to watch a debate where two teams are just talking at each other because thats boring and i dont want to be bored believe it or not. the point being anything is up for debate and i'm down to hear any of it as long as you arent being fucked up. dont think that if you say something antiblack or anti queer youre going to get away with it. i believe in people making mistakes and i believe that you can learn from them so if you say something that is blatantly violent and you know it is then don't double down on it. TLDR: don't spew out violent rhetoric but if you do then apologize

okay stuff yall care about:

i went back and looked at this and realized i have something to say beforehand so first first first of all. i think yall can tell me what to do. im here to facilitate the debate the way yall want and to deliberate. im not going to tell you that you cant play music or that i wont flow a poem. if you want me to try to a handstand while i listen to the 1ac i will try to do it. obviously im going to need to know why youre making me do things... but i think that debate isnt just about what you say but how you say it and how you present it. TLDR: sucker for judge instruction

onto the good stuff:

first of all yall need to actually explain your arguments to me. youre all very smart and youre all very persuasive but you can't just get up and start saying to extend every single card you read because that is not persuasive. you dont have to explain every single card but i need something to write down. a warrant perhaps :) if i dont understand something i wont vote for it. and you will know if i dont understand something because i probably wont be flowing it TLDR: make it make sense

T: i will vote for it. like seriously. you should have UQ links i/l and impacts. i dont think that going for just fairness as an impact will win you the round. i like clash, in depth debates, education, etc. as impacts and fairness can be an internal link. also i would like it if you had a persuasive TVA that actually tries to encapsulate some parts of the aff. I don't think you have to solve the entirety of the aff but you have to access their lit base. TLDR: win an impact

t against policy teams: cool

t against k teams: i like it better w a fw arg

for the aff: don't just say fw is bad and don't just say the state is bad. explain why doing the aff the way you want to do it is important for education for you for other debaters. you have to win your model of debate is good. or win that models of debate are bad (i went for that a lot :P) explain your counterinterp i don't think that you have to win that you solve the entire world. but you have to solve for something by reading the aff. read disads to their model. read disads to the TVA... answer the TVA. TLDR: actually answer t

the K! (im grouping the K and K affs together)

i don't know everything so don't expect me to know what you are talking about even if it seems likely that i would know what you are talking about. at some point in the debate just slow down and be like "here's the K/aff. here's what it does. here's why its good" i think that should be at the top of all your speeches but i just need one clear moment in the debate where you tell me what is going on. TLDR: i am lazy and do not want to do extra work so do it for me

For Ks I think that you don't need an alt but it doesn't hurt to have one either. You have to win your alt if you are going for it though I'm not going to kick it for you.

For K affs. win that you do something

misc: I love presumption. i love the case debate. neg teams: i will vote on the aff doesnt do anything the aff doesnt make any sense the aff is bad for debate. also you can read CP to K affs. shake it up. dance emoji

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Please aim to be clear in your argumentation and avoid the following logical fallacies:

#1) Ad Hominems

#2.) Straw Man Arguments

#3.) Appeals to Ignorance

#4.) Red Herrings

#5.) Appeals to Hypocrisy

#6.) The Sunk Cost Fallacy

#7.) Appeals to Authority

#8.) Hasty Generalizations

#9.) Appeals to Pity

#10.) Causal Fallacies

I am a parent judge. This is my 1st year of judging Public Forum. I value clear arguments and well structured cases. I prefer debater to be slower and clear in explaining their cases.

1. I am a lay judge, but I can understand more complex argument, as long as they are clear and slow.

2. WEIGH impacts starting early on in the debate (summary on)

3. Please give me an OFF TIME ROADMAP before EVERY speech, it will help me flow your argument better and I will be able to base my decision.

4. Please be nice and curious to each other during cross-x. While I do base my ballot solely on the flow, your speaker points will be based on your ethos, thus rude attitude will be reflected in low speaks.

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

TOC Paradigm

Sean Keckley

Did policy at George Mason

Years judging PF: 2

Years competing in PF: 2

Speed opinions - I can keep up with your speed, but it's PF so no spreading. If you're going too fast your opponent can read over your shoulder as you speak.

Summaries - Pair down to key points of offense and defense, impact calc, clear internal link explanation

Final focus - Should reflect the summary, but contextualized to opponents summaries and grand cross

Extending args - extending key args into the summary is necessary for it to make it in the final focus, otherwise it won't be weighed

T - be it, it's PF

Plans - no plans in PF, CPs are sketchy and I'm inclined to vote on args that say it harms debatability

Ks - willing to vote on them in PF, but you're gonna have to do a lot of work to justify it (which is hard given the structure of PF)

Flowing - i'll flow, so there's that

Arguments>Style

Offense doesn't have to be extended in the rebuttal but does have to be in the summary

Second speaking teams have the same burden as first speaking in rebuttals

I'll vote for args raised in cx if they make it into speeches

Normal Paradigm

Did PF in high school, do policy at George Mason now. My email is seankeckley@gmail.com, add me if there's an email chain. If you have any questions don't hesitate to email me.

Policy

- You do you. If it's argued well, I'm willing to vote on it. That being said, I'll list my thoughts on certain arguments below.

- Don't be a dick

- Slow down on tags

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand you it isn't on my flow and won't get voted on

- Tech over truth

- Claims with no warrants aren't arguments

- I don't take prep for emailing/flashing, but don't steal it

- Confidence is good

- Good analytics beat bad cards

Ks - I'm not familiar with most K philosophies. However, if you can explain what it is, how the aff links, and what the alt is I'm fine with it. Because I don't know your lit (especially for high theory teams), tone down the jargon and be clear.

Case/DAs - I like em. Can be convinced there's no risk. Have a clear story and do impact calc. A lot of these debates come down to DA outweighs case, so be sure to explain how. Politics DAs are a thing.

Theory - Impact it out. Tell me what the abuse was, why they should be voted down, and have a thorough explanation of how this debate was worse/less educational/unfair because of it.

CPs - Things get sketchy after 2 condo worlds. If that's what you're running, make sure you've got a good reason. Explain why they can't perm. Have a clear net benefit. I won't judge kick a CP. I judge PICs on an individual basis. State CPs are a thing.

T - Default to competing interps. Explain the world of the your interp vs the world of theirs, tell me why yours is good and theirs is bad. If your aff has little relevance to the topic, you better be ready to defend it. I don't know the current high school topic or what the consensus on reasonability is, so probably not the best judge for T.

K affs - I tend to think that affs should relate to the resolution, but I can be convinced otherwise. Tell me what you're doing and why it's better than talking about the topic, and I'm willing to vote on it.

PF

Be organized in your speeches and do line by line. Confidence is good. If you're funny I'll bump your speaks. I default to util, so unless you give me an alternative ROB then that's how I'm evaluating the round

Important speaker point information

Give me proof that you called Ben Biggs big daddy biggs in round and you will get a 30

Draw me a good picture of James Harden and you probably get a 30

I’m a parent volunteer judge in my 6th year, and I'm so impressed by the time and effort students put into Speech and Debate. I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to see the competitors in action!

PFD:

As PFD is meant to be understood by a lay judge, please use clear delivery, everyday language, straightforward organization and credible evidence.

Please speak at an understandable pace. If you're speaking too quickly during an in-person round, I'll put down my pen as a sign that I can't understand what you're saying. In virtual competitions, I will place my hand near my ear to signal my inability to understand you at that pace. In both instances I will no longer be able to flow so those arguments will be dropped.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. If excessive time is spent trying to produce requested evidence, I will verbally warn you that I will soon begin to run prep time.

All jargon and acronyms should be clearly defined.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Since I'll base my decision on the voters you provide in your Final Focus, it's your responsibility to convince me that you have won the round. Voters that do not accurately describe what occurred in the round will not be considered and speaker points will be lost.

CONGRESS:

Speak directly to the audience in a clear, loud voice and at a pace that allows your speech to be understood. Make frequent eye contact and only reference notes you have rather than reading your speech directly from paper.

Your speech should have distinct organization and be supported by credible evidence. Both the introduction and conclusion should clearly list your claims. Speeches with creative, memorable introductions that are then linked to your conclusions will earn more speaker points and improve your ranking.

After Authorship/Sponsorship, negative and affirmative speeches on legislation should present new perspectives or further refute opposing arguments rather than simply repeating previously stated points. Please do not merely read a speech that was entirely prepared beforehand.

When answering questions posed by other speakers, I'll be looking to see if you demonstrate a strong defense of your case as well as in-depth knowledge of the topic. Responses should be made with confidence and clarity.

While you won't be scored based on the questions you ask, your active involvement in the session will be noted by your participation in the question and answer periods.

SPEECH:

Speeches are ranked according to the following: (not in order of importance)

Originality of piece

Personal connection

Structure

Vocalization

Phrasing, pacing and fluidity

Speaker presence

Character development

Emotion

Transitions

Introduction/Conclusion

Looking forward to a wonderful competition!

I am a parent judge who has been judging for three years. I find the topics interesting and love hearing the rounds, but I never debated myself. I value logical arguments, but I find it hard to vote off of far fetched arguments that have long link chains. I flow but if you talk too fast I won't be able to follow. I'd appreciate it if you didn't use too much jargon. And most of all, be sure to have fun!

Short:

Debated 4 years PF in HS. 3 years of policy in college. Coached PF for 4 years.

Ridge 2014-201, NYU 2018-202, current MD/PhD student at Michigan

Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (brandonluxiii@gmail.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.

Tech over truth. Policy and K both good. I can flow around 250 wpm without a doc. Favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.

If you don't extend I will vote neg on presumption unless it's LD where I'll vote aff on presumption. It makes me sad to have to say that I've voted on presumption in about 10% of rounds I've judged, although this number seems to be going down.

My name isn't judge, you can say my name if you want my attention.

If it takes you longer than 5 minutes to find a card, it doesn't exist. Very excessive card calling that makes me want to fall asleep: -0.2 speaks per card.

Please time yourselves.

Ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful. Postrounding is tolerated, but don't be annoying.

Please contact me if you feel unsafe during round.

Long:

PF Paradigm

I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.

Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.

Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.

I used to say I wanted to see a theory debate about whether 2nd rebuttal should frontline, but no one is willing to do it. If someone does it well, I will give both teams 30 speaks. Meanwhile, I currently default to 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything (yes, defense too. Don't be lazy).

Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary. NOTHING IS STICKY.

In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).

How to win my ballot:

Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.

I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).

I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).

I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.

I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.

Things I like:

Debating the line by line well.

Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.

Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.

Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).

Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.

A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.

Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.

Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.

Excessively long roadmaps- Your order should just be the flows. At most the arguments. Weighing is not a flow

Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice. The more frivolous your theory is, the less speaks I will give and the lower threshold I give for responses.

Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.

Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).

Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.

Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.

Things I hate:

New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.

Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.

How I award speaks:

30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.

29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.

28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.

27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.

26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.

Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)

30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.

Miscellaneous things:

Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.

I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.

Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.

If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 0.5.

You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.

If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.

I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something funny.

If you can make a reference to song I like, I'll boost your speaks. If you make a reference to a song I don't like, I'll dock speaks.

Write down things you did to boost speaks and remind me right when the round ends. If I forget, you can remind me the next time I judge you and I'll give you the extra speaks I owe.

Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts

TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.

LD Paradigm

Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.

I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.

K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.

K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.

Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.

Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.

Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.

I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.

Policy Paradigm

I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.

Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.

I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.

DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).

CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.

Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.

K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.

Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).

T: For some reason, I'm a masochist and I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.

Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.

I value creative but succinct ways of making a point. Rote memorization of facts is definitely not my style. It is more important to be a) understood clearly, b) remembered, and c) confident in the face of adversity. Beginners tend to want to include every point researched and overwhelm a judge, yet veteran debaters know that just a few good arguments, chosen carefully in order to make an emotional impact on the audience, carry the day in debate, and in life, as NOBODY VOTES AGAINST THEIR HEART.

In L-D, both sides please ensure you lay out your respective Frameworks from the onset, as I would like to understand your underlying values without having to guess them or take them for granted. Time limits will be enforced with a maximum of 10 seconds overage.

I may not appear very experienced in Tabroom but I have been around since before Tabroom was a thing. I was trained at MIT, UPenn and Harvard Business School, if that helps. Am a career investment banker based on Wall Street. Literally.

Good luck to u.

I am a lawyer and Executive Director of the NYCUDL.

I have judged PF for the last 6+ years, over 100 rounds and run many judge trianings.

I will judge based on a combination of the flow, general logic and common sense.

Speed-don't do it. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for it.

If you want me to vote on an issue please include it in both summary and final focus.

Write my RFD for me in final focus.

Only call for evidence if there is a real need (context, integrity).

In general, be nice. I believe in debate access for all so I will cut your speaks if you create an environment where other people don't want to participate in the activity.

Good luck and have fun!

Hello,

I consider myself to be a "flay" judge. I take comprehensive notes and try my best to vote purely off the argumentation presented in round.

A few things:

1. Speak at a reasonable pace. If you go way too fast and are unintelligible, your speaks will hurt.

2. I will call evidence if you ask me to, or if the evidence just sounds BS. Be careful.

3. If you call me the "Sheriff" I will give you +1 speaker points.

I am a lay judge. This is my second year judging. My background is in public speaking, executive coaching, and corporate leadership training in influence, communication, team performance and personal effectiveness .

I appreciate when competitors speak more slowly and clearly .

Thank you.

I am a Parent Judge.

Please speak at an average speaking rate and speak clearly.

When you explain arguments and analysis to me, please do so in layman's terms and make the round as clear as you can.

This is my first year as a debate judge. I am a Toastmaster.

I will flow through the debate and track points. I am looking forward to hearing and following your arguments, therefore my preference is that you speak clearly and do not "spread". I would especially encourage you to slow down a bit when making key points. I expect competitors to be genuinely respectful of each other, especially during cross-fires. Points will be docked for arrogant or rude behavior.

I will be rooting for each and every one of you, and hoping that you enjoy the experience.

As a traditional LD judge, I consider value framework very important. And please don't just throw a value and criterion out there and never talk about them again! Give me reasons for prefering your framework over your opponent's and show me how each of your contentions upholds your framework.

Additionally, while reading cards is certainly fine (evidence is important, after all!), LD debate is about so much more. If you do nothing but read cards the entire round, without explaining in your own words how that evidence supports your case, then you will be hard pressed to win the round. Show me the impact of each of your contentions, and weigh the round for me.... Why should you win? 

Regarding speed, I am fine with a brisk pace within reason. If I can't understand what you are saying because you are hyperventilating, I will have a hard time weighing your evidence. High school forensics is about effective public speaking - Slow down and think about what you want to say. Research, logic, and effective communication win debates; speed-reading does not. 

i'm a senior at state college area high school (debated LD one year, PF for three).

tl;dr: be nice, weigh everything, clash everything, impact everything, and feel free to ask questions.

basic prefs

speed: i can handle it, just slow down when you're reading tags and authors. i'll yell clear three times -- if you haven't slowed down, i'm done flowing, too. if you seriously have to go over 350 wpm (this is PF, pls don't), send me speech docs and make sure to read cards in full.

if the round is flighted or i'm the only judge and not in the room yet, go ahead and flip if all teams are present. i probably won't have a coin on me because i lose everything and anything i touch.

do off-time roadmaps before every speech.

weigh through the entire round. clash through the entire round. impact everything you say.

what the round should look like

all speeches should be signposted. i prefer line-by-line debate -- just let me know during off-time roadmaps how you intend to structure your speech and we'll be okay.

all arguments should be extended in full -- impacts, links, warrants, all of it -- through final focus. it's much harder to vote off of partially extended arguments, so please don't put me in that position.

i am okay with flowing dropped defense through the round until it is responded to by your opponents, but anything you want me to vote off of must be brought up in final focus. turns should be extended through each speech if you want me to treat them as offense, otherwise they'll be terminal defense.

i'm not okay with new off-case offense (over/underviews or whatever else you conjure up) in second rebuttal.

how to get the dub

i evaluate the round as tech as long as everything is properly warranted and impacted, unless there are squirrelly or questionable arguments (i will call for cards on these, probably) and the truth behind these is too far-fetched. i like unique arguments, but if you're going to argue that ending capital gains tax triggers a nuclear war with china with biotech innovation links, i'll probably get annoyed.

i'll vote off of anything if you warrant, impact, and weigh it.

i default status quo (on feb topic, con) if there are no impacts on the table.

T and K's are cool in varsity. T -- make the interp/violation/standards/voters clear.

i don't like disclosure theory. if disclosure is important to you, disclose/share docs in the room and with opponents + me.

be respectful in general, too. don't be condescending or offensive. words in the debate space have an influence outside of the ballot. i will drop debaters for racism, sexism, misogyny, and other forms of structural violence. it's a happy weekend, we're all happy, let's have fun!

what makes me happy

being nice.

avoiding paraphrased evidence (i may dock speaks and make comments, but i won't make a decision off of this).

don't bring up new offense in the back half, don't bring up new arguments in final focus.

i will call for cards at the end of the round if something is questionable or i am explicitly told to call for the card in round (don’t abuse this, i won’t call for twenty of them)

speaks

30 means you're the goat, 29-30 means you're 85% goat, 28-29 means you're 60% goat, 27-28 means you're 40% goat, 26-27 means you're a goat that didn't read my paradigm, below 26 means you're not a nice goat and we have a problem. all goats >27 are really cool and are doing/will do great in debate!

i give more speaks if you: quote vampire weekend, brockhampton, or any of my other fav artists (don't stalk my spotify); give your opponents and me food; act nicely and respectfully; send speech docs/disclose to your opponents and me (before the round AND in the room, not on the wiki); dab; help me get good at corrin on smash.

I have some PF experience, but it has been years since I have competed.

I will flow, but again I am only human, so don't spread because if I miss the point because of talking speed and lack of clarity, I will not consider it.

Please extend- I will not consider anything brought up in FF if it has not been extended into summary. Also please weigh impacts and explain the impact to me: you will lose points if there is no weighing. I also personally prefer no defense in first summary unless it has been interacted with in the second rebuttal. Offensive arguments are generally preferred.

FF is purely to tell me why I should vote for you. Be clear and super concise here.

For any points made in cx- bring it up during rebuttal or summary for it to be considered.

Generally, be civil in round: you will lose points if you are being rude.

If you're going to make an assertion, you better back it up with evidence and analysis.

If you have evidence, you better give me analysis to tie back to your point. Don't assume the evidence speaks for itself.

If you make a point you better give analysis to show it proves that supporting/negating is the way to go.

NOTE: I get REALLY cranky if I suspect debaters are manipulating (or outright faking) evidence. I also get really cranky if debaters try to claim the other side did something they did not do, or did not do something they did do. It's shady debate. Don't do it.

If you're a PF debater, don't waste your time with off-time roadmaps, because there are only two things you should ever be doing--hitting their case, and defending yours (this includes teams running a non-traditional case. Even if you're running a k, you should still be hitting their case, and defending yours). Even when you are weighing, it is just hitting their case, and defending yours. If you are organized in presenting your points it will be clear what you are doing. I'm ok with paraphrasing, but if the other team asks to see the original text and you can't produce it, I'm ignoring your evidence. I'm also ok with non-traditional approaches, but you better make it CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR that it's necessary, because I will always pref good debate over acrobatics.

If you're an LD debater, you better be giving analysis that shows your points are proving that you have achieved your value criterion. Articulate the connections, don't assume they speak for themselves. As far as non-traditional cases, I won't automatically vote against, but you better sell me on the necessity of going there, and that it's enriching the debate, and not hobbling it. (Particular note: I really hate pure theory cases, but won't automatically vote against. That being said, let me reiterate-- You better prove that what you have to say is improving the quality of the debate, and that your theory is a better/more important debate than the debate over the resolution. Which means you will have to still talk about the resolution, and why your debate is more important. If you're just doing it for the sake of being fancy, it's a no-go for me.)

I don't ever judge CX, so if you're reading my paradigm as a CX debater-- why?

No one should ever tell me when or how to time. You can self-time, but I am the final arbiter of time.

If you are excessively rude, aggressive, shouty, or derisive you will see it in your speaks. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic, or any other type of bigoted I will vote against you every single time. This includes denying a person's lived experience.

If you post-round me, I will shut you down-- you might as well put me down on your permanent strike list (this does not include students who ask me questions for the purposes of improving their debate in the future. I am always happy to answer those questions.)

Hello, I am a lay judge; so perform classic protocol of don't speak too quickly, be clear and articulate with your arguments, and don't be overly rude in cross fire. I vote off the best, most well-articulated arguments at the end of the round.

Lay Judge

NO Spreading

Speak Clearly

Explain any debate terminology you want me to deliberate on

I am a previous debater and have been judging and coaching for five years now.

Speed is not an issue - speak as fast or as slow as you'd like so long as what you're saying is clear.

I value clear logic and relevant supporting evidence.

I also value strong crossfires as this allows teams to demonstrate their functional knowledge of the resolve.

I want to see that you understand your cases and evidence and aren't just reading from a paper.

I am more of a lay judge than technical judge. Quality and delivery of content matter more to me than quantity of arguments. Speakers who articulate their points clearly and persuasively will fare better than those who speak very quickly. I find cases that have a logical narrative and build towards a compelling conclusion are more effective than a long laundry list of arguments that are only semi-related.

Civility during the round is important, but only seems to be a problem <10% of the time.

I am a parent judge, which means a few things:

1. Slow down, please! If you focus on the narratives of the arguments, you'll win the round.

2. If there's something important in the constructive or rebuttal, make sure it's talked about in the summary and final focus.

3. Voters are a great way to win the round in the 2nd half of the debate.

4. Be nice and not rude.

** If you clearly weigh your arguments against your opponent and stimulate a consistent narrative, you'll win the round. **

Rapid speaking and excessive technical language may hinder your performance. It's acceptable to speak quickly as long as you remain clear. But if speed affects your clarity, it's better to slow down.

I won't share my decision post-round to ensure the tournament progresses smoothly and to uphold fairness in all debates. The decision will solely be reflected in the ballot.

I am a fairly new lay judge. Please use normal speaking voice and speed; if you're going real fast, it's hard for me to follow your arguments. If I can't even follow your words, I'll indicate with my hand to slow down. Please try not to interrupt or talk over each other.

Roadmaps are great, and definitely use summary and especially final focus to tell me what you think you absolutely want me to consider most.

Have fun kindly!