Experience: I am a parent (lay) judge with two years' experience judging LD -- I have judged at local, league, and national tournaments. I am a public historian with broad knowledge of U.S. and foreign history as well as a routine consumer of high quality news reporting and current events analysis.

In rounds: While I am comfortable with some speed, if you speak too quickly and I cannot understand you, your case will be lost. If I put down my pen/pencil, it means I cannot understand you. I appreciate professional manners, good sportsmanship and courtesy while aggressively making one's case.

Philosophy: I am open to counter plans and kritiks. However, if they do not respond constructively to the contention or they are based largely on intellectual gymnastics, they will not sway me. Cases that are organized around a clear and logical narrative with a roadmap for your argument will be more persuasive than too many disconnected evidence cards. Both attention to topicality and responding to your opponent's case are important to me. Convince me on the quality, depth, and relevance of your argument and evidence.

My overall experience is limited. I have judged LD in the past, but have personally never debated....competitively. While I am ok with a fast delivery, it is important that you enunciate and express your point of emphasis clearly. By definition, while i am considered a Lay Judge, i do have the ability to follow a debate and understand when someone or a team can deliver a case and defend it correctly.

I enjoy spirited debate however during cross, let your opponent answer the question. Give the same respect you expect. When laying out the ground work of your case, make sure it is defined and clear. The beginning of a debate is important to start leading me down the path you want me to stay on. Final arguments will be key to drive home your case. If you are all over the map or can not close with a strong tie to your initial contentions, i will lose interest.

Little things matter to me. Professionalism, introduction and how you present yourself can make a difference in close debate. Be careful when dropping information you may not understand. Make sure your data can hold up. In the real world it is irrelevant what you know if you cannot command someones attention or get them to listen.

I debated in high school in Lincoln Douglas for 4 years. I competed mostly on the local NC circuit, but I did travel to several national tournaments. I can keep up with quickly paced speeches, but please do not spread. I prefer a more traditional form of debate, but I do love a good framework debate, and I can appreciate progressive styles. Do not drop your frameworks. Engage with them. Tell me how I should evaluate the round, why, and why I shouldn't use your opponent's framework. Please make sure you explain the abstract concepts in your case clearly. If I do not understand the concepts in your case, I cannot vote for you.

I respond more to empirics and studies with solid methodology than individual stories designed to provoke emotional responses. However, when you cite statistics, you need to be able to defend those statistics logically (such as with the methodology) to prove why your statistics are more applicable/more reliable than your opponent's. I do flow rounds, so feel free to refer to cards by authors' names and please signpost.

I have extensive experience as both a judge and competitor at elite levels of collegiate debating.

While I value thoroughness and completeness in case presentation and refutation, I usually find that narrative coherence, and the ability to assess and explain the relative importance of a debate’s most crucial arguments end up being the most decisive factors in my decision.

Experience: I debated Policy and competed in OI and DI in high school back in the dark ages, coached a team in New York at Rome Free Academy in the late 80s, judged for Cary High School in NC for 3 years, and then founded my own team at Research Triangle High School, where I was the coach since the school opened in 2012 until I left to become a principal in 2019. I'm not currently coaching, but I enjoy the opportunity to stay connected to Speech & Debate by judging. Pronouns: she/her

PF and LD In Rounds: Do not bore me and do not confuse me. I’m comfortable with speed and will raise my hand or put down my pen if you’re going too fast-- If I can’t find your argument because of your speed, I can’t flow it and it won’t exist in the round. I like storytelling and analogies that show you understand and can communicate complex topics, not just read lots & lots of cards. I find a framework and definitions at the top of the case useful, especially if you continue to clearly link to your framework all the way through to FF. Roadmaps and signposts are helpful. Sometimes concessions are a good thing-- please do not continue to argue points you have clearly lost; support what you can win and don't keep beating a dead horse. Don’t take up valuable time in a round with minor or side arguments that are not linked to your impacts-- I will admire speakers who can stop chasing a unicorn and bring the round back to the main contentions. Despite my experience and the fact that I flow rounds, my style is more of a lay judge-- I will know the topic well but will be a tabula rasa for the round, so convince me.

Decision: I am looking to give a W to the team that can concisely compare both sides of the argument and explain why your side outweighs based on clear links to your framework, can deliver clear voters in the Final Focus and can cleanly extend through summary and FF. I want to be able to succinctly defend my RFD to both you and the opposing team, so clear claim-warrant-impact for the pro world or the con world is important to me.

Speaker Points: I have a strong IE background, too, so I value speakers who make excellent eye contact and speak with clarity & expression. However, I will reward good thinking-on-your-feet in the rounds more than just a well-delivered 1C. Your courtesy and professional demeanor will also play into speaker points. Do not talk over your opponent. You can be reasonably aggressive, just be courteous to your opponents' need to question you and don’t wander into rudeness. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points. Do not play dirty, take cheap shots, make faces or talk while your opponents are speaking. Keep your cool and remember this is a conversation, a communication event, and a sport. Professionalism and control will win you more speaks than angry tirades and emotional outrage or complaints about your opponent. Be excellent, or at least be striving for excellence.

Speech Events: I look for a presentation that makes me forget I'm judging and takes me directly into your scene or your argument.

*For interp events (OI, DI, DUO, POI, DEC, etc), I look for a structured cutting from a piece that is worth our time-- that has a message or a storyline that has literary, entertainment and/or social merit, whether classical or contemporary, serious or light hearted. I reward fully developed single characters more than multiple characters attempted without as much polish. Cross gender casting is fine; however I am not a fan of cultural appropriation so be respectful in the selection of your cuttings-- a mixture is fine but be sure to give credit where it's due and choose material that works for you. Accents should make sense for the character and not just be an artificial way to distinguish your characters. I look for a solid performance arc-- what is the climax of your presentation, and how do you build to take us to that emotional moment? Use the physical space and all the elements in your toolbox-- vocal, facial expressions, gestures or movement as allowed by your category. Do not illustrate-- not every word or phrase in your selection requires a gesture-- be natural. In deciding between otherwise equally impressive presentations, I look at the source material and who had the heavier lifting to bring the selection to life-- who really had to excel at original interpretations of the selection.

*For platform events (Extemp, OO, Info, etc) I look for structure: a creative, attention getting hook for your intro, good signposts so I can follow your argument, well placed and tagged evidence to back up your thesis, and a conclusion that ties everything together. I reward fresh insights into topics more than lots and lots of quotes and warrants.

*For Congress, I reward speeches that have a creative hook or analogy that shows your understanding of the topic, especially when it is extended throughout your speaking time. I look for arguments that move the debate along with fresh insights rather than rehashing points that have already made in the round. I give higher points to speakers who can use eye contact and sound fresh rather than reading directly from their notes, and who can refer to arguments already on the floor in ways that either concede good points or help refute what previous competitors have said. I will place speakers higher who ask insightful, cutting questions rather than those who just rise to speak at every turn; think quality vs quality in your participation in a round.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Clash is king. I am a parent judge, but open to whatever style of debate you choose to run, traditional or progressive, just communicate it clearly and connect it to your opponent's case. I can connect dots, but I might not connect them the way you think they connect, so do your best to draw the lines. Signposts and structure are helpful. Spreading is fine, but I prefer quality over quantity. may request to see your evidence, especially if you and your opponent disagree on its interpretation and implications

For LD, framework is important. If morality is on your side, use morality. If logic is on your side, use logic. If evidence is on your side, use evidence. If feasibility is on your side, use feasibility. If you have nothing else, make me laugh or tell me a story.

For PF you must have hard evidence to back up your claims, I may request to see it.

What's Crackin' Guys!

I competed in Public Forum for 3 years on the NaTiOnAl CiRcUiT for Durham Academy (😤😤😤)

He/Him/His Pronouns

General

- Running obscure arguments on your opponents might seem like a nice euro step, but showing probability and a clear link chain will really slam the argument home

- Second rebuttal needs to address turns from first rebuttal, otherwise as k dot said "your rebuttal a little too late."

- First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless you think its absolutely necessary for whatever reason.

- You need to extend BOTH the warrant AND impact of your argument(s) in later speeches if you're serious about finessing my ballot.

- Citing rap lyrics in round and being funny is the dopest thing you can do to make me like you.

- If you are losing badly and you know it, up the ante on the rap lyrics.

- If you are racist, ableist, sexist, make jokes about someone's momma, etc you will get a 20 L.

Speed

- In terms of speed if your flow and delivery is hot and clear I'm writing it down. For a good representation of what I want to see watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8 from 1:10-1:40.

- Remember to always signpost but NO GANG SIGNS

Evidence Ethics

-Use author qualifications when first citing a piece of evidence (for extensions last name will suffice).

- If you are ghost writing evidence I'm calling Meek to deliver the L himself.

#WORLDSTAR

- If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being douchey) you are expected to yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and you're partner each get 1.0 added to your speaks. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get deducted 0.1 speaks for interrupting cross.

- I will be updating my paradigm as the year progresses to track all the #WORLDSTAR moments in rounds below:

***UPDATED AFTER ROUND 4 OF MINNEAPPLE****

I have not heard a sufficient number of #WORLDSTAR moments in rounds, thus I am implementing a speaker ceiling effective round 5. If I do not hear ANY (either good or bad) #WORLDSTAR moments the highest speaks you will be eligible to receive is a 28*.

*JK, but please entertain me

About me: I debated at Ardrey Kell for 4 years for at the high school level (1 year of PF, 3 years of LD). I focused more on traditional LD due to the nature of the LD circuit in NC, but went a more progressive route my senior year when travel was more an option for our team. I'm currently a senior econ and public health double major at Chapel Hill going into consulting post-grad.

General: IM HELLA RUSTY but still believe in my capabilities to judge well. I very much think debate should be a space where everyone is free to express ideas in any manner they please, and am open to basically any type of advocacy. Case positions that are out of the norm on your particular circuit, deviant styles of argumentation, interpretive dance cases- you do it well and I'll judge it. I really admire people who debate the way they feel they can do the best despite backlash from their circuit/other debaters. That being said, being outwardly racist, sexist or homophobic does not constitute self expression and I have no tolerance for any sort of rudeness that I think would make someone uncomfortable within the debate space. You do you, but know the line.
*DISCLAIMER: Parts of my paradigm are shameless stolen from Joe Bruner, we agree on a lot of things*

Email for email chain: gd09cms@gmail.com

Specifics-

Gestures- So nobody freaks out, here's what these things usually mean.
Nodding vigorously- This usually means I'm a) following the argument well or b) Recognize/like the card or evidence you're using. It does not mean I think you're right or you're automatically about to win.
Smiling- I smile at almost everything, it's nothing special, I'm just a fairly happy person. Please keep making your argument.
Straight Face/Unreadable expression- I understand this point and speaking about it more is probably a waste of your time, please move along with your refutation/arguments. Only exception to this is probably during final speeches when you're reiterating args for crystallization.

Speed- Slow down for tags/author names. Please don't start off full speed, you can work your way up to whatever speed works for you. I am not averse to yelling clear if you are being unclear, but after 2/3 times I will probably stop flowing. If you are going fast, I expect you to case flash your opponent if they ask though the trend of emailing cases is pretty prevalent so I'd rather you do that for them if you're emailing it to me too.

V/VC- I hate the Value/Value Criterion so much. I have yet to meet a single individual on earth who weighs arguments under a single standard, and personally I feel like this adherence to a single standard takes away from the debate more often than not. If you take it out of your case and just weigh impacts or argue that you analytically prove the resolution true, you'll probably do better in front of me. If you want me to explain this more, ask me, but this is what it is. I'm going to explain it more here since I get asked so much: I do not think it is either philosophical or realistic to appeal to only one criterion to the exclusion of all others when making decisions, and I don't think most authors think so either. So I have a strong preference against hearing you claim stuff like "only explicit violations of categorical imperative matter" or "any miniscule risk of extinction causes you to vote aff if I solve at all.

At the same time, I'm not trying to be prejudiced against traditional LDers who are used to relying on this heavily, so if you DO decide to use it, please be extremely clear on what the link between the Value and Value Criterion is, and especially what the link between your contentions and your value criterion is. Even better would be if you actually supplied a good reason the truth of the resolution hinges on your value above all else. If this isn't clear and you're using a V/VC and spending tons of time talking about your framework, I'll have a really hard time voting for you, even if you appear to be winning.

Theory- I CAN understand theory arguments, I know the parts of a shell and have engaged in theory debate once/twice but since I debated in North Carolina I'm not a "theory hack". If your strat involves multiple shells for time suck OR for avoiding engaging with more foreign substance level args, you will not have a fun time in front of me. THAT BEING SAID- in cases of actual abuse I don't mind evaluating theory. ALSO NO THEORY THAT IS NOT IN A SHELL FORMAT (other than in case spikes)- I don't care to figure out where your magical blip theory argument applies towards your opponents case in a high power round.

Topicality- I don't have as much of an issue with this, and actually don't mind it as much as theory. But I also find it fairly tedious- run it if you need to.

Substance:Coming from NC, I really felt pigeonholed a lot of the times in terms of argumentation, purely because of the clash between what I wanted to run/ what worked in front of the judging pool. As a result of having to write more traditional cases, I ended up really enjoying philosophy that isn't just PoMo, so any case that utilizes philosophical elements well will do well in front of me. Util is cool, I have grown to become a larger fan of Kant, and any spins on traditional Deon are appreciated. I'm also a big fan on ancient greeks (Aristotle, Plato, etc).

~Moral Skep: No thank you~ *This is mostly because I got sick of hearing people butcher, misinterpret/shit on Nietzsche*

I don't like it when people say they don't have to prove solvency- If you don't understand what this means/think it's unfair PLEASE ask me to explain, this is something I feel fairly passionate about.

K's/CPs/Disads/Performance/K affs- I ADORE Kritiks and Kritik literature. I spent a good amount of time reading K lit my junior/senior year and really found myself expanding my horizons of thought. I think they help improve critical thinking, are valid forms of argumentation and I used them more my senior year as I traveled. I do expect the K to have all the parts of a K, but those parts do not have to be explicitly stated, I can follow the structure well. A strong yes to K affs as well- I've had some of my most enjoyable debates using K affs. If the K is something more obscure (Lacan, DnG, whatever), more explanation is good.

I would like debaters to better explain what the real-world impacts and solvency of voting for the K are. My ballot is probably not actually preventing extinction or ending neoliberalism. I would like debaters to better articulate what REALLY HAPPENS when I vote for either side in K rounds as opposed to reading "cap causes extinction" or "structural oppression first duty to oppose" cards. Neoliberalism and Capitalism are probably bad and Racism and Sexism certainly are, but I the trend of debaters not clearly articulating what the PRE-FIAT impact is on an argument that is supposedly PRE-FIAT is alive and well so please don't contribute to it.

CPs and Disads are great tools in the proverbial toolbox if they are relevant- except politics Disads. I have never seen a good politics disad, if you really think you can change my mind, I won't stop you from running it but no promises.

I have literally only ever debated against one performance/narrative debater, but if that's your style go for it, I think the perspectives that these types of advocacies bring are really nice and make for interesting debates.

Evidence: I am generally very trusting of the evidence that people bring into round, in the sense that I believe anyone who is serious about competing and not an utter douchebag would not falsify evidence. If you are accused of messing with evidence, reading a card the way a way it's not supposed to be read, etc. AND I call for the card and see your opponent is right about that accusation, expect that to be reflected in your speaker points. I will call for cards that are very important to your advocacy if they are heavily contested, otherwise I trust that your stats are true.

Voting Issues: These are critical in how I make a decision, and I prefer them to be a more or less line by line. Tell me what arguments you think you are winning/are extending, why they matter more than your opponent's and the impacts coming off of them.

Speaker points- Expect fairly high speaker points unless you're insufferable in round.
That being said, surefire ways to get 30's include
- Using Eastern philosophy in case (except Mozi, I hate Mozi- someone I had beef with on the circuit used to run him a lot)
- Using Nietzsche/ Paulo Freire in case
- Quoting Childish Gambino at any point during the round, including CX

I'm a huge YuGiOh buff- if you take out your opponents case in 5 points (can be turns, blocks, whatever) and then say 'I HAVE SUMMONED EXODIA THE FORIBIDDEN ONE" that's basically an automatic win with a 30 unless your 5 arguments are not good. Take the gamble if you're a real one.

Other judges seem to dock excessive points from aggressive women and minority debaters, so if you are a woman or a minority and debate especially aggressively, I will give you additional speaker points as long as you still remain polite and don't engage in personal attacks. I appreciate sass :)

Surefire ways to get me to hate you
- Look down on an opponent for the style of debate they do in round
- Completely destroy someone past the point that is necessary for victory simply for the LOLz

That's about it. I look forward to judging rounds, if you have any other q's feel free to ask me in round, happy debating!

I prefer if speakers wait for all judges to respond that they are ready before speaking. A balance between presentation and substance is a must. Say your sources clearly and explain with specifics.

How to win with me:

Debate is best done when all parties are focused on the heart of the debate topic. The debate loses meaning when non-essential elements distract from the crux of the debate; thus, the best debates come from people who are unwavering from the essential elements of their position at the foundation of the resolution. From there a good debater will reveal inconsistencies of their opponent's contentions and weigh their position against the opposition.

Another essential element of a proper debate is clarity. If clarity is lost so is the debate. Both parties must have clear understandable and coherent arguments for the debate to grow and develop. I value students who are able to break down complicated elements into digestible pieces, point out argument fallacies, and weigh points that stand with integrity.

How to lose me:

I can not flow points I can't understand. Do not spread with the speed of an auctioneer with me and hope to win. I will not vote for abusive arguments that narrow the focus of the debate so far you can't lose and your opponents can't win. I will not vote for theory-based briefs that assume the world exists in a vacuum or promote the victim based assertion that there is something inherently wrong with the resolution. I will not read your brief as you speak it. It is your responsibility to verbally communicate to the judge and your opponents. The debate is not an essay contest. If your main points boil down to ad hominine arguments I will flow to your opponents.

Ultimately debate is dialogue between people - judge included - Facilitate dialogue and win. Breach that dialogue and lose.

Hi all! I am the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Pinecrest High School in North Carolina. I am a former extemper with pretty deep knowledge of the happenings in the world.

LD & PF

--I am fine with speed, but remember with speed comes the risk I won't get it on the flow. If you see me stop typing/pen is no longer writing/I am staring blankly at you, consider that your cue to slow down.

--Make sure to differentiate your sourcing. Authors' last names are great, but tell me where the source comes from first. John Doe from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2022 sounds better than Doe 22. After that, you can refer to the source as CFR or Doe and I'm good on what you are referring to.

--Please weigh. Please. You have to do this in order for me to be able to determine a winner.

--Respect. Respect your opponents, partner (if in PF), self, and the host school. Competitive debate is a great activity; but you must maintain some sense of decorum throughout your time in the round.

Congress

--When you go to an in-house recess to determine splits, or inquire as to why no one is speaking, you have done yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by not being prepared. Please avoid this as much as possible.

--I'm fine with rehashing arguments to a point, but you need to add more evidence to support this rehashed point. Something niche and unique that can catch the opposing side off guard.

--Presiding Officers: thank you for volunteering to run the chamber. Please only defer to the parli when you are unsure of certain procedure.

I competed in high school speech and debate all four years back in the 1990s and have been judging Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for the last eight years.

Well reasoned arguments and high quality evidence are more convincing to me than twenty evidence cards- quality not quantity please! Speech and Debate is fundamentally an oral communication event and if I can't understand you your arguments can't persuade me.

Although NSDA rules allow citing sources as "Jones 2020", if I need to weigh competing evidence, knowing that "Jones 2020" is from The Washington Post instead of Wikipedia is important.

If you can't find the evidence in 30 seconds, we will move along- Organization is part of the preparation for this event.

Learning how to organize your thoughts quickly and how to stay cool under pressure/cross examination is a terrific life skill- this is an amazing activity and will help you in your later professional life no matter your high school win-loss record.

I have been the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last eight years. This is my eighth year judging. I have taught English for 20 years and Speech for five.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

I am a parent judge with limited debate judging experience and no PF experience. I am beginning to learn how to flow, but will probably examine the round through a lay angle if you speak too fast and I cannot understand what you say. Your performance will be helped by the following:

Simplicity: less is more.

Organization: organize your thoughts and ideas and present them in a logical order. This means for contentions, follow claim, warrant, impact and state each clearly so I may record them on my flow. Anywhere in the round other than the constructive, please clearly signpost the argument you are referencing and the speech it was brought up in.

Tempo: (possibly most important): you can think and speak much faster than I can listen and process. Like when you play a musical instrument, you will almost certainly be rushing when you speak. Slow down and have pity for the poor listener. Also, use a methodical pace to make a point, and don't be afraid to repeat a point for emphasis.

Stay on target: No tangents, no diversions. Be sure that all statements support your overall argument.

Use evidence effectively. I find common sense arguments more persuasive than "this expert said...".

Civility is important to me, and also enjoy seeing contestants enjoy themselves. Please use CX as a time for questioning, not a time to make arguments or tangents. Any arguments or tangents made during CX will result in a loss of speaker points. And remember, as a first time PF judge I will likely be more nervous than you.

Updated 25 August 2019

TL;DR: Parent judge (arghh/ yipeee/ whatever-you-feel). I am able to flow most common types of args (but not dense phil/Ks) delivered at normal speed. I value logical args/ rebuttals, even if purely analytical.

Spreading: I will likely miss some args but will do my best to follow along with any speech docs you share. I strongly recommend you slow down for your tags and crucial points, especially if extemporaneous. Do signpost.

Case Debate: I expect a basic level of case debate in addition to whatever else you may choose to run.

Theory: I am unlikely to view it favorably unless you can show a timely pre-round good faith effort to avoid citing the violation in question. Unless it is a completely unexpected/ egregious in-round violation, the burden is on you to have engaged in pre-round communications if it could have voided the need for a theory debate.

Warrants: Incontrovertible, objective, data based cards are more potent than opinions/ claims. If I call for a card, I am also checking the text you minimized/ did not read.

ROB/ ROJ: Unless proven otherwise, all args will be viewed as a strategy to win a HS debate round and not as an altruistic endeavor to effect societal/ policy change.

To whom it may concern:

I am a parent judge that has never judged before. Be that as it may, my son has done Lincoln Douglas debate, and I am familiar with the event. However, feel free to correct me if I make a mistake.

In terms of the round, I will not tolerate "progressive" styles of debate, which includes spreading, K's, theory, LARP, etc.

I can deal with an increased rate of speaking and will take notes throughout the round.

I do want clear explained arguments. I want you to tell me why I should vote for you. DON'T expect me to figure out the ballot for you.

If you have any specific questions, please ask them before the round.

I will not tolerate racism, bullying, or extremely aggressive debating. That will result in me docking your speaker points!

Thank you and most importantly have fun!! :)

I am a parent judge, and this is my 3rd year judging debate.

When I judge a round, I look for the following:

1. If you don't connect your evidence to your overall argument, I will not be convinced.

2. Do not spread--I value quality and connectivity over quantity.

3. I value strong cross examination skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case will help you win the round.

4. Be confident but courteous in the round.

Lay parent judge with some basic experience judging traditional LD. Prefer traditional arguments. Sign post and be clear about your argumentation. Do not spread.

I have been judging debate tournaments for three years mostly in PF format and a few times in LD and Congress. I look for well researched and logical presentations and preferably not speed reading. Being able to offer good strong counter arguments to your opponents' contentions will score points in your favor.

I am a parent judge, and this is my second year judging debate.

When I judge a round, I look for the following:

1. If you don't connect your evidence to your overall argument, I will not be convinced.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value a strong cross examination which addresses all of your opponents arguements.

I have been judging PFD since 2007. I am a coach and I am currently working with our school's PFD and Congress teams. I would not say that I am an expert, but I have definitely spent a great deal of time helping my students write pro and con cases. I believe that if you talk so fast that I cannot understand your contention, then you didn't say it. I like cases to be clearly signposted; this helps me to keep up with the cases better. I do not like condescension. No one is better just because they come from a school with more resources. Rude behavior of any kind is intolerable. Also, saying something many times does not make it true. I believe a team should clearly link evidence to contentions.

Background:

I was a collegiate NPDA debater for four years, a middle school parliamentary and high school LD, Policy, Public Forum, and Speech coach for three and a half years, and a debate judge for three years. I also served as the debate league co-coordinator for the Crescent City Debate League in New Orleans for three years.

Things I Look For:

As a judge, two things are important to uphold the integrity of a debate round: education and clash. Due to this, my paradigm is rooted in these two concepts.

1. Organization is important: I like when the speaker has a clear and concise roadmap for me to follow as a judge. Points and subpoints are appreciated as well as well explained links when defending argumentation.

2. Sources- if the idea was informed by research, then site your sources.

3. If an argument is not addressed, then it flows through. Unaddressed argumentation can lead to low point wins- be sure to address main points and refute them as much as possible.

4. Humans are fallible, BUT the flow is infallible- it is important that debaters take sound notes in debate rounds to be aware of the arguments of their opponent. This assists with point 3 and ensures that no one's arguments are misrepresented in favor of an attempt to get a cheap win.

5. I despise cheap shots- uphold the integrity of debate and show respect of your opponent by not making egregiously false and easily refutable, overarching claims. This includes, but is not limited to: claiming your opponent has said something they clearly did not say (i.e. "Even my opponent agrees with me" when they did not agree with you), saying something unfounded or refutable (i.e. "There are more people in prison than college"), grand and sweeping generalizations (i.e. "Everyone agrees with me"), disrespectful speech (i.e. "If my opponent were smart, they would know..."), discriminatory speech toward persons due to race, gender identity, religion, cred, belief system, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or sexuality.

6. That being said, I WILL NOT remind debaters of argumentation nor will I correct misrepresentation of points. I expect debaters to identify and respectfully defend their points in round. I will only step in as a judge if discriminatory or blatantly disrespectful speech is used.

7. Feel free to speed within reason. If you cannot be understood, then you risk losing points because I cannot understand your argument. Keep a good pace and I will be able to understand most speaking speeds.

8. While eye contact is not necessary, it is appreciated. Reading off of a paper without looking up takes away the gravity of your speech. Speaking is most effective when the speaker captivates the room through eye contact.

*** Most importantly, have fun and breathe. Debate is a wonderful forum to express ideas and consider differing points of view. While wins are great accomplishments, it is what takes place within the debate that truly transforms us. Debate equips us with the ability to engage with arguments that are different than ours intelligently and respectfully. Respectful oratory discourse is an invaluable skill.

I competed in debate for three years in high school, primarily in public forum. For public forum, I like to see a line-by-line rebuttal as well as good analysis of which arguments are the most important in the summary. For Lincoln-Douglas, I like to see a detailed value clash when appropriate.

I was a Lincoln-Douglas debater for three years as a member of the Cary Academy debate team. I err on the side of traditional judging, although I am open to novel arguments and a departure from the traditional value framework.

The winning side will be whichever makes the most compelling argument that is clearly linked to a thoughtful consideration of the resolution.

Giving clear voting issues is always beneficial, especially if you can make them into a cohesive appeal for your side (instead of a list of dropped cards with no clearly explained impact).

Absolutely no spreading (a moderately brisk pace is fine, although it may result in lower speaks if it detracts from your presentation style - I am very comfortable awarding low-point wins).

I debated PF for 4 years at Ardrey Kell both in NC and on the national circuit.

Now that my history is out of the way, basic info.

I'm tech over truth so if I have to vote off a terrible argument, I will, even if I hate it.

I love obscure, weird arguments as long as they have proper warrants. Please please please don't give me a weird argument for the sake of being "weird," if that argument has zero merit.

I am a "flow" judge so speed is fine, although I strongly discourage spreading. If you're speaking so fast that I can't understand, which is extreme, I'm just going to put my pen down and not flow anything till you slow down.

While I enjoy cross-fire and think it's the best part of a PF round, I'm not going to flow it, so if something important happened, make sure you say it in a speech.

While weird, obscure arguments are great, I'm not a fan of theory. While it does have a place in debate, I don't think it works with public forum because public forum, by definition, should be available for the public to watch and understand, and theory detracts from the public's ability to understand the debate. However, there is a caveat. If your argument is amazing and isn't just a way of confusing the other team or a hail mary, I will listen to it as long and I will factor it in.

Things I like to see in debates:

- Weighing: What you've (hopefully) heard from your debate coach every day since you've started debate, weighing is important. If you don't weigh, I have zero idea how to compare arguments, and I will come up with my own way of comparing arguments, which you probably won't like. So please weigh and I'll be more inclined to vote for you and give you high speaks.

- Summary/Final Focus connection: Everything that's said in final focus must have been said in summary. I don't care if you came up with the ultimate argument that can win every round in the prep time before final focus if it wasn't said in summary. Only exception to this is first final focus, which can respond to points in the second summary because, unless you can predict the future, in which case you should go to Vegas and stop debating, first summary can't respond to a speech that hasn't happened yet.

- Evidence guidelines: Don't just refer to evidence as the "AUTHOR" card, I rarely flow author names unless I feel the card is sketchy in some way. I will have no idea which card you're mentioning and will probably disregard what you are saying. Make sure, every time you mention a card, actually use that card by explaining the argument itself and why I should care about it, don't just reference it. If the card's not important enough to actually explain it, it probably won't matter for the debate either.

- Humor: Please inject some humor into the round. Nothing is more boring than a serious PF round. Roasting the other team is welcome, sarcasm is welcome, jokes are amazing. Successful roasts will be given +1 speaker points, however, if it is a bad roast, and I feel you interrupted the debate for no reason, -1 speaker points. If you are constantly funny, I will give you more speaker points.

Things I do not like to see:

- Rudeness, sexism, racism, etc: If you're being excessively rude or being discriminatory at all, I will give you a 20L regardless of whether or not you should have won the debate.

Speaker Points breakdown:

- 30: Amazing job at not only speaking, but also your arguments and reasoning. More likely if you are funny. (A+)

- 29: Probably the most common point level, still a really good job at speaking and reasoning. (A)

- 28: Tied with 29 for most common point level, above average job. (B)

- 27: Average job, one of speaking/arguments would be lacking a bit. (C)

- 26: Below average, possibly both speaking/arguments lacking. (D)

- 25: Large errors, considerably below average. (F)

- <25: I will almost never give points less than 25, unless you're being rude or discriminatory.

Finally, if you read this far, if you can incorporate a Marvel reference, specifically Black Panther, I will give you +1 speaker points. However, if I feel it was forced, you'll get -1 speaker points.

Have fun debating!

I am a head coach and have been coaching for thirteen years. I thoroughly enjoy all of the events that our organization sponsors and deeply appreciate the critical thinking and communication skills they promote. For debate, I can appreciate a range of styles and approaches. While I don't mind a brisk speed when it is necessary to incorporate a variety of legitimate arguments in case or rebuttal, when it is used primarily as a weapon to overwhelm an opponent with accusations of dropped cards (in particular), I admit my patience can grow thin. You also don't have to win every bit of the flow (or pretend to) to win a round for me. You may even honestly concede minor points and cards/warrants. The important thing is to win the main arguments, wherever they happen to occur in the flow. Therefore, your job is to help me weigh what the most essential arguments are towards the end of the round. That is not to say that I don't value line-by-line coverage of the flow in rebuttal, and that dropped points are of no concern. And it is possible that accidentally dropping major points (usually by poor time distribution) could result in a fairly automatic loss. It's just that all things being equal, I value winning the major points of the debate over thoroughness of coverage.

UNC '20

Former 4-year congressional debater (11th in the senate at NSDA Nationals in 2016), also extensively coached PF at my high school. Coaching congressional debate privately now off and on. For PF, I can handle any speed you throw at me within the realms of general acceptability in PF, and I'm good on the flow. If for some reason I can't keep up, I'll let you know. I like funny debates, but there's a fine line between being funny and being a jerk – be nice, especially if you're destroying a team, or your speaker points will suffer as a result.

School strikes
Charlotte Catholic High School

Public Forum
Sparknotes Version:

• I'm normally able to tell myself I know what's going on - I understand most of the positions people read
• Good debating trumps good evidence any day - I rarely call for cards unless I don't think I'll be able to make a decision without them
• Cross-x is binding - I love debaters who use it well
• I reward debaters who can explain complex positions without relying on buzzwords/jargon
• My favorite debates are case debates (defense, impact turns, whatever)
• I'm tab minus blatant bigotry in round. I reserve the right to drop you if I find your argument too offensive to belong within the realm of academic debate (you're doing something seriously wrong if this happens)
• Off-time roadmaps are a vestige from policy, unless you're doing something really weird in your speech save us all five seconds and just start

Specifics:

Prep time starts when the other team begins reading the evidence they requested.

Start with framework at the top of all rebuttals, give me a way to evaluate the round. I prefer crisp, clear framework debates – give me an intuitive way to prefer your framework. I am more than willing to listen to "we win under both frameworks, here's why" – but make that clear to me.

I'd prefer summary to be (selective) line-by-line and final focus to be voters, but whatever floats your boat. I'm here to judge, not tell you what to do, but a really well-executed line-by-line in summary may earn you bonus points from me. I don't need to hear every argument in summary, but I think that you need to give me two or three portions of the debate narrowed down. Again, not gonna take speaks away if you don't, just my preference and makes my flow pretty clean. Kicking out of arguments is more than fine in summary.

Final focus should extend straight from summary – I will not buy any offense dropped in summary but brought up again in final focus. You don't get to basically make new responses/arguments in FF, especially if you're second speaker. FF should be weighing/voters. Don't be abusive, this activity is supposed to be fun.

Extensions: Make extensions clear – don't make me go back to my flow to try to figure out what on earth you're trying to talk about. Give me a point of reference for the evidence/warrant so I know where to go back to.

Theory: I am very reluctant to accept theory in PF. Make of that what you will. If you feel the need to, go for it, but know that I will be somewhat perturbed. I default to rejecting the argument, not the team, unless you can give me a compelling reason why. Just debate the topic instead, and you won't have to worry about this entire little mini-paragraph.

Evidence: For the love of god, don't make up evidence. This mean either a) fabricating evidence completely, b) misconstruing evidence to reach a different conclusion than the authors intended, or c) clipping cards. If there's an evidence challenge, be damn sure you want to go through with the challenge. If you call a challenge and I decide your challenge was unfounded, there's a very very very high likelihood you get dropped on the spot. In the same stead, if I decide that you have fabricated evidence, I will not vote for you. End of story. Integrity is important, don't throw it away for a win that won't mean anything in four years (or less, sorry but it's true).

Congress:

Based loosely on the paradigm of Phil Hedayatnia, which was in turn based on the paradigm of Joe Bruner, which was in turn based on the paradigm of Reilly Hartigan... you get the point.

First, you're always welcome to come up to me after the round to ask how you did. I can't write as fast as I want to, and tournaments don't let me type critiques, so my comments on the ballot will always be shorter than I'd like.

Here are some of the things I look for in round (you should optimally include all of them in your speech):

Clash: If you give a speech past the first affirmative and you don't refute a single speaker, you will not be ranked on my ballot (in a circuit-level round). Pretty simple. Pre-empt, refute, crystallize, I don't care how you do it, but REFUTE SOMEONE. This isn't a speech event, it's a debate event, so debate.

Evidence: You need at least two pieces of evidence per speech, preferably 3-4. That being said, I'll take two high-quality pieces of evidence over four garbage think pieces any day of the week. Explain your evidence, and note the bias of sources. Professors writing studies/journal articles and meta-analyses are the gold standard, books are great, newspaper articles (that are not editorials) are alright. Don't use blatantly biased sources; if you're good enough to bother reading this, you know what those are. If you don't explain your evidence, I'm not going to view your speech favorably (and that's definitely going to hurt your rank).

Analysis: This preferably should come in the form of refutation-laced analysis, but I'll take what I can get. Explain why your argument is correct/more important. Don't use debate jargon (flow, cross-apply, etc), but I want to hear something along the lines of "this is more important/this is preferable because...". Analysis is NOT a placeholder for evidence; analysis backs up evidence. Good analysis will help you, but if you're analyzing bullshit, I'm gonna know.

Organization: Don't use more than two contentions, don't use roadmaps, and make sure your speech logically flows. Make yourself memorable. Remember that your introduction, impacts and conclusion are opportunities to grab my attention and tell me who you are. Set yourself apart. One contention speeches? Perfectly fine. One contention and then straight refutation? Fine by me, I did this all the time. Straight refutation (that's clear)? Sounds good. Crystallization? Cool. Don't make your format crazy, but play around - you don't have to stick to the stock two constructive contentions format.

Delivery: I think delivery (and personality) are very important. If I don't think you're having fun/you care, you're not going to end up on my ballot. Solid and clear delivery is basically a prerequisite for me evaluating your arguments. If you have no content, you won't get ranked, but if you have no personality or lack delivery skills, you probably won't be ranked either. There's a middle ground here, find it. I absolutely loved humor, and if you can make me (or the chamber) laugh, consider that bonus points. I will never mark you down for making a joke unless it is offensive (use your judgment), or it detracts from the quality of your speech. I gave a morning hour at the TOC on North Carolina's elevator queen, Cherie Berry – I have a decent sense of humor. That being said, if you aren't funny, you aren't going to lose my ballot for not trying to be. Be an engaging speaker, and you'll get ranked.

Attitude: Please be respectful to your fellow competitors. You can be angry as hell in a speech, or even somewhat mocking, that's fine... but when the round ends, it ends. It's over. That's it. Done. No arguments, please. And it goes without saying that making sexist/racist/homophobic/etc etc comments about another debater, even out of the round, is out of bounds.

Also, I don't care about your circuit politics, who's friends with who, all that bullshit – if you're good, you get ranked. Congress is a political event, use your friendships to actively help yourself. Don't actively exclude people, but I don't consider it evil for you to have friends in round/on the circuit. People need to get over themselves.

Extemporaneous Speaking: Show me that you've adapted to the round. If you walk in with a speech and just read it verbatim, that's not going to impress me at all. I definitely give higher ranks to people who I see adapting in round; for example, if you get screwed on recency and you prep a speech on the other side in five minutes because it's all you can give, and the speech is decent, I'll (most likely) rank you up and view you favorably.

Questions: This is your time to build your narrative as a debater, poke holes in opponents' arguments, and remind me that you exist in a chamber of 20 people (I normally rank towards the end of the session, so if you gave early speeches, concentrating your questions towards the end is always a plus). If you screw up answering questions as a speaker, I will hold that against you when I rank. If you nail answering questions as a speaker, I might not rank you up because of that alone, but that does make a difference.

When direct questioning (30 sec back-and-forth) is in effect, questioning becomes a big factor in my rankings. You should demonstrate that you have knowledge of the subject and aim to poke a serious hole in your opponent's argument; if you pull off a really awesome line of questioning that forces the speaker to concede a point, you bet I'm marking that down as a reason to rank up your ballot.

Amendments: They're annoying as hell. Unless everyone's agreeing to it, or the bill needs it to function, please skip them. Shaming people for not voting for your amendment in your speech is childish.

And finally, Presiding: Good presiding officers can win a chamber for me, even in a national circuit final round. Bad POs will not be ranked. If you are flawless and in command of the round, expect top 3 or 4 from me (with some exceptions). If you mess up more than once or twice, you won't get ranked. We're all human, but I presided a lot, I know it's easy (I used to prep and write speech outlines while I presided), and I expect a lot.

If you have any questions, just ask.

I have judged a couple dozen PF rounds and a handful of LD and speech rounds too. I am not a flow judge. I take good notes and enjoy a respectful and passionate round. I do not favor speed in speaking and if you lose me you will not likely win the round.

I'm new to Public Forum judging, but a seasoned speech judge. Clear and well-paced delivery will help me listen to your arguments and track the flow better. You have prepared for the debate and familiar with the topic, I'm not. Please be sure to explain terms you think might be new to a lay person, so we are on the same page. I keep personal beliefs and opinions out of judging. Logical reasoning, evidence and a civil debate gets my vote.

This is my 3rd year judging high school LD. I judge based on what I can understand, so that is bad news for those who "spread" because I cannot evaluate the merits of your argument if I cannot follow the words in spite of my best effort. I prefer logically consistent arguments, supported by evidence. In real life, demagoguery often wins debates, but I have not yet met anybody polished enough to pull that off in any of the LD events that I have judged. It is a high bar but I have great expectations and respect for everybody who is brave enough to engage in a public verbal duel.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Have fun! This is an special part of your life. Cherish it.

No new cards in second summary because as K Dot said, "Your rebuttal a little too late" (but you don't necessarily have to frontline in second rebuttal, only if you think it will be advantageous).

Jokes, puns, and references to hip-hop or popular shows Rick and Morty, Breaking Bad, American Vandal, Master of None, or The Office will be rewarded.

If for some reason this does not give you enough information about how I evaluate rounds, feel free to ask me in round!

I am a Coach, and I have been judging for close to a decade now. I am a teacher certified in English & Theatre, so my notes can get a bit technical, and come specifically from those perspectives. I tend to make notes and comments as I view, so they follow my flow of thought, and how I understand your developing argument, as your piece/debate progresses.

I have judged almost every event, including judging both speech and debate events at Nationals.

In true teacher and coach fashion, I WANT you to do well. So prove me right!

Paradigm for Congress

How I Rank: While the ballot on Tabroom only has a place to score speeches, it is not unlikely that room is full of great speakers. To fairly rank the room, I have a personal spreadsheet where I score individual speeches, as well as the categories below, to help separate the "great speakers" from the "great congresspersons". Think of it like a rubric for your English class project. Speeches are the biggest category, but not the only one.

Speeches: Do you provide a unique perspective on the bill, and not simply rehashing what has been said in the round already? Do you back up your reasoning with logos, ethos, AND pathos? Is your speech deep, instead of wide (more detail on one specific aspect of the bill, rather than trying to cover all angles of the bill)? Do you write with a clarity of style and purpose, with a good turn of phrase? Do you engage your listeners? Do you respond well to questions?

Questioning: Are your questions thoughtful and based on listening closely to the speaker, and what they actually said? Are your questions brief and to the point? Do you avoid simple yes or no, gotcha style questions? Does your questioning have a clear line of thinking? Do you connect questioning to previous speeches? Do you avoid prefacing?

Decorum: Do you follow the rules of the chamber? Do you follow speaking times? Do you speak calmly and collectedly? Do you ask or answer questions assertively, without being aggressive? Do you respect your fellow speakers?

Roleplay: Do your speeches reflect that you are a congressperson, and not a high school teenager? Do you think of your constituents? Do you consider yourself a representative of your state or District? Do you allow your RP perspective to make your speeches better, and not become a distraction? Do you participate in motions, seconding, etc?

Knowledge of Rules: Do you have an obvious and clear understanding of the rules? Do you follow them closely? Are there any egregious breaking of the rules?

Special Consideration for the Presiding Officer: The Presiding Officer is marked for one "speech" per hour. This score is a reflection of how well they perform the specific duties of PO. It concerns knowledge of the rules (at a higher expectation than the average congress competitor), the efficiency of the room, the fairness of the PO, and the demeanor of the PO (should be calming and welcoming). I also look at them for decorum and RP.

Paradigm for PFD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading? Are you avoiding logical fallacies?

Delivery of Message: Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing?

Evidence of Engagement: Are you actually listening to you fellow competitors? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing? Are you cooperating with your teammate?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on your team-mate, your coach, your school, and the District?

Paradigm for LD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Is your value interesting? Is your value criterion an adequate measure of your value? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading? Are you avoiding logical fallacies?

Delivery of Message: Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing?

Evidence of Engagement: Are you actually listening to you fellow competitor? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are you able to use their Value and/or Value Criterion to support your own argument? Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on yourself, your coach, your school, and the District?

I have a fairly straightforward perspective on my judging preferences. I am very much a traditional flow judge. I do not prefer progressive styles. I don't prefer spreading, and if a debater speaks so quickly that I have trouble understanding them, I will not be able to prefer their arguments.

Backing up your arguments with convincing evidence and telling me specifically why I should prefer your evidence over your opponent's will help you win the round. Extending your arguments throughout the flow and pointing out to me any concessions your opponent made in cross-ex or any arguments dropped by your opponent will greatly strengthen your case. Voter issues are helpful. Explain to me the reasons for why you believe you won the round. Clarity of thought and logic for me will trump fast speech every time.

Here are my preferences:

1) I really enjoy getting a solid framework to judge the round on, so defend your frameworks well and make them easy for me to understand why yours in winning and pertains to your case.

2) Don't just drop the "name" from the card halfway through the debate. If you bring up a card, please explain what the card says and why your evidence supersedes that of your opponent. I also don't like card debates where two teams simply disagree on what a card says, hence I will ask at the end of the round to see any cards that were called during the round.

3) I want to know the logic behind your evidence. Don't just drop a card and not explain why it makes sense.

4) Don't be rude, sarcastic, or misrepresent ideas in cx. It is my BIGGEST pet peeve.

Been judging debate (PF and LD only) for almost 20 years. Coached PF at Cary Academy last year. While I try to stay up on the "technical stuff," to me, this misses the point of debate as an educational or, for that matter, a persuasive activity. So, while I can probably follow whatever case you want to run, put me in the truth (vs tech) camp. Running a well executed rhetorically sound argument will be the best way to win my ballot.

As for style, clear communications will win the day. Can probably flow at whatever speed you choose to run, but I don't value quantity over quality, whereas I do value clarity over vagary.

In addition to advancing rhetorically sound arguments, I expect debaters to find the clash in the round and give me a standard with which to weigh it. Don't expect me to do that work for you. You don't want me imposing my sensibilities by picking some arbitrary standard for the round. Moreover, between two sound cases, I will prefer any reasonable standard to no standard at all (even for an otherwise compelling/sound cases). Word of caution, though, don't let the round devolve into a pure weighing debate. At the end of the day, I will vote for the side that presents the most compelling case for affirming or negating the resolution.

I have judged debate since 2001. From 2014-2021 I coached Public Forum and Speech events. I retired after 8 years as the Co-Director of Speech and Debate at Cary Academy in North Carolina in 2021.

DEBATE: In debate (LD/PF) I look for clear claims, evidence and links to logical, clear impacts showing contextual analysis. I flow each round and look for you to bring your arguments through the round, tell me the clash and how I should weigh.

I judge as if this activity is preparing you for the real world. I won't flow what I have to work too hard to follow or translate (read speed). Asking for evidence for common sense issues won't count either. You can use flow jargon, but tell me why. You want me to flow across the round? cross apply? for instance, tell me why. Don't exaggerate your evidence. Finally - I'm not here to show you how smart or clever I am by pretending to understand some sesquipedalian or sophomoric arguments (see what I did there?)- that means. 1.) do a kritik and you are going to lose because you failed to acknowledge that ideas can conflict and are worthy of discussion; 2.) "the tech over truthers" and other silly judging paradigms don't make you a more articulate conveyor of ideas once you have to "adult". I will know the topic, but judge like a lay judge. Convince me. Have fun and enjoy the activity!

CONGRESS: Well researched unique takes on a resolution are important. Simple stock arguments and analysis is easy. I look for you to look deeper into the consequences/outcome of passage. Don't rehash, not only is it boring but it suggests you needed to listen more closely. Refutation of previous speeches shows careful analysis in the moment and it shows you have more than the case you wrote the night before (even if you did :)). Presentation is also important. I don't like BS for the sake of being a good presenter but a balance of solid research, thoughtful analysis, ambitious and relevant refutation from a persuasive speaker will get high marks!

I did public forum for 3 years in high school, but it’s been a while since then - so consider me more of a “flay” judge (a little flow, a little lay). I can keep up with speed, but I'd prefer if you didn't spread - I think it's better to make a few great arguments than a lot of mediocre ones. In general, I'll believe any argument if it's well warranted. One exception: I don’t believe theory creates a constructive debate, and unless it’s very compelling I will much prefer to vote on topical arguments.

It's very important to me that you extend both the warrant and the impact of your main arguments in later speeches - it’s not enough to just say “extend this”, you need to make the argument. I don't think first summary has to extend defense unless you want to. Finally, if an argument is going to be in final focus, it has to be in summary, too; I generally won't consider new arguments in final focus. Please do explicit weighing in final focus, it makes my decision much easier.

If you have them, please use author qualifications the first time you cite a piece of evidence. If there's significant debate about a card in a round, I might call for it after the round. If you believe your opponents have misrepresented a piece of evidence in a round, please make it even easier for me and explicitly tell me to call for it.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me!

email: thomasowens2000@gmail.com

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

KAVITA PERSAUD
Judge Paradigm TRADITIONAL JUDGE

Background:
Current Debate Coach at Cape Fear Academy
Coaching High School Debate 2008-2013, 2015- current
Former High School Debater, Parliamentary Debate
Physician.

Philosophy:
Debate is an educational activity.
Debate is about communication.

Likes:
1. Debating the resolution
2. Advocacy of a position
3. Framework
4. Structure & Organization with clear sign-posting
5. Clash
6. Strategic Cross-Ex
7. Engaging Speaking Style
8. Courtesy
9. Crystallization and Weighing
10. Voting Issues

Dislikes:
1. Spreading
2. Non-topical Debates
3. Generic Kritiks
4. Theory unless clear abuse
5. Tricks
6. Rudeness
7. Extinction Impacts when not truly topical
8. Poorly selected evidence or improperly cited evidence
9. Jargon
10.

Please ask additional questions before the round.

I am a former debater and I've been coaching debate for 6 years. I'm a more traditional judge, in that I generally dislike super progressive arguements. I would describe myself as a flow judge at heart, though and I am always careful to make sure that the round is fair and my decision is unbiased.

I debated public forum for 2 years in Colorado. I like to see strong evidence for every argument; if you believe a piece of evidence is of particular importance in a round, please tell me. There will (hopefully) be a lot of clash, but if you can tell me why your evidence is more important than theirs on a major issue, you are more likely to get my vote.

Hey everyone! I did Arizona PF for four years, Congress for two, and sprinkles of other events (so yes, I know what a kritik is). I've also judged "full-time" in North Carolina for four years now, mostly PF and LD. I expect a respectful debate from both sides.

For PF, I'm pretty standard. Make sure to spend as much time as possible in your rebuttal speech attacking the opponent's case with specific attacks relating to points they brought up in constructive.

For LD, I'm ok with progressive stuff, but since all my experience is with PF and traditional LD, know that you're taking a risk there. If you do end up going progressive, please be clear as to why I must vote for you! Spreading is fine, but if you're going to talk super fast, please flash drive over your speech so I can follow along.

I vote off the flow, but make sure to weigh impacts in your final speeches - a little bit of narrative (just a little bit!) can go a long way into helping me understanding your side/arguments and voting for you. By narrative, I mean high level analysis of the round, talking about the big picture and not getting too bogged down in the contention level debate (this especially applies to the last few speeches for each side).

My general rule is "quality over quantity." You've probably heard that a billion times, but I truly have trouble understanding quick, one sentence responses to arguments, especially in rebuttal. Take time to develop each response, giving me the context and all of the logic behind it, instead of saying a couple words and expecting me to do the analysis on my own. Also, the more counter-intuitive/non-obvious/unique the point you're trying to make is, the more you have to "gift-wrap" it - I'm willing to listen to almost everything but I need a little more help on arguments that aren't stock/easily understandable. Again, I want to hear the entire logical picture from the debaters, instead of having to fill in gaps on my own. I specifically like listening to how different responses and contentions interact with each other (i.e. grouping after rebuttal speeches). That being said, if an argument is mostly there and is missing just a frivolous part I tend to be pretty sympathetic, but you don't want to rely on this.

For PF - I don't require 2nd speaking rebuttal to defend against responses in 1st speaking rebuttal, but I highly encourage it. I don't require 1st speaking summary to repeat attacks on the opponents case, unless 2nd speaking rebuttal defended their own case against the attacks.

High school Social Studies teacher, B.A. in History, politically unaffiliated. I believe that every person starts with a blank slate at the start of each round. I don’t mind spreading as long as your words are clear, please do not mumble.

I am a school coach, and I primarily work with competitors in speech events. This is my fifth year judging. When I judge a round, I look for the following:

1. I value signposting and explicitly stating the number of the contention that you are addressing throughout the debate.

2. If you don't clearly connect your evidence to your overall argument, I will not be convinced.

3. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity. I also need to be able to easily follow your logic, which is harder if a competitor spreads.

4. I value strong cross examination skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case will help you win the round.

5. Be confident but courteous in the round.

Traditional PF judge. Not a fan of progressive debate or excessive calling for evidence. Speed is fine but must be intelligible. Same holds for LD. For speech events, no special requests. Willing to give whatever time signals helps.

Background

I competed in Public Forum on the national circuit from 2013-2017. This is my fourth year coaching for Durham Academy in Durham, North Carolina. I currently am a senior attending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill majoring in Peace, War, and Defense with a concentration in international security and intelligence.

Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.

I will disclose unless the tournament tells me otherwise.

General

I will buy any argument and vote off of it. This includes kritiks and theory... Just warrant such arguments well.

I don't care if you paraphrase. Just don't misconstrue what your evidence actually says.

Split rebuttals are impressive/strategic but they are not necessary. Just make sure your first speaker frontlines effectively in summary. However, feel free to make their job easier and frontline for them in rebuttal.

My threshold for warranting arguments is very very high. If you are winning an argument in case or in rebuttal, clearly articulate the link chain of the argument when you are extending it. This does not mean shout random card names at me. Just walk me through the logical link chain of what you are extending.

Speed/Signposting

I can flow at just about any speed

However.....

If you are going to speak quickly, PLEASE SIGNPOST. ie: "We are winning our 2nd response on their first contention, which is *insert well explained warrant* *insert well explained impact*." I also do not know all the names of authors in your case so tell me what authors say!! Do not just extend specific authors!!

I flow fairly quickly but if I do not know where you are you will likely see me scrambling to figure out what to do with my flow. You should pay attention if I do this because that means slow down or signpost better.

Also....

If you have an issue with your opponents evidence make it very clear to me in the round. You can do this in many ways. Examples include reading your opponents evidence out-loud during a speech, explaining how the evidence is misread, and/or telling me to call for the evidence post round.

I will not call for your evidence unless asked to call for something. In my opinion, calling for evidence without a reason is a form of judge intervention.

How to get 30 speaks:

Make the round entertaining/make me laugh.

I personally hate rounds that are way too serious and debaters are not questioning the analytical logic of each others arguments in an entertaining way. This does not mean turn the round into a joke but rather pretend like there is an audience on the zoom call/in the back of the room. This is generally a good strategy to seem perceptually dominate too.

Hi! I debated LD for Ardrey Kell, graduating in 2018, both traditional and circuit debate. I'm a recent grad from UNC-Chapel Hill with a background in statistics & business, and I currently work in technology consulting. I (generally) know what I'm doing, but I haven't been involved in debate for a while now. Please keep this in mind when choosing your style and strategy! My email is juliannesinclair@gmail.com if you need it to send cases/evidence.

• I'm not opposed to spreading, but I don't feel confident in my ability to understand extremely high levels of speed being out of debate for such a long time. However, you can speak at a very quick conversational pace in front of me, especially if you are using speed for effective argument coverage.

• In a traditional round, read whatever you'd like! I'll use the V/VC debate in my decision, but I honestly care more about the topic-specific arguments you make. Please don't make me hear a debate on morality vs. justice as a value - it's not going to sway my decision! Consider how important the framework debate is in relation to both cases; winning FW isn't always necessary to win the debate.
• Please weigh arguments throughout the round, not just in the 2AR!
• I'm all good with topical Ks, policy arguments, and any traditional arguments.
• I'm probably not the judge to read theory in front of. Or tricks. I simply don't have the background to evaluate these debates.
• I also don't really have the background to be evaluating a very dense phil debate. I do enjoy unique frameworks, but I'm gonna need some extra background if it's not something that would be taught in Philosophy 101.
• Humor executed well will raise your speaks. Snarkiness can be great, but do not be mean to your opponent, especially if they are less experienced than you.
• On a similar note - do not read progressive arguments to confuse a less experienced / traditional opponent. I'm totally fine evaluating progressive debate arguments, but the round should be educational and fair for everyone involved.
• If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me before the round! :)

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

I've judged a few times over the past 4 years and did LD debate all 4 years of high school. I can keep up with pretty much any style, so I don't have preferences on what kind of debate you have. Just try to have a good time.

I am a traditional judge who has been part of the debate community for over a decade now. I look towards both the contention level arguments as well as the value framework. I am willing to consider progressive styles but I don't prefer it. As long as the speaker is clear I can handle speed, but I believe it is a test of skill to communicate more content with fewer words.

BACKGROUND:

I debated at Durham Academy for four years (2011-2015). After graduation, I worked at the Institute for Speech and Debate and briefly for Champions Briefs. For the last three years, I have coached for Durham Academy.

FLOWING:

I can keep up, but be clear and make it easy. Signpost. It’s always better to be clear rather than unnecessarily fast.

GENERAL:

I prefer well warranted arguments over random evidence that seems illogical. Don’t just tell me that something is logical or that it’s the most important — Tell me WHY your argument makes sense and WHY it’s more important than your opponents. That being said, I will still write down everything you say. There’s nothing crazy specific that I’m looking for you to do. Just make my job as easy as possible.

CROSSFIRES:

I try to listen to everything, but if something important was said, try to include it in a speech also.

SUMMARY/FF:

Dont extend through ink. If there’s conflicting arguments or evidence, weigh or try to take the debate further (don’t just restate the same things over and over). 1st summary doesn't need to extend defense, but just be smart and strategic. Respond to turns on your case, and if you don’t, explain why you’re not responding. Weigh. Most importantly, tell me a clear, consistent story about why you won the round -- write the ballot for me.

Background info: Former Policy Debater (Ohio), History, Government and Econ Teacher (NC), American History Professor (NC) BA in History and Poli sci, MA in American History (emphasis on Women's history). I now coach LD, PF, Congress and Speech events and have had the pleasure of jumping into World Schools.

I'm pretty easy going and do not mind spreading in LD so long as you are clearly speaking when doing it. Not such a fan of PF speaking super quickly as that's not really the point of that event. Make good use of time but don't rush it. Outside of that in these events feel free to ask for any other concerns you may have. Happy to answer before a round starts.

Update on WSD: I do value the flow but also want to see WS norms happening in the round. Take POIs and engage with each other when time allows. I'm not a huge fan of first speech getting into refutation as two other speeches do that I would rather 1st speech take some POIs and develop your sides case. Please remember this is WSD US centric arguments happen based on the motion but I really value some international attention happening regardless of motion as I think it shows broader understanding of the World as a whole .Not to mention a countries decisions do not occur in a bubble and international events do impact other countries decisions, US included.

I am the coach of Scarsdale HS and have been in the activity for 20 some odd years

LD

These days I tend to tab rather than judge so I am generally out of practice. Treat me as you would an educated parent judge. Go slow and clear. Signpost. Weigh

As a more traditional judge, I prefer to hear arguments that are actually about the topics. I will listen to any well reasoned and explained arguments though although voting on argument not about the topic will probably make me want to give poor points.

PF

i would prefer fewer cards and stats that are actually contextualized and explained than a slurry of paraphrased nonsense. Anyone can make individualized stats dance, but a solid debater can explain the context of that work and how it links to other pieces of info

I debated in the late 90's. I believe in the Value Premise and Criterion. I think there should be clash. Rounds should be in a conversational speed. If I am yelling clear, I am missing an argument. I will stop flowing. I am not a blank slate judge nor will I drop someone for dropping an unreasonable argument. The last speeches are for providing voters and writing my ballot. If there is no connection back to the VP/ your position, I feel there is no ground for me to vote. I do not vote for Kritiks. I do believe a discussion with a debater about the round is ok. I think understanding points of view helps with communicating your cases in later rounds. I will not switch my decision.

I am new to LD, but look forward to judging. I am a parent of four, and an avid reader with an interest in a variety of perspectives. I am also a fan of politics, (old school) and have experience in the journalism profession, (also old school). As an LD judge, I will value strength and consistency of a well researched argument. I’m sure I will be impressed by those who best demonstrate clarity of position, and perception in discerning and refuting opponents’ assertions.

Heather Weisz

Feel free to ask any specific questions you may have before and/or after the round :)

Experience:

I debated PF in high school and was a Policy debater at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. I have been judging and coaching debate for a while, and currently coach at St. Paul Academy.

Public Forum Paradigm:

My paradigm isn't anything ground breaking (I mainly like to see debaters have fun and try their best), but here are a few guidelines:

- I love it when teams have a thesis and consistent story that they link back to and articulate throughout the round: what do we get out of a vote for the Aff? For the Neg?

- Speed: I don't care for speed in PF - it typically results in unclear speaking and blippy arguments, which are both bad.

- Links are very important. If you try to gain access to an impact, but lack strong links, it is very hard to vote for you. If you and your opponent have arguments with direct clash, comparing the links/warrants is the best way to come out ahead.

- Both teams will have impacts. If you want me to vote for you, weigh your arguments!!

- Smart analytics can beat cards.

- Jargon is not a substitute for making a complete argument.

- "Off-time road maps" are unnecessary in pf. I should be able to tell what you are talking about during your speech.

- CX: I like cx and think its underutilized in pf! I appreciate when debaters ask good questions and set up the arguments they are going to make, and especially like it when good points made in cx are applied/referenced in speeches.

- Framework: Make sure you address it if it comes up, and make sure you explain it if you are running it. Often times in PF, the proposed framework is actually more of a weighing mechanism and works fine for both teams, so it's okay to agree to it. Other times, framework is used as a cheap way to gain an unwarranted advantage, which should be called out.

- Extension: Complete extension requires warranted explanation of an argument, not just author names.

- Final Focus: Your final focus should basically write my ballot for me - tell me what I am voting on and why. If it doesn't show up in the summary, I am not going to weigh it in the final focus.

- Calling for evidence: First, consider whether whatever you are hoping to gain from calling for a card can be resolved with a good crossx question (i.e. do you really need to call the card?). If you do call a card, know exactly what you are asking for and ask for it right after the speech or at the top of CX so that the partner not participating in CX can pull the ev (i.e. don't waste time/use card requests as a way to steal prep). Lastly - I find it weird when people call for cards and then don't bring it up in their speeches - what was the point? TLDR: Be efficient, ethical, and smart about calling for cards.

In conclusion:

Please make complete, intelligent arguments. Please be respectful. Please remember to have fun!!!

************************************

Policy Paradigm:

Add me to the chain! welbo009@umn.edu

Clarity is important. I tend to do better at flowing slower teams, but only because most super-fast teams are v unclear. I don't want to have to look at the docs to understand what's going on. I won't say "clear" - if I'm not flowing, its a pretty good indicator that I can't understand you.

Ev quality and highlighting are important (I will check specific ev if I think it is important to the round or if you tell me to, but ev comparison should be done by debaters in round - I want to avoid judge intervention).

Impact calc is important. I do not think you have to have an extinction impact to win the round, but answer them if you are going for something else.

I'm open to pretty much any type argument, but I don't like when arguments are presented in such a way that only a subject matter expert/someone deep in the lit can understand it.

Smart analytics can beat cards.

In conclusion:

Please make complete, intelligent arguments. Please be respectful. Please remember to have fun!!!

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for 2 years. I judge based on what I can understand, so I prefer a slower debate... a clear and understandable speech is essential to win. I like the structural debate with framework, and strong evidence to address arguments. I like strategic cross examination and voting issues. Your behavior and language have to be appropriate...being confident and courteous is important.