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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jorman.antigua@gmail.com

school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate

in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance

my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)

I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)

speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...

counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case

dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios

k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...

preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...

framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)

theory: sure

short & sweet

#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)

I have four years of experience debating, workshopping, and judging cases for novice and varsity PF, and I am a current sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania.

1. Please do not spread. In my experience, spreading is used more as an intimidation tactic than as a true measure of logical coherence or debating skill. I understand that there are amazingly talented debaters who use this tactic. However, an adept debater should be able to concisely deliver their argument and select only the most effective or appropriate information to present--not simply rely on the crutch of swamping the opposing team with all relevant information. If spreading is absolutely an inextricable part of your practice, I will allow it within reason, but I'd prefer if you clear it with me beforehand and give me a heads-up. I will dock points for spreading that is continually deemed excessive, inappropriate, or obnoxious after I have previously commented on it.

2. Don't card-dump. This makes it difficult to confirm the credibility of your sources and arguments, and I will not include it in my flow.

3. Roadmaps and signposting are appreciated. They help me to not miss anything in my flow, and assure me that you are aware of your own arguments' positions in the context of the larger debate.

4. Don't call for every card. Unless it is relevant to a point you are intending to make or valuable for understanding context, if can easily become excessive and disrupt the flow of the debate. (That being said, this is subjective and I tend to be more lenient on this point.)

5. Define your acronyms and jargon--either in-debate or beforehand. I am not an expert in what you are debating.

6. Be ethical in your evidence sourcing. If your card is called and the actual content is significantly different from how you construed it, I'll drop it from my flow.

7. You will be respectful and courteous to your opponents. While I understand that getting heated is a natural part of debate, the strength of your arguments does not matter if you are abrasive and unprofessional. I will dock considerable points for behavior deemed condescending, intimidatory, or rude.

I am a lay judge with a couple years experience. I appreciate structure (rebuttal should be used to rebut your opponent’s case; focus should be used to tell me why your argument wins), and I will try to follow your flow. If you get me early in the tournament, you should explain acronyms and detailed points before assuming that I know what you’re taking about. You’re the expert, you need to make sure I understand your points. Please refrain from jargon and technical debate terms. I know what a block is, but I get lost when a team refers to terms they may have heard a coach use. I understand better when you use plain english to explain your structure and the effectiveness and meaning of your arguments. Unless you are amazingly talented, speaking ridiculously fast will be lost on me. You will be polite and respectful to your opponents.

Background:

I debated Public Forum for four years at The Blake School on the national circuit including breaking at TOC and Nationals. I also had some experience in Policy and Worlds debate.

I am currently a junior at the University of Pennsylvania.

Paradigm:

TL; DR: Flow judge who prefers debaters reading actual evidence over pure analytics or summarizing/paraphrasing

Feel free to ask any questions you may have before round

(Credit: A lot of this is taken from the great Christian Vasquez/Ellie Singer)

Evidence

For any card you read in the round, I expect that you can produce them if your opponent asks for them. This means that if you're claiming Johnson 17 says this, you can pull up that card in a reasonable time. Reasonable to me is within a two minute if it's in your constructive, and within a few more if it's in the rebuttals or summaries. Taking unreasonably long amounts of time means I'm just going to wipe it off my flow. You're wasting your time, your opponents' time, and delaying the tournament. I've seen rounds where it's taken more than ten minutes total for people to produce evidence and it's ridiculous.

I am not a fan of shady evidence ethics. At all. If I call for a card and it's very different from what you said it claims and how it actually reads, I'm dropping it from my flow. I will try to be explicit about what cards I'm calling for and the authors. If I'm wrong, correct me immediately, as I want to make sure I'm looking at the right piece of evidence.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I do not think it is fair for a team to claim what they are reading is simply them paraphrasing a several page PDF. Prep time is just not long enough for your opponents to hold you accountable if they have to read more than maybe a couple paragraphs. If I call for a card and you tell me that its summarizing these 5 pages of some PDF, I'm going to be very skeptical if you cannot point to me exactly where what you are arguing can be found.

Rebuttal Split

TL; DR: Second speaking team ought to split

If you are the second speaking team, I expect that you will respond to the speech that happened before yours at some point in your rebuttal. Zero split between attacking their case and rebuilding your own doesn't constitute an automatic loss or clean extensions on their part, but I'm going to be a lot less accepting of brand new answers in the second summary when the first speaking team doesn't have any time to deal with them. I'll be a lot more forgiving of extensions by the first team as long as they point out the ridiculousness of the new answers. I don't require a perfect two minutes-two minutes, but something has to be done to make the debate fair. Otherwise, the second speaking team should just win day in and day out, unless they're making continuous strategic mistakes and dropping everything on the flow.

Summary and Final Focus

TL;DR: Needs to be in both to be voted on

If you want something to be a voting issue in the final focus, it also needs to be in the summary. If you're just trying to extend everything, your analysis is probably dropping off because of it. I want to see weighing in depth and not making blippy arguments.

Speaker points

I base my speaker points largely on the quality of the arguments made and less about more typical Speech-style considerations. I am more forgiving on clarity and some stumbling through words than maybe some other judges because I know things out of your control like braces, etc. can effect your speaking (I know from experience).

My average is a 27 for the losing team and a 28 for the winning team. A 30 to me means that both good argumentation and also persuasive speaking. Somethings that can help you with getting a higher score:

A) I like clever lines of questioning. In PF this is a little bit more difficult to do, since crossfire is double-sided but I think it can still be done. You're never going to get a good opponent to concede some major point by just blatantly asking if they're wrong. Rather, asking small questions that build up and setting a trap is not just strategic, but makes me impressed as a judge

Things that will not help your points:

A) Rudeness. Cutting off your opponent repeatedly without letting them answer isn't helpful and I don't want to see it.

B) Sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise hateful language. I'll drop your points to whatever the tournament forces me to stop at. If it continues in round, it'll cost you the round too.

Theory

TL;DR: As someone who did make theory arguments here and there in Public Forum in high school, I'm receptive to them in PF. Make sure they make sense.

I think as debate evolves, it's sometimes right to introduce a discussion on theory into a round or two. For it to be a voting issue for me I need to hear first an interpretation argument, how your opponent violates that, how that impacts the debate, and what I'm supposed to do as the judge.

Kritiks/Critical Arguments/Ks

While I am willing to hear these arguments and ran them myself on occasion in high school, I would not say that I have the same technical depth of knowledge as someone who might have done policy for four years. So, if you are going to try to run something especially complex that is not commonly seen inside circuit-y Public Forum circles, then make sure to explain it so I understand how the argument works. However, if the topic or your opponent's argument lends itself to critical arguments, then I will gladly hear them and encourage you to run them.

Debated for four years for a small school in Northern California with experience in PF and LD. Did PF my last year of high school and accrued two TOC bids (1 Gold and 1 Silver) as well as state and national quals. Currently debating with the Penn Debate Society.

I am also a current freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying Finance.

Note for UPenn tournament: No exposure to the topic at all --> Make sure to contextualize everything

Quick summary: Experience Public Forum debater who values warranting over reading 5-10 blocks per argument. If you don't warrant, I won't value it in the round, and I may not even flow it. Love turns and I am fine with any speed. Ks, Theory, Topicality debates are acceptable, but I'm limited in my understanding so do so at your own risk. PLEASE signpost and make clear voters.

Evidence: Coming from a small school, evidence stockpiles against were us quite common and it is hard to sort through a lot of evidence in a short period of time. Oftentimes, we'd look for certain cards after round and they'd be misconstrued or even plainly made up. As a result, I'm very strict in terms of evidence standards. Please provide each card to your opponent/and or judge under 2 minutes along with showing them where exactly your paraphrased statement lies. If it takes more than a reasonable amount of time to find your evidence and point it out, that piece of evidence will be thrown out of the debate. I also will be calling for a number of cards after round to quickly fact check. The same procedure in regard to time will take place.

Speed: Anything goes --> However, I will yell clear if you're I'm no longer able to understand you. 3 clears without any change in the speed/clarity of your voice will result in no more ink on the flow for your speech. My average is probably around a 27-27.5. Being the most technical in the round won't win you the debate so don't focus on that. Focus on swaying the judge with warranting/analysis, clear blocks/rebuttals, and making the most sense intuitively for me as a judge.

Speaks: Speaks are dependent on your lay appeal and your strategic moves in the round. If you're blatantly aggressive or rude then it may be a reason to drop you but it'll definitely lower your speaker points into a lower range.

Extensions: Everything in your final focus must be mentioned in your summary. Otherwise, your argument will be dropped and not flowed. If you extend an argument because your opponent doesn't touch it, make sure to explain why the extension exists and clarify its impacts.

Final Focus: Please tell me why you won. Give me clear numbered voters as to where you won on the flow and why. Give me a story about the round rather than me after round having to put together the parts.

Bonus points for free food or if you can make me laugh in the round!

Speech:

I am a relatively inexperienced speech judge but have plenty of experience in forensics. Please feel free to ask any questions.

Public Forum:

Flow judge.

Stating something that contradicts what your opponents have said isn't debating; it's disagreeing. AKA implicate your responses and don't repeatedly extend through ink.

I look for the path of least resistance when I'm deciding a round.

If you misrepresent evidence, I will drop you.

Theory: Generally, I don't think theory belongs in PF debate. I think PF is unique in the sense that accessibility is an integral part of the activity and in my opinion the speed at which debaters often have to speak and the evidence cited in theory shells are simply not accessible to the public at large. That being said, I understand the value of theory with respect to protecting competitors from abuses in round and out of respect for all debaters and arguments alike I will listen and flow theory and evaluate it in the round. I've even voted for a team who ran it once. All I'll say is the only thing worse than running theory is doing it badly. If you don't know what you're doing and you don't actually have a deep understanding of the theory that you're running and how it operates within a debate round, I wouldn't recommend that you run it in front of me. Lastly, if you're going to run theory you should know that I really value upholding the standard that you run in and out of rounds and across all topics.

Experience:

Debated in PF during all four years of HS for Bronx Science, dabbled in Policy for a year at Emory. Coached for 3+ years. Currently a law student at Emory.

Judged various forms of debate since 2013.

Please add me the to email chain: bittencourtjulia25@gmail.com

I am a parent lay volunteer. Here are a few tips for how I judge:

1. Spreading - Speak at a reasonable, lay-person speed.

2. Jargon - I am not a debater and I don't spend much time in your world. Use real words that real people understand.

3. Etiquette - Be polite to each other. I don't care how strong your arguments are. If you're a jerk, it will affect my opinion.

4. I do take careful notes and try to flow.

5. Please signpost. It helps me track arguments.

I am a parent lay volunteer. I am reasonably experienced at this point in local and national tournaments (70+ rounds).

Here are a few insights on how I judge:

1. Speak at a reasonable, lay-person clip please.

2. Language - I haven't gone to debate camp and I don't hang out on the r/debate boards. I feel like I'm wasting my time when teams are throwing fragmented jargon at one another, like they're in a late-night side conversation. Your goal is not just to win the argument, but to win the audience. Articulate your ideas using real words that real people understand.

3. Be polite and respectful to each other. No condescension. No snark. I'll definitely take some humor, especially if it's self-deprecating, because this would ideally be fun for all of us.

4. I do take notes. I try to flow, but I'm sure not in ways you'd approve of. Let me know where you are in your arguments. I appreciate evidence, and I'll weigh it. I like clear, clean lines of logical thinking. I find that I weigh for plausibility. In other words, if one side is resting on something that has demonstrably happened or is based on past performance, it may tend to outweigh a hypothetical extreme-nightmare-megadeath scenario that I'm hard-pressed to believe will happen.

Extra credit: If you are participating in this debate, you are smart and brave. You are on your way to accomplishing great things. Debate can help develop critical thinking. It helps strengthen the foundation for civic engagement. But Public Forum is by design about the art of persuasion.

Where do the skills you hone in PF exhibit themselves in the adult world? Law...politics...policy...academia.

If you're a lawyer, you need to match wits with others deeply versed in the law. But you likely also need to convince people with little or no understanding of the law that you are right and the other side is wrong.

Same goes with politics. If you can't communicate to the average person effectively, you and your ideas are unlikely to win.

And the weaknesses in policy and academia are found when the ability and willingness to communicate to and persuade the average person is neglected.

High school debaters can too easily immerse themselves in the insular culture of debate. You're best served by focusing more in round on reaching and winning over your audience. Those are the toughest and most needed skills you can develop, in my view.

Fewer facts, connected logically to prove a thesis through deduction, give the Debaters a higher likelihood to consistently bring across the core elements of the thesis throughout the debate, and effectively fend off the attacks of the opponent.

The Debaters which decide to use several warrants will have more ammunitions to rebut the opponent contentions, but they will take a riskier path as a complex thesis may not be elaborated properly in the time given to debater, breaking the chain of deduction and leaving the judge with an impression of incompleteness and possibly of confusion.

Speaking slowly and clearly adds value and strength to arguments, allowing debaters to make their speeches personal and effective.

Personal opinions will not obfuscate the ability of a good Judge to be impartial and to reward the Debaters that will best master the art of deductive logic through an effective and personal speech.

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

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

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

I'm a current junior at Penn studying economics, and this is my first time back in the debate world since graduating from high school 3 years ago. As such, I expect interesting arguments, but would also appreciate crystallization and signposting on key points to help make decisions clearer (I'm a little rusty!). The easiest way to win my ballot is to make me interested in your argument—convincing evidence, nuanced point of view, and good presentation. If you clash with an opponent over a point, I want to know why I should buy your argument over theirs.

I will be awarding speaker points based on delivery and engagement; so if I can follow your speech well and you express character/make it a little funny/generally make me smile at all (or feel something), you'll score better with me. Basically, have fun with it and make it more than just a battle over evidence.

No spreading; no theory; and honestly throw in a meme reference or two.

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

😤 WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS 😤

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

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

If your argument is remotely false I will drop you.

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

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

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

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

Other

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

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

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

For email chains/evidence exchange: chancey.asher@gmail.com

I am a lay parent judge. I am looking at Contentions, Rebuttals, Extend, Impact, Weighing. Also, I am looking at your links - if you are trying to link to an impact of 8 billion lives lost because whatever this debate is about will lead to global thermonuclear war and the end of humanity, I PROBABLY won't buy it.

What is your impact, and why is it greater than your opponent's impact?

I also love clean rounds. I start to lose focus when a round gets bogged down in technical disputes.

Background:

I am a parent judge who has been judging for around 3 years and consider myself a flay judge. I'm trained as a scientist so logical argument supported by evidence is what I am looking for. I usually read up about the topic beforehand, so I have some knowledge about it.

Preferences:

I am more tech over truth but the argument needs to be believable for an easier win (I am a little more tech than you might imagine)

Please collapse and weigh your arguments against your opponents' arguments (Quality > Quantity)

I flow but I won’t flow if you’re too fast or hard to understand

I vote of the flow but good speaking always helps

I will call for cards usually if they are important for your case in the round. I take evidence very seriously and will drop you if I find it misconstrued.

Theory: I know nothing about theory or how to evaluate it. If you run it there is a high probability that I won't evaluate it.

Don’t be rude or offensive and don’t interrupt during cross or you’ll get dropped

I debated for a year at west orange high.

I do not know the topic so take this into consideration

Preferences~

* Weighing. If none is done, I will have to do it myself.

* Being nice. Toxicity will not be tolerated 😤

* I take notes and try to flow but it has been a while since I last debated so please SIGNPOST

Speaks~

* I only hand out between 28-30 speaks UNLESS something racist, abelist, sexist, or anything blatantly offensive is said in round.

What I don't like~

* Theory, Kritiks, or any "progressive" arguments. I do not know how to evaluate it.

* Spreading. Please speak at an understandable pace.

Bio/History: I am a junior at Bard Queens HS. This is my first year of judging, however I have been debating for the past six years. I currently mainly do PF but I have parli experience as well (World Schools and AP).

How I will evaluate your round: Aff needs to prove that their side is better than the status quo and they need to provide solvency. Neg has to prove that there are serious disadvantages to voting aff. Please please please extend your arguments through. If you are going to bring it up in final focus, set it up in summary (no extending through ink). Don't just repeat your arguments in final focus, that's a waste of time.

Arguments: I am going into a round with a blank slate. Tell me why your impacts matter. Explain your links. I will follow an argument if it is explained well but you should do the heavy lifting for me.

This should go without saying but please be respectful. No racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or generally hateful language. This will automatically lose you the round.

Hi! I'm Shreyoshi (for pronunciation it's like Shrey, then Yoshi from Mario Kart = Shreyoshi). I'm a junior at Penn with a business background, and I currently debate for Penn's parliamentary debate team. I debated for 4 years for Flower Mound High School on the Dallas circuit and debated for Team USA my senior year of high school. Relevant experiences are: 3 years of VLD on local and some nat circuit tournaments, 1 year of PF, 4 years of Extemp, 3 years of World Schools Debate.

TLDR; I'm a flow judge. I'm fine with any arg as long as it's not racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. In terms of speed on a scale of 1-10, where 10 is like TOC level, I'm probably a 6-7 but I'll yell clear if I need you to adjust. I'll be annoyed if I have to do it over and over again though. I don't care about the format/structure of the args, but just signpost if the arg isn't set up in a conventional way/is confusing. I'm also not that great at evaluating theory to be honest so proceed at your own risk if you want to run it. Overall, just be chill :) More details below:

Speaks: I start at a 28 and go up or down from there. I take strategy, quality of argumentation, and how much of a jerk/nice person you are in round into account when giving speaker points. I actually value how you treat your opponent probably slightly more than the average college student judge because I remember high school debate being very toxic at times and one contributing factor was debaters being rude/overly aggressive towards their opponents as an intimidation tactic. I care a lot about preventing that kind of stuff, so please don't be that person because I WILL call you out.

Weighing: Please do it! I don't care what type of weighing you do as long as it's reasonable. You'd be surprised by how few people actually weigh :(

Misc: Slow down when you really want me to get something down (especially card names!) because to be honest I probably can't flow as fast as some of you, so I might miss some details.

LD Specific:

Types of arguments: Anything but T/theory lol. Like I said before, I won't hate you or anything if you run theory if there's actual abuse but I'm just bad at evaluating it so you really need to make it clear what I'm voting on if you want to win off the shell. Friv theory will make me annoyed, as will blippy 3 minutes of theory spikes at the end of the AC. Ks, disads, counterplans, etc. are all fine with me. I was mainly a framework and LARP debater in high school, so I understand those args best. I'm not as familiar with dense critical literature, so just make sure you take the time to explain that material if you run it (i.e. please don't spread through 7 minutes of Baudrillard and expect me to understand everything).

PF Specific:

Framework: If you don't give me a specific framework to evaluate the round under, I'll default cost benefit analysis. BUT, I will be more happy if you offer a more unique/nuanced framework because I personally think that makes for a more interesting debate. However, if you're not comfortable doing that or it doesn't fit your case, don't do it just because you think I'll like it. If you do it really poorly, I probably won't.

Types of Arguments: Feel free to run progressive style arguments like Ks, disads, counterplans, etc. in PF if you want. I used to run that stuff all the time when I competed, so I'm not picky. In terms of evidence, I prefer actual analysis/warranting your cards much more than just listening to you read off 7 cards in a row. Like even a sentence or two after a set of cards explaining what the actual implication of that evidence is for the round is better than nothing. This also means I'm moderately lenient if people don't have super specific evidence to respond to a niche argument - I think giving compelling, logical reasons for why someone's claim isn't true despite what their evidence says is much more impressive than reading a mediocre 1-2 line card that only kinda sorta responds to it.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask! I want to make sure everyone feels comfortable and as relaxed as possible in these rounds. Also, please ask if you want more detailed feedback after the round because I'm happy to give it. Have fun and good luck! :)

I'm a junior at Bryn Mawr studying Political Science and Classics. I did debate for 4 years in high school (Congress, so consider me a lay-person when it comes to PF).

Speak clearly and strategically, and signpost your argument. If you start spreading, I won't follow your argument. If you haven't structured your argument, I won't follow your argument. If I misunderstand your argument, it's because you don't understand your own argument well enough to articulate it or convince others.

Use evidence, cite fully and honestly, don't misrepresent statistics. Impact everything, feel free to meta-analyze impacts. How well you do in cross will heavily impact my decision. Tell me how you want the debate evaluated. Be aggressive, be sarcastic, be courteous.

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

--

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

---

Speech is cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines. I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me.

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background in Policy, very flow oriented. If you spread, slow down on tags. I will also say "CLEAR" if you aren't being coherent. Don't make me say CLEAR more than twice in a round.

Make sure you extent your arguments through the round or else I will hesitate to vote vote for them. This means extent your case through to the summary and final focus, no need to extent them in your rebuttal. Your rebuttal should mostly be used to refute your opponents case.

Cross-Ex should be cordial, and feel free to ask for each other's evidence.

Towards the end of round, I like when you point out to me your voters, and I want you to impact calc them.

Mis-tagging or mis-using evidence to prove a point which the cards don't warrant is a severe mistake in my book. The cards don't have to be perfect, just don't use blatantly bad evidence.

General:

I am a lay judge. I do follow the flow, but I don't judge exclusively on that;

You may sit or stand to present but both teams will do the same. If the room is cramped, it’s better you stay in your seat;

If you are going to speak quickly, your elocution needs to be good enough for me to understand you;

I do not run a clock on time, track your own time and keep your opponents honest about theirs;

If you are relying on an electronic device to make your speeches and it goes down, I will run your prep time until it is corrected. If you run out of time, I expect you to continue without it. If you can’t, I will consider that a forfeit;

I have a thorough knowledge of statistics so making arguments that go off the deep end (speculative) or citing sources with a statistically insignificant sample size, or "cherry-picked" data or conclusions will diminish the impact of your card.

Misrepresenting cards will cost you, whether done intentionally or not;

You may use an off-time road map to state the sequence of your argument but do not use it to make your case.

About me:

I have an engineering background and work in the heavy construction industry. I am swayed by facts, data, logic, and reason and do my best to avoid emotion in decisions at it mostly leads to failure or disaster in the realm of the physical sciences where I work.

My hobbies include history, particularly military history, automobiles, woodworking, outdoor sports, and evolutionary behavior/genetics.

I judge LD and PF at all levels. I debated all throughout high school: in LD my freshman year and in PF for the subsequent three (NCFL, NJFL, NFL). I have been judging debate for over 10 years.

For email chains, my email is taylordiken@gmail.com.

Style

• Theoretical arguments are welcome if you can reason them through. In Public Forum, though, you also need evidence to back up your claims.
• I dislike spreading, and if you spread for every speech WITHOUT signposting, you will likely see that taken off in speaker points. If you need to speed up to get all of your points in, that's fine once or twice, but policy-level speed is not my preference.
• Most importantly: please be civil during your rounds. Everyone at a meet/tournament is an adult and should be treated like one. If you talk down to your opponents, you will absolutely have speaker points taken off.
• Where it is allowed, I do give low point wins. The easiest way to make sure you get the speaker points you're looking for is to speak clearly and politely throughout the round.

Technicalities

• Time yourself, time your partner, and time your opponents. Keep each other honest. As the judge, I will keep the official time.
• No new evidence can be presented after the second crossfire - I will not flow it and you'll waste your time. No new arguments should be presented after grand cross.
• Summary is a summary and final focus is a final focus. Do not use summary as a rebuttal or FF as a summary.
• When required, I disclose only the result of the round. I do not give oral critique. I generally do not answer questions after the round like "What did you think of x" as it gives the debater(s) an unfair advantage. I write any comments on the ballot instead so the information goes to your coach as well.

Judging

• I vote off the flow. I try to take down every argument made and follow it throughout the round. That means I'll know if you mistakenly extend a point or even an entire contention, and you will definitely lose that point/contention if you pretend you've won when you haven't. That means the FF of "and my opponent dropped X and Y and Z" doesn't fly when I have the flow of the opponent actually addressing X, Y, and Z right in front of me.
• If you have eleven subpoints to a contention for the sole purpose of confusing your opponent, I'm likely not going to extend them if the opponent runs out of time at point three.

I hate judging and if I could, I would not do it. I am a teacher at a small team trying to enable my kids to participate in this activity and empower their voices- I am not here to crush anyone’s dreams. That said I know nothing about public forum so please consider me lay when debating. (This was written by my students to prevent judge screws-you can thank them later.) I do not disclose, do not ask me to disclose-if you do I will drop you. Do not spread, if you spread I will put my pen down and not flow you. (Any kind of speed for that matter, will make it more difficult for me to understand you so for your sake, please speak slow.) Please time yourself, I will not be timing you so I suggest also timing your opponents.Tell me when you are taking prep. If during crossfire you dodge a question, I will simply flow that point to your opponent’s side.

I do not want to think during this debate. Spelling out the clear points of clash, with reasons for why you are winning, with weighs, during summary makes me more inclined to vote for you.

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

#1) Ad Hominems

#2.) Straw Man Arguments

#3.) Appeals to Ignorance

#4.) Red Herrings

#5.) Appeals to Hypocrisy

#6.) The Sunk Cost Fallacy

#7.) Appeals to Authority

#8.) Hasty Generalizations

#9.) Appeals to Pity

#10.) Causal Fallacies

Weigh or else I will be sad :(

I debated LD (and occasionally PF) for 4 years at Citrus Valley High School in California. I'm currently a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania.

I will vote off of any argument so long as it is well-warranted and links back to a framework. For extensions, I don't need a full regurgitation of the argument for extensions, but say something more than "Extend ______". You do not have to extend defense in your summary speech. I will flow any argument you make but I won't do your work for you and add extensions that don't exist.

Avoid clash that goes nowhere. If aff has a card that says one thing and neg a card that says the opposite, make sure to explain why your evidence should be preferred rather than just stating that you have it. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash.

Please stay organized in your speeches and have clear signposts for arguments. I can't flow your arguments if I am looking for where to flow it. In the final focus, take the time to crystallize your arguments and flesh out your impacts. Do the weighing of the round and make it clear why you are winning.

Your weighing mechanism should be justified, but don’t spend too much time on it if it is common (util, deon, etc.). Also, avoid pointless framework debates if your frameworks are essentially the same (util vs. cba). I believe framework should divide ground evenly so I usually don't go for abusive frameworks.

I believe that though PF is a team event, each partner should be able to function individually, no yelling points at your partner during their individual speeches/cx.

I don't have a problem with speed, and I'll say "clear" if I can't understand you, but it probably means I've already missed something. If it's not on my flow, I can't vote off of it. For speaks, I start from a 27 and usually move up from there. Competitors should be generally polite to each other. A good performance in CX will boost your speaker points.

Please be prompt to rounds and come ready to debate (pre-flow beforehand) so there isn't idle time.

Most importantly, be nice to each other and have fun with the activity!

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

I am a volunteer parent judge with experience in the Wilson Wyatt Debate League and the Kentucky Debate League.

I look for strong arguments, contentions, supported by logic and facts. Quality and clarity are more important than quantity with respect to factual support. I look for strong rebuttals and lively exchanges. Strong command of the issue and preparedness are readily apparent.

I am a parent judge who sees the many advantages of a good old fashioned debate. I am a new and relatively inexperienced judge

Please speak clearly at an average speed. If I put my pen down change your speed.

I like clear warrants and strength over aggression. Use evidence honestly, cite your sources. Impact everything. Debaters need to signpost and offer organized arguments.

Put me on the chain: sandrewgilbert@gmail.com

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

About Me

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

Big Picture

I'm tech > truth.

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

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

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

Specific Preferences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I am a debate coach, I prefer that you act as though I were a lay judge.

Here are a few tips for how I judge:

1. Spreading - Speak at a reasonable, lay-person speed.

2. Jargon - Use real words that real people understand.

3. Etiquette - Be polite to each other. I don't care how strong your arguments are. If you're a rude or loud, it will affect my opinion.

4. I do take careful notes and try to flow.

5. Please signpost and stress impacts. It helps me track arguments.

I look for clear, logical, and well-supported arguments. Signposting and a conversational pace of speed are important. I also look for a debater to actually engage his or her opponent's arguments, not just to reiterate their own points that were made in their initial case.

I do not like speed, spreading, excessive jargon, critiques, or other unconventional arguments.

Social studies teacher that appreciates the value of an organized and well articulated debate, meaning, clear contentions with strong supporting evidence. I am conscious to put my own subjective bias on the back burner and will intently listen to your case. You need to be able to understand the evidence aside from just blatantly repeating it from a card. Speed should be appropriate for full articulation and processing for the other team and judge. Spreading should be avoided.

Framework of your speech should be based on common sense to a point but should also show some building significance as you move through the round.

Not attacking all of an opponents contentions isn't a deal breaker in my final decision. Rather, teams should present a strong case that doesn't simply rely on disagreeing with opponent but should refute it and use that refutation to advance your case, thus earning points. That said, this attack should maintain decorum and civility in the round. Teams that break this decorum and civility are highly frowned upon.

Off time road maps, eh. Your speech should be clear enough for me to figure that out. Road maps will be on your running time.

Finally, in in your final focus, I need to hear you articulate a "so what?" that crystallizes and wraps up your overall argument while bringing in final information that was brought up in round.

About Me

I'm a lay judge and the parent of a debater.

I generally can handle a good rate of speech but cannot follow you if you speak too fast.

General

I may or may not disclose right away.

I’m fine with people watching the round.

Please keep track of speech and prep time yourself.

Signpost and road-map help.

Off-time road maps are fine but please keep them short.

I will follow your points and sub-points (as much as I can) and keep track of whether they are refuted, and the effectiveness of their rebuttals.

Bad/nasty behaviors and hateful comments will not be tolerated.

What I vote for:

• Ability to reason and convince

• Ability to articulate

• Clarity and consistency of speeches

• Soundness in logic

• Weighing in rebuttal

• Credibility/quality of sources/evidences

• Good extension and linking (of your arguments) from summary to final focus

• Team cohesion and manner

I'll try my best to judge fairly. Good luck and have fun.

I am a parent judge, and I have judged for more than 3 years on the national circuit.

Preferences:

- Speak clearly at a conversational pace

- Have logical and well-explained arguments

- Avoid debate jargon

- Signpost clearly

- No Ks, Theory, etc.

- Be professional and civil

- Cross: I may not take notes but I pay attention

Intro: Hello! I am so excited to be judging back at UPenn. I graduated from Penn in 2016 with a Masters in Higher Education so it's always good be home. I competed in PF & expository speaking in High School (graduated 2010) so I am somewhat familiar with PF. I completed my undergraduate degree at Washington State University and currently work at Columbia University in student advising. P.S. I have extensive experience in undergraduate admissions, so ask away : )

Do:

- guide me through your arguments; I've been out of debate for ~8 years now I won't be able to jump to any conclusions

- use as much numerical data ask possible; it helps me understand your argument

-stay on topic. I don't like hearing on things that are only tangentially related to the topic. If you are going to go on a ramble, direct it back to the topic at hand.

-quality evidence > quantity of evidence

-Stand when presenting, if possible

-Manage your own prep time and be honest about it

Don't

-yell, scream, raise your voice

-disrespect your opponent in any way - it will cause loss of speaker points immediately
- send docs during the round

-ask me to disclose at the end of round, I won't do it.

-I prefer you don't use prep time prior to cross-x

Any questions - just ask! Looking forward to a good round :)

(Updated for UPenn 2020)

I did PF debate for four years at Ridge High School in NJ, and I'm currently a senior at Penn studying public health and statistics. I'm admittedly a little rusty, and I follow the news and social issues in general but I'm probably not an expert on the debate topic by any means. If there's one thing to know about me, you honestly can't go wrong with treating me like a lay judge, but of course I'll be flowing and considering your arguments.

Some specific points to keep in mind:

- I can handle a moderate amount of speed as long as you speak clearly, but don't spread. If I can't understand you, I'll stop flowing.

- I like roadmaps, weighing, signposting, and boiling down the round to voter issues by the summary speech. I also enjoy frameworks and narratives that shape your whole argument.

- Please give warrants or logic for your arguments. If you just drop a big number or dump 10 pieces of evidence and leave it at that, I'm not going to give it much weight. Similarly, I won't be happy if you have an excessive number of contentions or responses, since they probably won't be well warranted and it's honestly a little cheap.

- I am not equally receptive to all arguments; if you run something really obscure or gimmicky you'll probably have to do more work to convince me (but unique arguments are cool as long as they're done well). I'm also not really comfortable judging K's or theory or things that aren't "traditional PF," so run those at your own risk. If you say something offensive (racist, classist, sexist, etc.) I'll tank your speaks and/or drop you and tell you why.

- I won't be flowing your crossfire, so if anything big happens that you want me to note (e.g. a concession), point it out in your next speech.

- I most likely won't orally disclose for prelim rounds, just due to tournament timing and my personal preference for seeing the ballot written down. (EDIT: if you want my decision and feedback, email me after the round at ajen8448@gmail.com and I'll send you my ballot)

- Feel free to ask me questions before the round, and I'm also happy to talk about my debate experience, student life, good food around Penn, etc.

Above all, remember that debate is about developing communication skills, learning about the world, and having fun!

I’m a lay judge.

Explain acronyms, don’t use jargon

clarity > speed

Be professional

Don’t interrupt too much in cross

When you respond to arguments, don’t just say they’re wrong. You need data to back it. Also explain why your data is valid over theirs.

Background: I was a Lincoln-Douglas debater for three years at South Anchorage HS in Anchorage, AK. My circuit was mostly traditional, but I have attended national tournaments such as NCFL and Arizona State. As a result, I have a working knowledge of certain national circuit concepts. I'm currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania that occasionally judges LD and PF.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

How I Evaluate the Round: I start by looking at the framework debate and seeing who wins that debate. Then, I evaluate the contention-level debate through the winning framework and determine a winner from there. I tend to focus on the issues that both debaters focus on in their final speech. I'll buy anything as long as it's well-explained and properly warranted and impacted and whatnot. You can expect good speaks from me if you do a good job of debating the framework. If you prefer the contention-level debate, that's cool too. Just make sure that you do a good job of weighing arguments for me. Also, when you extend arguments, make sure to reexplain the warrant and the impact when you do so. Blippy extensions and arguments are not your friends.

Definitional Debates: Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Please try and avoid these at all costs.

Cross-ex: I pay attention to cross-examination pretty closely, but I won't take CX into account when making my decision unless you bring it up in your speech later.

Speed: I'm not the greatest at handling extremely high speaking speeds, to be completely honest. You can definitely talk quickly (I usually talked around 250-260 wpm in high school), but I probably won't be able to properly flow a full-on spread. I will yell "clear" if I think that you are either going too fast or are just unclear. Please slow down for taglines and author names at the very least. Also, please don't use speed to exclude your opponent from the round. If you do it, I'll nuke your speaks because the debate should be accessible to everyone who's involved in the round.

Kritiks: I'm more than willing to buy them, but please don't go overly fast if you're going to run one. I need to be able to actually understand the argument that you're making, and it can be kind of tough to do that if you're going extremely fast. I'm not really well-versed in K literature, so please do me a favor and slow down so that I can actually understand your argument. I won't vote for a K if I don't understand it.

DAs/CPs: I'll buy them as long as you explain them well.

Theory: I'll buy it as long as it's not frivolous theory. Only run it if there's an actual abuse that's occurring in the round. Make sure that you have voting issues when you run theory!

Speaker Points: I tend to be pretty generous with speaker points. My general range is anywhere from 25-30 speaker points. I tend to average between 28 and 29 speaker points. Generally, I calculate speaker points depending on how good of a speaker you were, how smart/clever you were in round, your use of CX, and your organization/use of voting issues in round.

Above all else, have fun! If you have other questions, ask me before the round!

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

Background

I'm a business management professor at Kean University. I judged public forum at the national circuit for a couple of years a while back, but I haven't been judging recently. Overall, I'm a parent judge.

In General

*Please go slow. My notetaking isn't fast, so I might not catch a lot of the things you say if you go fast.

*Please explain arguments well. I value arguments that are defended and used well.

LD

*I haven't judged a lot of LD, so I cannot really judge progressive arguments.

PF Paradigm

I am highly conscious of my role as a judge to put my own bias aside, to listen intently, and to come to conclusions based on what you bring to a round. If you and your partner prove to me that your warrants, evidence, and impacts weigh more heavily in the round than your opponents then you win, plain and simple. Please don't tell me the burden is on the other team to prove or disprove or whatever else. Public Forum Debate focuses on advocacy of a position derived from issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.

I have a serious problem if you misconstrue evidence or neglect to state your sources thoroughly- you have already created unnecessary questions in my mind.

Rebuttals are a key part of debate and I need to hear a point by point refutation and clash and then an extension of impacts. Refuting an argument is not "turning" an argument. Arbitrary and incorrect use of that term is highly annoying to me. A true turn is difficult at best to achieve-be careful with this.

I cannot judge what I can't clearly hear or understand-I can understand fast speech that is enunciated well, but do you really want to tax your judge?-Quality of an argument is much more important than the quantity of points/sub-points, or rapid-fire speech and it is incumbent upon you and your partner to make sure you tell me what I need to hear to weigh appropriately-it is not my job to "fill in the blanks" with my personal knowledge or to try to spend time figuring out what you just said. Also spreading is a disrespectful tactic and defeats the purpose of the art of debate-imho- so don't do it. (See Quality not Quantity above).

The greater the extent of your impacts, the greater the weight for me. If you and your partner are able to thoroughly answer WHY/HOW something matters more, WHY/HOW something has a greater impact, WHY/HOW your evidence is more important, that sways me more than anything else.

Lastly, be assertive, not aggressive. Enjoy the challenge.

Hi! I'm currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania. I did a little bit of PF debate in middle school, so I'm relatively inexperienced with it. I’m a flow judge and follow speed, but please be sure to be clear and stay organized. Statistics/facts can only help you if they are backed up with reasoning and good explanations. Overall, I believe PF should be understandable to a general audience and you should be able to explain in a easily understandable manner why your side should win the debate.

I am a Penn student who did Varsity LD in high school and PF in middle school! In terms of preferences, present your arguments clearly and in order in which they were presented. Do not bullshit evidence, it is very clear when you do so so don't shoot yourself in the foot for credibility throughout the round!

I am ok with any speed so long as you are clear. If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly. I am also ok with theory but feel like that should primarily be better for the style of LD debate.

I am a student at the University of Pennsylvania. I debated all 4 years of high school with 2 years of CX and 2 years of PF experience. I qualified for TFA state in both CX and PF.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I am okay with pretty much any type of argument as long as you can fully explain the link chain. Theory is fine but it should be highly relevant for me to weigh it. I will only account for your arguments if they are extended, I won't extend your impacts for you. Impact calculus is crucial.

note For 2020 NSDA:

1) let's all check we can hear each other well before we start

2) please allow me to verify your names and 1st or 2nd speaker,

3) please do not turn off your video during round; I'd like to be able to see you

4) please speak clearly and in a speed that your internet can handle.

thank you and good luck!

I am a lay judge. I have judged at every tournament possible, and have been called on elimination panels. My daughter does VPF and never stops nagging me about being a good judge, so here it goes ~~

Speaking:
1. Don’t be excessively rude w/o reason. Being assertive is totally fine, but I'll drop speakers for being abusive towards me or your opponents.
2. Speak clearly; I can only flow what I can keep up with, so please consider that when deciding the quantity vs. quality of the responses you give me in rebuttal, and what you decide to extend through summary.
3. I usually give pretty high speaker points
4. Please say your contentions and taglines clearly
5. Remember that I am a parent judge, so I might not understand a lot of niche debate jargon

Tips:
1. I will call for cards at the end of round if you tell me to in your speeches/cross. I care a lot about relevant card indicts.
2. If you want to be picked up by me, try to focus on the warranting. Don’t bother going on and on about your impacts if the link isn’t there. If it’s not clearly warranted, then I see no reason to consider your impacts.
3. I will only judge by the flow.
4. Fresh and unique arguments are cool if the link is there.

Likes:
1. A good probability analysis
2. A consistent narrative
3. Relevant and cleanly extended overviews when necessary
4. Weighing in summary and final focus

Dislikes:
1. Lying; saying that your opponents didn’t respond to something when they clearly have and it's on my flow.
2. Talking down to your opponents
3. Misusing evidence
4. Spreading

I am friendly; I am never harsh to any kid (I don't write fantastic ballots - sorry!); I like debate kids and I think you all are smart. Help me to enjoy your round and I'll pick you up. Good luck!

The main factor in my decision will be how convincing your arguments are. That being said, I am open to all arguments as long as they are not too extreme, well-explained and articulated, make sure that your arguments are fleshed out. Think twice if you want to run dedev, theory or kritiks.

Speaking:

- Please speak clearly and at an understandable pace.

- Always be courteous to your opponents (I will not tolerate rude behavior).

Content:

- Be clear about what argument you are talking about.

- All of your evidence needs to have a warrant - don't just say a piece of evidence - explain what it means and its implications in the round.

- If you have a problem with your opponent's evidence, call it and indict it in your speech.

- Weighing - tell me why your argument is more important.

- Impact - please don't exaggerate :)

Good luck and have fun!

tl;dr: Educated college student, former debater but it's been a while

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

Speed/Flowing:

- You can speak a bit faster than your English teacher lectures. I will be writing, not typing.

- I will flow taglines, big examples, and stats, but if you throw out 5 country names and 5 statistics, I won't catch them all. Give me time to flow taglines, either by stating key points slowly or by pausing.

- Tell me where you are on the flow and number your rebuttals.

- If you read a complex card, please summarize in layman's terms (without twisting the meaning) and then analyze (why does it matter/how does it connect to the argument).

- I would love a roadmap at the beginning of each speech of which side you'll start on/where you'll go in the speech.

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

Arguments:

- I make my decision based on impacts, unless there are missing/weak links in the link chain. Please tie your arguments back to impacts and weigh impacts for me. Voting issues should be clear before the last speech.

- Evidence makes or breaks an argument. I'll trust the side with evidence that is more specific to the resolution, has strong internal links, and is generalizable.

- Logical arguments without too much empirical evidence are ok if the logic is very strong, but if the opponent has generalizable evidence that proves otherwise, I will defer to the side that has evidence.

- If I hear something that I absolutely know is false (i.e. Yemen has never seen war), I will not consider it, even if the opponent says nothing.

- I am open to alternatives to the extent that the alternative is solely used to indicate that the Con world is not as bad as Pro makes it out to be since some other plan could be put in place.

- I am not very comfortable with Policy debate-style arguments (i.e. theory/kritiks). Disads are ok. Still prefer contention debate.

- Slow down if you are hitting me with heavy-duty complex philosophy. It's been a while.

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

Presentation:

- I don't mind if you are sitting or standing, as long as your voice is loud and clear.

- My head will be down as I take notes, and I will not look at you much. That said, I will look up and display emotions if something is really good, bad, or confusing.

- Be polite to each other, especially during each other's speeches and crossfire.

- You can finish your sentence when the timer beeps.

- I track prep time closely. Do not try to buy time walking up slowly/collecting your papers/etc. When you call to stop prep, you should start speaking right away.

- Speaker points: I generally give 26-30 speaker points. I will judge on enunciation, organization, fluency, calmness, and professionalism. (I did Speech for four years.)

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

Experience:

- 4 years of LD (mainly lay, maybe 2-3 circuit tournaments)

- LD Captain, President of Debate, VBI

- 3 years of PF coaching

- UPenn Wharton B.S. Economics (Finance, Marketing & Operations Management) Class of 2019

Feel free to email me at stacy.lliu@gmail.com with any questions.

I am a flay judge with a little over 10 years experience judging and coaching. I didn't do debate in high school or college, but I have really enjoyed it on the judging side, and I have learned a great deal. Having said that:

1. I prefer arguments to technicalities. Debates about debate are not great.

2. If you are participating in an evidence-based event, do give evidence, and be clear and specific when you cite it.

3. Clash with the opposing arguments; more often than not I end up deciding which arguments I PREFER, rather than which ones I believe.

4. Signpost as you go. It helps me keep my flow organized.

5. Keep your impacts at the forefront.

6. Give me voters and weigh.

7. Ask questions during CX, and engage with your opponents, don't just give more speeches.

Good luck, and have fun.

I am a parent judge with four years of experience in judging Public Forum. Never competed Public Forum or any other Forensic activities, but as a parent judge I always read some review articles about the topics, therefore I do have some background knowledge in things that you are talking about and enjoy watching the debate.

I prefer clear and not too fast speech, so I can catch up the words and meaning of your talk.

I use following criteria when I judge a round:

Were the arguments intelligent? Your response to the arguments

The discrediting to the opposition’s response

The debaters back up their assertions with logical thinking and evidence when needed

Fair in interpretation of the resolution and one another’s statements?

Who is advancing the most significant arguments in the round?

I don’t weight much on the speed of speech, believe less words with sound arguments are much better than too much words which have to be delivered with fast speech.

Don’t have preference on the format of Summary Speeches, and evaluate argument over style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, their arguments have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches. If a team is second speaking, I prefer that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech.

Don’t vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus.

I was a Lincoln-Douglas debater for four years. I prefer a round in which the debaters engage substantively with the issues and critically analyze evidence and arguments. I will flow all speeches and like to see effective crystallization as the round progresses. I am happy to answer any specific questions before the start of the round.

I’m a parent judge. I view a debate as you trying to convince me to accept your position. I am more interested in your complete argument rather than the technicalities of whether you rebutted each claim by your opponent. If I can’t understand what you are saying or am expected to process too many points too quickly I probably won’t be able to do justice to your argument. If your argument is strong I probably don’t need to be inundated with many claims quickly. I look favorably on a strong citation to support your argument but won’t take for granted that you citing a source means it validly backs you. Please explain what the source says and why I should give it value.

I am a lawyer and Executive Director of the NYCUDL.

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

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

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

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

Write my RFD for me in final focus.

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

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

Good luck and have fun!

UPDATED FOR NCFL 2019

Ryan Monagle Ridge High School PF coach

In general the clearest ballot story tends to win the round.

Speed: I'm fine with most speed, easiest way for me to comprehend your speaking style is by starting off at conversational pace through the first card so I can familiarize myself with your cadence. After that feel free to take off. Just a note on speed and spreading, I'm 100% 0kay with speed and enjoy it in really competitive rounds, however the speed needs to be justified by a greater depth in your argumentation and not just the need to card dump 100 blippy cards. If there is ever an issue of clarity I will say clear once, afterwards I will awkwardly stare at you if there is no change and then I will stop flowing.

Rebuttal: MAKE SURE YOU SIGNPOST, If I lose you on the flow and miss responses that is on you. I'm fine with line by line responses though most of the time they tend to be absolutely unnecessary. I would rather you group responses. Card dumping will lead me to deducting speaker points. Trust me you don't need 6-7 cards to respond to a single warrant.

Summary: Don't try to go for literally everything in the round. By the time Summary comes around the debate should have narrowed down to a few pieces of offense. Any offense you want to go for in final focus has to be in summary. Whether or not you go for defense in 1st summary is up to those debating in round, sometimes it isn't 100% necessary for you to go for it, sometimes you need to so it to survive the round. You should make that evaluation as the round moves along.

Final Focus: Weigh in final, if neither teams weighs in round then I have to do it at the end of the round and you may not like how that turns out. Weighing should be comparative and should tell me why your offense should be valued over your opponents.

Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, typically I spend time writing the ballot and reviewing the flow. However, I still pay attention to most occurrences in crossfire. If you go for a concession be explicit and I'll consider it, but you need to extend it in later speeches. Also if you happen to concede something and then immediately go back on it in the next speech I am going to deduct speaks.

Speaker Points: My evaluation for speaker points revolves around presentation and strategy/tactics in the round that I'm judging. Feel free to try to make me laugh if you can I'll give you big props and you'll get a bump up in speaker points.

Please, I beg debaters to take advantage of the mechanisms that exist to challenge evidence ethics in round, I would gladly evaluate a protest in round and drop debaters for evidence violations. I think the practice of lying about/misrepresenting evidence is something a lot coaches and competitors want to see change, but no one takes advantage of the system that currently exists to combat these behaviors in round.

For NCFL: Judges can read evidence if the validity of the source is in question you have to explicitly tell the judge to call for the card in question.

Although I “flow” arguments on a flow pad, please note that I am not a technical judge which provides points here and there and tries to determine which arguments were “carried” to the end of the round or which ones were “dropped”. Instead, I flow to help me keep track of the arguments that are made by both sides and the critical analysis that is conveyed to me to support or refute arguments. Please use the crossfires to ask each other questions and speak to each other, rather than addressing me and asking me to take note of certain statements (which can and should be done during summary and final focus). Consider the final focus as the points I should consider in my reason for judgement write up.

Please weigh, as I find this to be critical to my analysis.

Use "cards" only to support your analysis, not to say "my card is better than your card". A round that heavily relies on "card" after "card" has missed the mark of what debate is about.

I am a Parent Judge.

Please speak at an average speaking rate and speak clearly.

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

Slow

I debated PF at Newton South High School. I'll flow and I can do speed, but I hate it. If you speak too fast and I miss something, that's on you.

(1) A great way to slow yourselves down is to not read all 15 responses you've prepared to a single contention. I appreciate quality of your blocks, not quantity. If you give me two responses that are a link-turn and impact weighing I'll appreciate that much more than a million cards that just say the opposite of their point.

(2) I really value probability analysis. Phrased another way: in a close round, I'm likely to evaluate the round on risk of offense. If you can cast enough doubt on your opponents' arguments and use those responses to weigh, that is valuable on my flow.

(3) If you're first speaking, you don't have to extend defensive responses in summary if they aren't responded to in your opponents' rebuttal as long as you bring them up in FF. However, so that you can ingrain them in my mind and use them to weigh, it might be a good idea to bring them up in summary.

(4) I'm far more likely to vote for a team whose summary and FF speeches tell a story of what voting for them looks like and what problems I can solve if I vote for them. It makes me feel good. Please re-explain and extend your arguments in summary and final focus instead of just responding to your opponents' responses. A summary strategy that includes blippy extensions of arguments without a cohesive narrative is not incredibly appealing to me. Also, extensions of arguments should include both the author names for the evidence and the warrants that back those cards.

(5) PLEASE WEIGH. In addition to extending your impacts in summary/FF you need to tell me why they are more important than the ones your opponent is extending. Even if they win their impacts, explain why yours still make you win the round.

(6) I default to a utilitarian framework. If you make no framework arguments, your contention better have a tangible impact -- "moral imperative" won't really fly unless you set up the debate and tell me why I should reject util. I'm not sure I've ever been convinced to reject util in a debate round, but I'll hear you out if you're convincing enough.

(7) I'll call cards if you ask me to call them.

(8) Be nice to your opponents in cross! Also I like good jokes. Try to win it but have fun with it and try to allow your opponents to enjoy themselves too.

I'm more than happy to discuss anything about the round after the round.

I describe myself as a "flay" judge. I flow a round but I rarely base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighing. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.

I ABSOLUTELY DEMAND CIVILITY IN CROSSFIRES! Ask your question then allow the other side to answer COMPLETELY before you respond further. Hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. Outright snarkiness or rudeness could result in a 0 for speaker points. Purposely misconstruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. Though I award very few 30s on speaker points, I very much appreciate clear, eloquent speech, which will make your case more persuasive.

I have seen a trend to turn summaries into second rebuttals. I HATE THIS. A summary should extend key offense from case and key defense from rebuttal then weigh impacts. You cannot do this in only two minutes if you burn up more than a minute trying to frontline. If I don't hear something from case in summary you will lose most definitely. Contrary to growing belief, the point of this event is NOT TO WIN ON THE FLOW. The point is to research and put forth the best warrants and evidence possible that stand up to rebuttal.

When calling cards, avoid distracting "dumps" aimed at preoccupying the other side and preventing them from prepping. In recent tournaments I have seen a rise in the inability of a team to produce a requested card QUICKLY. I will give you a couple of minutes at most then we will move on and your evidence likely will be dropped from the flow. The point is to have your key cards at the ready, preferably in PDF form. I have also seen a recent increase in badly misconstrued data or horrifically out of date data. The rules say full citation plus the date must be given. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.

The bottom line is: Use your well-organized data and logic to win the debate, not cynical tactics aimed at distraction or clock dominance.

Please take your time and make eye contact when presenting your cases. (I want you to speak slow enough so that I can understand and flow what you say, evidence, etc)I do not flow crossfires, so whatever is important must be brought up in the next speech.

Parent volunteer judge with 3+ years. Primarily PF but have judged LD too. Speed is not an issue but if you spread, you are taking a risk.

Treating all debaters with respect is critical to me. Any demeaning behavior towards opponent will have a very negative impact on speaker points.

Stacking too many questions and not letting opponent respond will backfire you. What good is a cross-fire question if it does not expose opponent's weakness for the judge to observe ?

I like strong arguments - pro or con does not matter. I will never have an opinion about the topic - my judging record will speak for itself.... Good arguments will always get the win.

I prefer not to disclose results unless I have to. In ballots (both e-ballot and paper) my observations/thoughts/notes will have "**". When a sentence does not start with "**", that is the feedback.

I did PF all 4 years of high school, so I am comfortable with speed and debate jargon. First summary doesn't need to extend defense, and second rebuttal should respond to some of the defense in first rebuttal.

Not a fan of off-time roadmaps, you should signpost clearly enough for me to know where you are.

In terms of what I will vote for, strong warranting and weighing is a requirement for me to vote for you. I need you to set up a good comparison in terms of what you and your opponents are arguing and why to prefer you. Don't just list weighing mechanisms, but tell me why your impacts outweigh their impacts. You also must(!) engage with your oppponent's warranting and any claim you make in a round must have some kind of warranting to back it up.

If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you and dock speaker points. If you have a question about something that isn't covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

For the chain: blayneatbloomberglaw@gmail.com

Are you a K PF team? Consider striking me! I am probably not the judge for you. See below for details!

I judge for Union Catholic in New Jersey. I judge 20 or so rounds a year, mostly PF with some LD and Policy. I was a policy and parliamentary debater. I've been judging for around 20 years.

Event specific info follows below.

PF

I strongly prefer resolutional debate given the purpose and current state of PF. I won't require the other team to know clash debate, debate methodology, framework, or topicality. I have a strong preference for resolutional debate.

What does that mean for you?

Do you have a soft left case? That's fine! I'm looking a strong link to the resolution, then an impact. I can work with any impact. Structural inequality, structural violence, racism, sexism, ableism -- these are all great things to talk about.

Are you're running a K-alt or a progressive case? Those are tougher. I will not know your literature. Please slow down and simplify. Use ordinary language. Be clear about the alt/role of the ballot. If your advocacy is "resolutional debate reinforces existing power structures (and that's bad!), rejecting the resolution is activism, activism is a better methodology for change", say that. Then, in your framing, explain as directly as possible how the ballot constitutes an act of activism.

Speed is fine, but please don't spread. What's too fast? If you adjust your breathing to accommodate your speed, that's too fast.

If you're familiar with truth v. tech, I'm in the middle. I vote off the flow, but I don't have to vote for "bad" arguments (i.e., arguments lacking warrants, evidence, analysis, and/or impacts) even if dropped. Presentation matters. Line-by-line is great, but by the end of the round, I need a clear sense of your position and why it wins.

Use the flow to structure speeches. Let me where you're at on the flow, provide helpful labels for your arguments, tell me when you're cross-applying. If you're kicking an argument, it helps if you tell me.

I will not vote on disclosure theory absent a mutual agreement. If both teams consent to disclosing prior to the round or to flashing files prior to the round, then, during the round, one team breaks the deal, i'll listen to theory.

Nothing is sticky. 1st speech = case, 2nd speech = case, 3rd speech = respond to 2nd speech, no need to extend case. 4th speech = defend your case, attack other side; anything not extended in this speech is dropped.

In rebuttals, please collapse. Make choices; don't go for everything. Focus on your best offense and defense.

You can lose arguments and win the around. Don't be afraid of conceding, just mitigate or outweigh. If you write an honest ballot for me, you are more likely to get a favorable decision and high speaks.

In crossfire, be a pro. Share the time. Ask brief questions, give brief answers. Be friendly, be helpful. I dislike leading questions in cross. Make arguments in your speech, ask about them in cross. If your opponent's answer is "I'm sure you'll tell me," you've asked a bad question.

Last thing: don't run "as many as 900 million people could fall back into poverty in the event of an economic shock like the Great Recession," unless you have a card showing that 900 million people fell into poverty between March 2020 and today.

Policy

Don't spread. I can't keep up. If you want the ballot to address your arguments & strategy, slow down.

I prefer policy arguments to critical arguments, substantive arguments to theory, and real world impacts to terminal impacts, but argue what you want.

On Ks, I won't know your literature. Start simple. Tell me your thesis, make your alt clear, and build up from there. If you dive right into the evidence, I will be lost. I am more likely to vote for your K if I understand what your alt means in the real world. Good alts specify an action that's being taken, who is taking the action, and when they take that action. If you provide examples, that's very helpful.

For T, I default to reasonability.

Collapse in rebuttals, don't go for everything. I prefer depth to breadth.

I know this sounds very conservative, but it's not that bad. These are preferences not requirements. My comfort zone is traditional policy, but I'm up for whatever. I've voted for Ks, K affs, and CP theory. If you go this route, you'll just need to invest more time in explaining how it works. It'll be fine.

LD

For circuit LD, I’m a lay judge.

You could do worse. My background is policy. I flow, I’ll listen, and I’m open-minded. Brave tournament directors put me in LD/PF bid rounds. Plus, I enjoy debate. I want to buy your argument.

Even so, let me emphasize: I AM A LAY JUDGE.

We all want an awesome round.

However, I’ll be frustrated if I don’t understand what’s going on. You’ll be frustrated if you get a weird decision.

That’s definitely not awesome.

Keys to getting a good ballot:

* Slow down. If you spread, I will get lost.

* Talk about the resolution.

* Go easy on theory. I’m the wrong judge for RVIs. I’m okay for T. There are better judges for condo/fiat/counterplan theory, but I can get through it.

* Use plain language. I will not know your lit or your jargon. Walk me through it.

* Clash. You don’t need evidence. Understand the arguments. Put some thoughtful analytics on the flow.

* Talk about details. Is your framework utilitarianism? Tell me what’s good. Tell me how to figure out whether it really is for the greatest number. Is your T intep reasonability? Give me a way to measure reasonableness. Is your theory impact fairness? What is fairness? How is it measured?

And last of all, in LD, I prefer to truth-test the resolution. Aff talks about why the res is true. Neg talks about why it isn’t. Framework matters some, case impacts don’t really matter, and the question at the end of the round is: who did the better job of proving the truth or non-truth of the resolution?

That said, you give me a plan, I turn into a traditional policymaker policy judge.

If you want me to use a different standard, give it a shot. To do so, I need rules for applying your standard.

Flow judge. Fast speed is fine but don't spread, be comprehensible. Rebuttal should be well structured. Really want voters and weighing in summary (should not be a second rebuttal speech).

I debated PF for four years. I flow. I'm lazy. Do the work for me.

If you want my ballot, definitely:

1. Clearly explain your warrants. Flashy numbers without supporting reasoning is not a cool look.

2. Make sure to extend your arguments completely and properly - don't extend through ink. Defense doesn't need to be extended in summary but offense does.

3. Weigh your arguments by telling me what matters more/comes first and why. Especially true for frameworks.

Some other personal preferences:

1. Don't abuse second speaking privileges. Don't use prep time until both cases have been read, and don't read multiple overviews in second rebuttal. Second speaking team should also respond to first speaking team's rebuttal.

2. Please be responsive, especially to turns. And don't mindlessly read cards - think about how your evidence specifically refutes arguments.

3. Collapse on 1-2 key arguments in summary/FF. Don't be a jack of all trades, master of none.

4. Keep the jargon to a minimum and speak at a reasonable speed.

5. Don't misinterpret evidence - this includes excessive simplifications. I will call for cards.

6. Signpost clearly.

7. Not experienced with progressive arguments, so I'm not the right judge to experiment with.

8. Wholesomely funny, sarcastic, or otherwise entertaining speeches will get you higher speaks. Don't be rude though.

This is my first tournament as a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, and ensure that you can articulate your arguments well. I am open to most arguments as long as you warrant them well. Please do not be overly rude in crossfire. I am EXTREMELY excited to be here!

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

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

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

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

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

My name is RJ Tischler, and I've been volunteering as a judge for speech & debate since 2016. Consider me a lay judge with a lot of experience — I’ve heard that the term “fl-ay” matches my judging style.

For debate:

Clarity is key.

Don't speak too fast (aka, no spreading. Aim for ~200 WPM or fewer).

Weigh the impacts at the end of the round for me.

Explicitly state what your voters are.

Not very familiar with kritiks/theory, but willing to hear them.

If you'd like, feel free to send me your case to read along: email rtischler@phillyasap.org

(JV/Novice debate)
Prioritize clash. That is the purpose of a debate. I am not inclined to buy arguments that "the opponents didn't respond" to contentions that you neglected to revisit & therefore didn't result in clash. If your opponent truly doesn't respond to an important contention, be sure to point that out in rebuttal or crossfire. Don't wait until summary (in PF).

I debated PF for four years at Acton-Boxborough, meaning you can treat me like your normal flow judge—signpost, collapse, weigh, etc. However, I don't coach, so don't expect me to have any prior topic knowledge.

I don't require second rebuttal to cover case (but I think you should do it—I just won't penalize you if you don't). First summary should extend defense to whatever was frontlined (if anything) in second rebuttal. If you want higher speaks, give me a clear link story/narrative and comparative weighing.

Some other things about me: I hate overly aggressive/rude crossfires but love funny debates, I'm not familiar with progressive argumentation (but will evaluate it if necessary), and when I competed, I never really liked having to shake the judge's hand (so please don't shake mine lol).

Have fun debating and good luck! Feel free to ask me any other questions.

Hello! I’m Michelle and I did four years of Public Forum debate at Princeton High School. I currently go to the University of Pennsylvania.

Debate things~

I'm flow, but also a little rusty so I won't remember every detail or know a ton about the topic beforehand.

I can follow speed, but don't spread otherwise I can't write down what you say. I generally give high speaks (28+) unless your rude, I can't hear/understand you, etc. If you ask me to call for a card then I will. I'll disclose if both teams want me to.

Keep off-time roadmaps short if you're going to use them. Other than that, I'm not too picky about what you do in round stylistically. Just remember to warrant your evidence, frontline when necessary, signpost, extend, collapse into voters (!!) and WEIGH. If you want to win off of something, really emphasize it. Don't just turn the round into a response battle of who gets the last word.

I really like creative/unique taglines and arguments as long as they make sense.

If you ask to see one of your opponent's cards, don't prep while they're looking for it.

Absolutely horrible:

1. extending through ink (ie. saying that they didn't respond when they did)
2. miscutting/misconstruing/making up cards
3. rudeness, arrogance, speaking over your opponents, shaking your head while they're speaking, making faces, etc.

Pet peeves:

1. not asking questions in cross (or making a statement and just adding “right?” or “wouldn’t you agree?”)
2. rhetorical questions in rebuttal
3. using metaphors/analogies as warrants
4. talking to your partner while not running prep

Put Me on the Email Chain: Cjaswill23@gmail.com

Experience: I debated in College policy debate team (Louisville WY) at the University of Louisville, went to the quarterfinals of the NDT 2018 , coached and judged high school and college highly competitive teams.

Policy Preferences: Debate is a game that is implicated by the people who play it. Just like any other game rules can be negotiated and agreed upon. Soooooo with that being said, I won't tell you how to play, just make sure I can clearly understand you and the rules you've negotiated(I ran spreading inaccessible arguments but am somewhat trained in evaluating debaters that spread) and I also ask that you are not being disrespectful to any parties involved. With that being said, I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make sure there is a clear impact calculus, clearly telling me what the voters are/how to write my ballot. Im also queer black woman poet, so those strats often excite me, but will not automatically provide you with a ballot. You also are not limited to those args especially if you don't identify with them in any capacity. I advise you to say how I’m evaluating the debate via Role Of the Judge because I will default to the arguments that I have on my flow and how they "objectively" interact with the arguments of your opponent. I like narratives, but I will default to the line by line if there is not effective weighing. Create a story of what the aff world looks like and the same with the neg. I'm not likely to vote for presumption arguments, it makes the game dull. I think debate is a useful tool for learning despite the game-structure. So teach me something and take my ballot.

Other Forms of Debate: cross-apply above preferences

2 rounds of exposure to this 2022 February topic.

Time your own prep time. Signpost. Off-time roadmaps are helpful for me.

Please frontline.

I'll be able to follow most speeds. I don't intervene, but please speak clearly and don't spread.

I won't flow crossfire, but I'll listen. If you mention crossfire in your speeches, I'll pay attention.

Please be consistent. What's brought up in the final focus should be in summary. Extend your warrants and impacts please. If you read arguments that contradict each other I might not drop you, but it'll be a tough sell if its strategy.

When you weigh, try to be more specific than we outweigh on "timeframe, scope, and magnitude." I'll value one weighing mechanism that's more thought out than a bunch of smaller ones.

I'm not good with Ks, plans, or any of that. If you plan on running those in a round, I'm not the right judge for you.

I'm not really a tech over truth guy. Good logic and a good narrative beats some evidence in my eyes. They all work together.

If you make me laugh, I'll bump your speaks.

Be niceeee.

I really do like narratives.

Hi! I'm Tara and I'm a freshman at Penn. I did Parliamentary debate and Impromptu speaking in high school and currently debate Parli at Penn. However, I did do Policy and LD a few times for fun.

As a speaker and debater, I value both your ability to explain concepts clearly and argumentation. I would consider myself a "flow" judge more than lay.

I am against spreading of any kind, and I often find that K's and Theory Shells are not done thoughtfully. If you do run a K or Theory Shell well, I would find that very impressive and reward for that.

Since I come from a spontaneous debate background, preponderance of evidence does not win me over. This also includes simply reading cards without your own analysis. I would ultimately like a thoughtful debate that is based on quality, not quantity of points and cards.

I am not tabla rasa, aka, I will not go into the debate ready to believe anything. If something you say is blatantly false, I will not flow it, but usually that problem doesn't happen.

Besides that, the rest of the debate is up to you. If you would like to make the debate more about framework vs actual contentions that's fine by me, just make it engaging!

No off time road maps please :)

I am from California, so I may use debate terminology that you aren't familiar with or you may use terms that I don't know, so please let me know if you have any additional questions or clarifications about my paradigm.

Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!

" Last changed 11 January 2024 2:17 PM EST" - Tabroom 2024 ):