Hi! I’m a recent college grad who did PF throughout high school but have been out of the debate world since.

• I vote off the flow. Please signpost, collapse, roadmap (but only if it’s weird), weigh, etc. Whatever makes it easier for me to follow and ultimately vote.
• I don’t have much exposure to the February topic besides casually keeping up with the news so don’t use jargon, especially early on in the tournament.
• Speed- You can speak quicker than you would for a lay judge, but don’t spread either. I’m not used to flowing anymore so I want to make sure I’m able to get down what you say and will signal if you should slow down.
• Evidence- It’s sad but unsurprising that so many paradigms I read before making mine had to say this, but please don’t misconstrue evidence. I won’t look at anything unless someone asks me to but it is important to me that evidence is used fairly.
• Speaks- I’ll start at 27 and go from there. Being polite is good.
• Disclosure- I’m cool with saying who won but will likely save giving feedback for later.
• Timing- Please time yourselves and the other team. I don’t trust myself to keep track lol.

I am a relatively new judge, please keep this is mind when debating. Try to speak clearly, i.e., no spreading. If I can't understand what you are saying I can't judge you.

Additionally, I do not disclose.

Thank you!

TL;DR: Flow judge. Speed is fine but please do a lot of weighing in summary and final focus regardless of how quickly you speak. Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm (or otherwise) before the round starts.

Long Version:

In high school, I did Public Forum at Cary Academy on the local, state, and national circuits. Now, I am a Junior at the University of Pennsylvania and I am currently studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics & Criminology. I currently debate for Penn's premier competitive debate team on the APDA circuit (parliamentary) and I compete regularly.

If you want to win, show me the comparative. Try your best to explain why exactly your arguments clash with your opponents' arguments, and why you win on a warrant and weighing level. Teams who clearly explain their frameworks and their weighing mechanisms are more persuasive than teams who assert that their arguments are "winning".

I am a pretty flow judge, and I like to see coverage of all points in rebuttal. However, I'm not going to drop you because you don't address one blippy card in constructive. I'm ok with speed so go as fast as you think is appropriate for Public Forum.

Also, please don't be a dick.

I'm serious. I will hand out really low speaker points if you are condescending or dismissive of any debaters, especially in cross. Don't be afraid to be aggressive or passionate, but please refrain from communicating in a manner that would make others feel unwelcome, as debate is, at its core, a learning experiance that should be available to everyone. I want to discourage bad debate norms, so I will reduce speaks if I feel the need to. Feel free to reach out to me after rounds for feedback or with any other questions.

Public Forum was devised to convince the average person on the street. I’m that person. Speak clearly at a normal speed and I’ll be able to make a reasoned decision. You are all great kids. Have fun!

Please do not spread. Signposting is requested. Make impacts clear.

A compelling argument carried is far better than several floppy arguments dropped. Quantity does not impress me much if it is in terms of arguments and not impacts. Help me to anchor my understanding of the round. My background is in the humanities, literatures and languages. I enjoy listening to a well presented and tight case.

More "creative" interpretations of the resolution are thus welcome. I flow but do not pay much mind to CF or Grand Cross. I use that time to collect my thoughts and weigh, as time in-round is at a high premium. I do pay mind to constructive and rebuttal. Please pass important points from CF onto C+R+Sum for my consideration.

If you call for evidence, do not prep while you wait. Do use the evidence in a way that changes the course of the round. If the round doesn't turn on the card, don't call for it.

I am a lay judge. Prefer persuasive story telling and narrative. Speak slowly so that I can follow you.

I debated from 2007-2010 both in PF and LD.

I appreciate weighing of impacts and telling why those impacts matter in life/scope of the round.

Pet peeve of mine - please do not abuse the ability to call for evidence and the time it takes calling for evidence.

About Me:

did pf while i was in high school (class of '17). i'm pretty tech for my time, but progressive argumentation is not my thing, so don't read it.

The Basics:

- i can handle speed, but i am rusty so don't go crazy
- intelligent warranting/impacting/weighing > card dumping for extensions and voters
- signpost wherever you can, just makes my life easier

update (3/10): for evidence sharing, use a google doc to save us all some time. my email: rajang456@gmail.com

Please don't talk too fast - I'd like to hear and process everything you're saying. To win the debate in my eyes, you have to convince me why your side saves more lives, provides better economic opportunities, better ensures the safety of citizens, etc. If your weighing mechanism is different than your opponents' (you argue that your side provides better economic opportunity, while your opponents argue that their side saves more lifes) argue to me why your weighing mechanism matters more (or even better, how your side satisfies your opponents' weighing mechanism more than their own argument e.g. wider economic opportunities will save more lives in the long run). Just because you say your point negates one of your opponents' contentions doesn't mean I will believe you. You've got to convince me.

I have coached LD and PF for about 15 years now, but I am not a professional debater. I am a flow judge, and I prefer classic debate with clear clash, not jargon-laden spreaders with theory and K shells. I value clash and technical debate, but I will not vote for a blatantly false argument even if it is dropped.

Clear your impacts. I am OK with some speed, but you must be clear. At least slow down through authors and taglines. In the end, if I can't understand you, you will lose.

Extend, don't drop. I will consider dropped arguments to be conceded. Even if the other turn drops a turn, you should extend your warrant. Tell me what was conceded and why it matters.

Weigh your argument. The last two speeches should be about weighing and crystallization, not new arguments or a rehash of old ones. Tell me how to weigh your round, because if I choose the weighing mechanism, you might not win.

Don't make me work. If you tell me, I'll flow it, unless it goes by too fast. The more you link, the less I have to think. I will make reasonable assumptions and discount abusive arguments even if you don't call them out explicitly, but the more work I have to do, the less predictable the outcome will be for you.

Evidence clash is mostly neutral. I don't judge Policy. Trying to outweigh on evidence is not going to go very far for me. In most cases, if you toss just cards at each other, I will call that a wash.

My name is Cheyenne Jasienski and I did Public Forum debate throughout high school (2006-2010). I graduated from Washington State University in 2014, lived in Seattle for 4 years and now currently reside in DC where I work as a Data Analyst.

-Keep in friendly, respectful and civil ALWAYS

-Not a fan of spreading, if I can't understand you, I cannot vote.

-I'm a data person, use numbers/facts/stats

-Anything said after the timer goes off will not be taken into consideration

-I will be flowing the round, likely pen + paper style (traditional)

-Please don't make it an evidence debate!

-I do not disclose

-Be clear and concise with any points you want to make. I won't read between the lines or try and figure out the point being made.

CFL Policy Update

Judged alot of policy in my career, understand most policy arguments but you should walk me through voting off them (Ks, Topicality, etc. I am comfortable with. Speed isnt an issue if you disclose and honestly probably shouldnt be even if you do not so dont feel obligated.

Email for disclosure brendanjkane1998@gmail.com

(About Me:

I am the Assistant Coach at Xaverian in New York City, in charge of debate (Mainly congress and PF but I have a background in policy and LD) Since I'm mainly going to be judging Congress and Public Forum Debate this year I will break down my paradigm into congress and PF

FOR PF

TLDR tabula rasa - go fast but slow on tags, I like disclosure and evaluate basically any arg but walk me through it

General

At heart I am a tech over truth Flow centric judge who pretty much defaults to a standard offense/defense paradigm. I try my hardest not to be an interventionist IE i try and be tabula rasa. If you plan on doing any weird strategies just run it by me before he round (I.E. run a condo theory shell), because it's very possible I don't have experience with that particular argument(I never really ran them much but I understand most). If I'm not familiar with a technical pre fiat argument, walk me through it because I will be open to voting for it.

I will disclose if the tournament let's me, if they don't and you see me outside of round and I'm not doing anything, feel free to approach me and I'll gladly take out my flow and discuss the round.

Speed

I was always on the faster side so I'm cool with speed, just be aware, if you go super fast, I will stop flowing card names so try not to just extend a card by author last name but instead what it says too (If you slow down on tags I should be fine but most people don't).

LMK before the round if yall plan to be fast or not, I prefer for faster rounds to flow on paper since I am just more use to it from years of debating but if you guys plan to go like 200 WPM I will just flow on my laptop.

Feel free to ask in round if I have been flowing cards but anything south of like 300 I should be able to flow cards unless unforeseen circumstances occur.

If you disclose and I am on the email chain feel free to go as fast as you want.

Evidence Standards

I prefer dates in case and blocks(I get it if you don't but in the future please try). If you lie about evidence I'm at minimum dropping the evidence and at worst dropping you. I will call for evidence if:

A. I'm told to.

B. It's crucial in my decision.

C. I have reason to believe it doesn't say what you say it says

Summary/FF

I expect in first summary you to extend case (PLEASE FRONTLINE YOUR OPPONENT'S RESPONSES) and to extend turns. Terminal Defense does not have to be in first summary. For second summary I expect anything you plan on having be in FF be in summary.

Theory

I don't have the highest threshold for theory but I'll certainly evaluate the argument if it's made.

IDC if it is shell or spike format I will evaluate either.

Road maps

For road maps, I'd much prefer you just tell me where you start if you aren't doing anything insane. If you plan on running an overview I need you to tell me where to flow it.

If the flow gets super super messy feel free to literally take me step by step with your roadmap I trust your judgement here.

Signposting

Just please do it.

It is not my obligation to figure out where things go in a debate- if you signpost poorly things will get lost and I won't evaluate responses you give

Speaker Points (also addresses disclosure)

SO this is the thing that is largest variable in my judging from tournament to tournament. If you respect that I am a flow judge you will probably get good speaks, but how good varies by weekend since I still haven't fully fleshed out how I want my speaker points scale to work out.

No matter what if you disclose your case to your opponents (if you email add me to the email chain brendanjkane 1998@gmail.com so I can verify and because it will make my life easier to flow) I will give .5 extra speaks for doing so.

If it is already on the PF wiki just LMK

Misc

If I flowed on my laptop feel free to email me after with what round and flight I judged you and I can give you my flow.

If anything is unclear in my RFD or comments feel free to email me.

You can be funny and I will appreciate that but if you cross the line I will lower speaks.

If your case is like 1K plus words I will flow it on 2 pieces of paper so signpost or else things will get lost.

Don't feel you have to wait for me to enter the room or do a coin flip.

I am human I may make the wrong decision but in the end I will try my best to fairly evaluate the round.

@PFVideos If someone wants to record the round plz get consent from both teams (if one team competing is recording PLZ ask the other if this is okay) if I discover one team is recording without consent I will drop that team. If you get consent feel free to record my RFD if you want

Still have yet to squirrel

Congress

General

So I've watched and competed in a lot of congress rounds and am an assistant coach mainly in congress. If I am parling a round you are in I will track reverse activity(If PO is using it to select questioners) and recency for speeches. If I am not parling I will not, but I usually can tell even without a recency chart if you mess up. I tend to flow the round, and I write my ballot during questioning(if there is no questioning, then I will not be flowing or else I would not have time to write your ballots).

Feel free to ask me questions about your performance after I've submitted my ballot (if I'm parling between session or after the tournament), I'll be happy to share my thoughts.

If I parli

very non interventionist or I try to be unless an issue with fairness arises

Authorships/Sponsors

I unlike most other judges truly value a solid author that sets up a debate. I understand that in the SQuo, authors (especially on the second bill of a session) are really discouraged and I get it, but I personally make an effort to try to not continue that skew.

Something also that differentiates me is that if your bill produces a solid, balanced debate, I will give you a bonus for it(this is my way of rewarding good, balanced bills).

Clash/Preemptive Responses

In regards to Clash, I expect It in every speech past the first affirmative.

For preemptive responses, I feel they often are disjointed whenever I hear them (that shouldn't discourage you but should let you know that I rarely see it done properly). If it's done properly I'll appreciate it

Late Speeches

In later speeches I expect more clash than new arguments.

Just aside I have noticed in my own judging that I rank people who frame debates very well- take that how you will

IE Events

I don't think anyone has ever looked at an IE paradigm, if I'm judging you in a speech round and you've read this please tell me, since it enough people do I will write one.

If you have any questions for me before your speech feel free to ask.

Hi -- I'm a parent and a lay judge. I did not debate in high school, nor in college. I've been judging for a few years. Two years of MS parli, one year of HS PF and one year of HS LD. In PF, I'm looking for the most persuasive argument you can make.

In all formats, I am partial to empirical arguments. While LD is about morals and ethics, and while PF is about topicality, I am helped in both cases by seeing how an idea or an argument is applied in the real world.

In LD, I can understand about 90% of the words you say if you spread, but I have trouble processing your cases at that speed - it's just a bunch of words I mostly recognize. You can talk fast, though, and being a New Yorker I will understand that, at least.

Good luck!

Experience:

I debated from 2012-2016 on the regional and national level for Timothy Christian School. I competed mostly in LD but did do some PF late senior year for fun. That being said, I have not been very involved in debate for a while and thus am not fresh with high-level argumentation.

LD

Argumentation:

I will definitely be able to able to understand generic framework contention level debate.

WARNING: Again, I haven't been involved much with debate since graduating and norms/common arguments change. Therefore, if you decide to run T's, DA's, any kind of critical argument etc. make sure you are explaining yourself clearly and outlining what level of the debate comes first, second, etc. You may have do a little extra work explaining how I should view the round. That said I'll be a little lenient on extensions if you are spending that other time with some round overview/crystallization. Make sure again to do a good job of breaking down under what framework I am evaluating the round and where specifically I am voting.

Sorry if you disagree with my decision.

Spreading:

Please don't spread. I am cool with quicker than normal speaking, but I have not been involved in debate much really since graduating.

I am not going to vote for an argument I don't understand whether it be because of its complexity of said argument/lack of proper explanation or whether it be because it was read/said too fast for me to understand, so let that be a warning.

I would recommend not trying to do anything too "fancy" to avoid all of us being uncomfortable at the end of the round if I give my RFD. If you are used to a specific type of argument I am not saying you cannot run said argument, just understand where I am coming from and explain everything, specifically what I am voting off of very, very clearly.

PF

Argumentation:

I think PF breaks down more simply with a util/consequence based framework. If you disagree make the argument and if it makes sense and is extended ill buy it no problem. I do not think I'll have any issue with any type of argumentation so that should be good. Just make sure you are being clear where on the flow I am voting for you and please please please weigh so its not just both teams extending arguments across the flow with no clear/given relative impact.

Speed:

Fast PF speed is totally ok for me

Hi, all!

I am in my third decade of this activity and love the outcomes it affords graduates. I do fear that some of the modern trophy-hunting tricks undercut the educational value / critical thinking / topic discovery aspects of debate. I admire speakers, debaters, and programs who explore a topic's possibilities, implications, unintended consequences, and force a consideration of new issues.

Debate Events

I am energized by creative interpretations of the topic, exploration of hidden causes / unforeseen (but provably viable) outcomes, and the realpolitik / pragmatic examination of the issues presented by the topics. I do not believe that anything other than CX requires a plan in order to be evaluated.

LD is asking the question "why" an action should / n't be done. Debaters are free to offer plans, but should be willing to engage in "why" debate on a philosophical / moral justification level. I prefer a problem-solving approach to rope-a-dope debate. I believe judges should have the right (perhaps obligation) to apply some semblance of critical thinking to the cases presented when considering how to evaluate them. There is a prima facie aspect to debate which requires arguments to be upheld as reasonable in order for the case to stand on "first face." Everyone's definition of "speed" is different, so I will simply say that I appreciate being given the opportunity to consider your argument. I should not have to rely on the e-mail chain to tell me what you said or interpret what you meant. The e-mail chain should probably be for reviewing cards at the end of the round as needed. In short, e-mail chains do not replace the communicative aspect of the event and relying on them to do such can limit the general outcomes of all participants in the round.

I do not resonate with pre-emptive theory ("they didn't put it on the wiki") arguments in lieu of substantive debate. You are free to run them in conjunction, but you need to do a lot of work to convince me the harm that's being done because what you say is "the way things are" is not being done. I'm all for challenging prevailing assumption, but just because you said it's so does not make it such.

WSD teams should ensure some semblance of balance and equity amongst team members. Having a first speaker essentially read case and then get out of the way so second speaker can do the heavy lifting for the next hour doesn't really reflect well on the team. In a points race, it is imperative that all parties on the team are pulling their share of the weight. I love teams who have multiple levels of conceptualizing the same point. Exploring the pragmatic level and/or the moral level and/of the economic level and/or... allows the judge to have multiple "outs" to agree with you and demonstrates a depth of topic mastery that compares favorably to teams who rely on one level throughout. WSD is a wonderful combination of presentation and argumentation / content and I follow the proportional consideration of each provided on the ballot.

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

Hi - judge's daughter writing his paradigm for him.

Arguments: He's a pretty no-BS guy - if you're running a super niche argument chances are he isn't going to buy it unless it's really well warranted. He really likes the obvious (stock) arguments and you'll find the easiest way to his ballot is the most apparent reasons why to affirm/negate or really well warranted niche stuff.

Speed: He has a low tolerance for fast speed and you're going to lose him if you get anywhere close to spreading - talk at a pace like you would in a conversation. If you need to read your case any faster, send him the link so he can flow it properly.

Flowing: I did teach him how to flow :) so he will be actively flowing! He's less of an impact voter and more of a logic voter - this isn't to say quantified impacts don't help but don't just yell random numbers at him. General piece of advice for all debaters.

Postrounding: PLEASE don't postround him - it's rude and disrespectful. Public forum was made for the public so if he couldn't understand your argument it's your fault, not his.

Speaks: His "average debater" is a 28. He will add or subtract points if he found you to be worse or better than the 'average'.

Anyway, good luck debating and have fun!

I'm a parent of a third year varsity debater. I was a debater myself in high school.

Pacing: Speak slowly and clearing. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

Delivery: Make eye contact with the judge from time to time; don't just read straight from your notes but look up and deliver a convincing argument.

Evidence: You must site the source and the year so I know it's relevant and credible.

Tips: I value warranting. Explain your evidence.

Impact is important. Tell me why this matters.

Be respectful.

Martin Page

Assistant Director--Debate

Ridge High School

Updated for TOC 2016

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm (Scroll Down for PF)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--I default reasonability and drop the argument.

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

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

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

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

Tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Some Notes on Public Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As of when I'm writing this, I am a first year out from Lexington, MA. My freshman year was policy, and my sophomore, junior, and senior years were in PF. Since I came from policy, I have a pretty lax view on PF and can probably handle speed (unless you truly suck at spreading or have a garbage mic). aadharsh2010@gmail.com (for email chains)

*Crypto Topic*: I know more than a decent bit about crypto. At the end of the day, I'm still tech, but my previous experience with crypto will affect my threshold for buying arguments and also means that if you don't weigh or engage with your opponent's argumentation, weird stuff might happen.

Evidence

I may call for evidence if it seems fishy or is debated on for a bunch of the round. Also if you call for evidence, I usually would like to see it too, be it via an email chain (aadharsh2010@gmail.com) or physically.

Round Stuff

I expect second rebuttal to have at least some frontlining in it, and it'd be best if anything that was round deciding be in both the summary and the final focus (If neither team extends properly, the decisions might actually be based on marginal amounts of offense which is never fun, because it gets very sketchy very quickly). Don't waste too much time on defense in first summary, please.

Comparative weighing is also hugely important for me, so the sooner you start it in round, the better. Signposting is always pretty nice, and your speaks will reflect this.

Techier Round Stuff

I'm okay with DA/theory/K stuff (will only vote if both teams seem to understand theory, running higher level arguments to block your opponent on their knowledge is super scummy and your speaks will definitely reflect that).

Speaks/Cross

I don't flow or weigh cross in my ballot decision, so it'd be pretty sweet if you could mention it in a speech when your opponent concedes something in cross. I also hold the belief that speaks are independent of wins, so if you have great speaks but lose, know that you have the speaking stuff down, but just have a less than amazing case or something along those lines. If we're at a super lay tournament, I'll be a speaks fairy unless you do some dumb crap in round, I'm probably going to start everybody on a 28 and go up and down in increments of .5 or .1 if the tournament lets me. It's also totally fine if you want to debate without your cameras on, this will not impact how I eval you (I'll defer to tournament rules if they contradict this)

In general, don't lose sight of the fact that debate is a game. I see judges talking about humor on their paradigms a bunch, but I've never had the guts to crack jokes in round. I like humor and stuff if it is vaguely tasteful, and your speaks may be bumped. I generally believe that I do a crap job of hiding the ways that I feel about an argument, so reading me is going to be to your advantage.

Feel free to ask questions or message me on Facebook. Also I will disclose for sure at tournaments that allow it! Also please read my comments, I really do try to make them super good instead of browsing reddit in round :P

Misc stuff (will disengage this at any competitor's request, no questions asked)

- References to the Robert Chen round will warrant a speaks boost.

- Funny contention names will grant a slight speaks boost

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

I want to make sure that the points you are trying to make. Pleas speak slow and clear enough so I can follow. Remember this isn't a race to see how many words you can cram in 4 minutes.

If you wish to have one, please set up the email chain before round so you can hit send at start time.

ellelaurenreed@gmail.com

Conflicts: Sehome HS, Bellingham HS, Squalicum HS (WA)

* are new/significant

*UPS 2023- I will vote on anything yall are likely to read and am somewhat in the literature for coaching. I've noticed a lot of good LARRP debaters on our circuit, but haven't judged a very high level LARRP v LARRP round in a while, so if you plan on doing any kinda crazy stuff like plan tricks or plan repair maybe explain it in a tiny bit more depth.

*online debate note* from my limited experience judging online, I/my wifi seem to generally be able to follow a pretty good speed, though if you are very fast your mic will probably clip words. Know your mic quality, it changes how fast you can go and be clear. I will 'clear' 2-3 times, watch chat messages. I flow speeches not docs. Also, somehow, some of ya'll steal prep more than in-person with less stuff to do, don't do that.

Overview-
-Do good and win arguments. The more rounds i judge, the less i feel like the type of argument/style of debate you do matters as much in my evaluation of a round as i expected it would when i first started judging.
-Read what you want, if it has a warrant and some kind of framing mechanism to impact into.
-Also, don't intentionally be a bigot if you don't want to lose w/bad speaks. *This includes the cards you read and strategies you go for*
-Feel free to go fast, but signpost, differentiate tags, be clear, and SLOW DOWN AT INTERPS and PLANS! I flow speeches, not docs, and it is just good debate/spreading to differentiate tags and cards this way. also somewhat applies to important analytics
-*dont be sus: don't clip. dont message/talk to your friend or coach about the debate round in progress. dont have teammate in the room whispering tips to you. It really isn't complicated. I've disqualified teams over all of these. Most of the time, the team doing this stuff would win straight up if they would just think and debate normally. I may give you a warning, especially in JV, but I don't have to.

I try to base speaks on how well you debate, with some focus on technical performance but more on strategic choice, with 28.5 being average. Not too stingy, but i think point inflation is bad and rarely give 29.5 and above. I appreciate really good debates and try to reward good/ outstanding performances, technically or in 'the vibe'. Creativity gets rewarded pretty heavily

if you think my paradigm is odd and want to ask questions about it, feel free to.

specifics-

I debated LD in HS and got a few bids. I also did policy debate for NYU in college. I am probably more familiar with LD still, but I've judged and debated a lot of good CX rounds. I mostly read critical or performative arguments (especially in policy), and thats the style of debate I understand the best generally, but in HS i was very flex and fundamentally I will vote on whatever.

*note here for Washingtondebaters *- i mostly debated on the east coast and Texas, so i am way more familiar with tricks, phil, and pomo than the average judge on our circuit, despite my somewhat policy background. Feel free to read any of this stuff (well please) and i will appreciate it.

I also think disclosure is in general good and the best responses to disclosure theory are kritical rather than about small schools or fairness. about disclosure- i do not like deployment of disclosure theory outside of norms. If the aff has not been broken, or the debater has not competed at a tournament yet (or even worse, at all this year), I will likely reduce speaks for reading disclosure, even if i will vote on it. I really really don't like contact info theory as a way to establish a violation for a debater who is otherwise disclosing and following norms. I will absolutely reduce speaks for this in all instances. Other stuff (full text vs cites, must disclose to black/other group of debaters/ other reasonable deployments) is totally fine.

i wont vote on- the resolved a-priori (other a-priories are fine), arguments cut from the SCUM manifesto, *trans-exclusionary feminism/gender args*, oppression of any kind good, evaluate theory after the 2nr (some debate about what to evaluate when is fine, but this being shelled out is a really tough buy for me).

I strongly dislike how the DSRB 'must talk about personal experience/positionally' framework shell is deployed in some (both LD and CX) rounds. If you read this arg, at minimum, your performance should meet the interp. Reading it, for example, with a ton of tricks, nibs, skep, and fairness first without any discussion of your own identity is anti-black and insulting to the context these arguments originated in (and, often, very violent in round). I have not intervened against this argument, but I have and will reduced speaks. I am also very very open to voting on prefcon and other offensive arguments when this shell is deployed in an anti-black way.

Don't be violent, and pay attention to social position. I dock speaks for microggressions, sometimes subconsciously, so try to not. (for example; there is nothing less impressive to watch in a debate round where a dude condescends a woman on something she understands better than he does)

defaults- presume neg (i think me writing aff here previously was a typo), flips if neg reads an advocacy. other ones are probably not important: ****Im more likely to discard a flow/impact as irresolvable and look for other offense in other places, rather than default on a million paradigm issues to make a ballot story make sense****

I'm cool with more weird/innovative arguments and i tend to like them a lot, as well as impact turns like extinction good that some judges don't like. make sure your justifications are good (and no fascist stuff please)

PF

*this section was written several years ago. I don't know how it holds up to the current meta, assume my ideas are still similar, if maybe somewhat more mellowed out*

I do NOT evaluate rounds based on persuasion. I evaluate the flow. If i should evaluate the round different, that's possible, but you have to win a warrant for your role of the judge. Any progressive stuff yall want to do is cool, but don't do it really badly. None of yall can spread too quickly so go whatever speed. Also uuuh 'rules of pf' isnt an argument in 99% of cases

I really do not like paraphrased evidence. PF already has huge issues with evidence integrity, and paraphrased evidence can say whatever you want it to say. Analytic arguments are almost always better because they normally actually have a warrant and don't teach bad academic practices. I also call for cards after the round and will go through the effort to check cites- do not fabricate evidence in front of me *this also applies to any other debate event when allowed by tournament*

ALL basic debate things actually do still apply to yall. For example- no new in the 2 (your arguments other than weighing/comparison in the final focus u want me to vote off of must be in a previous speech, and ideally before the summery. To clarify further, you also do not have to extend all arguments from earlier speeches, rather you should collapse down to your best arguments), dropped arguments are conceded arguments (including the first speech for whoever is speaking second!), you need offense to win a round, ect.

Another issue i often have in pf rounds is that teams expect me to take something bad-sounding for granted as an impact. You should not to this- 1. you de facto have to warrant all of the pieces; a) that your impact exists, and (b) that its bad, and (c) that its worse than your opponents impacts. 2. Things you think are intuitively bad may not be the same as what i think is intuitively bad

However you want to debate in front of me is fine.

I won't require defense in first summary, unless second rebuttal frontlines.

Don't forget to have fun!

I am a parent judge. I have judged several tournaments over the last four years. I am not fully aware of all the nuanced rules of debate. Each side should clearly present and defend their case. They should also respond to all arguments presented by the other side. I also appreciate debaters that respect the time rules.

Marcus Sass paradigm

Hill SS, grad in 2013. I debated PF For the Hill School in Pottstown, PA. I was coached by Dr. Josh Schmidt and I view debate similarly to how he does. That’s not to say that if you pref him, you should pref me. I have less dexterity when evaluating arguments but I aim to judge like he did.

LD:
[as of pennsbury 2019]

Here are a few things you should know:
Speed: I’m ok with moderate speed but don’t go at top circuit speed. Add me to the email chain marcusjsass@gmail.com please. If you’re going too fast, I’ll “slow” or “clear” you twice before I stop flowing.

Progressive stuff: I’ll evaluate any well warranted argument that’s explained well. I’m expressive. If I look confused, I am. That being said, performances and non-topical stuff generally aren’t the most strategic in front of me.

Please be kind if you’re hitting a less experienced debater. Do what you think you need to do to win the round, but don’t make them cry. Debate should be a space where everyone feels comfortable.

Speaks: I average around a 27. I’ll try to adjust based on the tournament.

Postround: i don’t disclose the results but will give oral feedback as time permits. If you or your coach/parent/other person is rude in the post round, I will drop speaks.

I am a careful listener and like to listen to cogent and persuasive arguments.

I generally keep abreast of recent and not-so-recent news but there may be topics on which I may not know many of the details. Of course, this is what will make judging interesting for a PF debate implying that I would like to listen to convincing arguments - affirmative or negative. I will be taking notes as the debater speaks and also when rebuttals and responses are given by opponents.

I pay attention to evidence-based arguments and if there are opinions rather factual statements presented, I would like to see if the debater is citing similar opinions from reputable sources.

I believe that the delivery of the argument is also important. If the delivery is poor or too interrupted or unclear due to speed or volume, I may not follow the argument at all. This can only hurt the debater; so, it is important that the debater pays attention to clear and lucid delivery of arguments.

Good luck to all debaters!

Hello!

I'm a sohpomore in college, who debated three years of PF for Lexington. I also did one year of policy, but also I was a young high school freshman at the time so please just stick to the PF stuff. Refer to my friend Anika's paradigm because I'm lazy and a leech :) If you still have questions, ask!

I'm a lay judge. So speak clearly and slowly.

I prefer a moderate talking speed. Thanks