Like to stay in the current state of affairs and like public forum debates given the relevance. Been judging PF style debates for over a year across several tournaments

I am a parent judge so please talk clearly. I am fine if you speak fast as long as I understand you. I am a tabula rasa judge, but it is very important that you warrant your claims.

When weighing impacts, make sure that you emphasize why you win on time frame, magnitude, severity, and probability. It is important that you stress the importance of your impact by using warrants to back up your claims.

I award speaker points based on how you speak. If you are rude or offensive at any point during the debate, I will take points off.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at rajala01@gmail.com.

Good luck.

Update: Here's some SetCol lectures and links to hella lit I compiled a while ago:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UzbBrwOK3BDTgMTgV2KNnS14BiLKb4e1

Update: If you love to run theory in LD, you probably should strike me.

I've never particularly liked theory, but over the last couple years theory in LD has turned into a profoundly uneducational whine-off that devolves into students running baseless accusations of "abuse". Especially in a time where debaters are starting to call out real life abuse they may face from the debate community, it's becoming harder and harder for me to stomach rewarding "their definition is abusive because now I have to run theory and that's a time skew" (which is self-fulfilling) type theory arguments with a ballot. I firmly believe that the discourse we use in rounds can shape our worldviews and community norms. "Abuse", a term that should carry significance, is subconsciously rendered meaningless because it's flippantly tossed around to win a ballot. It develops connotations of self-serving technicalities that I firmly believe seep into how we view people speaking out about real abuse.
(It occurred to me that some debaters may want to borrow the above paragraph, so if you do, please keep the cutting I've bolded to avoid accidentally misrepresenting the argument.)

Short version: I’m a flow judge down with most K’s, spreading, CPs (condo or uncondo) narratives, performance, and projects. If you bite into your own K, you're screwed. For the love of coffee, SIGNPOST. Don’t run bad science. I love IR and current events. I hate Eurocentric perspectives. Theory debate is meh at the best of times when it’s done well and downright painful when it’s done poorly or unnecessarily. (update: just don't run theory in front of me) I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on RVI’s. Topicality: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . Weigh impacts. I will listen to whatever you have to say as long as it is well supported, do not just assume certain things are good or bad. Case debate is fun. Framework debate is interesting, whoever wins framework controls how I will view the round and usually gets my ballot. I’m incredibly non-interventionist (unless someone’s winning the “the judge should be a critical intellectual” arg, then be prepared for what intellect you have unleashed.) and rarely vote on presumption, unless something egregious happens in round. Don’t be a jackass - at this point, and especially given how misogynistic debatespace can be, if you're excessively rude to your opponent I am not going to reward that type of behavior with a ballot if it's an otherwise close round. Like, it's not that hard to not be a jerk, it usually saves you time.

Last thing - lots of teams have been running Indigenous something or other in front of me. I guess they inherently assume this is good judge adaptation. It frequently is not. If you are planning on doing this, please scroll down to the bottom and read my opinions on this instead of telling me how to think about my own identity.

(Also, I like a lot of different things. I'm super nerdy. Please don't feel constrained in the breadth of arguments you can run in front of me; there's more to me than my race. *cries single tear*)

^you’ll probably be fine with just that, the rest is provided for kicks and giggles.
Launching the Logorrhea

Use your head! Analysis: I want to see critical engagement with the literature. Don’t just say that something is true or desirable because some author said so. Explain what you are arguing in your own words, tell me why it matters and why it is important to be heard in this round. Blippy arguments aren’t going to have much punch. When you extend, restate the analysis; I dislike extending points for the sake of just having stuff on the flow, tell me why it’s important in the round.

Disads: I want a clear link/internal link story. This is often lacking in politics disads, which are interesting when done well and awful when they’re like “voting for this bill drains the president’s political capital”. Be specific and intrinsic. Impact calc is important as is reminding me why I should be weighing all this under your framework. I’m not tied to Probability >Magnitude or Manitude>Probability – you convince me which one I should prioritize. Timeframe can be a good tie-breaker for this.

Theory: See update at the top. If you run it, please make sure it's warranted. I have voted on it and will if it isn't responded to, but it’s not exactly my favorite type of debate. Clarify what you mean by “reasonability” and why you are being more reasonable.

Non-topical Affs: Go for it. Extra-topical plans: If you’re all debating the resolution straight up, being extra-T isn’t very fair.

Let's be clear on the need for speed: I can handle pretty fast spread, just make sure to enunciate. I will yell clear if needed, but after 2 or 3 "clears" you will start losing speaks if you don’t listen. Please don’t spread out teams that can’t spread; it’s mean and I will be mean back to you on the ballot.

Speak up! I award speaker points for content, strategy, and structure more than talking pretty.Let's all play nice. Watch your rhetoric; anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, abelist, or transphobic will nuke your speaks. My speaks are generally higher than 26. 27-27.5 is average-proficient, 28 is awesome, 29 is " I really wanted to give you 30, but there was (blank) tiny issue". 29.5-30 means the round was pure beauty in motion.

RVI's: Ok, for whatever reason, this is like cilantro for most people in the debate community; they either think they're the best, most clever thing ever or that they're a horrible abomination. I really, seriously, don't have a strong opinion either way, I think it is very much a case by case situation.

K's: Feel more than free to be creative and unique, just make sure it makes sense. What I mean is that you should thoroughly understand what you are running, stay consistent with your framework, be able to handle the obvious questions it will incur. Back it up with analysis and justify why this is significant. It is always really obvious when somebody is running a case that was just handed to them by a coach or more senior competitor. I’m decently familiar with critical literature/arguments regarding Anthropocentrism, Ecofem, Indigeneity/Settler Colonialism, and Racial Positionality. I know little bits and pieces of other areas (like Disability Politics or Queer Theory – and a bunch of random stuff written by Marxist doctors on healthcare and neoliberalism; I had a weird summer in 2016.) and am more than happy to listen to whatever you want to run, I just might not be terribly familiar with the lit so make sure to clearly explain the thesis. Please feel free to ask me before the round if you want a clarification on my knowledge base. Furthermore, if you are critiquing somebody's rhetoric within the round and tell me that the role of the judge is to be a critical intellectual, don't bite into that rhetoric. It will end badly for you.
There are a few specific K's that I have more strict criteria for.
Nietzsche: Please for the love of all that is good in the world, don't run a Nietzsche K in front of me unless you have actually read some Nietzsche. All the bastardized embrace suffering stuff I hear all the time is not Nietzsche.
Give Back the Land/Decolonization: This can either be done really well or really poorly. A lot of the time, running this is pretty much just commodifying the suffering and exploitation and genocide of hundreds of Peoples for the ballot in a round. Please don't be one of those teams or I will drop you. Read “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” if you disagree with this and then think about what I said again. If you are running this case without any cards from Native authors, that is a serious paternalistic problem. It's also hard when the "plans" proposed don't leave room for biracial Native Americans, especially considering we have the highest "out-marriage" rates of any ethnicity. I don't wanna hear any "Noble Savage" type garbage. If you argue that we need to increase Indigenous knowledge production and all the stuff happening to Natives is really bad and oppressive and stuff, but you don't have a goddamn plan for tangibly reducing harm to people like me, stop talking. Things like rates of substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, poverty,and cultural erasure have affected my life and my family and friends. THIS IS NOT A GAME TO ME. These are not arguments for your academic curiosity. These are real things that affect real people. I do not have the luxury to play with these concepts in academic abstraction, and I won't tolerate you doing so. If you want to argue in-round solutions, they better actually be solutions. None of this "we need to imagine a different government" BS. We have been imagining for a long time. If you are running this case to help rhetorically overthrow colonialist power structures and are actually representing Native voices, then you belong on the other half of the equation are running this case for the right reasons.

Also
Speed K's: Just have solid reasons for why your opponent spreading is abelist or exclusionary. If you have a disability that makes spreading either impossible for you to perform yourself or listen to/flow, if you have asked your opponent not to spread before the round, and your opponent still spreads, then yes absolutely run a speed K.

Quick thing on poetry- a lot of arguments I’ve heard against poetry being used in round are really classist and racist. I do not believe that poetry is only a tool of the elite and educated or that marginalized individuals who use it are traitor pawns of the ivory tower. Arguments that essentially boil down to “poetry is exclusionary because it’s bourgeoisie” are not going to work for me. Arguments that say poetry only embodies White ideals of beauty and that PoC poetry will inevitably be co-opted are viscerally offensive to me.
I won't drop you in the round if you run this, but I will drop the argument.

Narratives: Hell. Yes. I strongly believe narrative debate has an important role in asserting the voices of marginalized groups in academia. These are experiences and perspectives that the overwhelmingly wealthy white able cis/het male institutions of academia have isolated. Other authors publishing nuanced work on these topics can be rare, which is part of where narrartives come in to fill that gap. Narratives are NOT whining- narrative debate is a way for the debater to become a producer of knowledge. Talking about structural violence with first person language does not make these topics any less academic; somebody else does not need to study you for your problems to be worthy of being heard and debated.
That being said, if you are running a narrative – do NOT make sweeping assumptions about your opponents or judges, particularly in regards to things that nobody should have to feel forced to disclose about themselves to a room full of strangers, like mental health status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or a history of experiencing abuse/domestic violence. Your job is to attack power structures, and I have no tolerance for teams who invalidate their opponents' identities and their rights to display them how/when they choose to.

Please don't let the round turn into the Oppression Olympics. Don't let your args against narratives devolve into "actually, I am more oppressed than you because X " - narratives are to highlight structural violence, it's not personal. It is not about you, the debater running a narrative is an empiric to a larger argument that highlights particular systems of power. We shouldn't have to pretend like these systems don't apply to us in some way when we run cases, and at the end of the day, nobody is attacking YOU, they are indicting particular systems of power. Engage with the power structures in the round.

Each round is different, so these are just guidelines and if you have a question that this didn't answer, feel free to ask.
Good luck, have fun!

Experience: LD Debate 4 years in High School. Presently a coach for both speech and debate.

Paradigm: I try to avoid judge intervention as much as possible. Therefore I don't have any hard rules such as "voting on framework". It is up to the competitors to make well reasoned arguments why their arguments have priority on the ballot within the hierarchy of other arguments in the round.

This means that for an argument to make it to the ballot it must be fully supported throughout the round by the debater, cradle to grave. Extending arguments is very important, especially in the case of a dropped argument or a cross application.

Spreading: I generally don't like speed reading because it usually used at the expense of eloquence. However context is important so at circuit tournaments it might be acceptable if you really feel it is important to your round.

Finally, if something isn't read it doesn't go on the flow. For example, if you say "I have a card that proves this" but do not read that card, it will not go on the flow.

For Public Forum:

I debated on the national circuit in high school and late outrounds at nationals. Now I am a senior studying political science in the bay area. I'm fine with critical arguments and speed, but both must be done well. I judge off the flow so clear signposting and argument order are paramount. I'll reward creative arguments or unique pieces of evidence, but I do not flow crossfire. If you want points made during crossfire to make it to the flow, they must be used in a speech. I also want crossfires to be clean, limit the cutoffs and the rambling-- they should actually be understandable. I do often call to review evidence, I will not hesitate to through out evidence that has been disingenuously sourced or quoted from. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask before the round begins. Good luck to all debaters.

Updated January, 2018

TL;DR Former PFer, flow judge. Consistency through summary and FF, don't misconstrue evidence, time yourselves, and weigh please.

Background

Four years of PF at Nueva (graduated 2017). As with any human being, I have ideological biases, but in round I will try my best to be tabula rasa and to evaluate the round fairly.

Evidence/Cards

I’m fine if you ask for some cards, flash cards, or whatever. However, there are four things I really don’t like when people do. First, do not prep when people are finding cards. This is rude. Second, find cards in a timely manner. You should be able to provide cards with proper citations and bolded/highlighted parts in a manner that does not hold up the debate. This makes the round run smoother and is a debater's responsibility. Third, use proper citations with author and date at least (I tag cards by the author's last name; not a rule in any way, just something you might find helpful). These first three things will not influence my decision but will have an effect on speaks (although I'm open to theory on improper citations). Fourth, DO NOT MISCONSTRUE EVIDENCE. In prelims I will not ask for cards after the round unless you ask me to call for cards, in which case I will call for all card you ask me to call for, or unless I strongly suspect a card is misconstrued. In outrounds, I will call for cards that are heavily contested or any cards that you ask me to call for or any cards I strongly suspect are misconstrued. If your evidence is misconstrued, it disappears from my flow. If it is misconstrued such that a reasonable person would believe it was intentionally manipulated to give a strategic advantage, I will drop you (although I've never had to do this before and hope I never will).

The implication of my prelim evidence policy is that when two teams throw contradictory stats at each other with no way to resolve the conflict, I don't know what to do (since I'm not going to call for prelim cards); this means that I won't feel comfortable enough to vote on the argument with unresolved evidence conflicts (unless the round is so messy that there is nowhere else to vote). Thus, if you want me to vote on such an argument, tell me to call for the cards.

I think paraphrasing is fine (I paraphrased when I debated), as long as you are not changing the meaning of the card.

Topicality and Framework

These are fine but most of the time in PF just winning that an argument is not topical does not mean that you win the round, it just takes out one (or multiple pieces) of their offense. Don't forget to extend offense too. Also, if you are going to run a framework, you have to tell me why your opponents arguments don't fit under that framework and why you do (in addition to why I should pref the framework over util, which is what I will default to).

Definitions

Honestly most definitions read in PF are unnecessary. I would advise only reading definitions if they're actually important. Also, I hate adjudicating definitional debates (you'll lose speaks if you make me do this).

Theory and Ks

I am open to these and will vote on them (if you use a shell, make sure you extend properly). However, I do think that PFers often read theory when the interp is invalid/the violation didn't really happen because they want to run "cool progressive" arguments. Also, running theory just because you know your opponents won't understand it technically and you can get an easy win is a really terrible thing to do (if you really think there's something unfair going on in the round, but your opponents don't understand how a shell works--just ask them in crossfire--then you can just run paragraph theory). If it is clear you are just running the theory for an easy win, you will get 0 speaks (but still the win as long as you actually win the round). That said, I love interesting rounds and progressive argumentation so as long as your not forcing it to pick up an easy ballot, go ahead!

Weighing

Please do this. The only way you can guarantee a win in round is to write my ballot for me in late speeches; tell me why you are winning the most important argument and argue why that argument is the most important and you will win. Weigh your impacts. If you don’t, I will just have to pick one and one team will probably disagree with my decision.

I think there's a tendency in the debate community to say things like "weigh lives over everything else"--this is unjustified and is not sufficient weighing. If there's no weighing in the round, I default to the weirdest impact in the round--you won't be happy with this so just weigh.

Speed

I’ve never heard a PF debate that I can’t follow, but I definitely cannot follow fast policy speed. Just do what you normally do and I’ll drop my pen if you’re going too fast. Do be clear on tags and signpost though.

Offtime Roadmap

Do this if you want, but is your rebuttal really so extraordinarily difficult to follow that it desperately needs a roadmap? Unless you're doing something really crazy, it's probably not necessary in PF, but I won't dock you points for doing it unnecessarily.

Cross

I pay very little attention to crossfire--if you find this to be a big issue, please let me know before the round, and we can discuss. Otherwise, this means that anything that you want in the round has to be in speech. Be polite, and do not yell. Also, if you're confused about something please just ask in crossfire.

Also, time your own cross.

Extensions

Extending through ink is bad. If you try to extend through ink, I will consider the defense cold dropped. The other team only need bring up in later speeches that the response was dropped. Extending through ink in the 2nd FF is not cool at all. It will come out of your speaks and will NOT be evaluated.

Also, an extension consists of link, warrant, and impact. When you extend, tag and summarize your cards.

FF and Summary

Anything that is in the FF has to be in summary (the only exception to this is that 1st summary does not have to extend defense). Do not try to sneak in arguments during grand cross and extend them in FF; I will not evaluate them. This is especially true if you are the second speaking FF. If you are 2nd speaking FF teams that makes up new arguments or misconstrues evidence in the FF I will disregard everything new and trash your speaker points.

Note: If you are the first speaking team, you may extend a turn from rebuttal to FF as long as you phrase it as a competitive link that exactly cancels out your opponent's link. It will be evaluated accordingly as defense.

Collapse

Please please pick arguments to go for. Unless you are so far ahead that you have time to go for everything, going for everything in a half-decent way is far worse than collapsing on a couple of key arguments.

Prep

Don't steal prep. It will come out of your speaks. I really don't think it should take more than 15 seconds to get your stuff together and speak--if this seems unfair or there is a reason you can't do this, then let me know before the round, and we can discuss.

Speaker Points

I'm pretty generous with speaks. For me speaking ability is completely separate from the arguments in the debate. You can make good points and be a terrible speaker and I’ll pick you up but probably give you terrible speaks. If you want good speaks be polite, don't misconstrue evidence, and speak pretty. Speaker points are also where I will penalize you for things like going new in the 2.

Kicking Out

Kicking out of an argument requires that you read a piece of defense on it. This must be in summary and final focus (even if it is first summary).

Clarity

I will nod my head when something makes sense to me, and I'll also make a weird face if I don't understand what you are talking about. Hopefully this is helpful for making sure I understand your arguments.

Miscellaneous/Semantics

I don't appreciate it when 1st speaking teams don't flow their opponent's FF. I think one of the main reasons we debate is because it helps us learn, and having a full flow of the round is certainly more conducive to learning. I realize this part of my paradigm may not actually achieve its end (b/c you may just flow the speech so I don't deck your speaks and then throw it away afterwards), but it's probably better than you not flowing at all. I will doc half a speaker point if you don't do this.

I think it makes the round interesting when people ask weird crossfire questions like "what are you going for in summary?" (more like LD).

Yes you can time yourselves--I would prefer that.

Please come with your cases preflowed--that saves everyone time.

Know what your impact cards mean. If your card says "a one standard deviation in x increases the gini coefficient by 0.02," you better be able to explain what that means. Also, I don't understand what that means so you should explain that to me and compare it to other impacts.

I love humor. If I laugh you can have a 30.

I'm certainly open to discussing the reasons for my paradigm and even changing them if the discussion convinces me.

I default to util. I will buy any framework, but give me a reason to prefer.

I really enjoy discussion of methodology/study flaws. Bonus speaks for cool, mathematically insightful evidence indicts.

Questions

Ask any questions you have. If something is unclear I would rather you ask a question than do something that I said not to do in my paradigm. This policy on questions also holds after the round. If you disagree or don't understand my decision, please ask me questions. I'm happy to explain or discuss!

For Speech, I need to feel the energy in your presentation. Eye/camera contact is important. Annunciate and make sure your moves are sharp and distinguished. Evaluation criteria will be :

• Clarity & purpose
• Structure
• Engagement
• Voice and character match where applicable
• Depending on the type of speech, relevant examples, facts, etc.

If online, make sure you are in a well-lit room and that camera is treated like the judge/audience. I expect all competitors to have their mikes switched off while others are speaking.

I have been a judge associated with Notre Dame High School since 2018 as my older sister is the director of speech and debate there. Tournaments I have judged include invitationals and state qualifiers. My experience includes debate events such as public forum and Lincoln-Douglas, as well as interpretative, oratory and extemporaneous speech events. My debate judging style focuses on the value criteria of net benefit or maximizing welfare. If I feel the proposal would potentially do more harm than good compared to the status quo, I would vote for the negative. If the proposal seems to be more beneficial compared to the status quo, I would vote for the affirmative.

Feel free to ask me any questions regarding judging philosophies before the round.

For all kinds of rebuttals, I will most likely disregard a point or greatly mitigate it if you just say a statement but not supporting it with reasoning/analysis. Please focus on the WHY instead of just the WHAT.

I do not have a preference for speaking style as I am comfortable with understanding the content at any speed you prefer, as long you make your words clear.

I also look for how well you extend and defend your contentions throughout the entire round. Additionally, if your opponents drop a contention or a point, make sure you point this out to me or I will assume you did not catch it.

BTW if you see me writing the entire time, it means you are doing good as it mean I am flowing everything you say and I understand what you are talking about.

And...

please

weigh

your

impacts

If the topic is complicated and less in news, it is OK to spend a few moments educating the audience/me (judge). If providing context helps you build foundation for your arguments, go for it.

Quickly listing your position/arguments during the debate a few times is a good strategy. Ability to list, at a high level, your arguments and what you have covered helps the judge and you. It also reflects a methodical approach on your part.

If you have limited number of arguments, it is OK. You can explain why your argument(s) have the weight and why your argument(s) matter more than the number of arguments that the other side may be making.

If you notice that the other team introduced a new argument late in the debate and/or cited a source, when sources are not to be given credit for (say, in late rounds), I would notice that too. You are free to point out. I would prefer that you make your point quickly, and move to discussing substance. Also, you are free to tell me what arguments "flow" and what do not. As I am listening, I am making up my mind and such suggestions form the speaker do not generally make a difference in how I perceive the debate.

Above everything else, I look for:

* how you assign weight to your arguments,

* how critically you think about the impact of both side

* do you acknowledge obvious weaknesses and weigh them against the benefits

* how well you address what your opponents bring up

Many times, I do not know immediately at the end of the round who the winner is going to be. I take notes aggressively during each round. I review my notes after the round, some times agonize, and then decide. Regardless, of when I make up my mind, I do not prefer to share the results immediately after the round with the teams.

I am a parent judge and have judged LD and PF for 4 years. I don't like speed or overly complicated arguments.

Don't yell on each other to make your case, be respectful.

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.  Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

• Policy and LD since 1998
• Parli and PF since 2002
• WSDC and WUDC since 2009
• Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
• Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
• Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
• James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
• SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
• Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

• If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
• Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
• Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
• If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
• Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

• I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
• I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
• Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
• If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
• Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
• If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
• Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

• I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
• If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
• Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

• CX:
• Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
• If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
• I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
• With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
• Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
• L-D:
• The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
• I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
• In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
• I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
• PF:
• I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
• Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
• Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
• Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
• CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.  If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech.  If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech, 
• SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.  My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
• GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
• FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
• Parliamentary:
• Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
• My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
• "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
• Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
• Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
• I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
• I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
• If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
• Limited-Prep
• Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
• Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
• Interp/Platforms/Congress
• How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

Gonna keep this short cuz I thought all judges with super long paradigms were very extra [when you are trying to persuade someone in real life, you don't get a two page doc of preferences].

BACKGROUND:

-study Math + Computer Science at Stanford

-did Public Forum in high school on both the local (Georgia) and national circuit [NSDA Nationals and the TOCs]

-I've also done a bit of APDA/BP in college.

PREFERENCES:-

-Don't go TOO Fast.

-Don't mis-cut or BS evidence -- I will likely call for cards each round.

-Please weigh -- it'll make my job easier. This is *key* to getting higher speaks AND winning rounds.

-I prefer solid analysis over rote card dumping [no need to have 5 responses to every warrant].

-I like intense cross-fires! Forces me to listen.

Edit for Stanford 2019: I usually judge LD but have judged PF on this topic and did PF briefly in high school. Since most of my experience comes from LD, I've found that I hold PF debaters to a higher standard than most PF judges when it comes to warrants in evidence and justifying the framework that we evaluate the round through (via burdens/observations etc). If you have evidence that says what you're saying it says and you present some way for me to weigh between arguments, you should be fine.

I went to Marcus High School and qualified in LD for TFA, NFL Nationals, and the TOC. I stopped debating after the 2014-2015 season and judge an average of 1 tournament per year, so adjust accordingly.

I will vote on any argument so long as the conclusion follows from the premises–my primary aim is to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters, so I will avoid "defaulting" on any framing issue at all costs and will detest being forced to do so. I will evaluate arguments as they are presented on the flow, so I will always prioritize explicit over implicit comparison made between arguments.

Other things that might be important:

-I tend to give speaks based on a mixture of strategy, passion, and clarity. In terms of clarity, I'll call clear three times before I start docking speaks

-If I'm looking at you and not flowing that means I'm not understanding your arguments

-I won't give any credence to arguments that I deem as being made new in the 2N/A

-CX is binding

-If you extend something through ink, I most likely won't evaluate the argument

About Me: I am a new judge and new to debate in general. I may know little about the topics you are discussing so make sure to clearly state your arguments.

General Philosophy: Feel free to run any argument you want as long as you have evidence to support it. I will remain open-minded.

Rules: I am not very accustomed to the general rules of a debate round or the rules laid out by the tournament guidelines. If your opponent violates a rule, please bring it up respectfully and show the rule on the NSDA website.

Speaking: Please speak with a loud clear voice. If I can’t understand what you are saying, I won’t accept it as an argument. Signposting would be preferred. Please do not spread. Be polite to your opponents or you will lose speaker points.

I am a volunteer judge for Wilcox HS (Santa Clara, CA) and this is my third year of judging. I have judged multiple formats (LD, PF, Parli) at both the novice and varsity levels.

Here are some things to keep in mind:

- Speak slowly and clearly. Spreading won't help if I cannot understand what you are saying.

- Keep your own time.

- Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver organized speeches, based on your off time roadmap. It's easier for me to keep track that way.

- I do take notes throughout the round so make sure you emphasize your important contentions/points. Clearly state voting issues in your final speech to tell me what to base my decision on.

- Overall, remember to remain respectful during the round (to your opponents, and to the judge). It is important to be assertive in your arguments but no yelling, interrupting, etc. I will take away speaker points if I have to.

- Please try to stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon. If you are going to use a technical term, it is imperative that you explain it to me (as the judge) as well as in the debate space.

- Lastly, remember that the goal of debate is education and productive discourse. I prioritize inclusiveness over overtechnical strategies. This means that if your opponent is a relatively new varsity debater, and cannot engage with theory, K, etc, do NOT run them. If you do run those strategies, simply to gain an easy win rather that engaging and arguing the topic with your opponent, I will NOT vote for you because you are making the debate space exclusive. I would much rather see a strict case debate (value, framework, counter plan) rather than judge high level arguments (theory, K), because at the end of the day, we want to become more educated and better informed in our society.

Otherwise, good luck and have fun!

Don’t spread too much.

Stand in all crossfires.

Sit in grand crossfire.

You keep your time, I’ll keep it on my end as well.

I'm a parent judge. Don't spread or read any theory, ks, or other circuit arguments because I don't understand them. I'll evaluate all arguments objectively and based off my notes. Speaks won't go lower than 28.5 absent any racism/sexism/homophobia/general rudeness. Please send me speech documents at ramkaps@gmail.com. Good luck!

1. Speak slowly and clearly (no mumbling/spreading)

2. Simple language is preferred, please refrain from high-level debate terms (If a complicated term is necessary, it is imperative that you explain it clearly, so that I can understand)

3. Offtime roadmaps are helpful

4. Maintain a clear speech order (do not jump around from contentions to refutations to standard, etc.)

5. Time yourself

My son does debate at Gunn High School. I have had about 45 years of real-world experience. As a judge, my job is to keep an open mind, be an attentive listener, and let each team persuade me which way to vote.

- max wpm 100

- please respect yourself, your partner, and especially your opponents; cross-fire shouldn't be a lot of bickering but productive, even assertive, countering of arguments.

- please be nice

I am a parent judge. I have over a year of experience judging debate, mostly public forum. I can handle speedy or slow, disputatious or genteel, conventional or unorthodox. I am aspiring to be more effective at judging flow so don't feel that you must pander to me as a parent who has no understanding of the inner logics of debate. What I have little tolerance for is (1) condescension or other forms of blatant rudeness toward opponents, (2) insertion of the word "like" into every clause of every sentence, (3) spreading, and (4) fawning behavior toward judges. Have fun, try new tactics, make eye contact with your audience, deliver a cogent case with a tight set of arguments, and, oh yeah, have fun. Did I already say that?

Debated parli for a few years so I'm pretty fluent & I'll try to flow along as fast possible.

TL;DR (if you have no time): be concise, clear, and respectful. I'll flow what I feel is necessary and I may ask to double check your info.

1. Please be structured, walk me through your roadmap before every speech.

2. Be civilized and respectful in the crossfires, if your argument makes sense I'll hear you: don't start screaming at each other.

3. I flow and vote off the flow. Careful with your speed and clarity. I can only credit you for what I have understood. If I can't understand, I will stop flowing.

4. If you're using theory, call it out and don't assume I completely understand. Walk me through the logic.

5. Don't play around with evidence. If you're acting strange or dodging basic questions, I will likely call for the evidence. I will look at any evidence you call for me to look at if you do so within the round. Within the round you should cite, at minimum, author and date.

6. Framework is not a voter. It is a way to evaluate voters.

7. Weigh your arguments and tell me why you're winning the round. Explain why your voters are preferable.

8. I don't flow crossfire, but I do pay attention. Crossfire is primarily for clarifying questions, secondarily for offensive/attacking questions, and tertiarily for defensive questions. It is not a time for ranting. It is not a time for restating your case. Having one debater drone on and on reflects poorly on both teams.

9. Give me voters. The first thing I'll look at when making a decision is the final focus. If you can't tell me why you deserve to win, you don't deserve to win.

I am a Parent Judge and been doing this since 2017, I mostly judge debates. I am convinced with the team/person who were able to convince me regarding the resolution. I would like the debater's not speak too fast, but clearly. I am of the opinion of being respectful of others opinion and wait for their turn to speak. I am mostly swayed who is able articulate with cool head. I am interested most of the topics and does some research.

I have been judging for a few years. I look for soundness of reason, cogency in an argument & the flow of debate. I also look at the grasp of the subject along with the style of presentation.

Traditional judge - Ask me in round.

I am a parent judge with approximately 3 years of judging experience in PF and LD. I maintain a light flow but I am closer to a LAY judge than to a flow judge. Please NO SPREADING - please speak at a slow to medium pace so we can follow you along.

Also, I ask that you be respectful to opponents and not interrupt them during their time to talk. Please allow them to finish their point before you ask questions. Please do not shout or be too aggressive because that will lower you speaker points.

I am not a fan of Kritik or theory arguments, but will allow it if you take extra time to walk through your points slowly.

If there is a clear winner in the round, I will disclose. But more often I will take necessary time after the round to decide and then submit RFD and feedback through Tabroom.

I’ve judged a few tournaments in the last two years, and I would consider myself to be a lay judge. I’m open to listening to any arguments that you want to run as long as they are clear, well warranted, and delivered clearly. I do flow in the round and do my best to vote off of the arguments that remain at the end of the round. I typically give high speaker points as long as you are clear and explain yourself well.

At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be fun and a learning experience, so please try to have fun in the round and be respectful of your opponents in the round.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Lee%2C+Anne

I did debate in high school. I'll flow your round, but I also need you to convince me of your side.

Gina Li is a strategy, merger and acquisition professional with 20+ years working experiences in various sectors. She was an expat working abroad for 15 years with global perspectives. She has been judging both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas since 2018 at various events, in addition to facilitate local student-run speech and debate volunteer activities in the bay area.

She requires all contestants to speak clearly, not necessarily faster the better, try to maximize the given time to rationalize the best data and evidences to support the key arguments. While majority of the contestants are well prepared on their contentions, the winner normally possess the abilities in better framework, effective arguments to counter opponents positions during rebuttal, crossfires and closing. Also please RESPECT your opponents, try not to cut them off if possible.

Knowing everyone is working very hard on each tournament, I wish each contestant the best luck!

I have experience in both the World Schools and public forum formats. I prefer logic and analysis; evidence and analogies should be used for the purpose of illustrating your main points.

I am relatively new to judging parliamentary debate. Please speak at a reasonable rate, define your terms, and make clear links from policy to impacts. Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition, or that your opposition has gone off topic. Don’t abuse POIs or POOs. Neg. Counterplans are acceptable. The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.

I debated PF in high school

Speaking fast is okay just make sure you are speaking clearly.

I don't flow CF

Make sure you make your extensions during the summary speech

Weighing your impacts in the final focus speech is important to me

Do not bring in new arguments or responses in the final focus

Include me on the evidence email: ShauntriceMartin@gmail.com

Be on time to your round

Impact calculus key

Validate claims with both qualitative and quantitative research

FAQ

Q: How do you feel about K debate?

A: I do not care for it, but K teams seem to pref me. I like old school debate with claims, warrants, impacts, etc. I will not weigh a narrative or poem or other creative performance unless there is evidence to support its relevance (unless the opposing team concedes).

Q: How much debate experience do you have?

A: I debated open college policy for 2 years. That was over a decade ago. I have coached winning college teams. I ran two different debate leagues and taught at Cal in 2019 on the arms topic. I occasionally coach/judge on the college circuit.

Q: Do you vote for T?

A: Yes

Q: Are you a theory expert?

A: Depends on what theory, but 75% of the time the answer is no.

Personal Background

I have debated at both the high school and university level for the past 8 years. In high school, I was a finalist at tournaments such as Heart of Europe, Canadian Junior Nationals, and the University of British Columbia. I was also a top 10 speaker at provincials (the equivalent of state) multiple times. I have been coaching students for the last 4 years in Public Forum, World Schools, British Parliamentary, Cross-Examination, and the Canadian National Debate Format.

Scoring Range

I will use the full scoring range allowed by the tournament - expect a score anywhere within the 20 to 30 point range.

What I look for as a Judge

My overarching principle to evaluating rounds is that I can only judge what has been presented in front of me. Therefore, it is completely up to you to explain to me all of the important issues in the round and how your case works to address and resolve those problems. I never bring in my own knowledge or ideas when evaluating the round; however, I am always happy to provide candid feedback after the round as to what I personally did or did not like.

1. I want to make sure that you have very strong logical links between your claims. Assertions are not accepted at face value. If your argument leaves me with a lot of outstanding questions at the end of the round, you have not explained it well enough. It's not my job as a judge to make assumptions and editorialize based on where I think you are going, it is your job to explain each argument and piece of rebuttal to me as if I have the knowledge of an average person.

2. Evidence does not make an argument. Evidence for the sake of evidence is not useful and does not help your argument. I want to see that you use the evidence as an extension of your logic and analysis in order to ground the argument. If the logic behind your evidence isn't explained I won't provide it with much weight.

3. I LOVE principled arguments and do not think they are used nearly enough in Public Forum! Blame this on my CNDF and BP background, but principles help balance out your case and explain why your side of the debate is best on both a moral/ethical level and on a practical level. An extremely well-developed principle argument will beat a good practical argument every time in my book. That being said, don't forget that principled arguments also need impacts - you can't just say "that's bad and therefore we shouldn't do it" and proceed to sit down.

4. Provide context and characterization for the main actors in the debate. It's not enough to simply tell me that an actor will do something, you need to explain what motivates them to act and what forces may influence the choices that they make. Actors are not static and are multidimensional - I expect you to portray them that way.

5. Do not forget that countries outside of the United States do exist and can be important in the debate. Although this may seem obvious, I often see teams that become so focused on the United States that they either leave out other major actors or miss the major impacts of the debate. It is important that you consider and evaluate all perspectives in the debate and present a global context when the debate warrants it.

6. Word economy is very important. If you are talking fast because you have a lot to say and it is all extremely valuable content, that is excellent. If you are talking fast for the sake of talking fast while being extremely repetitive and/or providing irrelevant content, it will not be rewarded. I would rather have a debater speak very slowly and have every line of analysis mean something rather than someone who speaks at 180 words per minute and does not add much value to the round; however, I frequently see the latter rather than the former.

Email: timothy.matt.meyer@gmail.com

1/21/23

I am getting back into circuit/progressive debate this year, though the last time I was considerably involved was 2020. When running advanced arguments do your best to make it clear what my role is and why it matters. Speedwise, I'm still a bit rusty, and don't like being overly reliant on docs (self rating of 7.5).

RVI's

My default position is against RVI's, with the only exception being extreme quantity (of legitimate violations) or severity of a single one.

Slightly tech over truth

__________________________________________________

Experience /Qualifications:

I've been a part of forensics for almost 10 years, competed in multiple IE's and both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate. Qualified and broke at nationals. Coached state and national finalists and extremely competitive PF and Parli teams at the state level.

Preferences

All forms of debate:

Make sure you signpost effectively and clearly convey your arguments. Also clearly illustrate any links and impacts you have.

I have a fair understanding of the active topics (and am always interested to learn more in these rounds) but it is against my principles to make arguments for you. I won't connect your links/impacts to something you haven't said in round, so don't assume that I will.

I'm fine with speed for whatever is reasonable for your event (policy-✓✓✓, LD-✓✓, PF-✓, Parli-why?). Debate is educational, nobody wants to be in a round where they are just being yelled at incomprehensibly. Respect clears and share your docs.

I have a more traditional background; if your impacts are extinction, make sure the link chain in getting there is clear. I strongly prefer impacts grounded in reality that cleanly flow through vs a shoddy push at 5 different extinction scenarios.

My most important personal preference: Manners

This activity is very competitive and confrontational. I understand that sometimes it can get heated. But at any point if anything offensive is done to the other team, I will immediately drop speaker points (and potentially the round based on the severity.) It's important to engage in discourse respectfully.

Lincoln Douglas:

Make sure to clash and subsequently defend your framework. This is the crux of your case, you shouldn't be moving over it.

Be organized, and clearly lay out how your arguments interact with your opponents.

Fairly open to progressive argumentation. I enjoy Kritiks (though I'm a bit rusty on these) and Plans. I'm not a big fan of theory but respect meaningful shells (frivolous theory). Respect the rules of the tournament as well. I really don't want to have to run to tab to figure out if your arguments are legal or not.

Public Forum:

I want clear links and impacts from both sides. Anything you think is important, emphasize. Make sure to be organized and professional.

I accept the use of Kritiks/theory when permissible, but recognize the format of PF is not conducive to the depth of kritiks in my opinion.

I pay attention during cross but won't judge on it. Make sure anything you want to be flowed is said in round.

Parliamentary:

Signpost Signpost Signpost

Signposting is more important here than in any other event. Make sure you are organized, and you are consistently signposting throughout your speeches. If I get lost, there's a good chance a main argument will be missed.

Make your links clear and stay relevant to the resolution for your arguments to flow through.

Argument wise, basically anything goes (frivolous theory).

I generally take a tabula rasa approach to judging. However, having experience as a former debater, I will not evaluate arguments that are blatantly incorrect or offensive. I will normally disclose but If you want a good oral critique, then be willing to get roasted.

In the round:

• I need impact calculus with comparative analysis in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will likely not be as favorable for you.
• Don’t extend through ink.
• I only weigh arguments in the final focus if they were also in your summary.
• Don’t go for everything past the rebuttal. Employ strategic issue selection and tell me what the important voters are and why you are winning them.

 Arguments:

• I’m fine with most arguments but if you choose to go progressive (kritiks, theory, etc.) do it right, don’t butcher it, and stick to the procedurals.
• Framework is not an essential part of public forum. That being said if you choose to read a framework, utilize it because I will vote off it.

Delivery:

• I’ll give extra speaks for a tastefully savage remark. This is NOT an invitation to be rude which I have no tolerance for.
• When it comes to your rate of delivery, I’m fine with whatever but be sure not to sacrifice clarity for speed.
• I don’t flow cross so don’t get upset if I’m not writing while you and your opponent compete to talk over each other. This means that if you want me to account for an argument, you need to bring it up in a speech.

Please speak clearly and not ultra-fast.

Please outline your planned discussion before jumping in, when possible.

Thanks!

I competed in Public Forum debate for four years at Foothill High School in California. I also did Lincoln Douglas debate for one and a half years in middle school. I'm fine with speed, as long as you speak loudly and clearly without yelling.

Here are a few things I look for in a round:

1) Clarity - Make sure to signpost and do offtime roadmaps. There's no point in making responses if I don't know what you're responding to. You should pick your own voter issues and prove why they are the most impactful; don't make me do the weighing for you.

2) Composure - Don't be rude. The moment that a debate becomes aggressive, it is no longer productive. That being said, I am open to entertaining Hebron Daniel's concept of "World Star!" upon request.

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=Hebron&search_last=Daniel

3) Credibility - Make sure that your arguments make sense on a basic level. If you don't provide direct evidence for an argument that needs explaining, I probably won't vote for it. Lay out the link chain in a logical way.

Let me know if you have questions!

Please make sure to speak clearly and be respectful to your opponents. I like arguments that are easy to follow and backed by evidence. I prefer logical arguments and prefer that you elaborate on why your evidence refutes another point. I do not know too much about this topic so explain anything that is very niche about this topic.

Hello,

My name is Hugo and I’ve been a lay judge for hire for 3 years. I do not have any experience competing as a speaker/debater. Please do not spread or I won’t be able to keep up. Speaking quickly is alright though, but if I can't follow along then I might miss the main point of an argument. Assume I know nothing of the subject. Good luck young debaters.

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

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

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. If you are racist, homophobic, transphobic, nativist, sexist, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate.

Public Forum

I have coached PF for about 8 years so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the style and most likely the topic that is being debated as well. This means that you should not worry too much about speed or giving arguments that are too complex. I'm a lay judge :)

My comments after the round will usually involve RFD and how to improve some arguments. The "improvements" part has no impact whatsoever on my decision in the round and is only meant as something to take into your next round. I do not complete arguments for teams or refute them based on my own knowledge. I will judge the round only based on what was said in the round.

Email-fredrickni97@gmail.com

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name because I don't note down author names for cards (e.g. "John 18 or Smith 20") I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Content:

-No theory. I won't vote on it. See link for reasons

-Show me clear impacts and weigh them for me. This is super important in how I adjudicate rounds. Just proving a superior number of contention does not give you the round, proving why your contentions are more important wins you the round. Very rarely will there be a round where one side has no contentions standing at all, so I need some sort of metric to measure. This also means that I value a clear framework from both sides and potentially a debate about framework should that influence how I would adjudicate

-Crossfire is not super important to me unless either you go back to it in one of the speeches or something absolutely killer comes out of the exchange

Stylistic:

-Be courteous during cross-fire (ie. do not shout over each other) I will dock points if anyone is particularly rude

Misc:

-Have evidence ready; if the other team asks for it and you cannot give it to them in 1 min, it will be discounted from the round

-I will stop crossfire questions right at 3 minutes but I will allow for you to finish your sentence if the time is up during an answer

-I rarely write out RFD's on Tabroom ballots so my oral feedback after the round is where the majority of my RFD is explained

-I welcome questions or concerns about the round, and if you feel that I judged unfairly, please let me know after. While I cannot change the ballot, I will do my best to explain my RFD.

Parliamentary

I've done various parli-ish styles like BP and Worlds for about a decade now. I haven't judged much American Parli so there might be some rules I am not familiar with, but I'll catch on quickly.

I mostly judge based on content, with very little focus on style as long as I can understand you.

Please keep time for both yourself and your opponents. If you keep asking POIs during protected times I will deduct points. Obnoxious POOs will also lead me to dock you points.

I've done Public Forum all throughout my high school years and coached for two more. Be aware, however - I'm no longer in the debating scene, so if I'm judging I'll probably be heading into each round with little topic background.

Just a couple things:

1. If you're going to use a framework, and expect me to judge under your framework, please tell me why your framework is valid. If I'm not convinced that your limitation of the debate is fair or reasonable, then I won't use it. (For the most part, however, I really do not like voting on a framework)

2. I will flow your crossfires, but I won't consider them in my decision unless you reference something mentioned during the crossfires directly in your speeches.

3. Please make sure you weigh - I don't like it when I have to do that on my own.

4. If you're going to reference a card, please read that card out (or summarize it somewhat), instead of just referring to it by the citation. I won't be able to remember or flow down every evidence card that you bring up otherwise.

5. Anything brought up in the Final Focus must have also been brought up in the Summary, with the exception of the first summary speaker who does not have to extend rebuttals if they haven't been responded to yet.

6. I'm fine with speed for the most part as long as it does not compromise enunciation and articulation.

Other than that, if you have any questions, feel free to ask!

I'm an experienced parent judge with three years of experience judging Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parli. I will be flowing your round.

When it comes to speed, I want a debater to be clear, concise, articulate, and speaking at a reasonable, understandable pace. I despise, with a passion, spreading and the arguments that often accompany that "rhetorical" style.

Arguments: Please be rational. Links to extinction devalue reasonable debate, if you use them, you lose. This same rule accompanies K-debates, theory debates, irrelevant phil debates, and most things "circuit debate."

If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. you might as well not come to round.

All of this is to tell you what not to do because the pendulum of debate seems to be swinging towards this and away from critical thinking, rational thought, and deep and poignant philosophy. This next bit is what I actually enjoy to see in a debate.

Framework: I weigh philosophy heavily, especially if it's creative, relevant, and understandable.

Arguments: Not card heavy, statistics can be overbearing (use them sparingly but effectively) Logic sprinkled with facts to back it up.

CX: Be polite and effective.

Rebuttals: Act as though you are a surgeon, systematically explain and refute your opponent's thought process one clear step at a time. Be organized.

Have Fun!

Hey, my name is Kevin Ozomaro; I am a communication graduate student and graduate assistant coach at the University of the Pacific. Before my time at UOP, I competed for Delta college and CSU Sacramento, where I competed in parli and LD debate. That being said, most of my debate knowledge is geared towards LD debate. That doesn't mean I don't understand parli; it just means that I'm more comfortable with arguments commonly found in LD. I've coached debate at all levels, from k-12 to college. I have learned a lot over my time in forensics, but that doesn't mean I know everything! If you are reading something that a communication grad student wouldn't understand at 500 words a minute, maybe you shouldn't read it or slow down and explain it to me. Below are some basics to how I view and judge debate.

NPTE People:

Low pref if:

1. you like K affs that are confusing( Sunbutthole K, pretty much any racist shittt)

2. You think condo or not condo is the most important thing in the world. Yes I'm from UOP but I don't care mannnn

3. you think reject is a great alt

High pref if:

1. Afro anything K / identity K

2. neolib K

3. Heg debate/ or militarism or militarization

4. not a fan of spreading

The Basics: because I know you don't want to read...

• In NFA-LD Post AFFs you have run on the case list or I get grumpy (https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/)

• Use speechdrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy Debate rounds

• NOTE: If you are paper only you should have a copy for me and your opponent. Otherwise you will need to debate at a slower conversational pace so I can flow all your edv. arguments. (I'm fine with faster evidence reading if I have a copy or you share it digitally)

• I'm fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.

• Procedurals / theory are fine but articulate the abuse

• I prefer policy-making to K debate. You should probably not run most Ks in front of me.

• I default to net-benefits criteria unless you tell me otherwise

• Tell me why you win.

• If you are rude I will drop you. Its kinda simple don't be a butthole. Examples are not slowing and spreading someone out of the round.

General Approach to Judging:

I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.

Organization: is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.

I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it.

If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.

Kritiques: I'm probably not the judge you want to run most K's in front of. In most formats of debate, I don't think you can unpack the lit and discussion to do it well. If you wish to run Kritical arguments I'll attempt to evaluate them as fairly as I would any other argument in the round.I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. You should probably go slower with these types of positions as they may be new to me, and i'm very unlikely to comprehend a fast kritik. If I can't understand the K I will not vote on it, doesn't matter if it goes dropped if I have zero idea what is going on I will not vote on it. That goes for both K affs and neg K's.

I will also mention that I'm not a fan of this memorizing evidence/cards thing in parli. If you don't understand a critical/philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.

Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I'm in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calculus and show me why you won.

Speed: Keep it reasonable. In parli speed tends to be a mistake, but you can go a bit faster than conversational with me if you want. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can't do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.

Speed in NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is "antithetical" to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call "clear" or "slow." That said if you use "clear" or "slow" to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I'll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.

Evidence: If you do not flash me the evidence or give me a printed copy, then you need to speak at a slow conversational rate, so I can confirm you are reading what is in the cards. If you want to read evidence a bit faster...send me you stuff. I'm happy to return it OR delete it at the end of the round, but I need it while you are debating.

Safety: I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates for change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the educational space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.

Thanks, Ryan guy of Mjc

Hello,

* I'm an experienced parent judge with 2 years of experience with public forum events.

* Make sure that you present cases, contentions, impact(s) clearly.

* Often I read topic analysis before judging the topic. Definitions are optional for me unless you want to make them clear to the opposite team.

* Evidence-based argumentation, logic, and reasoning are key elements to determine the winner in PF debate.

* Quality is more important than quantity. It's important to have a few quality cases than a high number of cases.

* I'm not a big supporter of "spreading" aka speed reading in PF. For speakers: I look for a speed of fewer than 220 words per minute. This speed enables me to take notes and weigh your arguments against the other team.

* A good framework is important for the public forum event.

* Be respectful with other teams.

* Do not bring in new arguments/cases or new data points at the final focus or summary.

* Crossfire sections are for Q & A. Do not use this time to reinforce your cases again and again. In other words, do not take away 2.5 minutes out of 3 min grand-crossfire section - just to re-emphasize your points

* Wish you the best! Enjoy your journey!

Judging Recommendations: Don't be too loud. The clearer, the better.

I like to be a "blank slate" judge. I want both teams to make arguments which are supported with evidence, and weighed and extended well. The cards should make sense, and should have logical impacts: the teams should NOT just be reading out the card but explaining and impacting it as well.

Erik Pielstick – Los Osos High School

(Former LD debater, long-time debate judge, Long-time high school debate coach)

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm

Parli is intended to be a limited preparation debate on topics of current events and/or common knowledge. Therefore I would view it as unfair for a team to present a case on either the Government or Opposition side which cannot be refuted by arguments drawn from common knowledge or arguments that one would have been expected to have done at least a minimal amount of research on during prep time if the topic is very specific.

The Government team has the responsibility of presenting a debatable case.

The opposition team needs to respond to the Government case. In most cases I would not accept kritik of the resolution as a response. DEBATE THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH!

Parli should not involve spreading because it is not a prepared event. You can speak quickly (180 - 220 wpm) but you should be clear. Speed should never be used as a strategy in the round. I will not tell you if you are going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.

Parli is not policy debate and it is not LD. Don't try to make it about reading evidence. I will vote based on the arguments presented in the round, and how effectively those arguments were upheld or refuted. Good refutation can be based on logic and reasoning. Out-think, out-argue, out-debate your opponent. So, yeah, I'm old-school.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm

I value cleverness, wit, and humor.

That said, your case can be unique and clever, but there is a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and between unique and abusive. I can’t say where that line is, but I know it when I see it.

Affirmative debater should establish a framework that makes sense. Most debaters go with the “value”/“value criterion” format, but it could probably be a cost-benefit debate, or some other standard for me to judge the debate. I want to see clash. The negative debater could establish the debate as a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own.

The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions. Arguments must be warranted, but in LD good philosophy can provide a warrant. Respond to everything. I will accept sound logic and reasoning as a response.

I listen well and can keep up aurally with a fast delivery (200wpm), but I have trouble flowing when someone is spreading. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless it is used as a strategy in the round against someone who is not able to keep up. Debate is a communicative activity - both debaters need to be able to understand each other, and I need to be able to understand the debate. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments. Ultimately, I’m old-school. I debated LD in the 80s and I prefer debaters who can win without spreading.

A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.

I generally don’t like theory arguments, but in rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.

I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.

Also, I HATE policy arguments in LD. LD was created as a value-based alternative to policy debate. The NSDA and CHSSA, still to this day, describe LD as a debate of values and/or questions of justice and morality. CHSSA actually went so far as to make it a violation of the rules to run a plan or counterplan in a CHSSA event. If someone wants to run a plan they should learn to get along better with others, find a partner, and do Policy Debate.

Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, I want to be entertained.

I am a parent judge and participating in PF events since last 2.5 years.

I value qualitative evidences, their relevance to the contention being made and how well candidates are countering their opponents’ arguments to support the overall case.

Some points for contestants to note:

- I will drop brand new argument or front-lining evidence brought fresh in 2nd Summary speech, only if Pro team brings it to my notice in their 1st Final Focus speech

- I will not weigh brand new argument or front-line evidence brought fresh in 1st Final Focus speech

- I will drop speaker points for bringing in brand new argument/front-line evidence in 2nd Final Focus speech and also will not consider such evidence / argument

- Please note it's okay to disagree with opponent's views but do every effort not to ridicule them

- One would like to keep check on language and emotions

I've judged at the Stanford Invitational last year

Software Engineer for the last 20 years.

This is my third year judging Public Forum Debate. I understand spreading and progressive arguments.

The winner will be decided based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account your pace and organization of the speech. Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you are clear, keeping in mind the time.

I do not like students who read off of their laptops. I prefer eye-to-eye contact which exhibits confidence while speaking/ debating. I am very keen on Cross-Examination and you will score higher speaker points if you are effective in cross -ex and give proper rebuttals.

Additionally, good evidence comparison is key but also focus on extending your case as well.

Overall, have fun, and try to do your best! Good luck with your debate!!!

I am a parent judge with little experience in this event. Please speak clearly. Respect other team members, especially during crossfire sessions. Debate style and showing that you listened to the other teams unique points are important over memorized content or reading from laptop. Assume I have no background knowledge about the topic you are discussing.

I prefer that you speak loudly and clearly to get your points across effectively. Please debate civilized.

I am an old policy debater from high school and college. A very successful one at that, although that was a long time ago (yes, I too went to TOC and yes, they had it back then). I do flow and will do my best to render my decision solely on the arguments presented in the round. I have no preconceived biases for or against any position on the topic. It should be your job as debaters to tell my why your evidence is superior or why your position outweighs at the end of the round. If you have a framework, you should use it in rebuttals and/or final focus to frame why it means you should win. If both teams offer frameworks, there should be some clash to explain why I should choose one framework over the other.

I have a strong opinion about evidence: I have been told that the minimum standard for citing evidence in rounds is author's last name and date; if you don't have that much, it isn't treated as evidence, it is just you speaking your mind. If you want something considered as evidence in a round, you have to *read it in the round.* You can't just say "we have a card which says..." and somehow assume that now counts as evidence.

A note on jargon: there are a few terms of art that I have heard a few times in Public Forum and they are not very clear. Frontlining, for example, is used by some people to basically mean what we used to call "preempts" meaning an argument made before the opponent in the expectation that the opponent will make that argument. Like "they will get up here and say sunlight is good but here are 3 reasons why that is wrong." Coaches have told me this is the correct usage. Other teams have used it synonymously with "response" as in "I am going to frontline their case then go to my case." That is apparently the incorrect usage, but if you are going to use the word, explain what you mean by it. Offense and defense are also super overused since your offense is their defense and vice versa so asserting that I "shouldn't give them any offense on this" ends up being confusing. Just tell me why they are losing an argument - if they have lost the argument it is irrelevant whether it is an offensive argument or a defensive argument and for which team; they have lost it. Unless you are punting (granting) something, in which case just tell me why that argument doesn't matter (e.g. outweighed, de-linked elsewhere, irrelevant according to the framework I should be using, etc.). Saying I shouldn't give them any "offense" on that argument is just extra words - you have already explained why it doesn't matter so I can figure out for myself that that means...well, it doesn't matter. Terminal defense - I have heard this a couple of times and nobody has/can explain what it is supposed to mean, including the head of the judges room at Stanford. If you say this, tell me what you think it means!

Main points:

I will vote on anything, but it's impossible to be completely Tabula Rasa.

I like interesting logic and dislike generic arguments. I will try to filter for these biases but you should be aware of them.

Please read all plans, counter-plans, alternatives, other advocacies, and roles of the ballot twice and slowly.

I believe that I have to personally believe real-world impacts are good or non-existent to vote for them (more on this below).

I assign speaker points based on persuasiveness.

Call the POO, I don't protect the flow.

I default to competing interpretations, but am very open to reasonability arguments.

Experience:

I competed in middle school MSPSD for three years, high school policy for one year, and high school (California) Parli for three years. I went to TOC, did well at invitationals, etc. I also debated in APDA/BP at Stanford for three years and coached Sequoia High School's parli team for four years.

Case Debate:

Case was my bread and butter as a competitor. I don't have any particularly hot takes about it. Structure is useful. I find generic arguments a bit tedious, though I acknowledge their strategic utility.

Kritiks:

I generally dislike the generic way people use kritiks to gain competitive edge. That being said, I will still vote for one if you win it, and if you have a relevant Kritik, please deploy it just as you would any other argument. I only ran one kritik ever in high school debate, and it was an argument of my teammate's and my own creation, so I am not familiar with any of the lit bases. (I also think completely original Ks are interesting.) If I don't understand your argument, I will have a hard time voting for it.

Theory/T:

My partner and I almost exclusively ran theory when our opponents were actually abusive. That being said, I will vote for frivolous theory if you win it. I default to competing interpretations, but am less anti-reasonability than most judges. I don't believe you absolutely must give me a specific set of criteria that define reasonability, and I think that the debate doesn't have to end when one team says "reasonability leads to judge intervention." (If it does end there, though, I will vote on that argument.) I think potential for abuse is a real thing, though of course you have to warrant it in round like anything else. I don't care if you're condo unless the other team does.

Speed:

I'm fine with speed up to a point, and will shout "clear" or "slow" if you're unclear or too fast. I am willing to vote on speed theory, just like any other argument. Please also shout "clear" or "slow" during your opponents' speeches if you need to.

Points of Order/Protecting the flow:

I don't protect the flow (meaning I won't discount new arguments in the rebuttals unless you call a Point of Order). Please call as many POOs as you think necessary. There were several times as a competitor when I didn't call POOs because I was worried about the judge getting annoyed, and I don't want you to feel that way. If you think they're making a new point, let me know. I will rule on every POO as "well-taken," "not well-taken," or "under consideration." After maybe the 5th well-taken POO, I will just ask you to stop calling them and announce that I am going to start protecting the flow for that speech, in order to save time. The exception is on panels, in which case I will not rule verbally on POOs.

Non-Technical Debate:

I am absolutely willing to hear a non-technical round, as long as this doesn't mean it's an unorganized round. I don't want you to feel like I will be biased against you if you don't have technical debate experience. If you are a non-technical debater and feel intimidated by theory, kritiks, and spreading, I encourage you to watch this round in which a team of non-technical debaters beat a team spreading and running a kritik, just with logic and good argumentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoQ9kiCi1ho

Real-World Impacts:

If you win any real-world impacts in the round, one of two things has to happen for me to vote on them. Tl;dr at the bottom.

1. If you win in-round that voting for you will affect the real world, and I believe personally that voting for you will affect the real world, then I have to personally believe your impacts are good to vote for them. This is because if I believe that voting for you will actually affect the world in a negative way, the result of the round matters less than the negative effects that voting for you creates. So, for example, if you argue that voting for you increases the chances of a Marxist revolution, and I believe that is true, I will vote against you because I personally think a Marxist revolution would be bad, and I can't let my ballot increase the chances of that, even if you win the argument in round. Just as you would argue that actual good done to the outside world comes before in-round or in-debate impacts, actual bad done to the outside world comes before in-round and in-debate impacts, and I have to do what I believe is best for the world first.

2. If you win in-round that voting for you will affect the real world, but I don't personally believe that voting for you will affect the real world, then I will just vote on the flow, because there's no moral imperative for me to affect the real world if I don't actually think voting for you will affect the real world. So, for example, if you argue that voting for you increases the chances of a Marxist revolution, and I don't believe that's true, but you win that it's true in-round, I will vote for you even though I think a Marxist revolution would be bad, since I don't actually think that voting for you will cause one.

Tl;dr: So basically, if you want to win a real-world impact argument, you need to either:

1. convince me personally that you have real-world solvency and convince me personally that your impacts are good, or...

2. Win real-world solvency in round, but fail to convince me personally that you affect the real world.

Political Spectrum:

I highly value viewpoint diversity. I think that there's a lot more room in debate for politically diverse arguments than we usually hear. I encourage you to make arguments from political perspectives different than your own.

Non-verbals in round:

I'm a somewhat reactive judge. If I'm nodding when you're talking, you're doing well. If I look confused, please explain further until I nod or otherwise indicate that I understand you. If you talk really fast, I will have to sacrifice some or all reactiveness to focus on flowing. I will also be less reactive when I'm on a panel.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaker points based on persuasive speaking abilities. This doesn't mean don't spread, I've seen many people maintain persuasiveness while speaking fast, but if spreading causes a detriment to your persuasiveness, then it will be reflected in your speaker points. What is persuasiveness? Hard to define, but it includes smart argumentation and the effective delivery of that argumentation. I know this is subjective, but I don't know how it's any more fuzzy than whatever standards most flow judges use. If I'm nodding my head a lot while you speak, you're probably doing a good job. Major points for humor.

I won't intentionally doc you speaker points or the win for making racist, sexist, etc. arguments unless the other team gives me a reason to...I think it's pretty weird that this is a norm since it is clearly judge intervention. I will, however, doc speaker points for being rude or demeaning to your opponents in round.

If you speak exclusively in double and triple negatives, I will give you a 30 and personally seek out your other judges for the rest of the tournament and encourage them to give you 30s as well.

I care most about your effectiveness as a speaker, your content, and being a courteous person.

I do not care for spreading, cramming, and being rude to opponents.

I am a flay judge - lay judge who flows through the debate so I am looking for effective arguments, flaws in opponent cases and persuasive speaker.

I am a “flay judge” so I have knowledge of debate, mainly PF. As for speaking preference you can speak at your pace as long as you enunciate your syllables. Do not expect that I have topical knowledge or understand acronyms, explain them in speech or in your constructive. A couple of simple rules

a) No off-time roadmaps as these don't add value to the debate

b) Asking for everyone ready - not necessary as long as prep isn't running then everyone should be ready.

c) Do not exceed your speech by 15-30 seconds as I will deduct speaker points for that

In principle my preference is not to run theory but if you are going with it, please explain it in a logical manner and do not assume that I know a lot of the debate jargon. Explain it in your speech. Keep it short and do not just run theory to throw off the other team; it needs to be purposeful and rarely used, especially in a lay debate such as PF.

I ask that you use argumentation and back up your ideas with evidence. Logical analysis is okay if you use logic and not assumptions. Respond to your opponent's ideas.

WEIGH!! In your final focus, tell me why your arguments matter more.

Hello, I'm a parent judge and I've judged a tournaments over the past 2 years. Please don't speak at a fast pace, a medium pace would be good. Please provide clarity in your arguments and articulate your value clearly, for me to be able to follow along. I'm judging on speed or number of arguments, rather how strong and compelling are your arguments.

Hi I'm a new judge so please speak clearly and be courteous during the debate! I value clear to the point arguments with lots of facts rather than opinions.

I'm a parent judge. Please speak clearly and slowly. Be confident and present the evidence with impact. Be respectful to other team.

1. Speak clearly. Don't rush. Face me when you are talking, room could get loud at times.

2. Try not to repeat arguments.

3. Provide your case convincingly.

background:

--->brophy '18 (policy), cal '22, double 2'ed so no aff/neg sympathy, toc qual/coaches poll/tournament wins and all that stuff. i coach LD now so this is customized for that.

general:

---[1] ssrivastava@berkeley.edu - put me on the email chain

---[2] good debating outweighs any of my following argumentative preferences, my leanings are only relevant in borderline decisions where poor debating has left too many arguments unresolved and there's no other way to arbitrate other than defaulting to what i'm more convinced by.

---[3] always tech>truth as long as there are arguments

---[4] an argument has a claim and a warrant, a good one has an impact (some ev doesn't even meet this standard) - calling out 'non-arguments' is a sufficient answer until it becomes an argument (pls do this more? it's strategic and helpful for norm-setting - a lot of ev i'm reading is abysmal)

---[5] don't just tell me to read ev - do the actual debating and use good ev comparison in conjunction with that

---[6] slow down on theory. spreading your blocks ≠ debating. and if your opponent is incoherent spreading theory, don't ask them to say it slowly during cross ex - i only evaluate/flow what i can actually hear so you're only doing yourself a disadvantage

---[7] 'which cards did u skip' / 'can you send with analytics' / etc auto-caps speaks at 28.6 nonnegotiable

by argument:

k affs:

---> neg: k affs are cheating. fairness is an impact, but not always the most strategic one. debate is a game, answering args ≠ racist, the [insert fake word here] disad is probably stupid, TVA + SSD are super compelling to me, etc. I'm increasingly willing to vote on presumption vs affs that do/solve nothing and you will be heavily rewarded with speaks if you go for it. k v k can be fun or painful, just have actual answers to the perm.

---> aff: clever/creative t interps with strong defense, strong answers to SSD/TVA, and coherent offense is the best route in front of me. or, just impact turn everything with your thesis and win on the flow. please have real topic-specific AND lit-specific answers to SSD + TVA - i weigh those much higher than most judges, but am also down to discount them on stupid but poorly answered args like "micropolitics is a pre-requisite". vs the k, go for the perm it probably solves.

kritik:

--->aff vs k: most convincing args = particularity, falsifiability, impact turns, alt solvency attacks, and fw. pet peeve is people just saying 'weigh the case' when other interps have more strategic value. also i'm very down for fw no alts with good reasoning. a lot of k teams (not just psycho) make nonfalsifiable broad-sweeping claims so call that out (please do this more i am so ridiculously persuaded by it).

--->neg going for k: can be the worst debates, can be the best - up to you to decide. i'll have a hard time thinking a generic baudrillard debate is good, but neolib/security i'm very open to. surprisingly literate in a wide range of literature, but i'm not granting you the thesis of an entire book without you explaining it sufficiently (which, in ld, is almost impossible because of time constraints). utilize framework cleverly PLEASE

cp/da: my personal favorite strat. vs soft left affs sufficiency framing makes sense (especially if you bait 'step in the right direction'). smart adv cp's make me happy and will reward you with speaks. think about competition theory more - pdcp is very sloppily debated out. i'm very anti pics that are textually uncompetitive.

t: good for nit picky violations with good impact stories, undecided on reasonability (but more down to vote on it than the avg judge if well explained - esp if the only response is a 2 second 'causes intervention' arg - but tbf it's never well explained)

tricks/phil/friv: hate this but also if you can't answer this nonsense you probably deserve to lose

theory: in theory inf condo good, but i could be persuaded that the structure of LD makes this untrue. no 1ar theory makes a weird amount of sense to me. slow down and actually debate theory pls. pics are fun but theoretically more justifiable with solvency advocates.

decision time:

decision making: i first resolve quick arguments (technical drops or one side being clearly ahead) then I compare how much work I have to do for each side to grant the key argument pathways for their victory and vote for the team that requires the least work. there's almost always some work required - if there's not, then a) you're getting good speaks b) comes down to persuasive argument framing / judge instruction (i.e. which way to err on key args, how losing one key arg might implicate some other arg's probability, etc - basically closing doors).

tech>truth: the implication to this being true is limited by the debating done/argument presented, and everything is a sliding scale. dropping a solvency deficit doesn't mean the aff doesn't solve, it probably just means the aff only solves some percent of its advantages depending on the ev (unless it's articulated to implicate 100% of solvency or the argument lends itself towards a large solvency take out via evidence or warrants).

ev evaluation: good research sets you up to win debates. that being said, a clever 2ac analytic is the same in my mind to a card from a random blog with no author quals. just because you have evidence, does not make it a better argument. good ev + explanation > bad ev + good explanation > good ev + no explanation > bad ev + no explanation. resist debate's recent tendency towards awful evidence, but don't be scared to rely heavily on smart analytics.

misc: default to judge kick and sufficiency framing, long overviews are never helpful. the brightline on 2ar leeway is whether enough of the argument was in the 1ar to reasonably expect the 2nr to have predicted it. if i'm not flowing, you're not making arguments.

speaks: being a clear, loud, and snarky/clever presenter with judge instruction in final speeches is the most important for me. closing doors makes my decision easier (god please do this more i dont think ld'ers know how to close doors) and will be generously rewarded. research quality/innovative strategies would be the next most important. speaks inflation is probably inevitable and hurting certain debaters doesn't solve, so i'll default to the rough average at that tournament to form my scale.

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

2) Arguments must be extended in each speech. This idea of "sticky defense" and not answering arguments in the second rebuttal doesn't understand how debate works. A debater can only make strategic choices about their speech if they base it on what was said in the speech previous to them.

3) Read evidence. I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.

4) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce it in about 60 seconds. At two minutes or so, I'm going to just say the evidence doesn't count in the round because you can't produce it. If I say the card doesn't count then the card doesn't count in the round. If you say you can't produce the card then you risk losing. That is called fabrication to cite evidence and then not be able to produce it. If I ask for a card after the round and you can't produce it, again you risk losing the round. Good evidence practices are critical if this format is to rely on citing authorities.

5) I tend to be a policymaker. If there is no offense against trying a new policy then I suggest we try the new policy as it can't hurt to try. Offense is important for both sides.

6) Use voting issues format in summary and final focus. Learn that this allows a clear story and weighing. A voting issue format includes links, impacts, and weighing and provides clarity to just "our case/their case". You are still doing the voting issues on "their flow" or "our flow".

7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"

8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

I have judged PF for a number of years, so i'm fine with any speed.

Explain your links, explain impacts, and be polite to each other during cross fire.

Make sure to address the framework throughout the round.

Hi! I am Selma Tabakovic (she/her pronouns) and I debated Public Forum in high school. I went to American University. Now I'm going to Brooklyn Law School. I am an external PF coach for American Heritage Palm Beach/Boca.

Generally: Debate in a way that will make you feel most comfortable and confident within the round! I will be able to adapt to you and your style. My paradigm below is just some specifics about my preferences, but you should feel free to compete in your own style.

I definitely look at the flow to decide who wins the round, but if I think that something is not handled effectively on the flow (ex: really under-covered argumentation in response to major points in the round), I will likely vote on the truth of an argument.

What I like to see in the round:

Comparative weighing in FF is key! Tell me why an argument matters more than another. Comparing worlds to each other will make the round more wholistic. If I have to decide which argument matters more than another, it is technically intervening and I would prefer if I didn't have to do that.

If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please extend the warrants for your arguments from case that you want to go for. Please frontline in second rebuttal and collapse on the argument you want to win on!

I love hearing unique arguments in PF! Feel free to run any argument about imperialism/colonialism/etc within the PF topic. I think engaging with these types of arguments within a round makes debate more educational, impactful, and interesting.

What isn't necessary in the round:

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap unless you are running theory. I will be able to follow your train of thought if you sign post!

Please do not ask "I am first speaker, so can I have first question?" Please just assume that first speaker in the round has first question.

Please do not spread! I would prefer if the round is slower so that I can fully understand the warranting of your contentions. I prefer slow, well warranted debates over fast, blippy debates.

Evidence Exchanges:

Please share me on the evidence exchanges -- selma.tabakovic@ahschool.com.

I do not like paraphrased evidence and would much rather prefer you read cut cards.

Progressive Debate Rounds:

I am happy to adjudicate progressive rounds, but I strongly prefer adjudicating rounds that engage on substance within the resolution. I will adjudicate progressive rounds purely off of the flow, so all responses must be on the flow. If you run theory please clearly explain your link. For Ks, please clearly explain how the alternative is worse and how voting pro solves.

Alfred Tadros:

Email Chain: al.tadros@sslmda.com

I AM A LAY PARENT JUDGE. Any speed far above average conversation is too fast and I'm sorry but I won't follow. Keep everything in simple terms. Signpost everything (and I mean everything), and don't just say "a card applies" in your second speeches, actually say what the card proves. No ghost arguments, bring up everything in every speech otherwise I'll lose it and it wont be weighed. If you don't weigh in your last speech, chances are I'll have no idea what to do and I'll just pick the better speaker. I like logic and substantiated claims. I expect you to know the speech times and to record prep for each other. No theory, no kritik, Some Framework is okay but make sure it is resolved in your last speech otherwise I'll have no idea which one to vote off of and probably just pick the one that sounds better. If you do theory or kritik, I'll likely not be able to follow.

I believe most of the value you derive from debate is just from competing. Thanks for showing up and best of luck!

Al

I am a parent judge . This is my fourth year judging PF debates.

Speak clearly and articulate your points well. Please don’t spread.

I pay attention to cross-X sessions and how your are countering the opponent’s cases/arguments with proper evidences.

Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents.

Good luck!

Hello, I am Vasanthi, I have judged Public Forum debate for five years now. I am a flay judge.

Speaking: Please don't spread and be respectful during cross-ex (I will tank speaker points for rude behavior).

Cards: Don't drop cards (I need warrants and impacts for all important/collapsed on impacts), I don't care if you don't extend author name all the way to Final Focus, I just need the impacts and warrants extended. I may call for cards if serious disputes arise during the round.

Weighing: Both sides should weigh in Summary and extend all impacts. Any impacts and/or points dropped will be dropped from my flow. The second speaking team must respond to the first speaking team’s weighing or it will go conceded and I will weigh the round on the first speaking team’s weighing.

In General: Second speaking team must frontline briefly at least in rebuttal. First speaking team should frontline during summary. I will flow during cross if something really important comes up, but otherwise, it should be extended to other speeches.

Speak slowly and clearly.

Keep your own time.

Deliver organized speeches.

Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon.

Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

A parent judge with a few years of experience judging various tournaments and events. I care about presentation and the real-world impacts of your arguments.

I am a flay judge in that I have lots of experience judging, but I'm not an actual flow judge. I know how the debate process works, and I've judged in over 15 tournaments.

Good rhetoric and lay appeal and I will most likely vote for you. If you don't know something or are otherwise unsure/unready for something just fake it until you make it; I like seeing confidence.

I will not flow cross-ex but I will be paying attention. If you bring something up in cross-ex and want me to flow it, remember to say it in speech as well. Emphasize important points with speech inflections, as well as bring up things you want me to remember/write down several times. Don't put down your opponent (like in LD) and don't bully during cross-ex, although remember to be assertive and stand up for your partner (during grand) if you have to.

Speech

It doesn't matter to me what you do while you speak, as long as you make eye contact regularly. Sit, stand, meditate, doesn't matter to me. Please try to signpost as much as possible, it really helps, and it makes it a lot easier to follow what you're saying. It also helps your speaks (now you're listening, huh?). Gesticulate, use ethos, pathos, logos, talk loud, whatever you have to do to get my attention and my vote (and high speaks).

Kritik

Since I'm not a professionally trained judge, I don't have any specific policy against K's, but don't expect me to go with your point of view without strong rhetoric. I must need to know exactly WHY their view on a policy is wrong, and WHY your take matters more. If I were you, I would not run a kritik.

Etiquette

Insulting your opponent is DIFFERENT FROM arguing with them. You can say the same thing by yelling as you can by assertively speaking to your opponent. Please do not argue/yell/bully your opponent. That is a sure way to lose speaks and maybe the entire round.

Speed

I, like the vast majority of other judges, will have an easier time listening and understanding to you if you speak slower. Note: I prefer slower speaking, but I can handle faster speed to some degree. I may look confused/stop writing/not take note of important parts if you are going to slow; that means I do not understand you, and you may need to slow down.

Other

I can promise you that I will understand these issues more than most judges. Please make sure to time yourselves, if there is a discrepancy between the prep time, speech time, etc., try to work it out yourselves, although I will interfere if too much time is taken.

Thanks for reading this information, although I know it's long and boring. Good luck!

I definitely cannot follow very fast speed. Just do what you normally do and I’ll drop my pen if you’re going too fast. Do be clear on tags and signpost though.

I’m fine if you ask for some cards, flash cards, or whatever. However, there are two things I really don’t like when people do.

First, do not prep when people are finding cards. This is rude.

Second, find cards in a timely manner. You should be able to provide cards with proper citations and bolded/highlighted parts in a manner that does not hold up the debate. This makes the round run smoother and is a debater's responsibility.

Civility and respect toward your opponents is paramount. Also, please speak loudly and clearly. I have a minor hearing loss and will rely on you to communicate clearly. Thanks!

Please do not spread, I am new to judging and if you spread I will miss arguments.

I do not flow CX.

I am not as up to date on the topic as you are, please make sure to explain your arguments appropriately so that I can fully understand and weigh your case.

Good evidence is required for your case, but you don't need to read a full article to me to back up your ideas. I would rather take your word for it that your evidence is factual and allow your opponents to find faults in it than me.

Former competitor currently debating for the Stanford debate team. In high school, I competed in Extemporaneous Speaking, Public Forum, and Congress.

In a debate round, I value clarity, precision, logic, and common sense above all else. This means the following:

Warrant your arguments well! This means not just throwing cards out there, but also explaining why those cards help to support your argument.

Avoid blippy arguments! Just because you have a vague card kind of saying this and your opponent doesn't doesn't mean that you automatically win the argument. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be. Use common sense to determine if your argument counts as ridiculous.

Speak at a reasonable pace! If its not on the flow, it won't show in the RFD. What is "reasonable?" It depends on how good at talking you are, I guess. I'll say "slow down, please!" if I can't understand what you're saying.

Please be polite to your opponents during the round! This just means no snarky or underhanded comments. You can be aggressive during cross-ex, just not mean (unless the roast is really really funny).

Dropping an argument is not the end of the world. Just because your opponent dropped your argument doesn't mean that they "totally agree with it and it gives us the round right there." Sometimes, they dropped your argument because it was terrible, made no sense, and wasn't worth pursuing. Explain why its important that they dropped it first!

I'll flow the round, but I will also use general persuasiveness (i.e. rhetoric, speaking ability) as a minor factor in deciding the winner. Warrants, impacts, rebuttals and turns will always be the most important, but this might tip the scales if the round is really close.

Cheers, and lets all have fun!