I am a flay judge who votes truth>tech. I can handle speed but I don't care for spreading. I am not a fan of theory and am very unlikely to give you the ballot if you employ that tactic. If you link to nuclear winter, you better convince me that if I don't live in your world, I am actually going to die. I am a parent of a speech and debate kid so I understand how this works but I am more likely to be persuaded by the ideas and impacts you present rather than the technicalities and jargon. Convince me your world is better.

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

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

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

GENERAL:

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

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

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

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

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

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

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

PF:

Please collapse the round!

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

CONGRESS:

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

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

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

WORLDS:

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

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

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

I am just a parent judge, but I have judged LD & PFD for 5 years now and this year (2020) would be my third time judging for the National Tournaments.

For the 2020 National Tournament conducted virtually, the first and foremost thing you should know is about the speed of your delivery. While I don't use speed of delivery as a factor in judging and really have no problem with spreading in face-to-face judging, please keep in mind that neither your $0.5 built-in laptop microphone nor typical network latency favors a fast delivery. If your words get distorted or lost during the transmission, I simply cannot understand you or follow the flow of your argument. Slower, but clear and precise, delivery works much better in this virtual format. If possible, you should test your video and audio setup when you are scrimmaging with your peers before the tournament.

As far as judging paradigm, I am pretty traditional and general audience type. For LD, I know the different philosophies, but I still expect a short and clear description when you say utilitarianism like any general audience adult would like. I am looking for a complete and comprehensive rationale, so please clearly tell me why your value weighs more, when measured/evaluated based on your criterion, demonstrated by your contentions and evidence, than your opponent's.

If you are a PFD competitor reading this because I end up in PFD judge pool, my PFD judging methodology is basically the same. Since most teams are basically using the same framework, if you want to invoke slightly different criterion, you are expected to explain and help your judge orient to your way of weighing things, even though for me I can probably guess pretty easily what you are trying to say since I have judged both LD and PFD.

Other than that, I don't really have any specific requirement or expectation. Maybe keep in mind to not just try to discredit/throw your opponent's evidence and forget to actually attack the argument. LD is typically better than PFD on this because there's a frame work debate element, but sometimes when you have the same framework as your opponent's this still happens.

Hello,

First and foremost, I believe that Public Forum is a competitive speaking event. So while persuasive argumentation skills are essential to the event, clear and concise speaking are also highly valued. I can flow and understand quick speakers, but there is a limit to what the human ear and brain can comprehend so be wary of spreading. I also appreciate when a team provides clear signposts (i.e. when responding to an opponent's argument, clearly state which argument you are attempting to refute). Two quick side notes: 1) I don't flow the names associated with your evidence so don't just say the "John Smith" evidence (make sure you extend the warrants) and 2) I DO NOT need an off time road map unless you are attempting something out of the ordinary.

Frameworks/Weighing

If teams do not provide a clear framework or any weighing mechanisms, I will judge under a simple cost/benefit analysis. If a team provides a weighing mechanism and it goes unresponded to in the round, I will assume their opponents agree with it. This doesn't mean the team that provided it will automatically win the round as their opponent's arguments / evidence could better fit the criteria.

Winning the Round

I prefer quality over quantity. If your case has 4 to 6 contentions, I highly doubt you give enough analysis to support each of those (and I don't value teams that throw in contentions just to distract opponents or waste time in the round). If you want to win my vote: your case should contain well-research and supported contentions with analysis of HOW your evidence supports your claims; your rebuttal should attempt to refute ALL of your opponent's contentions (if you don't respond to an argument, I'll assume you agree); you should provide clear links to impacts (I am not impressed by long, incoherent link chains); and you should provide a weighing mechanism to tell me WHY you believe you've won the round.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

I am a parent judge and have judged LD for the past three years at traditional tournaments in North and South Carolina. I have been a trial attorney so I am familiar with 1 v. 1 debate and arguments with cross examination and the LD format. I treat LD like a Motion hearing in court. Based upon the above, do not spread. I can flow at a high rate, but not at the spreading rate. If you see me set my pen down and stop flowing and cross my arms then that is the sign that your rate is too high for me to understand clearly. I will ask you to slow down two times for a fair warning before I stop flowing. Again, even though it may be a national tournament, I cannot flow spreading rate, so if you want to win, adapt. Include me on any email chains: davidedwardslaw@gmail.com. Avoid excessively dense philosophy. Counterplans, disads, plans etc. are fine. Err against kritiks unless you think you can explain it very well. Do not use non-topical affs. Clear, concise arguments and supporting evidence are what I am looking for.

I'm a debate coach at Riverside HS in SC. I believe debate is an educational activity where the skills you learn should help you for the rest of your life. Delivery is important. Respect for your opponent is a must.

Public Forum:

I don't think K's have a place in PF. This isn't policy. I also think theory has devolved from it's original purpose, and in most cases, has become a tool for teams to try to get a cheap win. If you think there was a serious evidence violation, do an official evidence challenge (check the NSDA rules if you don't know what this is) or call it out and tell me to read it if you're nervous about hinging an entire round on this one violation. If your opponent is being rude or malicious, I'll intervene.

While I flow everything and understand the lingo, treat me as a lay judge. Please do not spread. Please weigh.

Weighing is just a comparative analysis, so be sure to engage your opponents arguments when you weigh. If your weighing is all about your case, it tells me nothing about how it compares to your opponent's (so you didn't actually weigh anything). Also include why we should favor your weighing mechanism versus your opponent's if they differ.

I'm not a fan of extending anything through ink. If it's important enough for you to try to win off of it, you should be bringing it up well before FF.

Please sign post during your speeches.

When extending evidence, please also include the warranting behind the evidence. I’m human and don’t always catch everything about your evidence on my flow the first time around.

Please be quick about sharing evidence during rounds. It shouldn't take you more than a couple minutes to pull a card and send it (should be almost immediate if its from case).

Also I think crossfire is the most interesting part of most debate rounds. I'm definitely listening and may vote off of it if your weighing isn't comparative.

If you want clarification on anything on (or not on) my paradigm please don't be afraid to ask before the round.

I am an experienced public forum debater from North Carolina and also debated on the national circuit several times.

Edit: If I am judging LD, just apply what I wrote here for PF for your LD round. I do not know the timings of speeches so please time yourself. I'd rather not focus on keeping time and would like to focus on flowing.

Things to look out/consider while debating.

- I can handle fast speaking but if it is so fast that I can't understand, I won't flow it. I would prefer speaking slower than faster

- NO SPREADING

- Anything that was said in final focus must be extended from summary otherwise I won't vote off of it.

- PLEASE GIVE ME VOTERS. I will only vote for you where you tell me to vote. Even if the argument that you want me to vote off of is absurd, I will sign the ballot for you if there is no response, conceded, or flat out won.

- Signpost where you are going, ESPECIALLY IN SUMMARY. If you are going to give me a big picture summary, let me know before you start what side of the flow the extensions are on. If you are giving me a down the flow summary, give me a roadmap on where you are starting and where you will go to.

- Evidence. When reading evidence in case, slow down while saying the author's name or publisher so I can correctly identify it when it is extended later in the round. Paraphrasing cards is ok but do not take it out of context. If a card is called and is deemed to be incorrect from what was said in round, tell me to call for the card and stress it. I will call for it if it is an important card in the round. Do not tell me to call for the card if it actually says what is said, I will drop you for wasting my time.

Please have your evidence pulled up in a timely manner when pulled up. I understand that it takes time to sort through many different files to find the right card, but if it takes way longer than it should, I will drop the card.

- WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. If you do not tell me why your side is more important when both sides have offense extended, I will have to use my own cost-benefit analysis to determine which is the best outcome. Don't just tell me that the long term is more important than the short term, explain why. Even if you tell me that econ is more important than lives, I will buy it as long as you tell me why this is true.

- Lastly, WARRANTING. If you are not able to provide a reason to why a claim reaches its impact, I am most likely going to drop that argument. Just cause John Doe from Harvard says that something happens, it really doesn't matter to me. Explain the logic and paint a narrative of what is going to happen if I don't vote for your side.

- Frontlining in second rebuttal is not necessary but is very helpful for you as the 1st speaker will not have to frontline everything in summary. No new responses or arguments in final focus. Responses in summary can happen but only if the argument that is being responded to came in the speech just prior.

- Do not offend or personally attack anyone in the room at any point in the debate. This will most certainly make me not like you and lose speaks or potentially lose the round.

Yes I know this may seem a little bit scary but please do have fun in round as I believe that debate is an activity that is meant to be enjoyed. Even small jokes/exchanges in crossfire is enough to lighten up a heavy debate. I will give you a bump in speaks if you are seen as lighthearted and funny, but debate correctly as well.

PLEASE if you have any questions about my RFD come ask me if you see me in the hallways (even if you lost) as I will most likely give you some advice for your next round or tournament.

I appreciate a well organized & thoughtful structure to your case. I take a lot of notes, and while I don't mind reasonable speed, please don't rush through your main points. Be especially clear with your value and criterion and main contentions. More isn't always better. Well thought out evidence and your explanation of its impact to your case is more important to me than speeding through citations that don't get much explanation.

Clash will weigh heavily in my voting and usually decides the winner in a close debate. I appreciate a spirited cross ex but expect that students remain civil and respectful of each other. Please tell me your voting points and why you think your case won the debate. If you feel your opponent dropped an argument or was unable to adequately refute a main point, tell me.

I appreciate your giving up a weekend day to debate and will do my best to give you a good round of judging and meaningful feedback on your ballots.

Jeevan Machimada - Judging Paradigm for LD debate

I have been judging various forms of speech and debate for high school students for the past 3 years

In addition to the required traits of a judge – to be unbiased, fair, and not be influenced by my opinion on the subject being debated, I have the following judging philosophy and paradigms:

· I want the debater to be confident an articulate

· I value education, argumentation and persuasion

· Argument points must be relevant and not very repetitive

· I value supporting evidence

· I prefer polite communication, but would encourage a semi-aggressive rebuttal

Regards

Jeevan

Hello,

I am from North Carolina and have competed on the Carolina West circuit for 3 years. Thus, I can flow almost anything that I can understand. I am fine with speed but if you are excessively fast than I will gesture to slow down (don't be startled, it typically means I actually am interested in what you are saying, I just am missing key points). Moreover, this means I can pick up on the jargon that you will use in round, but if I am really lost I will give you a very confused look. Below are things I want and don't want in a round.

UPDATE: I am a sophomore in college now, so I am just a bit rusty. Please note that I am not in my prime anymore :(

UPDATE 2: I honestly do not know anything... go easy

UPDATE 3 (Oct. 8 2022): IT HAS BEEN SO LONG PLEASE HELP.

Things that will get you speaks and wins:

1. Argumentation. I will vote on arguments NOT on presentation. Please, please, please extend your arguments properly, preferably with cards and impacts, it makes them easy to vote for.

2. Weighing/Framework. If you can tell me WHY I should vote for economic benefits over lives lost with a good reason, I am fine with signing the ballot that way. However, that doesn't mean you can just tell me in final that lives don't matter and expect an easy win because you lost the lives argument.

3. Signposting/Roadmaps. Please use these techniques in order to make it easier for me to flow your speeches and apply your arguments correctly. If I have to guess on where your turn belongs than I will probably get it wrong and you won't be happy.

4. Crossfire. This is not vital to the round and will not get you a win unless it is critical to the round. If you absolutely slay your opponent in cross, great! I love a bit of humor, banter, and even satire in cross. I think it makes the round more enjoyable, and therefore will give you a bump in speaks. If something really critical comes up in crossfire and you think that I should flow it, please address the idea in the following speech.

5. Evidence. This is obviously the most important part of Public Forum. A few key issues with evidence. One, please at least tell me the last name of the author and date of the card in case and in subsequent speeches. Also, if you are trying to indict a piece of evidence, expect me to call it if it is really important to the round or if that is your only response to their entire argument. Lastly, please give me the reasoning and warranting behind the card instead of just saying "we are right because Callan Hazeldine said so"

Things that will lose you the round and get bad speaks:

1. Being A Jerk. There is a fine line between standing your ground in cross and defending your time to speak and steamrolling your opponent. Just be careful (profanity, abusive, or harsh language). Also, any racist, xenophobic, sexist, or any discriminatory remarks will almost certainly lose you the round and possibly have consequences beyond that.

2. Summary/Final Discrepancy. If your summary goes for your C1 and the final goes for C2, I may throw a fit. I know that the summary is one of the most difficult speeches in the round, but it should match the weighing/impacts given in final. If these speeches don't give me basically the same narrative, or at least FF be a part of the summary narrative, I will have a hard time signing my ballot for you.

A couple more key pieces of information:

1. Please have your evidence. I understand that it can take a minute to try and find anything that they call for but if it lasts more than 3 minutes, I will begin to become skeptical. I probably will not interfere but I will definitely not enjoy my time being wasted.

2. Timing. I may time if the round really needs it but I much rather prefer that the opponents keep each other in check with time. For prep, please take care of that as I will be evaluating the flow during that time, not counting your seconds.

3. Have Fun! Remember, this event is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone (including you!). I would love to see your passion on the topic and I know how intense a debate round can get. However, please understand this community is a second family for some. While the topics and solutions we debate are super important and have real-life consequences, I do not think that rules out enjoying the round.

4. About the decision. I will try and give my RFD at the end of every round I judge because I prefer to have it still fresh in my mind while also giving you the opportunity to ask questions. So, if you feel like I missed something or want clarification, then please feel free to ask questions, bring up concerns, or anything you feel as if you want to talk to me about. Moreover, if you want more detailed feedback (specific speeches, case ideas, etc.) then go ahead and either meet with me later in the day or get my contact info. I love this event with all my heart and all I could ask for is to see some great debate. I want to help you all learn and get better so take advantage of that.

I have judged speech and debate events for the past 13 years. My son was in Congress.

General thoughts

Regardless of the event, I expect professionalism and preparation from all competitors. Showing up unprepared or engaging in unprofessional behavior wastes your time, my time, as well as that of the other competitors and your coaches.

Public Forum Debate & LD

Although I’ve judged PFD more than LD, I feel comfortable with both events. I appreciate assertiveness but actively dislike aggression. Clarity is extremely important. Don’t be cocky: instead, try to convey how deeply you’ve researched the topic. I always leave my personal opinions on the topic aside in order to be fair to all debaters.

Interp/speech

I started off my judging career judging interp, even though lately I’ve been judging debate more. Regardless of the piece, you have to give your best when performing. Delivery must always be clear and interesting. Tech should be smooth and reflect the norms of the event itself (tech in DI is very different than tech in HI).

The best time to invest in a good internet connection was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

I'm a truth over tech parent judge with about 3 years experience, and fairly active in the season. I'm a lay judge that flows, but not to any internationally recognized standard, and definitely not in more than one color. My writing is scruffy, sometimes I can't read my own notes. If you see me drawing big circles or boxes, it's because someone just made some ridiculous claim, and it's rude to laugh - so I scribble a shape instead.

Triangle - only a Muppet would say that.

Rectangle - only a Muppet would believe that.

Oval - only a Muppet would have found this in the deepest parts of the internet and think it was worth repeating with a straight face.

I'm a scientist, a software engineer, and yes, that thing behind me is a tower made from IKEA lack tables holding two 3D printers.

I have been judging PF and LD for two years and over 15 tournaments. I prefer that your arguments are made clearly and at a reasonable pace. If you speak too fast for me to understand your points tend to get lost. I also expect you to be civil to the other team while being confident in your argument. If you are going to use a source make sure your information is accurate as I will ask to see your card on occasion.

WSD is about the burden of proof, so my main criteria for judging the round is whoever upholds and frames the debate under the burden best. Make logical connections, clash with the other side, and back it up with warranting and impact. Tell me why it matters and why I should care.

Delivery and Engagement in the round are just as important. You have 8 eight minutes for most of your speeches so make use of all of your time to the best of your ability. Speak clearly, don’t spread, I don’t mind if you speak a bit quicker than a normal speech rate, but make sure you annunciate and I can understand you. Be actively engaged in the whole round, I expect everyone in the round to be participating and standing for POIs at some point.

Most importantly, just have fun! You all prepared for this tournament to the best of your abilities, so this is your chance to showcase it. Take it round by round and try your hardest at every point, no matter the outcome of your previous debate. Good luck to everyone!

TLDR: I am a typical college student flow judge who primarily debated in a more traditional circuit. Use that information as you wish.

I did mostly PF for two years with Riverside High School in South Carolina. I'm the current co-president of the Carolina Debate Society at the University of South Carolina, participating in British Parliamentary Debate.

Email: matthewyoon34@gmail.com

1. WARRANTS: Please have warrants. You can have the best evidence talking about Y impact, but if you don’t have a reason as to why that’s true, I’m not going to evaluate it in my decision. Saying an argument isn't valid because "there's no card" is NOT a defensive response and I will be very sad if you say something like that.

2. WEIGHING: Weighing makes the round a lot easier for not only you, but for me as well. Compare the probability, magnitude, scope, and timeframe of your warrants/impacts with your opponents'. Phrases like "even if you believe their argument..." or "although their argument may be true in the short-term..." will seriously clear up the debate and make it easier for me to vote for you. Weigh as early as possible; I probably won't evaluate new weighing in second final focus.

3. ROUND STRATEGY: Second speaking teams should frontline in rebuttal. First speaking teams MUST extend defense in summary if second speaking team frontlined in rebuttal and first speaking teams SHOULD always extend at least some defense in summary, especially with new speech times. Offense in final focus must be in summary. Try to only go for one well-warranted, well-weighed argument in the latter half of the round.

4. SPEAKING STYLE: Can handle slightly higher than average speed, but please don’t spread. During online season, please try to speak slower or at least clearer than usual.

5. EVIDENCE: I'll call for cards after round if told to. Cite evidence with at least last name, year, source.

6. THINGS I LIKE:

- Good Summary Speeches: As a first speaker, I understand how important, yet difficult, summary can be. Proper extensions, efficient frontlining, and effective weighing will seriously help you pick up the round and will also boost your speaker points.

- Enjoyability: Have fun, seriously. Make me feel like you want to debate and not like your tiger mom forced you to debate.

7. THING I DON'T LIKE:

- New arguments: Nothing new after second summary, and my threshold for believing a new argument will increase as the round goes on. Which means I will rarely accept any new responses in second summary.

- Rudeness: Please don’t consistently talk over your opponent in cross. I will dock your speaks.

Again, have fun, and good luck!

I would advise to competitors to define their cases clearly and present their contentions and rebuttals at a pace that is easy to keep up with. If you want to make a very important point, the slower you speak the better. Most of us can think much faster then we can flow. I’m sure over the years I’ve missed points that students would have wanted me to consider. I also value professionalism and courtesy.