PF: I only think an email chain is necessary if audio is not the best or you plan on spreading. Email me if there is any way I can make the round more accessible.

email: noorabdallah101@gmail.com

I am a third-year student at the University of Georgia. I did four years of PF at Columbus High School, and one year of policy at UGA.

Policy: I am still learning policy myself, so please take that into account if I am your judge. I will always try my best to make the best decision and I am way more comfortable with DA's and CP's than K's. Just do not expect the same out of me as you would a regular policy judge :)

Speaks:

1. In terms of speed, I can comfortably handle around 250-270 wpm. Online debate might not allow that speed, keep that in mind. I don’t really see the need for spreading, but if you do, ask your opponents and send a speech doc. If you do this to confuse them and win, I will drop you.

2. No judge will get everything you say, so warrant.

3. I am a huge lover of puns. Wit and puns are appreciated in round. However, if you intentionally make any racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low speaks and notify your coach immediately. Assertive and funny debaters are different from rude ones.

Argumentation:

In short, you do not want me to interfere as a judge. Do the work for me and that means to make clean extensions, frontline, and weigh. In detail, here are things that win my ballot:

1. I vote off the flow. I try to interfere as little as possible, which means you NEED TO WEIGH. If you don't, I will have to interfere and use my own weighing mechanism. In that case, you probably won't like my decision. I will do everything I can to ensure a fair round from my part but don't get mad at me if I don't flow a one-second extension that isn't flushed out.

2. Frontline!! You can't just extend your arguments through their responses without telling me why they don't matter and/or why your argument still stands. If they extend their warranted response(s) throughout round and you do not respond to it, you are in a bad position.

3. Signposting is extremely helpful and should be done :) I RARELY flow author names so do not just extend "Smith 19" and think that is you extending something. I should hear what Smith 19 said over and over.

4. I will vote tech over truth. If your opponents make an unwarranted assertion, refute it. Don’t rely on me to do the analysis for you.

5. Summaries - Line-by-line, voter, etc. I have no preference on format (though line-by-line is better to me). Create the narrative, defend, extend, weigh. New weighing in both summaries is fine.

6. NO new arguments in final focus (with the exception of extended weighing analysis in 1st FF). There really shouldn't be any new arguments in 2nd summary.

7. I am not your judge for theory, K's, topicality, etc. I have voted for these things before, and am understanding them as a policy debater. BUT reading theory against a team who doesn't know how to deal with it is abusive.

8. I use cross to write feedback, so anything said is not binding, just bring it up in a speech because I probably didn’t listen. Use cross strategically and for your own benefit.

First-Speaking Team:

1. I do not require defensive extensions in first summary if they have not been responded to. However, you must extend overviews/turns if you expect me to be voting off of them.

2. By final focus, you should know what your opponents are going for. Defensive extensions must be in final focus if you want them to factor into my decision. Defense not responded to by the second-speaking team by second-summary is dropped defense - bring it up!

Second-Speaking Team:

1. The rebuttal should respond to any overviews/turns/disads. The only other time second- speaking team has time to respond is second summary, and that is extremely abusive. You do not have to respond to terminal defense until summary, although it may be strategic to do so on the arguments you’re going for later in the round. To clarify - if the rebuttal does not have to answer all terminal defense, the summary obviously must, or I will consider it dropped.

2. No new weighing in second final focus. It’s unfair and gives your opponents no chance to respond. Also, this is not your chance just to extend through ink because no one will be able to call you out on it.

Evidence:

1. Every card you read within a debate should be cited and available almost immediately (30 seconds is reasonable time) within context for your opponent to read. I will drop your speaks if you are unable to find or provide your evidence to your opponents or me.

2. Any evidence misrepresentations will factor into my decision. If you are blatantly lying about your cards, I will most likely drop you and your speaks. I am very very okay with cards that are paraphrased as long as they are not misused (feel free to have this argument with me)

3. I like logical responses just as much as I like carded responses. But just like a carded response, logic should make sense and be warranted. The card does half the work, do the other half and apply it in round.

Otherwise, if you have any questions, please ask me or email me at noorabdallah101@gmail.com ! Debating is supposed to be an educational, motivational, and fun experience so make the most of it! I will always disclose and give feedback if the tournament allows me.

Good Luck :)

This is what I expect from the round--

Constructive: clear, logical arguments that are WARRANTED and have IMPACTS.

Rebuttals: I prefer line-by-line responses. If your responses all over the place I'll have a hard time flowing which will make it a lot harder for you to win the round. I love logical responses. If you don't respond to a certain argument this makes it easier for your opponents to extend this argument which may ultimately be what I vote off of. Moral of the story--respond to all arguments.

**I expect 2nd rebuttal to frontline (give answers to your opponent's rebuttal) at the beginning of the rebuttal.

Summary: This speech should NOT just be a regurgitation of your constructive. New evidence can be brought up. First summary should respond to your opponent's rebuttal as they do not have the opportunity to do so in previous speeches. Anything you want me to weigh in round HAS to be mentioned in summary AND carried out into final focus. I prefer voters and logical analysis as opposed to just spitting out facts.

Final Focus: WEIGHING. Tell me exactly why you won the round. No new evidence.

Crossfire: I don't care if you stand or sit. I don't flow. If you want me to consider something, bring it up in subsequent speeches. Please be nice to your opponents. NO MANSPLAINING. Please don't hog crossfire and just keep on talking and talking trying to convince me of something. That just makes you look bad, and I will deduct speaker points. Also, try to ask purposeful and strategic questions.

Other information--

You need to tell my why you won the round, giving sufficient analysis; I shouldn't have to be flipping through my flow for twenty minutes. Organization of speeches is KEY so that I can stay organized. I hate missing arguments, but this only happens when teams aren't organized or don't bring it up in summary AND FF!!!!

I can handle speed just make sure you are CLEAR and your opponents understand what you're saying.

I enjoy a lot of clash. Don't waltz around your opponents arguments. Be bold, but RESPECTFUL.

If a card sounds fishy, I'll probably call for it. Please don't mishandle evidence.

I like eye contact when giving speeches, signposting, and productive off-time roadmaps (don't just say, "I'm going over my opponent's case.")

How you speak doesn't determine whether you win the round; strategic argumentation does. You might win the round but have low speaks. Or vice versa. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

I APPRECIATE HUMOR. EVEN BAD HUMOR.

Most importantly, HAVE FUN! BE NICE!

Feel free to approach me either before or after round to ask me any specifics (about round, cases, etc.)!!!

About me

I am a Grady High School parent who has judged Public Forum rounds at three tournaments over the past two years.

I appreciate sound logical reasoning and clear, effective communication. I am OK with moderately rapid speech, as long I can understand, but I prefer clarity over speed and the volume of content presented.

How I weigh rounds

This being PF, I place significant emphasis on your rhetorical ability, and I am not an overly technical judge. I'm not a strict flow judge; countering your opponent's contentions is important, but a dropped argument doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve won the round. I am well read in history and current events, but I will judge from a tabula rosa perspective.

You will get my ballot through:

1. Strong and articulate conveyance of ideas

2. The ability to calmly and clearly explain all of your arguments without just reading precut cards and tag lines.

3. Quality of your arguments over quantity

4. Just make reasonable arguments and you’ll be fine. I naturally weigh impacts more on probability than extremity.

5. I emphasize logos over pathos and ethos but they are all important. Utilize them all well and I’ll be very happy

I will not call your evidence up, but I will consider evidence quality is when it comes down to a random blog vs the UN. I have a healthy skepticism of statistics, so--although I like to hear quantitative arguments--just quoting some statistics won't necessarily convince me.

The logic that you present has to be sound. Just because you find an "expert" to say something doesn’t mean I’ll buy it. Roadmaps are nice, but I probably won’t understand if you use debate jargon to explain which arguments you’re addressing. Just tell me in normal English.

Also, it is probably worth noting that double binds are a voting issue if i notice them, even if your opponent doesn’t point them out.

It may be risky for you, but I'll try to open minded if you decide to philosophically challenge the fundamental assumptions of the resolution or your opponent's contentions. Such an argument would still need to appeal to a pragmatic citizen judge.

Framework

I am not overly concerned with framework, and I'm OK if you don't present one; I will utilize cost-benefit analysis or an on-balance framework if you don't provide me with an alternative. I am OK with frameworks of most types, but please explain to me why I should prefer your framework if it is key to your argument. I would rather hear impact arguments than a lot of unnecessary discussion on framework.

Burden Interpretation

Both sides have equal and opposite burdens, so please defend whole resolution. No plans or counter plans.

Speaking Points

No spreading. Stay civil, but don't be afraid to be assertive and direct. Remember that you are trying to convince a citizen judge. A bit of controlled passion is appreciated, but it's mostly about how clear, articulate, and persuasive you can be.

Arguments I don't Judge

I don't like tricks, theory, or extreme kritiks because they take away from the substance of the debate. The point of PF is to educate people about the topic of the resolution and these styles of debate prevent that.

I have been competing in Public Forum for the last three years.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Judging Style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team". Also, no counterplans!

hey! I'm tech> truth- I prefer to vote on like true arguments (this excludes things like comparative analysis of economics- I'm more talking about things like "police do not have qualified immunity" that I wouldn't like to see in the round), but will vote on almost anything.

A: I will not vote on shitty impact turns like "oppression (of any kind for any reason) good". I will drop you, give you the minimum amount of speaker points available and tune you completely out and talk to your coach. This is shitty.

B: Please read my whole paradigm: I don't want to have to give a whole speech on my preferences before the round; it's a waste of time and I would rather just go ahead with the round.

C: I really don't like miscut cards/ evidence (it's wrong to do) and will lower your speaks because of it if you aren't already losing on it. (I will be checking evidence if it's called out/ if i feel fishy about it)

LAYERS

1. Theory

2. Topicality

3. K

4. Case

5. DA's, CP, etc.

THEORY STUFF

- Not a fan of friv theory, but not all theory is friv theory. if you run that shell, it's a perfcon, but unless your opponent points it out I'll vote on it, but won't really be happy abt it.

- Drop the arg is NOT AN RVI: when you tell me to/ win drop the arg, I'll stop evaluating theory and go to the next layer of the debate. If you say it's an RVI, I will not vote on it as an RVI. I'll just go to the second layer of the debate.

- If you collapse to a different layer in the 2n/ 2a I'll kick theory with you but PLEASE TELL ME TO DO SO (also really strategic move)

- Y’all: no 2nr/ 2ar theory unless you justify it earlier in the round. This is nasty please I am begging you.

- I'll evaluate the round however it goes, but if you're feeling "don't evaluate the round after the 1n/2nr/1ar", it's up to your opponent to say otherwise, not me.

-I HATE TRICKS it's not debate. Please don't run this in front of me.

TOPICALITY

- please god run this if the aff isn't topical*: I DISLIKE AFFS THAT PRETEND TO BE TOPICAL(YES I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SUBS AFF)

- I don't really buy that the neg has to be topical unless it's a cp, but prove me wrong.

- If you are neg and the aff violates t-plural, you can absorb that as part of your advocacy and I'll buy it.

*tell me why non t affs are harmful!! don't just assert that it's non t.

K's

- I really love k debate, feel free to run this in front of me- these are the rounds I like to judge.

- I’m fine with k debate on a lay circuit: I do like to hear good educational k's (setcol, securitization, orientalism, etc) because those truly open up a space for discussion. BUT PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS OF YOUR AUDIENCE. if the person you’re hitting is super new to debate then please don’t run like psyco or baudrillard if you’re just doing it bc they can’t answer it(i mean the justification should already be in the framework but...). THAT IS BAD, and I’ll most likely dock your speaks by .5 every time I feel you’re being a jerk just to win.

- on that note, as long as you can adapt to make the k educational, then huray!

- K affs are good, but I would like for them to be topicialish, but even if they aren't I'm still down.

- Perms are great AFF

CASE

- If you are creative with your case I will increase your speaks.

- Phil is good and I really love this style of debate and will be really happy if you run it but please know I'm decently well versed in philosophy and will be sad if you mess it up.

- Don't have a lot of specifics here.

- plans are cool too.

CPS, DA, ETC

- I don't care what you do here, just make sure you're doing a good job on why the cp is competitive

- Perms are great

-PICS =???????????????? but go wild if you think you can win that on both the theory and actual argument itself.

MISC

- since we are doing debate online for the most part I do want there to be chains.

- no I don't disclose speaks

- I don't flow cx.

-I'm cool with flex prep, just ask.

- TRIGGER WARNINGS ARE NECESSARY if you are running things that could be potentially harmful (narratives mainly, but you know what is considered violent/ needs a tw). Your words have meaning and weight to them, so be cautious of what you say and how it may impact others.

- (this again should be given but) I also will dock your speaks if you are a jerk to your opponent (or me??) during a speech or just say something way out of line.

- negs don't get perms: pointing out they are defending a singular (noun) and absorbing that as part of your advocacy is not a perm.

- Don't clip cards please I will 100% allow your opponent to stake the round on it and rightfully so.

- you are a jerk if you out spread someone who is obviously new/ not as experienced.

FOR PREFS

1: phil/ K debate

2: "LARP"

3: Theory

4- whatever: whatever else there is

strike: tricks and jerks

yeah. please don't bring me food.

emmadebate01@gmail.com

^ questions (put the subject line “debate question”) and chains (the file share thing sucks) (+3 speaker points if you make the subject funny)).

I am a flay judge. I usually vote off of logical arguments with solid evidence and weighing.

I am a linguist by training so your language of debate matters to me. I like clear and comprehensible speeches, meaning you might have to slow down a bit (I'll give extra speaker points to those speakers)

I also care about being courteous and professional during your debate, meaning I would never vote for those who are too aggressive and rude.

I am currently a high school senior; I've had experience in public forum and policy debate.

Speed and clarity is fine. I weigh evidence often; make sure to extend the arguments that pertain to your summary and final focus speeches. I believe heavily backed claims rather than analytical truths.

Second summary make sure to front line.

My name is Scout Malloy. I am more a lay judge than I am a tech judge, but I will flow the entire round, besides cross. As far as speed goes, spreading is fine, I am pretty good with speed, and do not mind it. Time management is KEY. I will drop you, if you get up to speak for 30 seconds and then sit back down. Be prepared walking into the round, and do not speak quietly. Speak with volume so I can hear you, otherwise you will be dropped. Ill go over paradigms prior to the round in person.

I am a traditional parent judge. Do not spread. Engage the topic. Clash is very important. I like sign posts and voters. I do not like jargon. To earn my ballot tell me why you have won. Write the reason for decision for me.

I competed in LD in high school, so I am familiar with the process and strategies of debate.

I don't mind if you spread, but if I don't catch something it doesn't work in your favor.

It is also important to me that debaters remember that they are not attacking each other. They are attacking each other's cases. Keep it professional, I will dock your score for making it personal.

If one of your contentions has been thoroughly undermined, let that one go and keep building your next one. Repeating yourself louder doesn't make it relevant again.

And I'm flexible. If you have questions, just ask!