Hi, I'm Bekah. I'm a first-year on the Columbia APDA team, and I did parli for four years at Choate. I don't flow cross-x. Please weigh, signpost, and don't spread. Extend defense in first summary if second rebuttal frontlines.

My personal debate experience is around BP and APDA formats of debate. I have judged and debated BP for 3 years and have done so in APDA for 1 year. I have been instructing PF for 1 years having judged in multiple ADL tournaments

Hi there! I debated PF for Harker for 4 years and currently am a junior at Columbia.

1) I'd prefer if you speak slowly, but I'm ok with some speed if you enunciate well. That said, spreading in PF decreases the format's accessibility to lay judges and novice debaters in my opinion.

2) Please understand (or at least make me think you understand) your warrants. I will almost never call for evidence unless there's blatant abuse/misuse of it; it's your responsibility to effectively weigh your warrants.

3) I don't flow cross-x, but I'll listen to it (and hopefully be entertained).

4) Signpost! Tell me where you are going down the flow.

5) I have a very rudimentary understanding of theory, but if you run it you must be explicit in how I should evaluate it.

6) Weigh your arguments in summary/FF (heck, you can even start in rebuttal sometimes). Don't just repeat the warrants of offensive arguments; tell me why your arguments (or their warrants/link-chains) outweigh the opponents' on timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc. In final focus, extend necessary defense and give me your offensive voters/weigh them.

Have fun, and feel free to ask me any questions you have before/after round!

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

Here are a few insights on how I judge:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hi im will i debated for whitman for 3 years. I stole this paradigm entirely from Azraf Khan, I am so much less cool in real life.

important stuff

1) be nice. please be nice. i am way more likely to want to vote for you if you are almost absurdly nice. obviously anything blatantly offensive will mean u get dropped. being mean or dismissive to your opponents will make me not want to vote for you sorry not sorry.

2) you can wear whatever you want and makes you feel the most comfortable to debate. crocs! sweatshirts! flats! sneakers! ive debated so i know how generally stressful it is and i dont want to add to ur stress or discomfort in any way!

3) debate the way you want to debate! have some fun.

round stuff

1. if offense isn't extended (warrant and all) in summary AND ff, its not in my ballot. that means full scale warrant extensions. links with no impacts > impacts with no links

2. i'll evaluate weighing first, then who links into that weighing best. if you want my ballot, you best be weighing.

3. please, please frontline. you HAVE to respond to your opponents rebuttal/case/arguments in general. if u dont do that you aren't debating, you're just saying things

4. im only slightly tech over truth - if you're saying stuff that is factually incorrect the response can literally be "that's false, google blank" and i will google it. if you have ur own real evidence, even better!

5. debate is a weird and sometimes really fun game. read weird arguments, i loved them when i debated. do fun strategy. have fun with the game and it'll be worth it. yay fun tech debate!

6. card dumping is like whatever but really annoying lol. however, the more responses u read, the less good the responses to them have to be. also, if you don't warrant your responses, "this isn't warranted" is an acceptable response.

If you do a hand motion while you're speaking that I've never seen before, I'll boost your speaks.

ALSO: The last time I judged was Harvard, so two major important other things.

1. This is my first time doing NSDA campus/online judging, so keep that in mind. I do know how to use computers however, so I don't think there will be any technical issues.

2. I have no familiarity with the topic whatsoever. The normal thing that people do in front of flow judges where they skim over stock blocks/args because they know the judge understands how the arg works will not work on me, because I do not know how any of these arguments work.

email is wdboct12@gmail.com if you have any questions or want to be pen pals

Just do whatever ur comfortable with :)

To begin with my background, I am a long time debate alumni, founder and president of my high school team as well as the last president of the CUNY Debate Society. I've been teaching debate for years. I've judged nearly everything under the sun in my near decade of experience, including PF, Parli (Parli in several forms), LD, Speech, Congress, Policy, and probably more. That being said, my "judging preferences" are rooted in my first and true love, parliamentary debate. For those of you who have done parliamentary, world's debate, and/or APDA/BP, you'll know parli debate emphasizes logical linkages far more than I'd argue it's more popular counterpart, PF, does. Accordingly, as do I. If you'd like that winning ballot from me, I cannot stress this enough: reason out your warrants and your impacts, and for the love of all that is good in this world, please please please weigh your arguments. This does NOT mean forego all else things, especially as they are emphasized in whichever format I am judging your round for (e.g. if this is a public forum round, of course you should use good, solid, well-cited evidence and it will dock you points if you don't have them). But the logic behind your arguments should also be sound and well developed (as in you should be able to explain them and how they clash with your opponents' arguments at length without citing more sources unnecessarily) and you are almost guaranteed to win your round if you are the only team weighing in the round. More likely that not, I will NOT drop your speaks for how you speak or your presentation (your content will always be 10000% more important to me than the presentation and I know a lot of us come from different backgrounds which means there is no "one-way" to be a good presenter. Make the effort though; I'll know if you're not making the effort). Also, on a lighter and semi-joking note, please don't spread unless it's ABSOLUTELY necessary. I can keep up, but I definitely will not want to.

E.j.chen256@gmail.com

My name is Ed Chiang. I am a lay/parent judge and not a seasoned debater or debate judge - so not a great judge for spreading strategies. I am an investment banker focused on equity capital raising across a variety of industries. I encourage you to speak slowly, loudly and logically so that I may follow your arguments and properly account for them. To me, good reasoning supported by solid evidence is what wins. I believe that talking over your opponents or treating them in a disrespectful fashion detracts from your argument and from the high level of discourse we all seek.

Hello! I am a parent judge who has not judged at a tournament before. Please go slowly and explain everything. I will try to do my best to understand everything in the round. I will be taking notes.

Have Fun!

LD PARADIGM

Speak clearly, logically, at a reasonable speed

Actively respond your opponent's arguments-don't just claim an argument is abusive. Debate is about healthy engagement, not dismantling the system or decrying everything

PF Paradigm

Clear delivery is important. It matters that I can understand what you are presenting. If cases are presented frantically and incoherently, it is difficult for me to appreciate the amount of work you put into your case. More simply, if I can't understand you, I do not want to listen.

I respond well to when teams actively engage with the arguments presented to them and are able to adjust their cases based on the other side's examinations. Crossfires are meant to be dialogues, rather than platforms for one side or the other to restate their speeches. Being able to have a strong presence not only in prepared speeches but in cross demonstrates true skill in this activity. That being said, cross more often than not is unproductive in my view, I don't flow it, just try not to shout at each other.

Extremely disinterested in spreading, unsubstantiated evidence, and unnecessary and distracting rhetoric. There's a difference between being clever and resourceful, and being cheap. Don't be cheap. Debate rounds do operate with a winner/loser, but I'm less interested solely in the drive to simply "win". Rounds should be balanced with presenting the most effective case, as well as a willingness to engage with the resolution at large.

If I stop flowing and cross my arms during your speeches, it means that you have become loud, incoherent, and not worth listening to. Increased volume does not equal a better argument. Please be mindful of that.

Off time road maps are unnecessary. Just start speaking.

Debate jargon drives me crazy. No one in the real world speaks like that.

Have all of your cards ready. Assume the other side will call all the cards you cite. Taking too long to produce them unnecessarily prolongs the round, and may factor in my decision.

I feel the need to include this since it has happened -- If you run a joke case to intentionally throw a round, I will report and reprimand you accordingly. It is a waste of everyone's time and undermines the effort many people give to make this activity possible.

I don't shake hands. It's not because I don't like you, I just prefer not to.

Be respectful, and have fun.

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

I was an APDA (college parliamentary) debater from 2014-18. Between 2016 and 2022, I coached PF, LD, Congress, Extemp, and some other speech events.

For Columbia 2020: I competed in LD and mainly judge LD, and I study philosophy at Columbia. All this really means is I am comfortable with any argument you want to throw my way. If you have more specific questions feel free to ask me before the round, email me at talia.coyne@gmail.com or facebook message me (Talia Coyne on Facebook and there's a link at the bottom of this paradigm) and I'll do my best to answer comprehensively. Feel free to read the rest of my paradigm (especially the miscellaneous part), but it won't be perfectly relevant to PF, though it may help you understand how I think about rounds.

Misc:

Please don't shake my hand after the round
I don't care if you sit or stand
I don't care what you wear, whatever makes you comfortable.
If you say anything blatantly sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, antiblack, etc. I will drop you for doing so. Also, making your opponent or me uncomfortable in a way that the debate cannot continue means a loss for you. If you have any inkling that what you're reading could make someone uncomfortable, ask first. I will not buy an argument about how trigger warnings/ disclosure of explicit parts of cases are unnecessary or bad.

I debated LD for 3 years for Stuyvesant High School, graduating in 2016.

In general, I think debate is your game which you should play in whatever way you’d like. However, I realize that isn’t very helpful, so I’ll elaborate my feelings on various types of arguments, but in general I’d rather you read an argument you know well and like (and think you can win) rather than throwing together a structural violence framework and a couple of oppression arguments because you think that’s what I want to hear. I’d much rather hear an argument you actually know! That being said, here are my general thoughts and feelings about various types of arguments.

Ks:
This is what I read for the majority of my junior and senior years. I think Ks are a really great way to bring larger arguments into the debate space and to talk about debate itself. Generally, I like well thought out and unique Ks as opposed to generic Ks that you throw in. I think using Ks strategically is becoming increasingly common, which I think is fine and cool, but if you want to impress/ intrigue me and (probably) get a speaks boost, I’m most likely to be happy with a well thought out critical position rather than a generic one. That being said, you can absolutely still read those arguments (or any others) in front of me. I’m not the type of judge who will vote for someone just because they read a K.

T:
I think T is a really useful strategy in the debate and I love a good T vs. K debate, when it’s warranted. I’m not super enamored of T as a strat as opposed to being in response to real abuse, but that’s your prerogative to run no matter what.

Theory:
To clarify, I will vote on theory and will not hack against it. I just dont like it that much.

To be completely honest, theory is probably my weakest area as a judge. It’s hard for me to evaluate a round with several theory shells floating around, and theres a solid chance you wont be happy with the decision unless you are the clearest of all theory debaters. That being said, if there is legitimate abuse in the round, don’t be afraid to read theory in front of me - I have a solid grasp on theory especially when the abuse story is very clear to me. (I realize this seems kinda contradictory and also vague so if you need clarification email me/ Facebook message me/ find me at the tournament).

Plans/ LARPing/ DA
All of these args are cool! I’ve increasingly been seeing the value in a specific, well thought out plan as opposed to a general, whole res arg. The one thing I will say is that I’m pretty sus of extinction DAs. You can read them, but I’ll be pretty sympathetic to turns/ general args against them unless the aff is literally like “end all forms of renewable energy”. They’re cool arguments and I’ll evaluate them as such but I’d probably prefer an econ DA or even just a link chain that’s hyper specific to the aff as opposed to just being like “affirming causes nuclear extinction vote neg”

Framework:
Framework’s cool. Framework used to exclude Ks is really cool and I think super strategic. If you’re reading a weird framework/ something you don’t think I’m familiar with/ it’s a complex framework designed to exclude arguments/ very similar to a common framework but different in some key area, slow down a bit. Explain it to me. If I don’t understand it, I wont vote on it. You could have extended every argument, but if I don’t understand why your framework specifically excludes T, I probably won’t vote just because you made that claim; I need a warrant for why and how that’s true; i.e. you saying “deont takes out T, affirm” means pretty much nothing to me, whereas saying “extend card X which says that rules governing the language we use to make policies are bad because of Y, thus the T goes away and you affirm on Z argument” is much more compelling and understandable.


Please don't shake my hand after the round
I don't care if you sit or stand
If you say anything blatantly sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, antiblack, etc. I will drop you for doing so. Also, making your opponent or me uncomfortable in a way that the debate cannot continue means a loss for you. If you have any inkling that what you're reading could make someone uncomfortable, ask first. I will not buy an argument about how trigger warnings/ disclosure of explicit parts of cases are unnecessary or bad.

Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me at talia.coyne@gmail.com if you have any more specific questions. Also please put me on the email chain.

I did public forum for Dalton

Please let me know if I can do anything to make you feel more comfortable or safe in round. Feel free to email me at ilanadebateacct@gmail.com if you have things that you'd rather not say publicly. Please add me to the email chain here as well.

1. I am good with PF speed (<300 wpm), as long as your opponents are. Debate the way that makes you feel most confident in your analytical skills

2. I am open to voting off of any arguments as long as they are fully warranted, fully extended, and non-discriminatory

3. Please do actually comparative weighing

4. First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless it's frontlined in second rebuttal. My personal preference is that second speaking teams frontline offense at the very least, but you do you
5. If you extend an indict or think that they're misrepresenting evidence and you extend this through FF I'll call for it, but otherwise I will not intervene about evidence
6. I am open to evaluating Ks, and will do so to the best of my ability. I prefer that you use theory to check back for in round abuse, and am very fine with paragraph theory
7. I presume first speaking team unless given warranted reasons otherwise

Let me know if you have any questions

- State your framework clearly

- Substantiate your contention with impact

- Cross-fire  and rebuttals is where I watch very closely. I want to hear the teams trying to challenge and effectively defend.

- Final Focus should be relevant to what happened during the debate

I debated at Bard High School Early College Queens for 4 years at both college and high school tournaments. Also coached Debate for 2 years at Bard Queens.

I have four main preferences for a PF debate.

1. While I can flow fast speakers, and usually have no problem understanding them, this is PF, not policy. PF is designed to be a lay debate as modeled on a debate in the public sphere. Therefore, I much prefer speakers who speak at a normal pace, crisply, and persuasively. I don't mind aggressive or loud speakers, but of course you should respect your opponent.

2. Please try to maintain respect in cross, try to alternate question, and please avoid grandstanding, or overly wordy answers to simple questions. Attempts to run out the time, or dodge questions will be noted.

3. Debates on framework, topicality, theory, or any other technical matter are fine, but I encourage you to focus the strength of your case on your evidence or logic based contentions, on carrying your contentions throughout the debate, and on refuting the bulk of your opponents. Debates in which competitors are arguing to the judge instead of the opposition, and not interacting with their opponent are the antithesis of PF debate.

4. While evidence based argumentation is necessary for PF debate, please try not to abuse your ability to card. If a side is continually presenting evidence that seems questionable, then I'll recognize the loss of credibility.

If you have any questions, please bring them to me, I like interacting with debaters so I'm have to answer any question you have.

Please, remember that this suppose to be fun! Don't put too much pressure on yourself, you've got this!

I am a novice judge. Please no spreading. I have been taught to flow, but am very lay. If you want me to consider it in the round, say it in final focus. Keep track of your own prep time. Be respectful.

I am a parent judge with over two years of experience. Generally I am lay, but I will be flowing the majority of the time (not crossfires, if a major point is brought up in cross, it should be referenced in the next speech). I would rather you speak with clarity and at a moderate pace. Please do not use jargon or abbreviations without explanation. Additionally, show me a clear link between your warrant and your impact.

I could tell you all of my values and priors, but I think that rather defeats the purpose of this event. Instead, just treat me as a lay person with limited background knowledge and normal powers of reason and tell what I should care about and why.

Arguments should be coherent, well-supported, and clearly tied to the resolution; rebuttals should be logical and used strategically; summaries should work to establish a narrative, explaining clearly why one should vote a certain way. Facts matter, but only when properly contextualized - I don't want to see a meaningless number battle.

I will flow all speeches, but will reasonably assume that arguments rarely mentioned are not that important. I can't guarantee I will understand you if you want to speak particularly quickly, and I've rarely seen that help someone win a round. Bullying will not be tolerated - it will cost you speaker points and may cost you the round. Debate is not only an exercise in logic, it is also an exercise in storytelling and rhetoric.

Finally, please bear in mind that “Not all good things are compatible, still less all the ideals of mankind.” (Isaiah Berlin)

That is to say, whether you're talking about security, justice, liberty, or countless other potential considerations, please weigh your impacts. Fundamental values are largely incommensurable, so that's not easy. For me, while debate necessarily includes the factual contestation which is necessary for establishing a shared epistemic foundation, the clash of values and narratives is where it can get really interesting.

Former Speech competitor (high school & college), well used debate judge and coach. Currently, Speech Coach & Co-director at Delbarton. The 18/19 school year is my 20th year involved in this activity in some fashion. I've been doing this too long, give me a reason to keep doing it (part joke/part not....like 1:99).

SPEECH
In Interp, I am pro-argument, especially after competing at the college level for a couple years. This can really separate you from the opposition. Sometimes, I can break a ranking tie just by which one I liked better. When that happens, I always say something like "I just liked [the 1] better" or "I connected with [those other two] more". If I constantly harp about an issue and you get a 4 or something like that, you should be able to infer why. Also, see the last sentence of my Extemp & IMP expectations section below.

In PA Events, I give you a list of grievances: Phony/Robotic/Overly Practiced or rehearsed gestures, rushed through points, and not letting your jokes hit. You have to take your time and let your stories and jokes hit.

In Extemp & IMP, tie everything back to your thesis. I am not a fan of personal stories/references in the body of a speech, unless as witty on-tops in extemp or AGDs. I quasi-flow speeches, so don't be surprised if a decent chunk of your ballot is just me writing down what you said or what you said with comments (like "Huh?", "What are you doing?" or "Ooooooh! Nice!").

PF
Number of PF Rounds judged in career: Can safely say in the hundreds
Number of PF Rounds judged 19/20 year: 5

I've been judging PF since it began, so I've heard the infamous NBA dress code topic & remember the cancelled mosque topic. This is the second year in a row time that I have not already seen at least 10 rounds by this time of the year. I say this because I am very old school in my approach, leave LD (even though I have experience there and miss judging that) and Policy (NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!) out of the round.

I am a 50/50 judge in terms of content/argument and delivery. I am big on clash, but don't use that to say that you should win the round because your opponents did not counter Con. 5, Sub 8 or junk like that. If the foundation of your argument is, for example, Utilitarianism and the opposition never talks about it in their rebuttals, then you're more likely to get my ballot. I also like to use standard logic. Also, as some folks at Columbia probably know, I hear your misspeaks very easily. Be careful with word choice. I do like to flow if I have my legal pad with me, it may look more like a Parli flow, but you shouldn't really be looking at my flow anyway.

Cards are starting to get really annoying. Don't just ask for cards. There better be a darn good reason.
I don't mind off-time road maps.

I hate E-ballots. Don't be surprised if I give oral RFDs and leave your ballot blank (especially if I am told that "the internet is spotty").

CONGRESS
If you speak later on a bill, I would love it if you referred to others' speeches. I know I am only judging, but you should be trying to convince me to vote on your side of the bill.

I have experience in judging and/or coaching LD, PF, Parli, Congress, and Speech. So plan accordingly.

Good luck.

Having only judged three tournaments—all some years ago—I'm still new to public forum debate and will be looking for debaters to convey their arguments in clear (and not overly fast) terms.

My name is Jonathan Freedman. I am a lawyer, and while I did not debate in high school, I have been judging Varsity Public Forum for three years, and JV Public Forum for two years prior to that. If I can't understand you, I can't flow for you, so please speak slowly, clearly and loudly. No spreading, please. I judge tech over truth, so I won't argue for you. It helps me to flow your speech if you give me an off time roadmap, so please do so. If you have any questions, ask me before the round starts.

I know things like theory and kritiks are starting to show up in PF, but I am probably not the right judge for that kind of argument. I will only vote on the substance of the resolution.

I am the parent of a current student debater. I was not a debater myself in high school or college. I am not a very experienced judge, so it would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed.

Please introduce yourself and clearly state which team you will represent and indicate if you are the first speaker or the sencond speaker before we start the round.

I will be responsible for timing the debate. I will raise my right hand to singnal you when 30 second remains.

I am a parent judge with experience.

Once you determine the PRO/CON, it would be helpful if the PRO team sits on my left side and the CON team sits on the right side.

I do try to flow, but I am not great at it. Please make sure to clearly state your contentions. An off-time roadmap will also be very helpful.

Please speak at a conversational speed, speak clearly and PLEASE ENUNCIATE. Speaking too fast will probably mean that I will miss much of what you are saying and it will count against you.

Impacts are important and should not be minimized, however, link chains are more important to me. The link chain should be compelling, well supported and believable.

I have trouble keeping track of evidence tags, especially when you refer to it later in a summary and closing statement. If it is something important to your case, please make sure to emphasize it.

Please plan on keeping your own time, but I may also time the round from time to time.

Please be kind to one another. I appreciate that debate is competitive, but foul language, and mean spirited-comments will not be tolerated. I want you to work hard and learn, but I also want you to have fun.

I hope we have a great round. Good luck to you!

Relatively new judge

I'll trust you to time yourselves

Speak slowly and clearly, going fast will get you nowhere with me

Keep debate jargon to a minimum, and if you do use it, make sure to explain it in detail.

Other than that, have fun.

I debated PF for four years in high school, primarily on the national circuit. Basically, I am your run-of-the-mill flow judge. This means:

⁃ Warrants are crucial for me to favorably evaluate an argument. If I don’t know why something is true, then at best, I will very begrudgingly vote on it (and the rest of the round had to have been really bad for this to happen). If one team has better warranting for their arguments with very little evidence, and another team has evidence for their argument with very little warrants, I will (despite my better judgment) pick the first one to vote on.

⁃ Any offense in summary must be in final focus for both first and second speaking teams. First summary does not need to extend defense, unless the second rebuttal frontlined first rebuttal (this is especially true now that summaries are 3 minutes). I don’t think the second speaker has to necessarily cover the entirety of the first rebuttal, but I think they do have to cover turns. I just think second summary is too late to respond to them.

⁃ Weigh. It is something every flow judge expects (even though very few teams will actually effectively do it). Most likely, both teams are going to have offense left in the round, so you need to articulate why your argument is worth voting for over your opponents. The one thing I will add is that teams need to do a better job interacting with each other’s weighing mechanisms (i.e meta weighing). For example, it’s great if you are winning on magnitude, but if your opponents are winning on probability, then which argument am I voting for? Effective weighing interacts with your opponents weighing, and if you do this it will go a very long way in getting my vote. If there is no weighing done I default to util.

⁃ Although, I personally never read frameworks that much in my debate rounds, as I judge, I actually really do appreciate them. A good weighing overview/framework on which arguments I should prefer makes the debate a lot easier for me to evaluate, and makes the debaters job easier of collapsing in the back half of the debate. If there is no framework/weighing overview and there is no weighing done in the round, I default to util.

⁃ I will call evidence if it is important to my decision or if was a hotly contested piece of evidence. If the evidence was miscut, then I will drop the card, and really lower your speaks.

That said, there are a few weird things about me:

⁃ Defense is sticky. If you extend an argument in both summary and final focus without front lining the responses put on it, then I won’t vote on it. This holds true even if your opponents don’t extend those responses in summary and final (although I will be really unhappy if you do this, and will be reflected in your speaker points).

⁃ *I don’t know if this will/has ever happened, but if there is absolutely no offense left in the round for me to vote on, I will default to the first speaking team. In theory, every debate should be won by the second speaking team, since they have the last opportunity to weigh/win arguments in the round. I think the way PF is formatted puts the first speaking team at a significant structural disadvantage, since the only way for them to win is if the second speaking team does not capitalize on their advantage. But again, it likely won’t come down to this in your round.

⁃ I won’t outright not consider certain arguments in the round, but if your running arguments that have ridiculous impacts, really tenuous links, or are just offensive, then my threshold for the quantity/quality of responses put on it goes down. And this is scalar. Basically the more ridiculous the argument is, the easier it is for your opponents to get away with what would otherwise be insufficient responses. On that note, I think probability is a really undervalued metric in debate. Although I consider myself tech over truth, it is really frustrating for me when I have to vote on low-probability, high-magnitude type arguments that I know are not grounded in reality. If you are winning a high probability, lower magnitude impact, I will feel much more comfortable voting for that instead.

⁃ I rarely ever debated against theory, Ks, etc., so just consider that if you plan on running these. I won’t automatically vote against progressive arguments, but I am not experienced enough with them to evaluate them the way you want me to.

⁃ If you are going for turns as a path to the ballot in the second half of the round, you need to treat it like an actual argument. This means you have to warrant the turn well, and effectively implicate its impact, like a contention. If these things are not done, then it becomes more likely that I just over look it and deem it a blippy extension, and don’t vote for it (although this is a case-by-case decision).

Miscellaneous:

⁃ Be civil in cross. In extreme instances of rudeness, I will give you lower speaks.

⁃ I am usually generous with speaks. Good speaking boosts your score, but being really strategic in the round will go an even longer way.

Email: jph2188@columbia.edu

History: I did PF debate during highschool, debated in the GA circuit and went to many National Circuit tournaments. I have been judging PF for a while now. I have been off the circuit for a little while though, and may not be knowledgeable about recent developments within the last year in regards to PF.

How I evaluate the round: I expect you to extend your arguments throughout the whole round. This means offense from the rebuttal needs to be extended through the Summary and Final Focus for it to be weighed in the round. I also do not like it when teams bring up something from rebuttal in the final focus without extending it through summary (called extending through ink), doing this will likely result in the argument being dropped off my flow.

Argumentation: I expect all arguments to be properly warranted and impacted with supportive evidence to go with it. However, don't just speak off cards.

If you want the argument to be important, then make sure I know that it is important.

In sum, first-year out who will vote off the flow. Please weigh.

I debated for four years for Horace Mann (class of 2019) and attended TOC in my upperclassman years.

While I will act as a tech judge, I also value some truth in arguments—the more far-fetched your argument seems, the more likely I am to buy simple, logical responses. However, I do vote off the flow as much as possible, so in the second half of the round, please fully extend all arguments you expect me to include when deciding.

Please weigh—otherwise, you'll be unhappy with my decision. Please also interact with your opponents' weighing if they provide any.

Technical things: I discourage but can handle speed, prefer fleshed out logic over blippy card dumps, don't require defense in first summary unless second rebuttal has frontlined (which is also optional), and have minimal to nonexistent experience with all types of progressive arguments (but am open to voting off substantive theory shells for actual in-round abuse).

I have no knowledge about the current topics as I do not coach; please do not assume I know anything about stock arguments or topic-related acronyms.

Small things: Set up before me and do the flip if you are able; no need for handshakes; I think speaker points are very arbitrary and try to inflate them a little (shh).

Last of all, please let me do if there is anything I can do to make your life easier—debate is about learning and having fun fun at the same time, and I believe everyone in the round should work towards making that happen.

For further reference, please check out this paradigm written by my teammates Sajan Mehrotra and Ethan Kim: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fw2VpOyJbxFPYGz2jseTGfbbZiUgIRQJqh5LvCgbahw/edit?usp=sharing

I have judged debate, both policy and public forum, including intercollegiate policy, for the past 15 years. I debated policy for Gonzaga University from 2002-2006 and competed at the National Debate Tournament and the CEDA National Tournament. I currently coach and primarily judge public forum debate.

I firmly believe that it is not my place to impose my values or beliefs on a debate. You, as debaters, are primarily responsible for determining what I should value and how I should evaluate specific arguments. You need to tell me what Impacts matter, you need to explain your link and internal link stories, and you need to compare those argument against your opponents. If you do the work, I will follow and will make the effort to understand and respect those arguments. You are responsible, however, for proving, explaining, and analyzing those arguments. You need to explain your internal link and impact story in a way that is both compelling and backed up with evidence. Do not take for granted that I will immediately vote for you just because you said XYZ causes nuclear war. You have to do the work to get me there.

If you leave the debate entirely up to me, making short unwarranted and unevidenced arguments, you are likely to be frustrated with the result. I will rely on my flow as a witnessed accounting of the debate and attempt to deconstruct the arguments made on both sides.

"Assuming a pill exists that compels the user to tell the truth, THW destroy it." — Recent fun motion

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

Read the following sections: Overview, General Paradigm, Miscellany and Weird Aside on Evidence -- all else is Parli specific.

Relevant information for PF: I have a strong distaste for theory but as per modern paradigmatic standards, I'm happy to evaluate it as warranted in the round. The bar to convince me to pick up or drop a team on a theory call is likely pretty high. I will tank you if the theory is strategic and not based on something reasonable.

Regarding evidence in PF. I actually debated PF some in High School, I'm not unfamiliar with evidence and carded debate. The maxim that evidence doesn't replace warranting is still true, though, and I will reward better warranted arguments over better carded arguments assuming the belivability of the claim is constant.

Ask me questions before the round if you have questions -- I'd love to get to know you as well -- debate is a game, but we are all members of the community of debate and I'd love to foster that as much as possible. Ask me questions about college debate if you're a senior (or not) -- I'll connect you with the debate team of your institution if you know where you're going etc. I love verbal RFDs so will probably give one. I don't understand PF speaker points so take those with a grain of salt.

I don't claim to be an expert in PF or anything close. I do understand argumentation, warranting, impacting, weighing, etc, and want to see all of that in a round at the highest quality possible.

Parliamentary Debate

If you read nothing else, read this: don't spread; don't tag team; keep stuff in your time; be wary of theory; impact; weigh; warrant.

Overview

I debated for four years as a student at Stuyvesant High School and currently debate APDA for Columbia University. I have experience teaching debate to middle school and high school students, I tab way too often, and have lead more judge orientations than I care remember. If you care, I'm the president of APDA, the oldest and best college debate league.

People tend to care a lot about these paradigms — I really don't — if you have specific questions, ask me before rounds, in GA, whatever. Please do ask if something is unclear!

I run whacky cases, I debate whacky cases, I choose whacky motions — I really don't mind a lot if it's done well and respectful and conducive to a good round of debate.

General Paradigm

So everyone likes to claim they're a tabula rasa judge. I think this is nonsensical. Obviously personal views will not influence the round, but as arguments leave the sphere of the normal and easily bought, the burden of warranting well increases.

It's reasonably straightforward for me to buy, for example, that individuals do things that make them happy, and since eating ice cream makes people happy, people eat ice cream; but is comparatively hard for me to buy that actually, instead of eating the ice cream in my refrigerator, I'm going to make a 2 day trek across tundra to obtain some of the same ice cream.

I don't mean to discourage complex, strange, or whacky argumentation; rather, I aim to encourage elegant, simple, but robust warranting.

Theory

Theory has its place (LD / Policy / new PF circuit / your dinner table maybe ?) — and it's almost never in a parliamentary debate round.

Please limit any kritiks, theory calls, whatever else theory masquerades as nowadays, to instances where the use therein is warranted. Unless something is tightly or abusively defined / modeled or one team is engaging in reprehensible behavior, there is no need for theory — debate the resolution. This is an instance where I am certainly not tabula rasa, I will almost always, except in these previous instances, assume that the theory is being used in an effort to actively exclude the other team simply because the assumption is that I, as a seasoned debater, can follow it (which I can). Except in the caveated cases, the burden is on the team using a kritik or some other theory to prove to me they are not doing this.

If you want to argue about mutual exclusivity of a counterplan, or whatever else you want to do, please be sure to not forget to warrant, and explain things in reasonable terms. Just as you're not going to go off using advanced economic terms in rounds, and instead going to explain how a bubble works (hopefully), don't just use a pick, actually explain and warrant it. And on that, a counterplan had better be mutually exclusive, or at least functionally so, given certain tradeoffs.

Expect lower speaker points and to lose in cases of over eagerly applied theory.

Miscellany

I don't want to warrant for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to impact for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to weigh for you. Don't make me.

I am not going to get into what makes a warrant 'good' or an impact effective or weighing necessary, please as your coach, varsity, mentor, or email me if none of the previous options are available to you (johnrod.john@gmail.com).

The final two speeches of a round (the rebuttal or crystallization speeches) are NOT to restate every point in the round, but instead are meant to synthesize, weigh, and flesh out impacts. Please do that. The most effective rebuttal speeches focus on two to three levels of conditional weighing. I won't vote on some random unimpacted and unweighed pull through.

Don't spread — think about a speed a non debater would be able to reasonably follow. This usually means something fast, but not double breathing. Side note: someone who enjoys spreading please explain to me how this doesn't destroy the educational value in learning how to be a rhetorical and persuasive speaker please!

Instead of focusing on a breadth of argumentation, please focus on a depth of argumentation that is complex, and includes a high level of weighing structures and effective warranting.

Tag teaming — never seen this in parli outside of the west coast. Don't do it, you'll have your own chance to speak.

POIs — take them, use them, respect them. Don't go back and forth — if I wanted crossfire I'd be at a PF tournament. Seriously. Also, these are supposed to be fun and humorous — if you don't believe me, watch the House of Commons — however, you are HS debaters and probably take everything way too seriously, therefore I'll settle for not rude.

Offtime Stuff — No. You don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it.

Weird Aside on Evidence

Please don't confuse providing evidence with providing warrants. Simply because you were able to effectively use Google and find someone who said something doesn't mean that it's a) true b) important c) relevant d) it will happen again e) isn't without opposing evidence. Please always default to explaining why something happened, not simply that it did, or that someone believes it will happen again.

I have never once picked a team up for the quality of a card, and no round should ever come down to a piece of evidence in any way, shape, or form.

I am a lay judge but it may help to know that I invest in young entrepreneurs for a living: so I judge peoples effectiveness at convincing me on a daily basis. I do not bring my existing knowledge or biases to the round - rather I look for effective contentions and how well you defend them.

For speaker points - I start midrange and go up or down from there in small increments. Clear enunciation of contentions and counters are appreciated. Use your words always and politely! Rudeness, speaking over others, aggressive body language are not.

Good prep counts as much as your delivery skills. I look for data-driven arguments and logical arguments. If you are asked for a card, I expect you to find it quickly.

If you choose to share your case arguments with me (so I can follow along better) or share evidence when called for, please email Shyam.Kamadolli@yahoo.com.

Parent judge, Very lay, might flow a little. HATES RAPID SPEECH (DO NOT SPREAD) Do not run Bostrom! He will not vote on it, or most Nuke war scenarios tbh. Knows very little about the topic. Does know some about other topics.

Hi, my name is Laura. Good luck to you in your round.

I'm a parent judge, so you can imagine a few of my preferences. . . .

I am "truth over tech." I want you to debate the topic. I am not a fan of theory and think it is bad for public forum debate. Also, your arguments should be based upon weighable, realistic impacts, not extreme hypotheticals.

Speak conversationally. You can assume I am somewhat familiar with the topic you are debating. However, I prefer you to speak at a conversational speed. This is public forum, not LD, and I am against spreading in PF. Also, signpost please. If I can't follow your argument, I can't appreciate it.

Treat your opponent with respect. Don't say anything rude or offensive. Don't roll your eyes when your opponents are speaking. Don't interrupt excessively during crossfire. If you interrupt constantly, I will assume that you think they have a strong argument and that you don't want me to hear it.

No spreading, I won't flow it. I enjoy a good CX. I do not enjoy theory/K. Camera on preferable for online tournaments.

unionville ’19 | cornell ’23 (not debating)

4 years policy debate as a 2n

email: unionvillekl@gmail.com

policy:

i am a new judge, but i will try to ensure a fair and thoughtful decision based on a careful flow. the best debates have well-researched clash, in-depth explanations, and many argument comparisons. please be considerate of everyone in the room. if there are any ways i can make the debate more accessible for you, please let me know.

*tldr*

• tech > truth
• as a debater, i am most experienced in the policy side but have gone for arguments across the spectrum. i ran mostly soft-left and occasionally big stick affs and went for da/cp/t about 70% of the time and a k 30% of the time vs. policy affs.
• i went for t-usfg with a procedural fairness impact in 95% of my 2nrs vs. k/no plan affs. the other 5% were case turns.
• types of rounds i am experienced in (from most to least): policy v. policy, policy v. k, k v. k (no experience)
• i will call clear 2x; after that, i will just flow what i can. i think it is a reasonable expectation to be able to understand every word, even the warrants of the card.
• evidence quality undoubtedly matters — spin will at best be a lens through which i will view the contested evidence.
• any flavor of “debate bad” arguments will be an uphill battle to win.
• i will not evaluate arguments about actions that occurred outside of the round.
• i have no topic knowledge, so providing more explanation on particularly complex internal link chains or nuanced counterplans would be appreciated.

*specific*

do what you do best. my predispositions can be overcome by quality debating.

t-usfg/fw —

• i heavily lean negative because i believe debate is a game (that does not shape subjectivity) with strategic value and not having a limited topic and predictable stasis point cancels the opportunity for clash and productive debate.
• fairness (because preserving equitable competition is necessary to actualize any benefits of debate) > clash > dialogue > other neg impacts (“decision making,” “debate skills”)
• tvas do not need to solve the aff and prove that the aff could access similar content and literature base with a resolutional tie.
• tvas must meet the neg’s interp.

k affs —

• neg presumption ballots are very appealing in these debates since i just do not think these affs do anything. the aff needs to have clear impact calculus.
• there must be judge instruction: what am i voting for? why is that thing good?
• if the aff forgoes defending the topic, there should be a substantive critique of the resolutional mechanism.

ks —

• i am most familiar with capitalism, neoliberalism, settler colonialism, and discourse (i.e. security, victimization) kritiks.
• because of my policy background, i am predisposed to think: material resolution of conditions and violence is good, extinction is bad, and fiat is good.
• i have a high threshold for explanation, especially for race and high theory based kritiks (i have only ever debated against these).
• explicit line-by-line >>> overview that implicitly answers arguments (i will not make cross applications without instruction)
• on the fw debate, affs will always get to weigh their aff.
• sectioning the kritik in the neg block and doing line-by-line within each section (i.e. the fw debate, the perm debate, the link debate, the alt debate, etc.) creates a much cleaner flow.
• generic links (i.e. state bad) are unpersuasive especially if the aff makes link distinctions, which also makes voting for the perm much easier.
• if the alt is kicked, there must be explicit explanation on how the status quo resolves the links to the plan.
• if there is not case debate while going for the k, there will likely be an aff ballot.

topicality —

• since t is about competing visions of the topic, a clear picture of the topic with details about how debates and research occur and specific case lists under each definition are essential.
• describe and compare the contours of debate under not only the neg’s interp but also the aff’s interp, and explain why those differences matter.
• i default to competing interpretations.
• reasonability is an argument about why your definition is reasonably predictable, not why it is just “good enough.”

das —

• make “turns case” and outweighs analyses contextualized to the aff’s specific impacts.
• there must be a high risk of the da for me to vote on the “turns case” arguments, so disproving the framing flow would still be beneficial.
• the more contrived the internal link scenario the higher the burden of explanation and carded evidence will be for the neg.

cp —

• slow down on the cp text.
• i would prefer having a carded solvency advocate.
• sufficiency framing is at best a reason why the solvency deficits should be weighed slightly less — i would much prefer that the neg just do the solvency debate.
• evidence that compares the cp to the plan makes the cp probably legitimate.
• cps that solely compete on immediacy and certainty are questionable and will be difficult to win.

theory —

• slow down on analytics and warrant arguments.
• there must be detailed explanation of the world of debate under each model and the impacts of defaulting to each interp.
• most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.
• i rarely ran more than 3 conditional advocacies in neg rounds but if more than that is present in the neg strat 1) i am more sympathetic towards the aff 2) the neg should be very prepared to defend their multiple strategies.
• if theory is dropped, the opposing team must extend it throughout the debate for it to be voted on.

public forum:

i have never competed in this event and my only experience has been in the background research and progressive strategies components. i am not familiar with most pf norms, so most of my reasoning will default to policy norms.

• my flow will dictate the winner and loser.
• arguments should be answered in the same order they are presented.
• an argument must be in the previous speech for it to be extended (except for first rebuttal).
• 2nd rebuttal should answer the speech preceding it and extend their own case.
• arguments with evidence to back up claims will almost always have more weight than smart analytics.
• i strongly oppose paraphrasing (but understand the utility of it in short time constraints). if paraphrased evidence is disputed, i will evaluate the evidence from my own perspective (i will not consider evidence spin). if the evidence is misconstrued, i will treat it as if it has not been read in round and strike it from my flow.
• i am familiar with theory and kritiks (look above for preferences) and am open to hearing them. however, i do not see the strategic value in going for a kritik in this event because the level and depth of explanations and argument comparisons required to run a kritik well far exceeds the time limits of pf speeches.

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

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

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

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

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

5. Keep your impacts at the forefront.

6. Give me voters and weigh.

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

Good luck, and have fun.

Short:

Debated 4 years PF in HS. 3 years of policy in college. Coached PF for 4 years.

Ridge 2014-201, NYU 2018-202, current MD/PhD student at Michigan

Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (brandonluxiii@gmail.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.

Tech over truth. Policy and K both good. I can flow around 250 wpm without a doc. Favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.

If you don't extend I will vote neg on presumption unless it's LD where I'll vote aff on presumption. It makes me sad to have to say that I've voted on presumption in about 10% of rounds I've judged, although this number seems to be going down.

My name isn't judge, you can say my name if you want my attention.

If it takes you longer than 5 minutes to find a card, it doesn't exist. Very excessive card calling that makes me want to fall asleep: -0.2 speaks per card.

Please time yourselves.

Ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful. Postrounding is tolerated, but don't be annoying.

Please contact me if you feel unsafe during round.

Long:

PF Paradigm

I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.

Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.

Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.

I used to say I wanted to see a theory debate about whether 2nd rebuttal should frontline, but no one is willing to do it. If someone does it well, I will give both teams 30 speaks. Meanwhile, I currently default to 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything (yes, defense too. Don't be lazy).

Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary. NOTHING IS STICKY.

In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).

How to win my ballot:

Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.

I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).

I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).

I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.

I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.

Things I like:

Debating the line by line well.

Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.

Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.

Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).

Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.

A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.

Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.

Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.

Excessively long roadmaps- Your order should just be the flows. At most the arguments. Weighing is not a flow

Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice. The more frivolous your theory is, the less speaks I will give and the lower threshold I give for responses.

Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.

Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).

Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.

Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.

Things I hate:

New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.

Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.

How I award speaks:

30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.

29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.

28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.

27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.

26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.

Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)

30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.

Miscellaneous things:

Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.

I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.

Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.

If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 0.5.

You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.

If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.

I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something funny.

If you can make a reference to song I like, I'll boost your speaks. If you make a reference to a song I don't like, I'll dock speaks.

Write down things you did to boost speaks and remind me right when the round ends. If I forget, you can remind me the next time I judge you and I'll give you the extra speaks I owe.

Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts

TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.

LD Paradigm

Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.

I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.

K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.

K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.

Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.

Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.

Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.

I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.

Policy Paradigm

I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.

Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.

I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.

DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).

CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.

Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.

K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.

Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).

T: For some reason, I'm a masochist and I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.

Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.

Hi everyone,

I am a history teacher from Bronx Science, and I have limited experience judging Novice/JV PF and LD. I have judged policy debate before, but am a lay judge.

Since, I am a lay judge, this means NO SPREADING!

I am not familiar with progressive arguments, such as Ks, complex frameworks and philosophies, CP’s, DA’s, theory/T, or anything else of the sort. If you still want run it, please explain the concept as clear as possible.

This is my first tournament on this topic, so please explain your arguments clearly. If I do not understand your arguments, that will impact how i evaluate the round.

Give a clear overview, sign post well, make clear extensions with tags and author names, and do not use jargon!

Please keep CX respectful and I will not tolerate any form of bigotry or -isms.

Public Forum:

I am a former policy debater and have a year of experience judging public forum. I stick to the flow and will not evaluate new arguments in the final focus that I cannot trace back to earlier speeches. Do your thing and I will evaluate the debate accordingly. Feel free to ask questions

If you think it matters, my poliicy paradigm is below

7/31/2017

email - marguliesmorgan@gmail.com

tl;dr - Two important things:

1. Tech over truth

2. An argument is a claim+warrant+impact, do your thing and I'll evaluate the debate accordingly

Who?

I debated for four years at Nevada Union High School in California and qualified to the TOC with two bids my senior year. I liked to think that I was fairly flexible but I went for the kritik pretty often. With that being said, I will vote on any argument, as long as you do the better debating.

Args

T – I will default to competing interpretations unless I am told otherwise. The violation must be clearly explained , if it is not very clear by the end of the debate I will default aff. The most important part of the standards debate is the impact (duh). Limits and ground are NOT impacts, you must tell me why they are important.

Kritiks – This is the argument I read the most often. You do you. You must explain the link in the context of the aff and I really don’t like links of omissions. Make sure the alternative solves the impacts of the kritik. Don’t assume that anyone in the round knows what you are talking about until you have explained your arguments.

Disads – Okay lets be real, the disads are garbage on this topic, but!! if you do it well, you will win the debate. I think evidence comparison and evidence quality is very important in these debates so make sure your ev says what you are saying it says(?). The 2nr/2ar must do impact calculus please please.

Counterplans – I go for the states counter plan a lot and I think it is one of the most over powered arguments in debate. Write your cp text smart so you don't link to solvency deficits and cheat as much as you can. Make sure there is an explanation of how the net benefit works / how it spikes out of the disad and you will be all good. (Also 2NC counterplans are always justified and you should make as many as you can to solve 2ac offense sorry not sorry)

Theory – You gotta do what you gotta do, make sure you impact out the standards. I will evaluate the debate neutrally but with that being said: "No neg fiat" is the worst argument in debate and I think the neg gets as many conditional advocacies as they want.

K affs – Non-traditional affirmatives I think can be very creative and educational. Be passionate and if you understand what you are talking about, you should be good. Make sure you have warrants for your structural claims and do your thaang. These affs should be at least tangentially related to the topic.

Framework - K affs are really cool and all but so is framework. I go for framework in a more limits/skills/procedural fairness way go for whatever. This position when combined with nuanced case arguments is definitely the move. Defend the house.

Be kind, respect your opponent, and have fun!

If you have any questions you can ask me before the round or email me!

I'm a first year out from the Berkeley Carroll School and competed nationally and locally.

How to win my ballot:

Collapse on your strongest piece of offense and frontline it properly. Pretty please weigh; I think the best type of weighing is comparative.

Also:

- Do not lie about your evidence, I will call for a card if your opponent tells me to

- Running theory just to intimidate your opponents is not cool, only run it if it is clearly justified

- Good luck and have fun :)

I debated two years of Varsity LD and Varsity PF in high school. I’m a year post college now and it’s been a few years since I’ve been around or judged any kind of debate. I'll probably stop flowing if you start spreading. At the same time, I'll evaluate any kind of argument. Feel free to make it interesting or unconventional. No need to be overly formal. Be clear, respectful, and make good args and you'll get good speaks. Also time yourselves and each other.

If you paraphrase a piece of evidence and your opponent calls the card and all you have is a link to an article and you have to control F your way through the page to find what you are referencing I WILL NOT EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE. CUT YOUR CARDS.

Debaters should advocate or reject the resolution in a manner clear to a non-specialist citizen judge. Clash of ideas is essential to debate.

Debaters should display logic and reasoning, advocate a position, use evidence, and communicate clear ideas using professional decorum.

Neither the pro team nor the con team should offer a plan or counterplan, defined as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.

This is one of Meskill's students writing.

He is a lay judge, and Columbia is his first tournament (we taught him how to judge and flow though). Don't think that means you can pull BS though; he is good at catching it. He does not know jargon like weighing mechanisms, turns, etc. (although he does know the concepts, so you can still use all of those things just be clear what you're doing).

Probably best to avoid spreading. Also, keep in mind he is not familiar with the topic, so some more out there/squirrely arguments might need more explanation.

If you want him to consider it when making a decision, say it in Final Focus.

Be respectful to each other and to him.

I used to do PF for Regis High School. I go to Columbia now.

Don't be mean. Don't misrepresent evidence. Quality of args over quantity is def preferable.

Im pretty new to judging pf debate but I have some ground rules.

1.no debate terminology. I don't understand them whatsoever.

2.explain your arguments clearly

3.be nice to your opponents

4. Speak slowly

5. Have Fun!

Max F. Neuman (he or they pronouns). If both teams want to use an email chain, please add maxfneuman [at] gmail.com

Competitive and Coaching Experience:

4 years of PF, almost entirely on the New York City Urban Debate League, at Bard High School Early College Manhattan.

1 year of APDA at CUNY, 3 years at Columbia.

Former PF coach at High School for Dual Language and Asian Studies, Midwood High School, and Bard High School Early College Manhattan. Current APDA coach at Temple.

Listened to that NPR podcast about college policy and thought it was cool.

Paradigm:

When I'm judging a round, I really want to avoid intervening ie; involving my own thoughts or doing your work in achieving the ballot. It leads to unpredictable decisions that are unfair to everybody. To prevent judge intervention, speak high, and win, here are a few tips:

• Enjoy yourself! Debate should be fun.

• Be inclusive! Respect your competitors. If speaking about an event or group, especially one that you are not part of, only make arguments you would make if the room were full of members of that group.

• If you need to make a potentially triggering argument, please give a content warning.

• I will not deviate from tab policy, speech times, or the speaker scale. Everything else is up for debate.

Everything below this point is stuff I am flexible on, but will default to absent other argumentation.

• I am a lazy judge. I do not want to intervene or do the work to prove why arguments are true or why they matter. Please be explicit about what the voting issues should be.

• Before anyone says a word, I assume that my job as the judge is to determine if the resolution is a true or false statement, and I assume that neg has won on presumption. As soon as a debater says anything, these starting positions go out the window and the role/destination of the ballot is up for debate.

• I've been consistently involved in debate since 2013, but you definitely know the current topic and the format's evolving norms better than I do. Author names don't mean much to me, so explain what cards say. If you want to make an abuse or theory call, or even do something non-traditional like a K, I'm amenable to it if it's adequately warranted and weighed in a way that's accessible to a broad audience that isn't steeped in debate pedagogy. If something is warranted well and not responded to at all, I'll consider it true, no matter how outlandish.

• Weigh and condense. Going for the whole flow at any point after second crossfire reduces the round to a whirlwind of blips, often with very little analysis about what should sway the ballot. Impact calculus is hard to master, but entirely worth it.

• I don't care about or even know how to consciously evaluate presentation things like what you wear, the sound of your voice, rhetoric, whether you sit or stand, or that sort of thing.

• Speed is fine when coupled with clarity. If you're especially fast (like 300 words per minute or more), start slow so I can get up to speed. If I can't flow you at all, I'll say "clear" up to three times

• Explaining how something works or happens is so much better than citing a source or quantifying a conclusion. Maybe it's because I've seen so many bad debaters win rounds on evidence challenges or because I'm a parliamentary debater, but I value explanation on par with evidence.

• If some offense is in first constructive or rebuttal and then never gets brought up during the round, I'm fine with a final focus/PMR/LOR/2AR/2NR weighing it to win, although the weighing needs to be stronger than "they dropped it so it's true." I will pick up a team that says "they dropped it so it's true, and we weigh it so it matters" if the weighing actually happens.

• You don't have to extend all defense in a summary/rebuttal if you've already touched an argument; you do have to respond if the other side is going for it and engaging with your refutation. If something was in the round before, regardless of whether it was in summary or second constructive, it can be in final focus and on the ballot if you mention it explicitly. I will enforce the prohibition on totally new argumentation (in all cases except the first-speaking team answering totally new content in the second team's summary) in final focus.

• I probably won't flow crossfire because I don't think I can do so with nearly as much accuracy as the speeches. If something important happened in crossfire, mention it in a speech to be sure it's in the round.

• I am begrudgingly okay with calling cards. It would be better if everyone could avoid this by not lying about evidence (your own or your opponents'). If there has been a question of validity or a direct and unresolved clash of cards during the round, I'll probably want to see the original source after the round. If you have a citation and a card, it's okay with me if you have to pull an original source off the internet when asked. Any other internet use is super duper prohibited. If the entire round comes down to a fact claim that nobody can resolve like "Russia has 15 nuclear submarines" when the brightline for impact access is 15, I'm amenable to arguments that I should google the number, and I'll default to just resolving the next most important issue in the round if it's deadlocked around an unresolvable fact claim.

If you want my flow, it's all yours! Send me an email at maxfneuman [at] gmail.com to ask for the flow or if you have any questions, preferably on the same weekend as your round in front of me. I'll probably delete flows/forget details about rounds after that. Please add me to the email chain at the same email address.

He/Him

oliverhniu@gmail.com

Update for Ridge 2022:

I competed in Public Forum for four years at Millard North HS, graduated in 2019, and coached at NDF/VBI/on the circuit pre-Covid. I’m basically retired now and Ridge will be my first time judging in about two years. Therefore, assume I have very limited topic knowledge and am unfamiliar with any recent norms.

Here's a few preferences:

If you want the easy path to my ballot; weigh, implicate your defense/turns, tell me why you should win.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

Debate is a game, as such I will normally be a tech>truth judge except in circumstances where I deem an argument to be offensive/inappropriate for the debate space.

Rebuttal:
I prefer a line by line. Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.

Extensions:

I won't do ghost extensions for you even if the argument is conceded, extend your arguments.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, T, Plans, Counter Plans, Ks. I will caution that these arguments were not super common when I competed so please be thorough in your explanations and make your path to the ballot clear. If I don't understand your argument well, I will default against it.

Evidence Challenges:

Unless the tournament says otherwise, in the event of a dispute about evidence, I will pause the round and ask the accusing team if they wish to stake the round on their claim. I will then determine if there was a violation of evidence ethics and vote accordingly.

I'm a fairly vanilla judge -- remember to 1) weigh your arguments against your opponents', indicating why your own have more heft/are more important; 2) clash, responding precisely to your opponents instead of engaging in straw man; 3) summarize, because you have many contentions/subpoints/pieces of evidence/hopes/aspirations, and I can't keep track of them all.

I'm 1) a flow judge and 2) a former debater; these, taken together, mean that I like my flows when they are organized, and when you speak with enough coherence for me to understand you. Extending this, I value enunciation over quantity: if your case is 900+ words, I advise trimming it.

No "off time road maps." Your 2/4 minute speech should not need a table of contents.

I don't flow crossfires, but I do listen. Interpret this however you will.

Keep track of your own and your opponents' prep time. Ten seconds after their time is over, say clearly but not aggressively, "I believe your prep time is over."

Unlike most judges, I may ask you a question or three, both for clarity and to test your arguments. Depending on the question, I may ask your opponents for their perspective on your question also.

I don't not disclose, but unless one side is noticeably more convincing or horrible, I won't. Comments will be provided in ballots, because the next round needs to get on.

If you use a philosophical idea (e.g. categorical imperative, veil of ignorance, social contract) and mispronounce the thinker's name, I will take off two speaker points.*

If you use a philosophical idea and explain it facilely or incorrectly, I will count it against you. I strongly penalize that sort of debatespeak.

If you are the first round of the day (typically 8/8:30 am) and you bring me a cup of non-DD black coffee, I will give you two speaker points.*

An intelligent, correct, and apt use of at least three of the following words/phrases in one speech will gain you one speaker point:

Balkanization

Heuristic

Cacophonous

Sufficient to rise, but free to fall

Spineless ectoplasm

Plasmodesmata

(Asterisked items are humorous, but contain a grain of truth/life advice. E.g. the mispronunciation of thinkers' names: while I won't (and am not allowed to) take points off for mispronounciation, it will only make you look bad if you pronounce Kant as a homophone to "can't." You will also probably be the butt of a joke I tell my friends the next day.)

Update 10/8/22:

First, don't worry too much about this paradigm - just debate!

Experience/background: I'm a teacher who did policy debate a long time ago, co-coached PF for several years, judged many (> 100) national circuit PF rounds over past decade, a little experience judging CDA & parli styles.

Some notes/comments in no particular order:

In all styles, it comes down to the same thing: it's your job as a debater to convince me to vote for you. It's not my burden to make sense of arguments that are muddled, incomplete, poorly organized etc.

(PF): I'm not currently coaching PF, and you'll risk losing my ballot if you use tons of jargon, esp. with arguments/acronyms etc.

I'm not lay but also not super technical (re PF/policy); I vote off the flow. For CDA/parli, presentation is higher priority, but well-crafted, persuasive arguments are what win my ballot. (Of course these things are related.)

I love good analysis; not impressed by blippy arguments. Ideally you have a coherent narrative by the end of the round.

Evidence: quality over quantity. Understand your evidence. Ideally you should be able to:

- explain any expert opinion you cite (rather than just stating it),

- understand where a statistic comes from & context (how a study was done, what its limitations are etc),

- defend the relevance of any empirical evidence you present, and

- be sure you’re not misrepresenting evidence!!! In PF I will call for cards.

Weighing is critical (not just weighing impacts, not just "we win on magnitude" etc.). Tell me why I should vote for you!

Some/moderate speed is ok as long as you're clear. If you can't speak both quickly and clearly, slow down.

No new args in rebuttal, I will not vote on them. (However you can respond in rebuttal to new args made in your opponent's 2nd constructive.)

Extending an argument in rebuttal means more than one or two words ("pull x"); you have to fully articulate it in rebuttal for me to consider it.

cx (for PF): I listen, but I'm not voting off cx. Bring it into a speech.

fw: I have voted off framework in some PF rounds, but only when convincing and directly relevant to args in the round. If you agree on fw, there's no need to talk about it in the round - time is better spent on other things.

k's: I'm generally not a fan in PF, but I'll do my best to be fair and consider whatever you're running. I have voted on them on occasion.

I sometimes avoid disclosing at larger tournaments in order to get things moving.

In the best rounds I've judged, debaters listen well to one another. Good clash is not just "they said this, but we say that." The best debaters can incorporate their opponents' arguments into a coherent narrative of the round.

Good luck!

Not a lay judge.

Debated 1yr of PF and 1yr of LD.

Was 1 of the 2 co-captains for my high school debate team, AFBHS S&D.

I look for:

-Debate Jargon (key words)- “Void,” “Drop,” “Extend,” etc.

-Weighing Impacts and/or framework.

-Good CX.

-Quantifiable Statistical Evidence & Credible Examples.

-Clear Diction & Expressive Tone.

-Keep track of your own prep/speech/and cx time.

I'm an undergraduate junior at Columbia Engineering. I have no current involvements with PF, but competed in PF for 4 years in high school, and Parliamentary for ~1 year. While I don't mind a more 'technical' approach to PF debates (e.g. speed-reading as much evidence as possible), I do appreciate a more accessible/traditional style of delivery, as I feel it makes for better quality discourse overall. In that vein, I appreciate good signposting & weighing in speeches, especially as rounds go on & the overall amount of information that's been brought up grows. Otherwise, I'm pretty flexible with how things go.

I am a sophomore at Barnard and compete with the Columbia Parli Team. I competed in PF for four years at Sidwell Friends School. I'll flow and can handle moderate speed, but prefer for there to be clear signposting, especially in early speeches, in order to best understand your arguments. The best argumentation should include extensions of your arguments (with convincing responses to rebuttals from the opposing side) and thoughtful weighing.

First-time judge, prefers tabula rasa with emphasis on speaking skills and clear communication. Spreading makes the debate difficult to enjoy.

I am a first-time judge and the parent of a current debater. I hope to see debaters who speak clearly and concisely, at a conversational pace so the topic is easily understandable. Please speak slowly and tell me what I should be voting on. Good luck!

I am a parent judge. I don’t have high school or college experience in debate. I have judged a few tournaments, in LD and PF over the past 3 years.

I value arguments that are clearly articulated and presented (please do not spread), logically constructed, and are aware of their premises and implications. I also value sound evidence.

I appreciate courtesy and sportsmanship.

Finally and most importantly, I want you to have fun. If you do, I do too!

I am a parent judge from Westborough, MA with three years of judging in local and natcircuit tournaments.

Talk slow and do not spread

Organize your speeches and explain your arguments well

Avoid debate jargons

Do not assume I know all the abbreviations

Relative numbers provide lot more information than absolute numbers. For example, if you tell me the impact is $50 million, Is that on a GDP of $20 trillion or on a country with a GDP of $500 million

If you are providing a statistic, check on what the other team is talking about too. For example, one team could say that imports increase of 15% and the other team could say exports decrease by 20%. Ideally both teams should talk about the same statistic and the impact. If not, you should tell me what matters the most (import or export) and the impact in terms of dollars, employment etc.

Try to build a narrative and a theme throughout the round

Overwhelming me with data and evidence tags is not good. I am looking for a combination of logical reasoning with data

Exclude Extinction arguments and theory

A few well defended high impact arguments are way better than going all over the place

Please weigh well and provide clear reasons to vote for you

I am a parent judge, and have been judging for 2 years. Speak slow, and explain your arguments well.

I am a parent judge with some experience. I will take a lot of notes, but I do not “flow”. Please be respectful of each other during the debate. Please speak slowly enough to be understood. You have done your research and worked hard on your case, but I can only give you credit if I can understand what you are saying. Fast arguments challenge my ability to follow you. I will expect teams to keep their own time. I would recommend quality arguments over quantity.

I hope you have fun. Good luck and have a great round.

Relatively new judge. Have judged couple tournaments. My daughter does Public Forum.

Please speak slowly and clearly.

Have fun!

I did PF for two years at Boston Latin School, and competed extensively in British Parliamentary debate, with some experience in American Parliamentary, at Sciences Po Paris and Columbia University.

I will flow on paper; speed is fine if not excessive. Please treat opposing arguments with charity and respect, and avoid offensive content.

I am most likely to vote for you if you extend arguments through the round and weigh their impacts comparatively with your opponent's.

(parent) lay judge.

Please speak at a normal pace, if you speak too fast I may lose you. Please try to avoid debate jargon. If you are speaking fast with a lot of debate Jargon, I may not understand you, which may cost you the round.

Make sure to explain everything clearly.

Weighing is very important, weigh your arguments and impacts to convince me to vote for you.

Be respectful during the round.

Please do not bring up new arguments late in the round, that will cost you the round, especially if it is in the final focus.

rajendra10031@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Raj and if you’re reading this, I’m probably judging you. I debated for 4 years, went to the TOC my junior and senior years. I am now a senior at City College.

TLDR; Treat me like a flow judge. Do whatever you feel comfortable doing. When it comes to evaluating theory's K's, disclosure theory, I didn't do a lot of that in High School so I am unfamiliar with it. However, if you feel that it is needed and you can justify it in the rounds, then by all means go for it but be specific with it. If you’re spreading, then I won’t understand you and will put my pen down. *PLEASE DON’T SPREAD ABOVE 350wpm* I WILL VOTE 100% OFF THE FLOW and I will disclose and give my RFD. PLEASE FRONTLINE RESPONSES and have actual terminal impacts that I can vote on. Weigh and throw buzzwords like scope & magnitude at me. Remember if you do not extend these responses, impacts, and weighing I cannot vote on that. Tabula Rasa

FOR RIDGE:I haven't judged since the end of last season. This is my first tournament on the federal debt topic, but I have looked up topic analyses' on it so do with that information as you well.

If you make a comment that I deem racist, homophobic, sexist, or ableist at any point in the round it completely eradicates the integrity of the event and creates a space in which individuals can’t compete fairly and I won’t think twice about dropping you and giving you 20 speaks.

Last thing; please remember to have fun. I remember doing debate at this tournament and it was so much fun so please cherish this time at this tournament and enjoy yourselves.

I have been judging Debate for 7 years. Coaching for 4. So consider me new-ish/old-ish.

Flow

I consider myself a “semi-flow” judge. Watch your speed, if you are too fast I won’t bother to write. Makes the decision a lot more challenging, for you. Make contentions and sub contentions clear.

Evidence

Include at the minimum the year of the evidence in your case. Paraphrasing is okay, but please do not misrepresent the evidence. If your opponent calls for a card it should say what you say it does. Further, if they call for a card, you should be able to find it quickly. It is your evidence, isn’t it?

Summary and Final Focus

Be clear in why you “won”. Make the voting issues clear and concise. If something important isn't in the summary, I'm not voting on it in final focus. Also, weighing is probably a good idea as well.

Cross

I will not be judging cross so if it's important bring it up in your speech. Speak up for yourself in cross. Do NOT take over the questioning it should be a back and forth.

Aggressive Debate does NOT equal Obnoxious Debate

Be aggressive, but not obnoxious. Be firm in your contentions and the entire case have passion in your voice but don’t be mean or rude. Do not roll your eyes at, talk down to, be rude to, or personally attack your opponent.

Prep TIME

USE IT ALL!

I'm a parent judge, and have been judging at various public forum tournaments for the past 6 years.

I have worked for 30+ years as a litigating attorney, so I understand what works as a persuasive argument. I value logical arguments supported by evidence (not just conclusory statements). Tie your arguments to the resolution, and explain based on the evidence and logic why I should vote in your favor on the merits. You should address and not ignore your adversaries' points.

Please do not speak too fast, make sure you have the evidence ready and available if it is called for, and be civil and respectful at all times.

PARENT JUDGE

Clarity of speech and thought. Please speak clearly.

Team Dynamics

Respectful competition and arguments .

Authentic facts and meaningful rebuttals.

I’m a parent of a debater and will judge based on a combination of general logic, common sense, and grace.

No debate jargon please.

On speed: Don’t do it. If I can’t understand what is being said, I won’t be able to give you credit for it.

Please write my RFD for me in both summary and final focus.

Don't be rude, good luck, and have fun!

General Info:

Call me Vega!

SHE/THEY

Proud Boriqua Educator and Artist

Middle-School Debate Coach at John D. Wells, MS. 50

Full time Paraprofessional in Brooklyn, NYC

Debate Career:

ACORN Community High School 2012-16: Policy Debate

Coached Leon M. Goldstien from 2016-17

Judging Policy and Public Forum from 2015- Present

Judging LD from 2018- Present

Judging Congressional and Speech from 2019- Present

For the majority of my debate career I was double 2s, and later became 2N, 1A.

Overall Rules and Expectations:

I do not count sharing evidence as prep unless you take a century.

I believe that judges are NOT supposed to intervene in round under any circumstances, unless in the case of an extreme emergency.

I shouldn't have to tell you be respectful or to not use hateful, racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic language. If I hear it, I will automatically give the ballot to the other team. ABSOLUTELY NOT TOLERATED.

Some may think petty debaters or debaters with attitudes are amusing or cute, I don't. Treat your competitors with respect or it will affect your speaker points.

Judge Philosophy:

I believe that it is my responsibility as the judge of the round to remove any pre-existing notions or biases from my mind on whatever topic you chose to debate over, and act as an objective observer who decides whether or not the AFF is a good idea. Unless told otherwise in the round, this is the perspective I default to.

Minimal expectations are the following: If the NEG does not provide any DAs to voting AFF then I will vote AFF. If the AFF does not prove that the AFF is better than the status quo and has an actual solvency method, then I will vote NEG.

It is in your best interest (speaker points) to go far beyond these basic debate expectations. I'm generous with speaker points if you keep me engaged and make sure I understand you, they usually range from 27-29.5

I don't have any specific preference when it comes to argumentation and I will vote on virtually anything you want me to if explained well, but DO NOT assume I know anything.

I was a public forum second speaker for three years at Randolph High School. Employee and coach with the NYCUDL for a few years now.

I flow the round but am overall pretty relaxed on technicalities. Make sure the things you want me to vote on are in summary and final focus.

No spreading please.

LD:

I am not very familiar with LD and have never competed it. Regardless, I will flow everything you say and do my best to make a fair decision. Don't get too fancy if possible. Thanks!

Hey! This is my first time judging public forum debate and I hope you are excited as much as I am!

Few key points in order of priority

1. Assume no prior knowledge on the topic besides on overview from my debator son. Please make an attempt keep jargon at an absolute minimum.

2. Extend warrants and not just cards.

Well explained Warrants+Supporting evidence > Good warrants > Mediocre warranting > carddumps.

I don't default to what Smith of Yale'19 say unless you explain to me why his/her claim is justified.

3. Speak clearly and slowly. If I look confused, I probably am :(.

4. Defense in rebuttal is not required, but recommended. You should respond to turns.

5. Weigh. Weigh. Weigh. Oh, did I mention to weigh?

6. I have been instructed to give relatively high speaks to avoid looks of despise after the results have been posted. I will start with 29 speaks and go from there.

7. Collapse on arguments and emphasize them.

8. Write my RFD in summary and FF please!

9. Please don't run anything overly progressive. I do not understand K's and theories and will be very hesitant to vote off them.

10. Have fun!

(Note from son: If there's an issue with the decision, please email me at wangw7@bxscience.edu. Please don't hate on my mom. She's really cool and is trying her best to be a good civilian judge. But please explain everything! The less confused she is about a side's narrative, the more likely she'll vote off it.)

I am a parent judge. Please use good evidence and speak clearly

Good luck in your rounds and have fun!

I am a parent judge, which means a few things:

1. Slow down, please! If you focus on the narratives of the arguments, you'll win the round.

2. If there's something important in the constructive or rebuttal, make sure it's talked about in the summary and final focus.

3. Voters are a great way to win the round in the 2nd half of the debate.

4. Be nice and not rude.

** If you clearly weigh your arguments against your opponent and stimulate a consistent narrative, you'll win the round. **