Lexington HS '20 (Policy debate)

UC Berkeley '24

Tl;dr: Tech > Truth. Line by line is always good. If you don't explain why you win the debate or weigh your arguments against your opponents, then I may have to do some of that work for you and that's not fun for anyone.

For Policy: During my time in high school, I went from being a 2N who went for politics DAs and process CPs to being a 2A who ran a planless aff so I like to think I'm pretty middle of the road.

For LD: Most of what I have below should apply but keep in mind that I'm not very familiar with all of the theory and tricks arguments that are exclusive to LD.

For PF: Speak confidently, be organized, show your research, and clash with your opponent. Most of my PF experience comes from coaching and you should expect me to be more on the "evaluating arguments over speaking style" side than other judges.

Put me on the email chain: rsb0117@gmail.com

Case Debate

• Make sure your aff's internal links make sense. A lot of affs get torn apart due to low-quality i/l evidence.
• Good case debate is underrated and can be the difference between a win and a loss if you minimize the aff's offense. 1NCs that recut the 1AC are powerful.

Policy Strategies

• I love politics DAs but if you have a good topic-specific DA on this topic, I'll be impressed because that's hard these days. I like it when people put emphasis on the outweighs/turns debate but in my experience, the link and internal link are the weakest parts of the DA so that's what both teams should focus on.
• I don’t think any CPs are cheating unless the aff wins that they are on the flow. If you have a blippy one line arg on theory, it's an uphill battle to win it since you're kind of destroying its purpose. For what it's worth, I think neg ground has gotten progressively worse every year. Perm shields the link arguments are severely underrated.
• I like generic CPs that are argued well with clear reasoning and aff specific CPs that are well thought out with good evidence. Judge kick isn't a default unless the aff drops it after the 2NR brings it up.
• I don’t care what the T violation is, as long as you win it. T is about what you justify and want for the best model of debate. I also don't care about in-round abuse.

K Strategies

• It looks so bad when people read Ks without knowing what they're talking about and it becomes really obvious in CX.
• I am most familiar with literature bases about anti-blackness, settlerism, capitalism, gender, security, and biopower but I'm fine with anything.
• I like a good alt explanation but I'm not one of those people who thinks that an alt needs to resolve everything- I'm even okay if you kick the alt as long as you can explain how you get offense off of the links or framework.
• K v K debates tend to come down to who explains their method and theory of power better. My favorite ones will actually find problematic aspects in each others' scholarship.
• I understand the point of long overviews but if you drop the line by line, you're letting the aff get away with murder.

FW

• I like FW debates and believe they should be about which model of debate does the most good.
• The best FW 2NCs have shorter overviews and do most of the impact/TVA work on the line by line.
• I think affs should be tied to the resolution in some way but what that means is debatable. If your aff interacts with the debate space more than the resolution, I'll still vote for you if you explain why the ballot is key.
• Debate about how to approach the resolution but please follow speech times and don't ask for 30s.

Speaks

I’ll start at 28.0 and move up and down. I usually only break 29 when I judge people who I think should make it to elims.

I will lower speaks if:

• You’re sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. Debate should be civil.
• You read an aff with trauma impacts that goes into very graphic detail (there's usually one about gender violence or human trafficking every year) and don't give a trigger warning to make sure your opponents are okay with it.
• You say warming is good/doesn't exist. I think that's bad scholarship.
• You're unclear.

I won’t be mad if:

• You ask questions/postround- it's important for learning as long as you're being genuine.
• You use flex prep AKA ask CX questions during your prep.

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

Long Version:

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

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

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

Also, please don't be a dick.

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

I am a lay judge. Please do not assume I know any debate jargon. Please explain all abbreviations the first time you use them. Please be on time for your tournament.

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.

"Gheorghe Lazar" National College, Bucharest, Romania, '19

I've debated nationally and internationally for my high school's debate club (Lazar Debate Club) from 2016 to 2019. I was also part of the coaching team during my senior year.

Most of my experience encompasses the World Schools Style debate. Thus, I value a clear, well-elaborated structure of arguments, while the style - the manner in which the speaker presents his/her line of reasoning - is also important when it comes to persuading me as a judge. Moreover, the team's coherence and overall strategy (for eg. the way in which they prioritise their arguments, time-management etc.) also holds relevance to me.

I don't appreciate when arguments are under-developed or based on over simplified ideas. I'm also not particularly keen on an aggressive speaking style (for eg. shouting, speaking very fast, ironizing the opponent team etc.)

Hi! I am a student judge who has a fair amount of experience in LD. Here are a few things to consider:

-I despise spreading. If you do though, send me your case before the round starts.

-I like impact calculus. do that.

-don't be a bad person.

-If you don't speak clearly enough for me to follow, I simply won't flow it and I'll just doc points.

-Try not to be rude/condescending.

-I like framework debates as well

-WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS!!

that's it!

I judge LD and PF at all levels. I debated all throughout high school: in LD my freshman year and in PF for the subsequent three (NCFL, NJFL, NFL). I have been judging debate for over 10 years.

For email chains, my email is taylordiken@gmail.com.

Style

• Theoretical arguments are welcome if you can reason them through. In Public Forum, though, you also need evidence to back up your claims.
• I dislike spreading, and if you spread for every speech WITHOUT signposting, you will likely see that taken off in speaker points. If you need to speed up to get all of your points in, that's fine once or twice, but policy-level speed is not my preference.
• Most importantly: please be civil during your rounds. Everyone at a meet/tournament is an adult and should be treated like one. If you talk down to your opponents, you will absolutely have speaker points taken off.
• Where it is allowed, I do give low point wins. The easiest way to make sure you get the speaker points you're looking for is to speak clearly and politely throughout the round.

Technicalities

• Time yourself, time your partner, and time your opponents. Keep each other honest. As the judge, I will keep the official time.
• No new evidence can be presented after the second crossfire - I will not flow it and you'll waste your time. No new arguments should be presented after grand cross.
• Summary is a summary and final focus is a final focus. Do not use summary as a rebuttal or FF as a summary.
• When required, I disclose only the result of the round. I do not give oral critique. I generally do not answer questions after the round like "What did you think of x" as it gives the debater(s) an unfair advantage. I write any comments on the ballot instead so the information goes to your coach as well.

Judging

• I vote off the flow. I try to take down every argument made and follow it throughout the round. That means I'll know if you mistakenly extend a point or even an entire contention, and you will definitely lose that point/contention if you pretend you've won when you haven't. That means the FF of "and my opponent dropped X and Y and Z" doesn't fly when I have the flow of the opponent actually addressing X, Y, and Z right in front of me.
• If you have eleven subpoints to a contention for the sole purpose of confusing your opponent, I'm likely not going to extend them if the opponent runs out of time at point three.

I am a lay judge.

Please speak slowly enough, so you could be understood and so that your arguments can make an impact.

You will increase your chances of winning a round if you point out logical inconsistencies in your opponent's arguments and you will decrease them if your arguments are not logically consistent.

If you ask to see your opponent's cards, you better have a good reason for that, do not use it as an opponent intimidation technique.

I debated PF in high school. I'll flow everything except cross, but please don't spread because I'll definitely miss stuff. Extend your arguments if you want me to count them, please weigh (very important and makes my job a lot easier), and don't bring up arguments in FF.

Also, be respectful of your opponents and what they say. Dismissing something as "stupid" or rolling your eyes is not the way to go.

I prefer clear, cogent points and simple arguments. Engaging with the audience is a big part, so I believe eye contact and appropriate movement is essential.

Whoever uses the word "avocado" fluidly in the context of a speech will win automatically. Haha. Just kidding. (or am I?)

Don't do an off-time road-map unless you are a wimp. Your job as a debater is to lay out your arguments clearly within your time constraints.

Whispering to your partner during your opponent's speech is not only disrespectful, but an indirect use of prep time. Don't do it.

Make sure to refer to your opponent as "my opponent" rather than he or she — it's respectful, and you avoid misgendering someone.

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

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

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

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

Parent judge with 4 years of experience, I do flow the entire round.

If possible, please make it easy for me, collapse or go for a very well explained turn.

I am not a a pro and wont necessarily understand all the jargon and nuance.

My prefs:

1. yes - signpost; off-time roadmaps, extending from SUM to FF;

2. warrants > blips = I will have a hard time voting for poorly explained arguments;

3. no - spreading, anything new in 2nd SUM or FF;

4. Happy to skip grand-X if you are...

5. If K and Theory is read, I will do my best, but no promises that I will do a good job of it.. so swim at your own risk.

you can add me to email chains and case - viettagrinberg@gmail.com

This is my first year as a judge. I am a senior at the University of Pennsylvania studying history and Spanish.

The argument is very important, and should first and foremost be comprehensible. The argument should be clear and have an effective flow. As a history major, I value evidence and the ability to evaluate sources critically. Overall with evidence, quality over quantity is important.

Presentation effort is important- think eye contact, body language, clarity of speech.

Be respectful during the crossfire portion. Don't be rude or condescending towards your opponents.

I am a parent judge, and I have judged for more than 3 years on the national circuit.

Preferences:

- Speak clearly at a conversational pace

- Have logical and well-explained arguments

- Avoid debate jargon

- Signpost clearly

- No Ks, Theory, etc.

- Be professional and civil

- Cross: I may not take notes but I pay attention

my email for evidence and etc: esther.kardos@gmail.com

general rule of thumb.... i am now officially 4/5 years removed from pf debating and the format has changed a lot. i am super receptive to this change so if you're doing something especially out of the box it's totally fine with me, i just need a heads-up and you might have to do some extra legwork to teach an old pf-er new tricks.

spreading - yeah, probably. if you can't get through your speech without it, then i can follow until about 230 wpm. after that, maybe send over a copy of your speech to make sure i don't miss anything. i would encourage you to slow down toward the back end of your speeches, but up to you.

theory & beyond - i didn't have to deal with this a ton back when i did pf (pf used to be the "one format without theory" lmao not anymore!), but i've had enough exposure to T/K/plans/counters from judging that i can probably pick up what you're putting down. as a caution, i REALLY need to get persuaded by theory to vote on it, and if it's too complicated for me to understand i'll just default to your opponent.

flowing - make flowing easy for me! start each of your big points with something flashy like "my first contention is..." or "my second independent point is..." or even just "one... two... three...", and then clearly indicate to me the different branches of argumentation under that big point. you don't need to be as obvious as shouting "THIS IS MY WARRANT, THIS IS MY IMPACT", but be able to clearly explain why/how something is true and what's going to result from it, and especially why it matters more than whatever your opponent is saying. i listen to cross-ex but i don't flow it, so if you/your opponent say something important during cross, make sure you remind me during your next speech so it 100% makes it on the flow.

evidence/cards - evidence is only as good as the warranting, weighing, and impacting that goes behind it. i will never base my rfd on how well you were able to gather bits of evidence from the depths of debate's dark web, or if one really good point you were making had a link that couldn't load. instead, if the argument you're creating makes sense to me (with some informational evidence to back it up) because of the warranting, weighing, and impacting you put behind it, then i'll always be more willing to pick that up rather than just buy what the other team is saying because of some guardian article from 2004.

misc - i don't mind "offtime roadmaps" or whatever the kids are calling it these days, just let me know beforehand and plzzz keep them brief. if you're a novice (or even a varsity!!!) and you have questions during the round, please don't be afraid to ask me, i'll never look down on you for wanting to learn! i'm happy to give any timing cues, you just gotta let me know beforehand. be nice to each other, debate is temporary but building a habit of being a jerk follows you forever. and in case I haven't beaten this to death already, WARRANT AND IMPACT AND WEIGH.

if you have any more questions, let me know. i'm so excited to see what arguments you come up with!

Hey everyone!

I am a graduate of Fordham University in the Bronx, and am very excited to be judging! I attended Nova High where, senior year, I founded and coached our Lincoln Douglas team, so I have a very extensive, but not completely exhaustive, understanding of LD. I am very well versed in debate events- freshman & sophomore year I competed in congress and junior year in PF. So I'm great at following logic- if you are going to run something tricky I'm totally capable to judge it, just make sure you explain it well.

Clear warrants and weighing mechanisms are extremely important to me. Please give me a means to evaluate what you are arguing. Keep my flow clean. Signpost.

I'm pretty much open to anything you wanna throw at me. With a few limitations of course. If you are at all sexist, racist, homophobic, or rude to your opponent, expect me to call you out and don't expect speaks higher than 25. I'm fine with speed to an extent- if you want to spread that's completely fine, just don't expect me to get every word down. If it's important, you better bring it up in your later speeches. I love to hear out of the box arguments - in high school, I ran a rage fem K - so I love to hear new and progressive ideas.

I'm sure I left out some things here so I'll be posting updates, but feel free to email me with any questions!

-Julia Kennedy

juliakennedy97@gmail.com

Background

Competed in PF, Congress, and Radio in high school.

Judging style

I judge based off of the flow. Extend your cards and impacts; if you drop an argument in one speech and bring it back up in another it doesn't count.

Weigh your impacts!!!

Remember to signpost

Other stuff

No spreading! If you are going fast, you better be clear. If I can't hear what you're saying, it doesn't go on the flow.

No Ks please

No off-time roadmaps unless you are structuring your speech in a truly unconventional way

DO NOT bring up new arguments/cards in final focus

If there is a concession in crossfire, I won't flow it unless it is reiterated in a speech

Be civil! Things can get heated but don't be mean :(

- Keep the arguments civilized and clear.

- Don't spread - speaking faster does not make your case better, it only makes it worse if I cannot follow

- You can bring in all the evidences you want but make sure you tie it directly to impacts. Make sure your time is all not spent on reading the evidence, I want to see a decent amount of reasoning and impacts

- Try to refrain from introducing new arguments or evidence into the summary and final focus unless necessary

- I will be keeping track of flow but I rather see a team extend their best argument and solidify it rather than extending three or four decent arguments. Quality over quantity!

Hi! I'm currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania. I did a little bit of PF debate in middle school, so I'm relatively inexperienced with it. I’m a flow judge and follow speed, but please be sure to be clear and stay organized. Statistics/facts can only help you if they are backed up with reasoning and good explanations. Overall, I believe PF should be understandable to a general audience and you should be able to explain in a easily understandable manner why your side should win the debate.

I debated for 4 years both varsity LD and PF. I never really liked super tech debates but if you can convince me of an argument that actually make sense and isn't a huge stretch then I will vote for you. If you don't explain it well enough for me to understand then I'm not going to vote for you. You can spread if you actually are saying words and enunciate your taglines.

I debated PF in High School, coached in College and now work and run tournaments for the NYCUDL. I judge on the flow most heavily on the last four speeches. Please weigh and give analysis beyond dropping weighing mechanism terms. The more effective your analysis and explanation of the round the more likely I will vote for you. I won't drop your arguments if you don't bring them up in every speech, but I will weigh and value them less because that indicates to me that it is not an essential argument to your case. Be kind to your opponents I will dock your speaks for being rude to anyone in the round.

I am a varsity PF debater. STILL - speak slowly and signpost. I flow everything but cross. Be clear and weigh, remember no new arguments in final focus. Generally, I prefer logic to evidence (especially in rebuttal.)

Treat me as a lay judge in LD. NO SPREADING.

If I laugh audibly, your speaks will increase.

I have no background in high school or college debate, but I have been a practicing attorney for more than 35 years and have been judging PF debates for 8 years.

I am a great believer in the “citizen judge” roots of Public Forum. The debater’s job is to persuade the man on the street, with no background as to the resolution of the month, that pro or con should win. Thus, clarity and focus are paramount. Your job is to persuade, not confuse, me. Well-structured arguments and effectively utilized evidence are key, but so are articulation, modulation, and engagement. A glance up from your laptop from time to time can work wonders, as can staying in the Zoom frame in a well-lighted room.

I do flow arguments, but not in a very technical way. A dropped argument will only count against you if it is material to your overall presentation and not offset by more meritorious arguments that make it through Final Focus.

Spreading and the pointless acceleration of pacing it engenders are strongly discouraged. You should choose your arguments carefully and deliver them at a pace, and with an energy and focus, that are designed to persuade.

Use your evidence fairly and judiciously. Do not overstate its significance or twist its meaning beyond recognition. I will only ask to see your card if the outcome of a round turns on an evidentiary dispute, but, if it comes to this, you want to be confident that your card can be read as presented. Also, feel free to request your opponent's cards, but do so sparingly and only when necessary to dispute a material contention or buttress a key argument.

Unfortunately, only one team can win; that’s the way it is in real life and in every courtroom I have ever appeared, so try to roll with the punches.

Most importantly, have fun. Few things are as satisfying as a hard-fought win; or as motivating (for the next round) as a too-close-to-call loss.

Things i look for in debaters:

-eye contact

-don’t speak too fast

-Try to speak to the audience rather than looking at the screen/paper

- card checking is not most important in the round

I take detailed notes (flow) during the debate. I do not flow cross examinations. If seeing a specific piece of evidence is relevant to the decision I will ask for it. I care about logic and the strength of link chains. The quality of evidence matters. Please extend arguments through the debate. A dropped argument will not hold. The speed arguments are delivered is only an issue when words become garbled and unintelligible. Thus, be very careful spreading if you chose that method. Please try to use all of the time allocated to you. It is easier for me to follow a debate when I can see the debaters. Have fun and respect the art of debate!

Hello! I am a lay judge with a couple years of experience within the debate world. Throughout high school, I participated in Model UN, so I am familiar with Public Forum to a certain extent.

I realize that when advocating/opposing a position, one wants to share as much information as they can to support their stance. I am also aware that time limits, and the possible additional stress that comes with the time constraint, can affect one’s performance. That is why I try to approach debates and arguments with a certain degree of leniency. With that being said, my judging paradigm is relatively standard and straightforward. My main points are:

• Speed: I am aware that everyone has different talking paces. You won’t be deducted if you go at a slightly faster or slower talking pace -- I can handle that. However, do be mindful if you find yourself talking too fast or too slow, as I may not be able to understand everything point you are trying to get across or you may run out of time.

• Articulation & vocabulary: please try to enunciate your words. In addition, please try to decrease the amount of jargon used. Public forum is generally designed for the average person to be able to understand. In addition, one should never assume that the person that they are talking to will automatically know every expression you are trying to use.

• Flow: flow is important to me. Try to have a general outline/framework for your argument, as it can help your speech be more cohesive and easier to understand. With that being said, roadmaps & signposts are helpful. However, I do understand that sometimes one may forget to say something in the beginning of their speech, but would want to include it in the overall debate. If this happens to you, try to insert that section as seamlessly as you can.

• Support your argument: have clear and logical arguments prepared, and when debating your position, it is always nice and helpful to provide examples or evidence to support your claim. With that being said, prepare credible sources. I won’t look up every single piece of evidence a debater states, but do not try to create claims and think that I won’t question it.

• Evidence is nice, but…: don’t go overboard. If you have too many numbers and try to overload your speech with statistics, you will lose me and that can count against you. Stick to one or two solid pieces of evidence.

• Convince me with your words. Emphasize the main parts of your speech. Get me to pay attention and not forget.

• Time: please keep track of time, for prep and speeches. I will try to help keep track of time, but I may not be able to do so 100% of the time.

• Personal presentation: when you’re speaking, be aware of how you present yourself overall, I will take that into account. In addition, not just when speaking, but also when you are listening. Please behave in a kind & courteous manner, and try not to be too distracting to others.

In the end, I know how stressful tournaments can be. But please do try to enjoy yourself throughout this weekend! Relax and have fun!

I have never judged debate before and do not have any experience with it. I would prefer no speed, no theory, Ks, or topicality arguments. I place heavy emphasis on speaking style and persuasive speaking.

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.

Hi! I’m an experienced lay parent judge. Please speak slowly and send speech docs.

first year out

dont:

- spread

- scream

- be offensive

please weigh!

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

Student at the University of Pennsylvania studying Computer Science, Management, and Marketing.
Competed in pofo, parli, and mock trial throughout high school.

Things to be mindful of:

- please sign post and tell me where you are on the flow. I vote off flow, so the easier you make it for me to flow and follow, the easier it'll be for me to vote for you.

- please don't spread unless it's absolutely necessary. It's been a while since I've flowed, so if you spread, it'll be hard for me to flow/follow, and I'll confuse your arguments

- weigh at the end of the round! make it clear to me why I should vote for you

- please respect each other and your opponents

- please time yourselves and the other team. I don't trust my timing while I'm flowing

- please don't use jargon - I'm not familiar with this topic, so your arguments could be confusing to me if you use a lot of it

In general, I believe pofo should be understandable to a general audience! Clarity over showiness. Be respectful of your opponents, don't spread/do anything fancy or else I won't me able to follow on the flow, and make your arguments clear.

Good luck!

I am a lay judge. I have been a litigation attorney and was involved in Speech and Debate in high school.

I am pretty easy-going and don’t have many “must dos.”

Speak clearly and concisely.

If you are speaking too fast I may miss your salient points-especially in a virtual format.

With me, quality will win over quantity.

Cite your evidence. I appreciate any statement you make if you can back it up with a reliable source. There is no match for sound reasoning and organization supported by credible evidence and clear delivery.

This is a public speaking event. If you want high speaks, wow me! Don’t read from a piece of paper. Make eye contact.

I have been judging PF for past 1 year. I don't have a lot of "must do's"

Speak clearly and concisely.

If you are speaking too fast, I might miss some salient points. Although I will not deduct any scores for speaking style.

Please cite your evidences. I appreciate any statement you make if you can back it up with reliable source.

Good Luck!!!

Hi, I'm Jazmyn (she/her)! I used to debate at Hunter College High School. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to make this round safe for all participants. For email chains, questions, concerns, etc.: wangjazmyn@gmail.com.

Run whatever arguments you're comfortable with (as long as they're not exclusionary); assume I know nothing about the topic; wear whatever you'd like; you decide whether to sit or stand; keep your own time and point out if your opponents are over; pre-flow before the round; use content warnings and allow others involved in the round to anonymously opt-out (we can discuss how to do this if you aren't sure how).

Please warrant and weigh.

For reference, I generally agree with Zoë Kaufmann, Josephine O'Brien, and Adithi Attada's paradigms, but keep reading for some specifics:

- Offense must be extended through summary AND final focus, including warrants and impacts. You can get a pretty good idea of my preferences from the paradigms that I linked above, but I'll do my best to adapt to how you want to debate.

- I'd love it if you slow down. If you feel that you need to go fast, that's okay, but I can't guarantee that I'll understand it/flow it.

- I'm tech over truth, but if you're making factually incorrect claims, my threshold for a response is going to go down.

- Analytics with warrants > cards without warrants.

- Don't tell me that racism, sexism, etc. is the most important impact in the round and then drop it.

- I don't know what the phrase "uniqueness controls the directionality of the link" means.

Hey y'all, I'm Ather Williams. I debate for Delbarton and I'm a senior (debated all 4 years in PF). I'm pretty active on the circuit and I'm a flay judge (I vote off of the flow not really persuasion, although it helps to be persuasive). Speaking pretty doesn't buy my ballot. If you have any questions just ask in person.

PF Paradigm

Speed:

- I can handle speed, signpost for clarity, don't go so fast that it's spreading

- Spreading = automatic drop

- Trying to spread = automatic drop

- If you aren't communicating your thoughts clearly, I will most likely not flow it

- Don't be so slow that it's almost condescending

- Quality > Quantity

Rebuttal:

- Second rebuttal does not have to frontline or respond to turns if they don't want to (if may be helpful for your partner in the case of a card dump though)

- Don't be that person who card dumps in rebuttal but gives no analysis. Every response should be warranted out, prove how this is true and how the response relates to the argument.

Summary:

- I feel bad for first summary. No defense needs to be extended in first summary but you must address turns or they will be flowed through as offense for the other team

- You must frontline in both summaries (respond to opponents rebuttal on your arguments)

- Everything you want in Final Focus must be extended (except for first summary defense) or it will not be evaluated at the conclusion of the round

Final Focus:

- Clear up the round. Make it an easy decision for me.

- Anything that is "new" in FF will not be considered in the decision

Weighing:

- Best way to win my ballot is to weigh

- Explain to me why your arguments are more important than your opponent's

- If you don't weigh, I will have to determine what's important myself and you might not like that outcome

Final Notes:

- Only do offtime roadmaps if you are doing something unusual. Don't be that kid who starts their rebuttal by saying "I'm going to address my opponents contentions then if time allows I will reaffirm my contentions"

- Don't be rude to others. Any -isms or disrespect to others = auto drop. Debate should be fun for everyone envolved. Don't make it toxic.

- I'm in between tech > truth and truth > tech. I will flow through extensions that are not responded to but it's also critical at the same time to still warrant out the arguments and show how they are true.

- Kritiks = auto drop

- Theory = auto drop

- Faking evidence: please don't do it or it will be hard to regain enough credibility in the round for me to vote for you

- I will only call for evidence if it is disputed about what it says or if someone asks me to.

- Crossfire is a meme. If someone concedes something, it must be in a speech. I don't flow crossfire so don't be alarmed

-Don't give me a "lives are the most important thing in the round" framework (it's dumb, we all know lives are important)

- When extending evidence, please say the author name so it's easier for me to flow.

- Please don't use dumb debate jargon like "sticky overviews, internal link turns, underviews"

SPEAKS

Below 25 ----- You were offensive to others.

25-25.5 ------- You were an ineffective speaker with vocal fillers all over the place. You struggled to get through your speeches. The speech performance was a distraction to your content.

26-26.5 --------You showed developing speaking skills, but still lacked the tools employed by an effective speaker. The speech performance was sometimes a distraction to your content.

27-27.5 --------You were an average speaker.

28-28.5 -------------- You were a good speaker who shows developing mastery of speaking skills. The speech performance sometimes supplemented your content.

29-29.5 --------------- You were a great speaker who has mostly mastered speaking skills. The speech performance unquestionably added to your content.

30 -------------- I wish I could speak like you.

I will disclose if the tournament allows me to. Oral RFDs as well.

I am a new, relatively inexperienced judge, and lack a lot of the technical knowledge that goes with the event. However, I hope to be a fair open-minded judge that is able to discern a good argument. If I cannot understand you though, I cannot effectively judge your argument against your opponent.

I believe your arguments should be well thought out and well structured. I want to see debaters who challenge their opponents on their points with a crafty and well-timed rebuttals, in other words, able to think on their feet.

I will listen, take many notes, and when I give my decision, I will do my best to clearly state why I picked one side over the other. At this event I expect debaters to have original arguments and solid frameworks that are in decent shape in order to be able to withstand their opponent's clash.

I am a parent judge for Oakton High School.

Things to know:

Time yourselves

Don't speak fast (cases really shouldn't be over 700)

No Debate jargon (ie. don't say presume neg)

I might call for your evidence if it is in question

Don't run progressive arguments

Don't make new arguments in 2nd final

Make cross interesting

Have fun! I will disclose but I don't postround me.