Experience public forum judge.

Extend your points in summary to make it a voter in your FF.

Weigh impacts.

Clearly explain the impacts of your contentions, and the internal links within them; the less work I have to do filling in the blanks for your case, the more likely you are to win. Use your summary and final focus to explain to me why your side is winning the debate, don't just use them as extra rebuttal speeches (if I have to go all the way back to both teams' constructives to decide who's winning because rebuttal, summary, and final focus didn't make it clear enough, there's a lot more room for me to think you out of a win). If you don't extend an argument through summary and bring it back up in final focus, I miiiiiight weigh it but even if I do I'm going to weigh it less heavily than if you extended it through summary and final focus. At least frontline responses to turns in second rebuttal. If you want something from crossfire on the flow, mention it in a speech. Speed is fine (make sure to really clearly enunciate names; I can generally figure out a somewhat unclear word, but if a name isn't clear it's a lot harder to figure out from context). Fine with K's. Tech over truth. Don't make your off-time roadmap much longer than "our case then their case" (i.e. "I'm going to weigh our first contention against their second and then..." is too long). Mostly did Congress and Parli in high school (with some LD, briefly), some British Parliamentary in university (don't ask), and I coached Public Forum for a few years. Academic background in Economics.

angelinaqixuanqin@gmail.com (for the email chain)

I debated four years of PF for VDA. I currently judge and debate for UCL - BP format, which is probably the baseline for where I default in terms of judging practices right now.

Some general stuff:

• Treat me as the average informed voter rather than tabula rasa
• i have a strong preference for good analysis on why your argument works as opposed to just matter dumping a bunch of stats at me - in close clashes competing evidence will be evaluated but it is up to the teams to tell me why their empirics are more convincing/matter more
• i love weighing. weigh your analysis, your impacts, the clashes, comparatives, etc. weigh everything like you're packing for a trip and ryanair is about to charge you 60 quid for your luggage being 0.3kg overweight
• don't be mean! the line between assertiveness and being rude is actually clearer than people imagine!

Things that will help your speaks

• sign posting
• being strategic with your time (ie focus on biggest clashes, group arguments together, etc.)
• being accessible (please don't spread or read complex theory at me - the round will not be enjoyable for either of us)

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

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

Make sure to address the framework throughout the round.