Laird Lewis
2023 — Charlotte, NC/US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideParent judge with 5 years of experience judging PF and some LD, both in-person and online. I'm not quite a tech judge, but am getting closer. For PF debates:
- Clearly lay out your contentions and subpoints upfront, and refer back to them during the round when you're providing additional evidence or warrants. Extend in your final speeches.
- I don't need an off-time roadmap, but feel free to provide one if you think it's helpful. Your speech should be organized well enough that I can tell when you're talking about your case or your opponent's, without an upfront roadmap to guide me there.
- I don't flow crossfire unless something new jumps out that I'm looking for later. In the next speeches, be sure to extend anything from crossfire that you want me to consider. Otherwise, you've made the decision that it's not important for me to hear or consider.
- Weigh, or at least tell me what the impacts are of your argument. Without that, I'm left without much of a "why" upon which to judge the round.
- That said, impacts should be reasonable and realistic. If nuclear war and 7 billion deaths really are a likely impact of your argument, that's fine. But I might give equal weight to an argument that would lead to 100K deaths from a conventional war that is more likely to happen in your future-state or the status quo. Or one that would increase the deficit by 5%, if that's more likely to be the outcome. And I definitely won't give much weight to a nuclear war impact from something like organic farming, or Medicare for All -- again, be realistic.
- If you want to run theory, go for it, but remember you're trying to convince me (not a professor or college debater) that your argument is better than your opponent's. Most theory cases don't do a lot for me, so you have a higher bar to clear if you're going to go that route.
- This goes without saying, but be polite and respectful to each other, and have fun. Even if it gets testy during the round, please congratulate each other at the end and shake hands (or fist-bump). I know the competitive aspect of this is real and can get intense, but remember why you're here.
Greetings!
I am a parent judge and I have judged speech, PF, and LD. I prefer clear speaking, please do not spread. Please thoroughly explain and signpost throughout the round. Please no theories that are not relevant to the resolution.
I expect non-aggressive and friendly cross-examination and class. Be respectful to each other. Debaters should time their own speeches. I will time also and keep track of prep time.
I am relatively new to judging debate.
Please, do not speak too quickly or without enunciation. If I can't track what you're saying, I won't be able to effectively judge you on your merits and arguments.
Even when I'm not looking at you while taking notes, etc. I will be very engaged. Please make it clear what's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. Please don't run any arguments about the event itself.
By your closing, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded.
I will keep time and encourage you to do the same.
I do not disclose winners unless specified to do so by the tournament.
I am very much enjoy the competition of debate and look forward to judging your round.
Good luck and have fun!
Current Experience:
Co-Advisor for Marvin Ridge HS Speech & Debate Club
Parent of Cuthbertson HS Speech Student
Have been judging as a parent and an advisor for 2 years now
Spanish & French Teacher, National Honor Society Advisor
Previous Experience:
Directed HS theatre program & taught a speech course (also HS level)
Managed a business for 15 years
Values:
DEBATE: I value good delivery and awareness of the audience for debate events. No "spreading" -- if you are incomprehensible, your arguments will not convey. Make good use of your cross-fires, be respectful. Interesting and innovative contentions can be stimulating, but make sure that you have good citations to ground in reality, not speculation.
SPEECH: For speech, I have no hold-ups for possible "triggers" in material. I will react as an audience member. I value good use of evidence and organized delivery, especially for info, extemp, impromptu, etc. Random movement and pacing is a distractor. Always happy to enjoy a great speech or performance!
I take contemporaneous notes, so they will flow in the order of your speech, from execution comments to suggestions, and analysis of structure. I am happy to give immediate verbal feedback to all competitors to help with any improvements that can be made, if time allows and permitted by the host school.
I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.
Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will most likely not flow off the doc.
Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.
----Public Forum-----
- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater, but don't use speed unless necessary.**
- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.
- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.
----Lincoln Douglas----
1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.
2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.
3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks
4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:
5 Things to Remember…
1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)
After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.
2. Framework
I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.
3. Extensions
Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.
4. Evidence
Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.
5. Narrative
Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.
SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS
29-30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.
29/below: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.
28/below: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.
27/below: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.
26/below: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.
Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.
***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***
I am a parent judge brand new to debate.
Please speak clearly. I won't be able to effectively judge you, if I can't track what you are saying. Please do not use a lot of jargon during your debate. Again, if I can't follow what you are saying, I can't judge you effectively.
I am naturally leaning toward more truth over tech. (After the first a few rounds, I think I will revise it to that I am balanced regarding tech vs truth. I value truth but I appreciate tech and the way how the points are made).
Congressional Debate:
I competed in Congressional debate for four years. I don't think it would be very productive for me to tell you how to do Congressional debate because you probably know how to speak clearly, signpost, and refute. I place a lot of value on clear warrants, impacts, and weighing. I’ve judged PF and LD for years - I flow, and I don’t mind speed. Please do not spread or run theory on me.
I studied Public Policy and Economics at UNC-Chapel Hill. During my studies, I published a chapter exploring the intersection of politics and Islam in France, and an article detailing how the video game Old School RuneScape critically supports the economy of Venezuela.
I have seen every Liam Neeson action movie and have studied this topic very deeply. In 4,000 words, I have laid out the case that all of these movies, from The Commuter and Non-Stop to Unknown and the glorious Taken trilogy, exist in the same cinematic universe in which Liam plays one character. A tragic but brave life it is.
I now work in the tobacco industry.
Do your best. Good luck.
Hi! I'm a former high school debater from the late '80s and early '90s -- yeah, I'm old. So while I know what flow is and will flow your rounds, please note I am a newbie judge.
It would be helpful if you would:
1. Ask, "Ready, judge?" before you launch into each speech. (I will be keeping time, too.) What would be even better would be, "Ready, judge, for my four-minute speech (three-minute crossfire)?..."
2. Sign post your arguments. "Moving onto my second contention, my opponent says, but we contend..."
3. Speak a little slower. Don't spread.
Be good sports and have fun!
In the 20th century, I was a reasonably successful college debater and university coach.
Written judge paradigms were just coming into use back then. My favorite was from Tuna Snider. It read as follows:
"We gather. You debate. I decide."
That seems a great place to start. Here are a few things that may be helpful.
SPEED -- Though I have debated with and against speakers as fast as you can imagine, there is NO WAY I will read/follow a document to understand you during your speech. Be audible, signpost well, and have the strategic chops to parse out a winning solution. It is up to you, not me, to make sure you're being clear -- I never say "clear." Unless you're good at it (really good at it) spreading is annoying to me. That goes double if we're in a format other than CX, and triple if you're beating up on a less experienced opponent.
STYLE -- You're giving a speech. I'm an audience. Read the room. Make me glad I showed up to hear you. Be courteous to your opponents. I understand the round may crackle with rivalry. Lean into it with grace. Most of my best friends are the people I debated with and against back in the day. I won't ask to see any of your materials unless they're verbally contested, or I'm curious. This is a speaking contest, not an essay contest.
SUBSTANCE -- When it's clear you have a solid grasp of the subject matter, that's persuasive. Next level is you hearing and understanding your opponent, and returning on-point replies, with or without evidence. Hyperdrive is when you carry all that through to the final speeches and articulate a genuine solution to the debate.
THEORY/K's, etc. -- I will listen to what you have to say, if you give me sufficient reason to do so, at a pace I can digest. That said, the further you stray from simply affirming or negating the resolution, it's exponentially more likely I'll agree with your opponent's reaction. Thus, if you happen to find yourself defending against some esoteric K or theory onslaught, answer your opponent's argument as best you can. I'm likely to agree with you.
Let's learn, compete, and have fun!
New parent judge
speak slowly and clearly
dont use debate jargon
watch your and your opponent's time
Parent judge, most experienced with Congress.
I appreciate credibly sourced research, well-constructed arguments, a clear speaking style, and most importantly, respect for your fellow debaters.
My name is Tara Harris, and I'm a Myers Park High School parent. I'm a "lay" judge who is new-ish to the world of debate. Most of my judging experience has been in PF with some experience in speech and big questions.
Please plan to:
-speak at a reasonable pace,
-provide enough evidence to properly support your arguments,
-be kind and respectful, and
-be clear and persuasive.
Even if I'm taking notes, I'm still fully engaged in what you're saying.
I'm unlikely to "flow" much of your crossfires and grand crossfires, but I'm very interested in these portions of the debate; of course, if something worthwhile comes out during a crossfire that merits repeating during one of your next speeches, please do so.
Good luck on engaging in a constructive and interesting debate! And most importantly, have fun!
I am parent judge, and I will judge you based on logic. Please do the following:
- Send case docs to winniehua@yahoo.com before your speeches so I can follow along as you read. I would also like to be added to the email chain.
- Read slowly and clearly. If I can't understand you, it won't turn out well.
- Please re-explain the reasoning behind your arguments when extending them.
- Let me know what the key voting issues are and how I should evaluate the round.
Good luck and have fun!
Arun Iyer
Tech Judge.
I've had experience judging public forum in the past years, with my kids being very passionate about it and excelling, and I promise they have made sure that I am well aware of the rules and regulations. Make your points clear and well stated, and don't spread. Use articulation and passion in your delivery - don't bore me.
Be respectful of your selves and your opponents, and don't use any harsh/foul language during any speeches, and do not speak to your opponents with any tone of disrespect or belittle them. I will take points off.
I look for loud speakers, getting their points across in a clear and concise manner. Try not to repeat the same points over and over again while giving summary/final focus, and don't bring up any new arguments in your last speeches. They will be disregarded and I WILL call you out for it.
I appreciate you keeping your own time, and staying within the limits, as well as keeping your opponents time.
Good luck to all the competitors. And most importantly, Have fun! These are memories you will cherish for a long time, so don't get worked up and just enjoy the process!
Hi everyone! I'm Ben. I'm currently a student at Vanderbilt studying economics and history. I debated for 3 years in PF for Myers Park on the nat circuit. I now do collegiate BP and coach/judge PF on the side for Myers Park and Canyon Crest Academy. You can call me Ben, not judge.
Add me to the chain- bgkkjacobs@gmail.com
Send all cases on an email chain with a label (ie. TOC R1F1 Myers Park BJ v Cary LJ).
I don't care what you wear. Speak how you want. Email me if you have any accessibility concerns before round.
My paradigm is disgustingly long, so, if you are just doing a trad round and need my basic round preferences then read the stuff with a ❤️ by the title.
Debate is a game- play to win and have some fun.
In order of preference
TRAD>TOPICAL Ks> THEORY> NON TOPICAL Ks> ANYTHING ELSE
WEIGHING❤️-
- Weigh early and intentionally. Just saying I outweigh on scope so you should vote for me is barely anything. Name dropping STIMP is boring and usually promotes non comparative weighing. Think harder and deeper in your weighing if you can. Obviously these things are the building blocks of weighing and will be involved but don't expect saying "ours happens first so we outweigh on timeframe" to convince me to vote for you (timeframe doesn't matter until you tell me why it should).
- I don't hack for high magnitude low probability args or shorthand impacts- if you are telling me a nuclear winter is going to happen you need to give me a step by step warrant not just some random conspiracy theorist on the internet saying we are all going to go boom. If I hear another "miscalc leads to nuclear war which leads to extinction" in case I'm going cry. I need proper carded scenarios rather than fearmongering. Do the work on your impacts in case and I'll be very forgiving on late round extensions.
- Good Analytics> mid cards any day
SPEED ❤️-
I will not flow spreading or flow off a doc (I like it when you send a doc but I won’t flow exclusively from it). I don't mind you talking fast and can flow faster than your average judge, but I don't enjoy flowing the absurd. The only time you should be using speed is for depth, not spamming arguments. The faster you go, the worse my flow gets and the worse my decision will be.
SPEECH PREFERENCES ❤️-
- Give me a quick off time roadmap before your speeches (ex. "My case then their case"). That's it.
- I RARELY FLOW CARD TAGS so just remind me what the card says if you are telling me to flow through a response.
THEORY-
Theory is usually boring. I don't mind paraphrasing and I think that too few teams think critically about the values of disclosure. Nevertheless, you should come to the round prepared to defend the way in which you debate if it is outside the norms of the nat circuit. I will vote on disclo and I will vote on para, I just don't like those rounds much. Feel free to run whatever, but my threshold for DTD/DTA gets high when theory gets frivolous.
It is my expectation that any debater in varsity on the nat circuit can defend against theory. This does not mean beating up on first time nat circuit debaters is a good idea for me (high speaks will be very hard to obtain), it just means "I don't know how to respond" will never be any form of defense.
Ks- These are fun. I was not a K debater but definitely had K rounds. I am an okay judge for these as long as you explain your lit well.
The Non Topical K
If we can link everything in debate (even organic agriculture) to nuke war then you can link every topic to feminism, the patriarchy, cap, etc. I think the ability to link these in are an important skill for a K debater. You can try to change my mind, I won't auto vote down a performance K or other non topical K because I recognize that they have had some positive impact on the debate space- I just need a really valid reason as to why you are choosing not to be topical (that means strong , practiced prep against T shells).
The topical K
I am happy to hear a topical K, they are super fun if they are run well. I may have read some of your literature but pretend I am unfamiliar entirely, because, more frequently than not, I am. I hate Ks that are needlessly complex. It is your job as a debater to simplify your arguments for presentation or it is hard for me to vote.
If you have reached this point in my paradigm then tell me the starting lineup of any NBA team and I will floor my speaks at 29 (no cheating...). You can also tell me your favorite TV show and I'll bump everyone's speaks +1 for actually reading my ramble.
POSTROUNDING
I always disclose. I already submitted the ballot but you can tell me you think my decision was wrong if it makes you feel better (it might have been).
QUICK IN-PERSON ROUND NOTE ❤️
I need two pieces of paper to flow on.
I am a lay judge with some experience in public forum and speech, and limited experience in Lincoln Douglas and Congress.
Please don’t spread or do anything that would make it hard for me to understand you.
Tell me why you are winning, tell me what’s important, don’t make it hard for me to figure that out. WEIGH.
If you have a speech document and are comfortable with sharing it, that would ensure that I do not miss anything you say.
My email is djacobs@mytruloan.com if you want to share anything.
Hey, I’m Ethan. I debated as Myers Park BJ on the nat circuit for 4 years. I am now a sophomore at Emory and coach for Canyon Crest Academy.
Add me to the chain- ethan.jacobs@emory.edu
TL;DR- Run anything you think will win. I adapt to you but have some quality-of-life preferences.
Speed- I don’t flow with docs but you can read as fast as you want. Any PF speed should be fine. The burden is on you to enunciate. I will only say clear twice.
Evidence Exchange- Please send speech docs with evidence before speeches to keep ev exchange timely.
Trad Stuff
Weighing- Having a good argument is not enough, it needs to be better than your opponents. Saying “We have the biggest number” is not enough. Why is having the biggest number important in the context of the round? I think teams should be creative about link-ins, prereqs etc to avoid being “nuked” out of the round by large impacts. I think framework debates are underutilized in PF and appreciate teams that use them (this does not mean you should frantically add a framework to your case before the round).
Presentation- Be persuasive. That means use persuasive examples, slow down on important points, and use rhetoric to your advantage. This doesn't mean I'm a fake tech I just want you to be really good at explaining your warrants. You will lose a lot of speaks if you doc bot the whole round. Read your good prep but you should be using your head in the backhalf to make strategic choices. Good analytics>bad cards every time.
Prog Stuff
Theory- Feel free to run theory. Please keep these debates organized. I want the shell extended but idc if its word for word. I am most familiar with disclosure and paraphrasing shells, but am fine evaluating anything as long as its not clearly frivolous. I strongly believe that teams should read a CI against shells, RVI's should only be reserved for extremely friv theory. Try to keep your shells below 250 WPM.
Biases: I don’t think disclosure is necessary but think most disclo rounds I judge go to the team that initiated the theory. Paraphrasing is bad, but I think debates about the norm are fun and I will not hack for it. Anything else I do not have strong feelings.
Topical K’s- Feel free to run these arguments. The most important thing for me is that you make the argument accessible to everyone in the round. If you are reading complicated cards with a lot of jargon, please spend the time to clarify arguments for me and your opponents. I do not like when teams use policy cards that don’t form coherent sentences. Do not skimp on extensions, every part of the K should be extended with proper warrants to win. Any ROTB is fine with me, but I appreciate it when debaters engage with each other on this issue. I am most familiar with Security, if you are reading anything else assume I know nothing. I will listen closely in cross but do not flow (if you ask me to I will). Try to not speak too fast, keep in mind that K literature is not my expertise.
Non-Topical K- See most of the “topical K section”, almost all of it applies here. Please justify why you are non-topical in the first speech. I don't like unrealistic alts- I think non-topical arguments are most valid when they remind us that things need to be changed in our world and would like to hear your best ideas on how to achieve that change. I am very receptive to vague alts bad arguments. Tbh the more I judge the less I worry about the norms that these arguments break. Have fun and do your thing.
Post round me if you want- I submit before I give my RFD though.
I am a Myers Park parent and a traditional lay judge. This is my first time judging. Please speak clearly and be respectful of everyone and present your case with confidence.
Parent judge, prefer well developed arguments with good logic.
Please keep the debate at a conversational speed.
Whilst I will do my best to take notes, I do appreciate sound logic and constructive evidence.
Please respect your opponents and keep speeches and crossfire civil.
Most importantly, remember to have fun!
I am a parent judge with no experience judging PF, LD or Speech events. Don't talk too fast - I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge its merits. Speed and volume do not compensate for content clarity or arguments.
Please explain the topic clearly as I don't know about the topic.
Please make a clear and concise argument that can be easily followed throughout the round. Please make your conclusions and impacts as straight forward as possible. (I would like you to state why you should win the round directly)
Good luck and have fun!
Hi, I'm a lay judge. Please speak slowly so that I may do a fair job.
Quality and quantity of evidence matter.
Logically and clearly articulated warrant is important – explaining why the evidence/data support your claim.
Above all, let’s be respectful. Enjoy!
email: xjleex@yahoo.com
I am a parent judge in my second year of speech & debate and have now judged several tournaments.
Please limit spreading, speak clearly, and ensure you are explicitly making your points! I will be less able to effectively judge you on your merits and arguments if I am unable to track what you are saying. Speed and volume are not substitutes for well articulated arguments!
Depending on the event, I will likely take lots of notes and often be heads down. I will be engaged whether making direct eye contact or not. Be explicit regarding what supports your case and/or what detracts from your opponent.
By your closing, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent’s. In keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded.
While I will keep time for appropriate events, I expect you to be responsible for your time.
I will not reveal my decision or give feedback after the round (except in higher rounds with multiple judges), but I will make every effort to leave notes in Tabroom for the round and each individual.
Good luck and enjoy!
I am a parent judge with little experience judging PF, LD or Speech events. I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread- I need to be able to understand what you are saying in order to judge it's merits.
I will take a lot of notes and try to judge on the flow. For PF, please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. I don't fully flow Crossfire or Cross-Ex, so anything important that you want noted, please extend in your next speech and make it clear why it's important to your case or detracts from you opponent's. Please don't run progressive debate unless something extreme has happened in the round; I will not know how to evaluate it.
By your final focus or your last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value outweigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round or they will be disregarded.
Good luck and have fun!
Parent judge. Trial lawyer. Please don't talk so fast I can't understand you. I always appreciate a meaningful organizational structure to arguments.
I am an eager but novice parent judge.
Outside of this tournament, I am an attorney with trial experience and I appreciate a good, well-reasoned argument and conclusions supported by evidence.
I am a parent of a Myers Park High School speech and debate student and have two seasons of experience judging Public Forum. I have also judged Lincoln-Douglas once. I am a retired accounting professional. I prefer for debaters to speak at a moderate pace rather than a very rapid one. I value argument over style. I will view overly aggressive debaters, and especially disrespectful ones, less favorably. I find weighing by debaters at the end to be very helpful. I provide some feedback in person at the end of debates but do not typically indicate which side won the debate, and in some cases I may need to go through my notes and do more thinking to determine who won. I do not consider any information not mentioned by the debaters in reaching my decisions.
She/Her
Hi! I'm a third year college student who debated varsity PF in high school. I am a flow judge.
If choosing to use an email chain for ev sharing- my email is anikamisra05@gmail.com
Some important things for round:
-I'm good with speed, but make sure you still speak clearly.
-If you're going to spread, send the speech doc. If not, the speech doc isn't necessary. I prefer normal paced speaking, but to each their own.
-If you're an experienced team hitting novices, don't try to assert your dominance.
-Please please do not run an abusive framework, it's really annoying to hear & debate against them. I love frameworks and have no problem with them, as long as they are run well and aren't super abusive. Just make sure to extend your framework clearly in every speech, otherwise I will have to drop it from the flow.
-I don't have much experience with progressive args & I personally don't think PF is the place to run them. I'm willing to evaluate them as long as your opponents are okay with it and you can explain it well. Don't think its the easy way to the ballot, it's likely going to be one of the last things I consider, unless it's the entirety of the round. Also, if you're going to run something moral based, make sure it actually applies. (none of this pertains to LD)
-I would strongly recommend frontlining in second rebuttal/ first summary.
-Disads in rebuttal are annoying please do not do that. Use your rebuttal as a rebuttal, not as an opportunity to add another contention.
-I strongly suggest weighing in summary. When weighing, don't only use buzzwords like magnitude, scope, etc. SHOW me how your argument/ impact/ link outweighs your opponents' on magnitude, scope, etc.
-I would also recommend collapsing by summary.
-No new evidence in second summary onward, it will not be considered in my decision.
-It is also important to extend everything you want me to vote on from summary to FF. Those speeches do not necessarily need to mirror each other, but I will have to drop anything that isn't extended.
-Don't extend author names and call it a day. Extend warrants and analysis.
-I'm not going to flow cross. If something important comes up in cross, bring it up in the next speech. Don't try and bring up new args in grand cross, it's too late.
-SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST!!!!!!!
Misc:
-If you say anything racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, or anything discriminatory, I will automatically give you L20's.
-I'll only call cards if you tell me to or if both teams have conflicting evidence.
-I might time y'all in speeches, but it's fine if you're 5-10 seconds over/ under. Don't go farther than that though.
-Give me a 2 second extremely brief order before speeches.
-Please please don't be rude or disrespectful, especially in cross. A civil cross is probably going to get you higher speaks. If you are disrespectful or rude, it will reflect in your speaks.
-Not disclosing is mean so I will always disclose with comments (unless the tournament doesn't allow it). I will also give a verbal RFD instead of a written one. If you have questions, feel free to ask.
-I'm lenient with speaks as long as you're nice, all good.
-Overall, have fun! Don't stress too much and enjoy the round
Me
I have been teaching and coaching speech and debate for 13 years, and I currently help coach the AHS/SILSA Speech & Debate team. I am a lover of the written and spoken word who fell hard for forensics. I received my BA in English from Florida Atlantic University, and have judged local and national debate tournaments including out-rounds at Harvard, The Glenbrooks, Emory, The Tradition, Bronx, Sunvite and The Cal Invitational (Mostly LD, but also scores of speech and other debate event rounds).
General Paradigm
I am open to whatever kind of position you would like to run, but clarity and weighing is essential in fleshing-out arguments and my decision-making process. That being said, I do appreciate when debaters explain complex theory arguments. I grasp and enjoy K debate. I also do not retain details of all the obscure literature I've heard about. Just because it is a commonly used concept in competitive debate, don't assume that I understand how it interacts with your position. Explain stuff!!!
Speed/Delivery
I can follow most speeds.
I flow. Please slow down on authors and tags.
Speaker Points
I think that speaker points are unnecessarily arbitrary; I also know that giving every debater in a round 30s skews results. As such, I use speaker points as a rank. If you are the best debater in the round, you will get 29 points(30 will be reserved for a truly stunning performance), second best, 28.5 points, etc. I will only give you below a 26 in a round if I am offended about an argument or action in the round.
Policy Debate: I have only judged a handful of national policy tournaments. I understand the structure and basic principles, but much of the jargon is foreign to me, and explanation may be necessary to obtain my ballot.
Welcome PF Debaters.
I'm a parent judge but this is my 4th year judging public forum debate.
Few tips for your success:
- Be simple and concise
- Evidence decides the round but, I'll only call for pieces of evidence that are highly disputed
- Please don't speak too fast, I can only give feedback on what I can understand
- Be organized and signpost throughout your speech
- Most importantly respect others and be professional regardless of your opponents and their backgrounds
- Debate should be a fun activity and debaters should enjoy it
All the best, Karthikk
I’m a parent judge new to judging, please clearly outline your contentions, impacts, responses, and consistently extend them throughout the debate at a decent pace.
I am a parent judge very new to debate.
Please speak clearly and slowly. If I can’t track what you're saying, I won’t be able to effectively judge you. Make sure you are organized in your speeches. Be respectful and professional, especially during cross.
I will try to take a lot of notes. Please make it clear what's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's.
Do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded.
I will keep time and encourage you to do the same.
I very much enjoy the competition of debate and look forward to judging your round. Good luck and have fun!
My email is walkersmith2022@gmail.com if you need to contact me for any reason.
Debated PF for 4 years in HS.
Got some bids, qualified to NSDAs, and made it to finals at NCFLs so I wasn’t completely terrible.
Random Thoughts:
- Tech>Truth, but the less grounded in reality the argument it, the less it has to be responded to.
- Remember that debate is not about just "winning" as many arguments as possible, but about being persuasive, even in the most technical rounds. Make sure you are constantly tying arguments back to the central question of "So what?" or in other words, why does what you're talking about matter?
- If a framework is introduced in case, it should be extended and applied in every speech.
- Theory is fine but I prefer substance debates, if it’s really fringe and not serious (for example shoes and singing constructives), little response will be required.
- I am fine with talking fast but don't spread, I will not look at a speech doc.
- Preferably use an author name and date, but if you cite cards in any way and don't lie it will probably be fine. (Much stronger evidence is cited from a credible source, for example Smith '22 from RAND >>> Smith '22 from Buzzfeed)
- I will not flow crossfires but I will listen and they may shift my perception of the round, what is said in crossfire should be consistent with positions in the speeches. I am fine with whatever format of crossfire as long as there is equal speaking time.
- Rebuttals should throughly respond to the opponent's entire case, 2nd rebuttal should throughly defend its case, and 1st summary should also throughly defend its case while also covering the round as a whole and weighing.
- No new major arguments in summaries, no new evidence in finals, and no new weighing in the second final. Arguments and responses in finals should have appeared in summaries. Ideally, summary and final should be boiled down to the fewest voters/issues necessary to win the round.
- Actual weighing (explaining how your impacts are more important than your opponent's impacts, not just saying "we outweigh on scope" and then moving on) is guaranteed to boost speaks (and greatly increase your chances of winning the round), comparative weighing (explaining how your weighing mechanism is superior to your opponent's weighing mechanism) is even better.
- If neither side has produced a reason to vote for them by the round, I likely will default to the neg. (depends on the resolution) (this is super rare, nothing I've really had to personally deal with).
- I will only call a card if there is a direct clash or I am told to call a card. If you lied about it or something, you would probably lose.
Good luck, have fun!
I am a fairly new judge with little experience judging PF or LD events. I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread. I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge its merits.
Stop asking me if I can handle speed. The question is can you handle speed? If you are clear and persuasive that is what matters. If you speak fast and don't articulate that is not an indictment on my ability to handle speed it is a lack of clarity.
Hope that helps everyone answer the question.
I was a HS policy debater from 1993-1997 for Bloomington Jefferson. My coaches and influences considered themselves "Dinosaurs" at the time, which was my training and shaped experience. I attended summer camps at colleges for three years including Northwestern my senior year. I have a current debater, so I debated and I am engrossed in the current with my own student at Blake.
General
Please add me to the email chain! k.stiele@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com. The first speaking team should initiate the email chain. Label it along the lines of 'Tournament Round number aff speaking team + speaking order vs. neg speaking team + speaking order. I understand that you are not advocating for your personal views and it would be unfair of me to inject mine. I try to be tabula rasa, however I acknowledge that it is impossible to be truly without biases.
I don't care whether you sit or stand, or what you wear.
In general, if you take more than two minutes to send evidence I will start your prep time (and if it is a persistent issue your speaks will decline). And decline is a euphemism. Similarly, rudeness will also tank your speaker points.
I don't believe in sticky defense. If you want something to matter in the round than it should be in every speech. You have time.
If you want to win the round, the main thing you should be doing is weighing the most important arguments in the round and extending them throughout speeches. I will not be voting for a bunch of blippy arguments you make throughout the round but rather a few arguments that are properly warranted, compared through weighing and extended throughout all speeches. I will not evaluate new arguments in ff and you shouldn't be introducing new evidence after 1st summary.
Ks and theory are fine, I ran Ks during my policy career (specifically orientalism). I do prefer actual topicality over Ks, however. I also default to reasonability on Ks, don't run wack Ks in one of my rounds, I will be very disappointed
I dislike IVIs. I would probably intervene before you got the chance to read an IVI if this is genuinely an issue.
On theory, I default to reasonability > competing interpretations. In public forum there aren't a lot of reasons for the competing interpretations, and at a certain point you just have to gut check. I would vote on competing interpretations if you convince me why I should.
I vote on what is in the round, so if you don't say it, I don't weigh it. If you think "I should just know" something don't assume that say it. Please weigh in summary and final focus, and it's even better if you set it up in earlier speeches.
I was a policy debater, so the idea of an RVI is really silly to me, RVIs are bad and it's not a reason to vote for you if there was a genuine violation.
Warranted Cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics
I will disclose and give a RFD after the round if you ask me to. I generally don't give high speaker points, a 30 would have to be basically perfect.
Have fun!!!
I debated PF for four years at Delbarton. I currently coach for Charlotte Latin.
my email for the chain is alexsun6804@gmail.com
Tech over truth
go as fast as you want, but if there isn't clarity then none of the content within the speech will matter.
You should weigh and collapse on whatever arguments you think are the most important within the round.
Tell me where you are on the flow (signpost) for speeches after constructive, otherwise I'm going to be really confused.
For Rebuttal
Provide warrants (reasoning and explanation) and implications to your responses
First rebuttal should address your opponent's case and you can do weighing if you want
Second rebuttal should respond to your opponent's case and you should frontline your own case.
For Summary
Collapse on the most important arguments in the round
This is the latest you can start weighing, if you start weighing for the first time in final focus I'm not going to evaluate that.
Rebuttal responses are not sticky so extend them if they are conceded
General structure for summary can be your case, weighing, their case, but you can do whatever you want in terms of the structure as long as it makes sense
Always extend or explain your case in summary
For Final Focus
Should be very similar to summary with exception to front lining and comparative weighing
Other stuff
Have cut cards ready if something is called
Extend offense in the back half, otherwise, I'll be forced to intervene or presume
I've done some stuff with theory and Ks, but don't be really trigger-happy with either. I'll do my best to evaluate them if it goes down in round.
Don't be rude or say something problematic in round. It could cost you the round.
Good luck in round
Hello,
I am a parent judge and have some debate experience. I ask all of you to please be respectful of each other. Please speak slowly and keep track of your own time. Additionally, at the start of each round please share emails and get a google doc created to share evidence cards. I will also flow each round.
Thank you and good luck!
I am a parent judge with little experience judging PF, LD or Speech events. I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread - I need to be able to understand what you're saying to judge its merits.
I take a lot of notes and will try to judge on the flow. For PF, please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. I don't fully flow Crossfire or Cross-Ex, so anything important that you want noted, please extend in your next speech, and make it clear why it's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. Please don’t run progressive debate unless something extreme has happened in the round, I will not know how to evaluate it.
By your final focus or last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded. Good luck and have fun!
Email: yiwen.wu76@gmail.com
Please add both yiwen.wu76@gmail.com and mcleanpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain.
Background: I am a parent judge. I have judged a few PF tournaments in the past (mainly on the local circuit).
PF: Please do not spread; explain your logic clearly. Do not use debate jargon, I probably won't understand it.
I will flow what I hear. Sign post with arguments not authors.
I will not evaluate arguments with weak or misleading evidence/warranting.
All offense/defense you want me to evaluate must be in both summary and final focus. Please weigh.
I will not understand or evaluate progressive arguments.
Speaker Points: Please be polite and respectful at all times. I will take off speaker points if you are not doing well/rude in cross.
speak clearly and not too fast
Hey, I'm Joy (she/her/hers)! Former policy/pf debater, current collegiate speechie. Ask me for my email before the round starts if there's an email chain. Also, please try to keep your volume at a reasonable level - no shouting please! Thank you for accommodating me.
On that note, check with your opponents for any accessibility requests before the round starts. And don't be a jerk! You can be an excellent communicator without getting aggressive or using demeaning language.
Make my path to the ballot easy. Explicit voters/weighing, resolution of clash, and consistency on the link level will garner you a win. I'm going to call for evidence if you highlight/dispute it. While I'm not a fan of blippy extensions, it's still better than nothing to make sure you don't get lost in the LBL. Content/form/style deviations from the norm aren't an issue for me as long as you do it well - debate is socially constructed to an extent. Buy into the choices you make and make sure your opponents are okay with it too.
Procedurals: Tend to default to C/I unless the reasonability claim is actually fleshed out. Outline immediate consequences for abuse claims and how my ballot plays into that.
Ks: I'm probably not familiar with your literature. Fully articulate the world of the alternative and how the perm can't access it. Usually can be persuaded one way or the other on axiomatic good claims but only if they come early enough in the round.
I'm a parent judge with about 2 years of judging experiences, mostly in PF and some in LD.
Never done Policy before so please don't spread. If I can not catch what your arguments are, I can't vote for them.
If may be helpful if you want to share your case doc with me: zhusufeng@hotmail.com.
Be confident, respectful and have fun.