Background: I am a former PF debater and current PF coach at Phillipsburg High School. I have over a decade of experience in all debate and speech events.

PF Paradigm:

Email Chains: I don't want to be a part of email/evidence chains, I trust you all to present/use your evidence fairly and accurately. If there is a lot of back and forth on specific evidence throughout the whole round I might call for it after the round especially if it will impact my decision but I prefer not to.

Progressive Debate: I am a more traditional PF debate judge who focuses majorly on clash, substantial weighing, and topical arguments. I am not a fan of progressive debate so please no Theory/Ks. If that is what you want to run you probably won't get picked up by me. When it comes to tech over truth I'm moderate, use your best judgment. Links should be explicit, and super long unwieldly link chains often become too tedious and I won't always buy them.

Speed: When it comes to speed I can handle a little bit but no spreading in PF, please. If you want to send a speech doc then you are probably going to speak too fast and I am not going to read it. Present your case articulately and clearly, PF is not policy or LD.

Weighing: Comparative weighing and good impacts are super important. Also, be super explicit, don't just say things like "we win off magnitude and probability" tell me exactly what your impacts are "we win on magnitude because we help 327 million more residents blah blah.." again please just be explicit. Just a note, when it comes to weighing probability is very important to me. I will almost never weigh on a low probability huge magnitude impact i.e. nuclear war/extinction.

I value clear PF debate: good frameworks from the start of the debate, impact driven debates, and good weighing.

Other notes:

• Frontlining is a must in second rebuttal
• Please spell things out clearly: links, turns, especially extensions ex: Don't just say "Extend Connor 22" say "Extend Connor 22 which says a 3% increase blah blah..." Being more explicit is always better.
• Signposting is important, please please please do it. I don't like messy debates and I want to know exactly where we are on the flow.
• I don't flow CX but if a good point is made and you bring it back up in speech I will listen. Also be respectful in CX.
• If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I can and will drop you.

LD Paradigm:

I would also identify as a traditional LD judge who is very open to well-thought-out and engaging arguments. My background is PF and I tend to judge LD on the traditional circuit. I will evaluate the round in the best way you present to me and I really appreciate strong values, VC, and FRs in the round. When it comes to things like disads and kritiks I think that if they are well done and add to the debate in a substantive way that is fine. I tend to not love theory debates because I often view them as a timesuck and see that they take away from the debate a lot. One other thing is that I do look toward more realistic impacts bc of my PF background. Impact calc is very important but if there are massive unrealistic logical jumps I am not going to buy it i.e. impacting on nuclear war/extinction in a round concerning animal rights. Lastly, when it comes to speed I can handle a little bit of it but I prefer slower cases so I can more thoroughly flow and pay attention better.

I am a traditional judge that goes for all formats. If you are in public forum and you plan to spread, please know that I prefer quality over quantity, so slow down.

My Procedural Preferences:

1) Please identify yourself at the start. I'd like to know your names, schools, the side you will be arguing, and the order in which you will present, so I can evaluate you properly.

2) Avoid speaking fast. English is my 2nd language (first is Spanish). I prefer that you speak clearly and focus on your most important points.

3) Signposting, or signaling the parts of your presentation, will help me better understand your case and cross-reference it to the rebuttals.

4) Mind your time: A few seconds over will not hurt you; but try to use up as much of your allotted time as possible.

5) Be polite towards the judge and your opponents.

I will evaluate your presentation based on how well you demonstrate mastery of the topic at hand; how you present your arguments (logic, coherence and persuasion); and how well you refute your opponents' arguments. Your presentation style (e.g., poise, eye-contact, professionalism, quick-thinking) is very important to me.

Last but not least, be calm; dramatization does not impress me. Trust your instincts and make sure your team is aligned before you enter the room (within team disagreements are not fun to watch).

I wish you much success!!

I expect clear, concise arguments. Muddying the water runs the risk of confusing me as well as your opponents.

Evidence must be supported through clear logical mechanisms. Try to ensure that your evidence is drawn from reputable sources.

Maintain decorum when questioning each other.

I will make my decisions based on the veracity of your arguments, as well as how well you are able to defend them from your opponents' counterarguments. Don't overextend in attacking your opponents and forget to defend your own.

Please do not use off-time roadmaps.

I am a parent judge with over 25 years experience as a litigation attorney and will put the most weight on evidence-based arguments. As a native New Yorker I can understand rapid speech, but prefer a more measured tempo.

I want to see the best round that you’ve gotat your ability level.

Novice Teams:

• Don’t stress! I love to see young debaters trying their best.
• Stick to the basics- Present your case well. Flow effectively. Try to address all your opponents’ points. Practice speaking with enthusiasm and confidence.
• CLASH! Listen to what your opponents are saying. Adjust your arguments so you’re talking specificallyabout the way your opponent presented their case. The more you can respond to what was said in this specific round as opposed to parroting general counter-arguments you’ve prepared, the better a debater you will be!
• Only spread if you really can do it.
• Use each round to practice skills you’ve been working on recently. Especially if you’ve gotten consistent feedback from judges or coaches, use this round to apply that feedback and see if you can perform better than the last round.
• Be respectful.
• Have fun.

Varsity/Experienced Teams:

• Show me what you got.
• Pick your strat based on the team you’re up against.
• When picking which case you run: I have no preference between truthful verses creative.
• If you’ve got a crazy case to run that will crush the meta, do it! Just make sure you have enough evidence and are familiar enough with your argument that you can pivot deftly to tough questions in cross or intense scrutiny as you collapse.
• If it’s a topic that simply insists on the meta, use it. I don’t care if we’ve seen the arguments a million times during a tournament if they’re effective. Argue it well and, if you’re bored, do it with flare.
• If you can spread and that will make the debate better, do it. If spreading makes you unintelligible, don’t. Emphasis
• While I like to see an attempt to line-by-line every point that’s brought up in case, as the round continues, I prefer meaningful clash on issues that grow relevant in the round OVER an unending fight on the veracity of each and every sub-point.
• Therefore: collapse. (If your opponent leaves things in your speeches untouched, go ahead and extend them. In this case, I still think it’s nice if you highlight a key issue that emerges in the round for me to vote on. But I if you get to keep all your offense, go for a blowout.)
• I love sign-posting. Be clear about your story of the round. It saves me thinking time if you spell out for me who you think has solvency, uniqueness, more standing arguments, etc. But also explainwhy.
• K and Theory only if it’s super awesome. I hold a higher standard for K then regular adjudication.
• No disclosure theory. That’s my only hard pass.
• In general, I will try to judge the round on the terms YOU set.
• Finally, I learn from every round. I reiterate, show me what you got. YOU teach US how awesome and varied debate can be.

I competed for four years, so I am functional on the flow, but please speak intelligibly.

I am a sophomore student at Princeton University, and this is my 5th year of debating/judging. I have competed mainly in WSDC and BP, so I may not be the most familiar with PF rules but I will try my best.

Style: I prefer speakers to speak slowly and clearly, so please do not spread. Speaking too fast will only hinder you from making convincing arguments and me from understanding them. I would also prefer not to hear any strawman arguments, so try to attack the crux of your opponents' arguments (give them the benefit of the doubt/ refute their best case scenario).

Content/ Strategy: I prefer claims to be substantiated with clear warranting and mechanisms as to why it would be true. While specific evidence is appreciated, it is not required. It is good enough to walk me through your logical reasoning and why the claim is compelling/relevant. Also, please weigh your arguments. Even if you are losing on multiple other clashes, explain to me why the one clash that you win on is significant enough for me to cast a ballot in favor of your team.

That's all. Good luck!

Assistant PF Coach at Delbarton

she/her

im a flow judge. Tech > truth

Northeastern '26 + apda

Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart '22

Email Chains:
Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by the end of constructive. If your case is paraphrased, also send the case rhetoric. I cannot accept locked google docs; please send all text in the email chain.
Additionally, it would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.
The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)
.
Please add 1) greenwavedebate@delbarton.org 2) brookekb1@gmail.comto the email chain.

pls strike me if u dont cut cards

i dont flow cross, it doesnt rly play a role in my decision

Arguments I would not feel comfortable judging: do not mention SA in round, any explicit gendered violence, explicit mental health depictions

Some general things:

Trigger Warnings MUST be read for any argument that could be triggering to anyone in the round- how to do so:

- if you believe an argument could be triggering, default to reading a warning before the speech begins

- if this the content within the speech is explicit, anonymous opt-outs should be sent to everyone in the room via an anonymous google form that can be as simple as an "opt in" vs "opt out" question. this can be easily sent via the google chain

- i am extremely receptive to trigger warning theory ie why a team should have read a trigger warning with a specific argument they are reading in the round

Extensions are VERY VERY important to me. The summary and final focus speeches should both have the extension of the links, warrants, and impacts of all offense you are going for. THIS INCLUDES TURNS.

Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other aka extending same args, no new ink on the flow after summary, all that

If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) CALL THEM OUT and I will not vote on the argument

prog args

i like prog (ks + theory)... dont read on novs pls

I ran cut card/paraphrasing and disclosure theory in high school so I am definitely willing to vote on these arguments

Every part of theory shells must be extended in each speech to win the shell

Hello! My name is Shashi Kumar Boriahkrishnappa! I was born in Bangalore, India and I have two sons (16 and 12). I currently preside in Skillman, New Jersey. As for my judging experience, I have judged at multiple tournaments in the New Jersey area, mostly for Novice and Varsity Parliamentary Debate. Good luck to any competitors that I judge!

I am a lay judge - make sense and I vote for you :).

Be kind and have a great debate.

Try not to spread because I won't be able to flow. If you don't see me flowing, you're probably going too fast.

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. I am unlikely to vote on a K. I like hearing Ks, I think they're cool, I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, I'm learning about them, but evaluating them as a voting issue is outside my comfort zone as a judge and I don't have the experience and confidence to evaluate Ks in a way that is consistent and fair.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

nb0564@princeton.edu if needed. debated a lot of PF.

I don't have preferences for what arguments you read, existence/quality of evidence, or theory defaults. All open to your interpretation.

I enjoy creative strategy and respectful rounds. Reach out with any questions, and have fun!

I did PF for 4 years in high school from 2014-2018. I haven't been a part of the debate community for a few years now but am still familiar with the format. Here are some of my thoughts on what I like to see while judging PF.

I value debates that are able to successfully collapse on and strengthen your most impactful arguments in the final speeches, as opposed to trying to win every point presented in your initial speeches. I also would like you to weigh your strongest arguments against your opponents: explaining why your impacts are more important than theirs. Finally, judging is much easier for me when all of your speeches are clearly signposted.

I have judged several local county and more than 10 regional/national (online and in-person) tournaments over the past two years. With that being said, I am still a parent (lay) judge. My paradigm consists of the following:

1. If you spread anywhere near 200 words per minute, I will, at a minimum, need your case(s) to follow along. If you spread too fast, I will not be able to capture everything and it is highly likely that will impact both your team and speaker point scores;

2. As a lay judge, I do not accept any theory cases, which I hope is common knowledge. In the rare situation a theory case is provided, I will immediately drop your team. For PF, I believe everyone should argue the resolution because the teams worked so hard on their respective cases. Regardless, I understand that theory cases do have their merits, but please save those cases for tech judges;

3. When presenting your case, please clearly state out your contentions so I can properly flow the debate. It is sometimes easy miss your contention if it is not clearly stated;

4. My decision will ultimately be decided by weight the impacts, magnitude, and scope. As I am not a tech judge (yet), I will be looking for valid warrants (please do not go too far down the warrant rabbit hole) and will do my best to follow link chains accordingly;

5. Please ensure that evidence is accurate and properly represented. Also, please make sure that your evidence is from reputable sources and not fabricated/from fabricated sources. I prefer truth over tech;

6. Any/all discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language will result in an immediate disqualification. Please be respectful of everyone at all times;

7. I will do my best to explain my RFD at the end of each debate round (unless the tournament specifies otherwise). I understand that everyone wants to win, but since this is a competition between two teams; only one can win the round. Instead of taking it negatively, please try to learn from the experience and leverage any/all feedback. My feedback may not help with tech decisions, but the feedback could be useful with other lay judges; and

8. Have fun, make new friends/friendly rivals, build relationships, and cherish all of your experiences.

As Albert Einstein said, "The only source of knowledge is experience."

e-Mail for cases/evidence: davcho64@hotmail.com

I'm a freshman at Princeton on the Princeton Debate Panel (I debate British Parliamentary). I debated PF all four years of high school for Trinity School in NYC.

I would prefer you speak slower, but I can handle speed. In theory, PF should be accessible to the average person. If you're spreading, that's not in the spirit of the event.

I prefer fleshed out warrants and logical responses to simply carded responses. No blippy extensions please.

PLEASE WEIGH!! please.

I will vote off the flow, but I will be reluctant to vote for arguments that are blatantly false. The more fallacious your argument, the less your opponents have to say to properly rebut it.

No frivolous theory please.

Have fun and be respectful to your opponents.

If you have a good sense of humor in round I may feel inclined to boost your speaks.

Email: sofiagcipriano@gmail.com

I don't have a lot of experience in formal debate. This is my first time judging.

1.) Be respectful and display good sportsmanship. Inability to remain respectful towards yourself, your teammate, your opponents, or myself will not be tolerated.

2.) It is your job to present the most convincing argument for your position. I'm not well-read on the debate topic, so it is your job to convince me that your position is better.

3.) If you speak quickly, you increase the risk that I won't be able to flow / understand your argument. I understand that speaking quickly allows you to get as many points across as possible, but you should consider also that I may not remember everything you say if you're speeding through your points. Furthermore, since I am not an expert in debate, I may not understand debate jargon.

4.) I will not accept a claim if you do not present evidence and explain why that evidence supports your claim. "I claim that X should be done because evidence 1, 2, ... supports the theory that Y would occur if X were done, and Y is a desirable outcome because a, b, ..." is a loose example of what I mean by providing adequate evidence. If you cannot articulate a reason that doing X would result in Y, I will not assume X would result in Y. If you cannot explain why Y is a desirable outcome, I will not assume that it is desirable.

5.) Attacking your opponent's use of evidence is a valid method of refuting their position, but you must be able to articulate why their evidence is being misconstrued or is simply false. I don't want the debate to get stuck on whether or not a piece of evidence is true or false, so the burden of proof rests on the person casting doubt on the use of that evidence.

6.) Use of theory will probably be lost on me. Feel free to use it anyway, but I may not recognize it as a formal debate tool.

7.) Kritiks: if you can use them well, go ahead. Philosophical critiques of your opponent's arguments can be valuable (and entertaining), but they are hard to present and they do not trump quantitative reasoning (in my opinion). As an example, I will not accept the notion that an argument has been posed using a flawed worldview as a proper rebuttal of a proposal that is backed by empirical evidence unless there is a very good reason for it.

8.) Please post your evidence on the wiki before the debate starts.

Hey y'all

A quick recap about me, throughout my four years of high school, I debated in PF (freshman and senior year), LD (sophomore), and Policy (junior and senior year). triple homicide. Second speeches is my life I love second speeches.

Cards:

If you have a card, it is your opponent's job to prove to me that the card is false or unreliable. until then, I will assume that the card is true.

please don't take 5 years to send out a card. if it take you longer than 1 min then you need to move on

Public Forum:

• I am not super strict on time, but since it has the shortest speaking time, I would prefer for everyone to keep up with the time given
• remember it is not about who can make the best policies for me it is about who can prove to me that their way of life is better.

Lincoln Douglass:

• Don't hate me but I only did one year, so some of the terms may have been forgotten about
• Timing can get confusing for me, so I would prefer if you remind me about the timing in LD

Policy:

• I LOVE POLICY DEBATE
• if you are going off-case let me know. I take away speaker points if there is a lack of organization.
• if you are one of those teams that give 1,000,000,000 off cases, then you will see me give you a major side-eye. (LOL)

overall:

I will give my RFD.

Everything I say in the round will be put in TAB.

Have fun you humans.

I competed in Policy for three years in high school, and Parliamentary debate in college for three years. I've been judging PF since then.

Columbia University 2018

New York University School of Law 2022

Speed

It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. I am generally fine with spreading.

I never time debates. That's not my job. Therefor, it is your job. Police yourselves and eachother. There is an art to this. Opposing teams can hold up their iPhones to indicate their opponent has run out of time.

I generally allow for a 15 seconds grace period to finish sentences.

Posture

Circumstances permitting, you must stand up, in a centralized spot, and face me during constructive arguments. This is preferred but not necessary during cross.

Evidence

If you fail to call out bad evidence, it will be accepted as true for the round.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be impact analysis and weighing. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them. If you don't compare them for me, I will do it on my own and no one wants that.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof.

Hey! I'm Tanay(he/him). I debated Public Forum on the National circuit while at Lexington HS for four years. I will mostly judge Public Forum, and if I'm somehow judging another format, take me as a new judge. TLDR is pretty much the miscellaneous stuff.

Add me to the email chain: tanaydalmia612@gmail.com.

I will disclose and give oral feedback at the end of the round if you want me to and if the tournament lets me, just give me time to complete my ballot.

Misc. stuff:

I vote off the flow(tech>truth mostly).

- For my ballot, I begin on the weighing, which tells me which side to look to first. If you tell me another way to evaluate the round, do so in your speech.

- I try to be tabula rasa(go in with no preconceived notions)

- Nothing is sticky. Once it’s dropped, it’s done.

- Weigh. Weigh, weigh, weigh. Weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh. Comparative and meta weighing is best.

- I can handle some speed, as long as it's still coherent. If I miss something though, from your speed, that might hurt you when you refer to it later. If you send me speech docs, esp for case and rebuttal, I'm less likely to miss things.

- Logical arguments with no evidence>evidence without warranting

- Don't read blips and blow them up later.

- I don't really presume, so if both teams do something that would make them lose their offense and cause presumption, then I will usually ignore the oversight by both teams and evaluate both, unless I have a reason not to. I hate intervening, make sure to have proper coverage.

- You MUST have evidence properly construed.

Progressive Debate:

I’m not super well versed in progressive debate, whether it be theory, kritiks, etc. However, if you explain your arguments well, I am willing to evaluate them. Do know though, you are probably putting yourself at a little bit of a disadvantage.

Evidence:

Teams can call for evidence, and while the other team is looking for it, no one's prep is used. However, do not take forever and do not steal prep during this time. If you're jotting like a quick note once, I'm fine with it, but not more than that. It wouldn't be fun for anyone if that became an issue. If you take too long to find a piece of evidence, you either have to choose to drop that evidence or take running prep to finish finding it.

Please use good evidence. If one team declares that a piece of evidence is misconstrued, I will look at it on the email chain and if I agree, I'll scratch it off my flow. If it's a huge misconstruction, I might even vote the violating team down and/or reduce speaks. If one team calls for a round-ending evidence challenge, we will follow the tournament's direction on that.

I'm fine with paraphrasing. If there's an issue though, I'll evaluate it the same way I do a misconstruction issue because that is essentially what it is.

Speaks:

If the tournament provides me with a list, I'll use that instead.

My average is 28.5, and I'll move up and down from there.

Novices automatically get 1 point higher than what I would have given them in JV/Varsity.

29.5-30: Superb debating, you didn't have many big flaws or any in your debating and strategy, and you articulated extremely well.

29-29.5: A really good job, a few flaws, the execution was still on point, and articulation was quite good.

28.5-29: Above average, some flaws but I still liked how you did overall, and good articulation.

28-28.5: Pretty average, you did a good job but there were definitely flaws, and you spoke pretty well.

27.5-28: There were some issues with execution, but it was still passable. You might have paused a bunch or seemed confused at times, but I mostly knew where you were.

27-27.5: There were a bunch of flaws or one huge flaw that you probably want to tidy up. Your speaking was lacking in some way, but I see potential.

26-27: Multiple major flaws on your side. Significant misses in speaking.

Lower than 26: Pretty rare, you must have done something really big.

If you say anything homophobic/sexist/etc, I will stop the round, drop you, and give the lowest speaks possible. Just don't please.

Final thoughts:

Feel free to ask me anything before and after round. Or just talk, I'm chill with that.

I'll be pretty laid-back, so let's have a good time.

Good luck and have fun!

Background: I am a political scientist and have taught undergraduate and graduate courses at Northwestern and Princeton.

I value framework, well-articulated arguments, structure, and word choice. Clarity and organization matters.

I base my decision on the quality of your arguments, the evidence that supports your contentions and the strategic choices you make as you engage your opponent.

Evidence to substantiate claims matters but only if accompanied by appropriate reasoning and analysis. Laying out warrants to prove your claim can set your argument above your opponent’s.

I appreciate multi-layered refutations that involve taking the other team at their best while still proving why your case stands. Weighing is extremely encouraged.

Do not spread. Please communicate clearly and at a moderate pace so that I can capture everything on my flow.

Please time speeches and keep up with prep time.

Content warnings are good. Please respect any requests about this.

Please be respectful and stay away from personal attacks.

Please respect your opponent's pronouns.

I don’t disclose speaker points. I will disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.

Be confident and have fun!

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution / topic, does that mean I am more traditional, yes. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. If you get too progressive, well please see what I initially started my paradigm with.

As for speed, can flow very well, however if it sounds like you are choking and cannot breathe, well you just dropped those contentions, cards, points, whatever you were trying to establish. In most things, quality outweighs quantity, like do you attend three, four, five colleges at once, no, no you do not that, you pick the one of highest quality and focus on that, so in that vein, remember, this is not policy, but either PF or LD and looking for quality during the rounds.

Please respect each other and have a great debate.

Hi! My name's Alex (she/her) :)

Email chain: alexandrardischler@gmail.com

General info:

I competed for Teurlings Catholic (Louisiana) in PF, Congress, and occasionally LD. I now compete in APDA at American University (majoring in IR and Phil)

TLDR:

-Please send speech docs (preferably pdf/not copy pasted into the body of the email) before the speech for accessibility purposes, I'll be an objectively better judge if so

-I'm apparently bad at controlling my facial expressions so you'll probably be able to tell how I feel about your argument based on that

-You don't have to call me judge, Alex is fine

-I don't care if you sit/stand and you don't have to ask me if it's okay

-I won't eval identity args if ur not a part of that identity (aka if you're not black don't run afropess)

-I probably don't know the topic (ie keep topic specific jargon minimal)

-I won't vote for something I don't understand/wasn't well extended

-Tech>truth (except for morally bad stuff)

-Clear weighing/voters = my heart

-I <3 excessive signposting

-Use ff/last rebuttal to write the ballot

-Ask me questions post-round/over email if you want!! I'm happy to answer anything

***be as accessible as possible!! Always ask pronouns or default to they/them - if anything happens that makes you feel unsafe please let me know. Please use trigger warnings!! If you aren't respectful (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) I will def drop you/tell tab

Prefs:

1- trad, policy, stock Ks

2- T, theory, phil, other Ks,

3- tricks (I'm generally unfamiliar with tricks beyond spikes/hijacks - if you're running them and they're in a paragraph please send me a separate doc w them numbered<3)

Actual Paradigm Stuff:

Framework:

Big fan of framework (esp in PF - so underutilized). Please extend it tho!! Most of my framework tended to be util but I'll really vote for whatever. With that being said, not a huge fan of framework debates but I won't be devastated if it happens either. I <3 deontology u will get a speaks boost (or if you just generally mix it up from mitigating SV/util)

Cases:

General: Run whatever as long as you understand it. If you run phil heavy stuff (k or not) I would prefer if you explain the arg more than you usually would!! I love ks but not super familiar with performance cases but run whatever you think is fun!!

Favs: Derrida, Foucault, Puar, dedev/anything cap bad, and wipeout

Biggest opps: Academy (please just don't. I simply do not understand no matter how much I read - just go for charity cannibalism or something)

Impacts:

Meta weighing = speaks boost!! Live, laugh, love, terminal impacts

CX:

I don't flow cross, flex prep is fine. If they say something weird/contradictory in cross extend it or I'm not voting on it

Evidence:

Don't clip. Compare evidence yourself, I'll read cards if you want but it will be begrudgingly.I don't like paraphrasing. Evidence ethics in PF went to hell and I'm not voting for you if you can't produce a source or author when asked/on the speech doc. Bare minimum is tag, author's last name, and date. Will vote on paraphrasing theory

Signposting:

Signposting is important for me. I try my best to keep an organized flow, and if you signpost well I'll probably give you a speaks boost. I love a good "we have 3 responses, to their contention 1 link evidence - first." Always always always elaborate. Don't say cross apply this or extend that and not tell me why. If you line by line I <3 u

Speed:

Send docs either way!!I value clarity over speed and will say "clear" twice and then stop flowing. Slow down more than you think you should on tags and authors.

PF: Not a fan of policy spreading in PF. Just keep in mind that your opponents may not be comfy with it

LD/POL: Do what you want if everyone is chill w it

Theory Shells:

I used to say this isn't my favorite style of debate but (sadly) it's become one of my favs. However, this is really only regarding equity theory/in-round callouts/that type of stuff. If you wanna run friv, go for it, but I probably won't vote on it alone, add some actual case/other shell/whatever debate too. Disclosure good but 50/50 shot I'll vote on it (depends on the round and if it's some absurd interp). I'll happily vote for theory regarding in-round abuse. If someone says something offensive/harmful I'll vote on it even if it isn't a flushed-out shell (ie they said it late in the round) so feel free to make it a voter. I'll sometimes vote on RVIs, but it depends on the round, and 9 times out of 10 I'll be sad about it. All of this being said, please don't run stuff just to kick it/as a time suck cause that's boring and a waste of paper

Speaks:

I'm pretty generous with speaks. I don't think they really mean anything/determine anything about you as a debater but I usually give somewhere in the 28-30 range. I'll disclose them if asked!!

Equity:

I more than likely won't vote on respectability, especially if it's in the morning (everyone is cranky be fr). That being said, I will vote on misgendering/any other sj theory without batting an eye. If your response to misgendering theory is something like "I forgot" or "I didn't know" you should've either checked the wiki or asked them. I think any type of equity theory is a priori and won't be persuaded by arguments telling me otherwise. If they do it late in round/it's too late to run a shell just make it a voter and I'll vote on that!!

Other:

Basically just whatever you want as long as you're organized.

If u run Marx/Derrida in front of me you will LOVE your speaks<3 big specters fan

If I missed anything there's a good chance I agree w Lenox Leverett/Gio Piedimonte/Elizabeth Elliott so do with that what you will

If you have something silly/different/unique you wanna run and haven't had the yet chance, go for it!! I'm happy to judge whatever and it makes rounds more fun

**if I didn't cover something feel free to email/just ask me in person!! :)

I’m a parent judge who has judged PF for four years. This paradigm was influenced by my son. I flow important points throughout the round.

Preferences:

1. Have both warrants and impacts backed up by evidence in your case. Carry them through the round if you want me to vote on them.

2. Do comparative weighing in summary AND final focus, this is important. Don’t use buzzwords.

3. If you want me to vote on an argument, it must be in summary AND final focus.

4. Don’t speak too quickly. If I can’t understand you, you won’t win my ballot.

5. Be respectful, especially in crossfire, or I will dock speaker points.

6. No new arguments in final focus, they will not be considered. Bring them up earlier in the round so your opponents can respond to them.

7. Have all evidence ready to show your opponents. Don’t take too long when evidence is asked for.

8. Signpost throughout your speeches. This also includes short offtime roadmaps. It makes it much easier to flow.

9. Clearly explain your arguments in each speech, do not just assume I have a prior understanding of every argument. I do some reading on the topic before the tournament, but I am by no means an expert.

10. Don’t run progressive arguments (Ks, theory), I don’t know how to evaluate them.

Speaker Points (adjusted based on division):

<26: Very poor OR offensive, rude, tried to cheat, etc.

26-26.9: Below Average

27-27.9: Average

28-28.9: Above Average

29-29.5: Great

29.6-30: Amazing

Greetings. I'm a current freshman at Princeton University and an APDA debater. I dabbled in debate in high school, and went to tournaments and conferences in PF, parli, Model Congress, and Model UN.

Most PF debaters, in my opinion, rely far too heavily on evidence. While evidence is a useful tool to help back up your arguments, it cannot stand on it's own without logical reasoning to go alongside it. When valid logical reasoning and a card clash, I am inclined to believe the logical reasoning.

I am comfortable with fast speaking, but please do not spread. If I can't understand you, I can't accept the argument. Also, please no theory or Ks. Just no.

Crossfire is a useful time for you to better understand your opponents arguments. It won't be flowed, so don't feel the need to ask gotcha questions, and please remain respectful.

As for speaker points, debate well and respectfully and this shouldn't be an issue. You will gain speaker points if you:

- Smoothly and subtly slip a Star Wars quote into one of your speeches (+1)

- Give me a good moral justification for why saving lives matters in one of your speeches (+0.5)

- Win by running that human extinction is a good thing (+2)

You will lose speaker points if you:

- Attempt to doubt my decision (-1)

- Are rude or disrespectful or aggressive (this includes talking over people in cross) (-0.5)

I am a lay parent volunteer and this is my fourth year judging debate but it has been a minute! I am a lawyer, and I was a litigator for over twenty years. So, I know how to put together an argument and I know a bad argument when I see it. A few things I will offer:

1. I recommend not filling your arguments with debate jargon. I am not familiar with these terms and using them isn't helpful to me. Making arguments like, "the other team did X debate thing while we did Y debate thing which is better," is not meaningful to me and so will not advance the ball for you. If there's something I need to know, just tell me.

2. Don't assume I know anything about your topic. I get that you have spent a lot of time researching and learning the topic, but I haven't, and that isn't my job as your judge. It is your job to educate and convince me. Be very clear about the components of your argument and likewise quickly break down your opponent's argument. This is extremely helpful to any judge when done well.

3. I'm a fast talker myself, but I find PF debaters can be in a category of their own. Please do not speak too quickly - I will not be able to fully follow or understand you. If you do need to speak quickly, make sure your speech is not monotone, which makes you even more difficult to follow.

4. I value "real-world" links. I will not weigh your impact, no matter how large, if what you are saying defies logic and common sense. Don't stretch your link chains beyond value.

5. Common sense arguments are valuable. Simply turning repeatedly to "my source vs. their source" after the constructive probably isn't going to win the day for you with me. I prefer that you use reasoning to show me how your argument works and apply real understanding of the topic.

7. Be polite to each other. Pay attention to this advice during cross-fire in particular. Avoid speaking over each other, not answering questions, being condescending, or taking too much time on your point.

Good luck and have fun!

I've judged for two years. I am a traditional PF judge. Spreading is not appreciated, do so at your own peril. I encourage a civil debate round. I appreciate sign posting at the beginning of each speech. I strongly prefer evidence backed points.

Hello, I am a parent judge new to debate and not a native English speaker. Please talk slowly, be articulate, and try to make all of your arguments very clear/concise. If possible send your cases to me so I can follow along. I will judge wins and losses by the tempo and pace of the debate, plus powerful expression. I will also understand best if you speak with a loud volume to sound clear and full of confidence. Furthermore, please respect one another and make the community a safe environment. Lastly, have fun and enjoy your rounds!

Wants debaters to speak and read speeches at a moderate speed. Speed reading to achieve spreading is NOT ADVISED!

Debaters should stick to the actual topic of debate supported by facts/research and not resort to using technical tricks to score a win.

Debate ettiquette must always be respectful and professional

3L at NYU Law. Competed in PF all throughout high school and have worked in tournament administration + occasional VPF judging since then.

A few ground rules:

• This is a safe space -- I absolutely will NOT tolerate any disrespect towards me, your opponents, or anyone else. This includes, but is not limited to, racism, sexism, homophobia, other discrimination, general bullying and/or rudeness, and so on. Be nice and be a decent person. It is disappointing that this actually has to be said.
• I will not intervene in the round unless specifically asked to (or there is something I need to address re: above rule, evidence, etc).
• HAVE FUN!! or at least do your best? Make this fun for YOU and ME. This isn't supposed to be a chore; passion, humor, and general enjoyment will be appreciated and will reflect in your speaks.

Your arguments:

• I look for you to honor the purpose of the event -- your arguments should be clear, organized, and understandable by "laypeople." Treat me as if I am a generally informed citizen in a "public forum" and you are trying to persuade me as such.
• Corollary to the above: I dislike theory and meta-debate. I REALLY dislike spreading. I feel that these take away from the spirit of the event.This means: I will NOT consider Ks.
• SIGNPOST: this is VERY important for me. If I can't tell which responses go to which points, you will not be happy. I need an organized flow to adequately judge the round.
• COMMON SENSE: Your impacts, and your arguments in general, also need to have common sense, and I will not consider your argument or your impact if it is ridiculous (e.g. some impacts that I found to be ridiculous: student loan forgiveness will cause "80 million people to die imminently" or will lead "North Korea and Russia to invade the US")
• LOGIC AND WARRANTS: a critical piece of this exercise is the art of logic and argumentation. Mere existence of a card isn't enough. This means: 1) don't just read me 30 cards -- add on some logic and a decent explanation of how the card fits in with your argument, 2) tell me why things happen, not just that they do.
• WEIGHING: You NEED to weigh, tell me what's important and what I should be focusing on in the round.

More specific preferences:

• SUMMARY + FINAL FOCUS: PLEASE give me voters. Make this easy for me.
• EVIDENCE: do not make up, misrepresent, or mess around at all with this. The sanctity of evidence is important, and this is non-negotiable for me. This means you need to have CONTEXT and the FULL SOURCE available. I reserve the right to ask to see a card. If I see a card that does not actually say what you say it does, I'm crossing out that card -- if your argument is resting on that, *shrug* too bad
• CONSISTENCY: extend your arguments through ALL speeches (not necessary in rebuttal) if you want me to consider them.
• CX: I won't flow cross. Make sure to bring up something that was said in a speech if you want me to consider it.

A little bit about me: I debated at the Bronx High School of Science for 4 years, where I was one of the captains of the PF team and broke at Gold TOC in my junior year. I am now a junior at Princeton University on their debate team as well. I consider myself a relatively flow debater, and so I will also be judging on the flow.

TL; DR

I am a pretty standard flow judge; if you debate well, both in terms of the technical aspect and persuasion aspect, that will make me happy. To take from my partner Tenzin Dadak's paradigm, the only equation you need to know is: Warrant + Weigh = Win

For the email chain and any questions, my email is gangulya@bxscience.edu

Novices, scroll down towards the end, unless you're curious. Here's the long version.

Extended:

The way I evaluate every round is pretty simple- I look to weighing/framing first, and whoever I think is winning the weighing, I look to their arguments first. Then, if I think that there is a plausible risk of offense on that argument, I vote for that team- I don't even look at the other side of the flow. It's that simple, so it should inform you on what to prioritize in the round to get my ballot.

More things to do to secure my ballot:

1. Collapse. Too many times teams spread themselves too thin by trying to argue that they are winning every argument in the round, which makes it even more difficult to just win one; towards the later speeches, please whittle the round down to one or two major pieces of offense/voters for me.

2. Extend offense and frontline in summary and final focus. Pretty simple- if you don't tell me why I should vote for you and why your argument still holds true even after their rebuttal, the likelihood is that I will not vote on it.

3. WARRANT YOUR ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE. Warranting, for me, is the most interesting part of debate because that is where your logical reasoning and understanding of the world comes into play- just asserting a statement to be true or just reading a statistic is nowhere near enough to make me believe your arguments. Please explain the reasoning behind each step of the argument- even though there are massive time constraints in final focus, please still include it in a condensed form.

4. WEIGH. This is probably one of the most under-appreciated aspects of debate, and to become a great debater, you need to be able to compare your arguments to your opponents and explain why yours are more important to consider in the round. Just saying "We outweigh on scope because we affect more people" is not fully fleshed out weighing; you need to give more reasoning and also compare the clashing weighing mechanisms in the round. Weighing makes my job easier, and will probably lead to you being more content with my decision.

Miscellaneous:

1. PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION: Personally, I believe that a lot of progressive argumentation does not have a place in PF, and will always prefer topical arguments over Ks and theory UNLESS there is clear abuse. As for my position on some norms, I lean very strongly paraphrasing good, slightly lean towards disclosure not necessary, lean RVIs good, and default reasonability. I do not know much about this type of debate, so please slow down and explain it thoroughly if you do choose to run it in front of me, and I will treat it as any other argument. Trigger warnings are a necessity, and if I feel as though you are running this just to win an easy ballot against a team that obviously does not know how to respond, I will drop you- progressive argumentation is supposed to correct the flaws that are in this activity, NOT to be weaponized.

2. I base speaker points on your speaking skills and presentation AND on how technically sound you debate. Because of this, if the tournament allows me to, I will give a low-points win. I will start at 28.

3. Please don't be overly aggressive or mean in round; light-hearted humor is wonderful, but be wary of the line where it crosses over from being funny to disrespectful. Oh and also, please don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. That will automatically make me drop you- I have no tolerance for people who make the round an unsafe space to debate.

4. I am tech>truth, but not entirely. I will vote on any argument if it is well-warranted and well-executed in round, but as the argument becomes more outlandish, my threshold for a good response goes down and I am more likely to believe simple logical responses.

5. Please don't be egregiously poor with evidence- that just leads to really mucky debates and that would make me sad.

6. Please signpost- tell me which argument you are talking about, where in the argument you are, etc. This just makes it easier for me to flow the round.

7. Speed is fine, but don't go excessively fast (this means no spreading!!!)- if I need you to slow down then I will say "clear".

8. About crossfires- I fall in the category of people who really enjoy listening to cross, but anything important that comes out of cross that you think is necessary for me to take note of has to be put into a speech, else it will not affect my decision.

9. Please make the round enjoyable; then we can all have fun and that would make it a great time. This activity is meant to be both fun and competitive- please try to make it so.

10. ABOUT TURNS: Since everyone is turning to the idea of dumping turns on all arguments without any proper warranting, this section is now warranted. I despise blippy turns, so unless you spend >10 seconds on one turn AND extend an impact on that turn in that same speech OR weigh your turn in that very same speech that you read the turn in, I will think of it as blippy and I will be very sympathetic to the other team's responses. Other team, please point out that they are blowing up a blip. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR SECOND REBUTTAL TURNS. Tread lightly.

FOR NOVICES:

I do not expect too much from y'all; I remember when I was a novice myself I certainly would not oblige to what I have mentioned above. That being said, here is some of the clear stuff that would make the round better and make me happy:

1. Signpost in every speech- this is a good practice generally, and allows you to stay organized and me to understand what you're saying.

2. Give voters in the back half of the round- it is not enough to tell me why the opponents should not win; you need to explain why you win and why I should vote for you.

3. Warrant and Weigh- Give me the reasoning behind your evidence and why your arguments logically are sound, and then compare their importance to those of the opponents.

If y'all got through all of that, then y'all are some real ones. If you want any speaker point boosts, call the pro's contentions as PROtentions (+0.5 speaker points). Thank you for reading this- if you have any specific questions just ask me before the round starts, and I will be happy to answer them. If you want to reach me, my email is gangulya@bxscience.edu

I'm a current Princeton student and ex-debater who competed for Regis with moderate success (a lot of elims, a bunch of bids, debated at Nationals twice) in PF on the National Circuit.

These aren't "preferences" per se, but rather insights into how I look at a PF round:

Good analysis is critical and wins you rounds. By "good," I expect depth and nuance. Responses should be contextualized and should not primarily serve as a delaying tactic to eat up speech time. Substantial topic knowledge also helps a lot. On the other hand, analysis grounded in an obviously incorrect or untruthful foundation is weak.

Weighing is incredibly important and demonstrates a clear-headed, comprehensive appreciation of the state of the round (and the world in which it is taking place). Pre-reqs are great, but be certain that they make sense. When you weigh, please be clear and precise.

I am familiar with kritik and theory debate. That familiarity leads me to think that they are teleolgically opposed to PF, which exists to build rhetoric and logic through direct engagement with complex, relevant topics. Debate the resolution, frame it (the resolution, not the debate) however you want.

In short, the easiest way to win is decisively convincing me you won the round; take that and everything that I've outlined above and have fun.

Table of Contents: PF, MS Parli, Congress, Policy/LD, BQ

If you remind me, I'll give you my email in round for email chains or feedback.

Coaches: Tim Scheffler, Ben Morris

(Former) PF Partner: Sorin Caldararu

Schools: Madison West '22, Swarthmore College '26 (econ/math), judging for Strath Haven now.

Qualifications: 3 TOC gold bids in PF, doubles at TOC, won Dowling, broke 3x at Wisconsin PF State (made finals once), finals in state Congress twice, almost competed in extemp a couple of times, judged a few MSPDP and BQ rounds, judged a lot of PF rounds.

Varsity PF (JV/Novice/Middle School is Below):

TL;DR: Standard flow judge. Tech over truth but I admire appeals to truth when done well. Proud hack for evidence ethics. Below are some areas where I may deviate from circuit norms.

- Fairness > Education > Winning. Anything you do that is discriminatory will get you dropped and get your speaks tanked. PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE.

- LOCAL CIRCUIT: Disclo and parahrasing theory are not norms, so I'm going to need a pretty high bar of in-round abuse for me to justify a ballot. This is especially the case since local circuits tend to have much more extensive rules, including about evidence ethics, which could cover disclosure and paraphrasing if necessary. It is much easier to make rule changes in the local circuit. Thus, I need to know why the round, not coach meetings in the summer, should be where disclosure is made a norm.

- Now you know the wiki exists: https://opencaselist.com/hspf22. Not disclosing is now your choice. If you don't know what that means, ask me.

- If you're a small school and you're up against a team from a big prep school, I am a judge you want. I debated a lot on the national circuit, but I went to a public school that barely funds its debate program. Unlike a lot of judges who consider themselves "flow," I don't care if you use the same useless circuit buzzwords I use and I'm really not impressed by people that read 5 poorly warranted turns in rebuttal that one of their 15 coaches wrote for them in a prepout.

- If you go to a privileged school, are facing an underprivileged school, and spend the round commodifying the issues of underprivileged schools in an unnuanced disclosure/paraphrasing shell, your speaks will be capped at a 26 and I will be very tempted to drop you for it. If your entire strategy for winning rounds is to weigh extinction impacts over everything else, your speaks will be capped at a 28.5 unless you present some type of interesting nuance in the weighing debate. If I have to flow you off a speech doc, your speaks are capped at 28.5.

- I don't care if you provide an "alternative" in framework/theory debates (you need one in K’s though). I don't think second case ever needs to interact with first case, even in progressive debate.

- I reserve the right to intervene if I dislike your theory. That said, prefiat impacts almost always outweigh postfiat impacts. If prefiat debate is initiated, generally we're not gonna be debating substance. That doesn't make theory abusive – if you hit theory you can win by responding to it.

- Norms that DEFINITELY should be enforced through the ballot: not being ___ist, not misrepresenting evidence, not being rude. Norms that should be enforced through the ballot: disclosure, having cut cards, being able to share evidence efficiently, not stealing prep time, trigger warnings. Norm that should be encouraged through word of mouth but not the ballot: reading cards.

- Weighing should be done early. Don't wait until final focus. Metaweigh, too.

- Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. No sticky defense.

- I don't flow author names.

- Collapse early. To that end, don't read a whole new contention in rebuttal for no reason.

- If I have no offense on the flow, I default to the team that would win if I were a lay judge.

- You can ask me to call for evidence (from your side or your opponents' side) after the round in one of your speeches (or cross-ex if that floats your boat). I will probably not remember. After the round, say "remember when I asked you to look at the Caldararu card?" and I will look at it.

- Don’t misrepresent who wrote your evidence. If the article comes from the opinion section or is an academic study, you cannot cite it solely by institution. The New York Times does not publicly agree or disagree with what Ross Douthat or Bret Stephens writes for them (and I’m sure it would often vehemently disagree, as would I), so citing his op-eds by saying “the New York Times says...” is incorrect. You should say "Douthat of the New York Times says..." or "Douthat says..."

- "If you pronounce “Reuters” as 'rooters' or "nuclear" as 'nook-you-ler' I will be sad." –Sorin Caldararu, my brilliant debate partner.

- I'm going to Swarthmore College (one of the most left-leaning colleges in America), I live in Madison, Wisconsin (one of the most left-leaning cities in America), and my debate coach was a civil rights lawyer. This should give you a sense of my political views.

---

JV/Novice/Middle School Paradigm:

I have judged some Middle School Parliamentary rounds before, and I have a lot of experience in novice/JV public forum.

- There are essentially three parts of debating: making arguments, responding to arguments, and weighing arguments (i.e. comparing your arguments and with those of your opponent). Ideally, you should start by mostly making arguments, and by the end you should mostly be weighing arguments that have already been made. You can make that very clear to me by saying things like "now I'm going to respond to my opponent's argument about ______."

- An argument usually has to involve saying something will cause something else. Say we're debating whether the government should create a single-payer healthcare system. If you are on the proposition, saying "healthcare is a right" isn't really an argument. Rather, it's a catchphrase that hints at a different argument: by making healthcare single-payer, the cost doesn't change whether you go to the doctor or not, making people more likely to get care that improves their quality of life and could even save lives. The difference between the first argument and the second is pretty subtle, but it's important for me as a judge: saying "healthcare is a right" doesn't tell me how single-payer gets people healthcare, and it also doesn't tell me who I'm actually helping by voting in favor of single-payer. The second argument answers those questions and puts those answers front and center. And that makes it much easier for me, as a judge, to vote for you.

- To that end, I'm not a fan of new arguments in late speeches. It makes the debate feel like whack-a-mole: a team makes one argument, but once it's rebutted, they present another argument, which then gets rebutted, and so on.

- Generally, I find logic to be more compelling than moral grandstanding. For example, if we're debating if it should be legal to feed kids McDonalds and you argue that it shouldn't because McDonalds is unhealthy, it doesn't help to say stuff like "they're basically stepping over the bodies of dead children" in a speech. It sounds like overkill and makes me not want to vote for you as much.

- Tell me your favorite animal to show me you've read this for an extra speaker point. The WDCA hates fun, so I sadly cannot give you your extra speaker point if you are in Wisconsin.

---

Congress:

Short and sweet:

- I probably would rather judge PF. Try to change my mind. (just kidding)

- I was a huge fan of really weird yet hilarious intros, and had one for just about every speech freshman year. It was then squeezed out of me by a combination of tremendous willpower and coaching. (I once said that Saudi Arabia was acting like Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes).

- Don’t re-word a speech someone else just gave two minutes ago.

- I shouldn’t be able to tell if you have a background in policy or PF debate. Don’t speak like you would in a PF or policy round.

- If you give a late-cycle speech, you should have something valuable to say. If you don’t have something valuable to say, don’t speak.

- You should vote to call the question, but not if it will prevent someone who needs to speak from speaking. Basically, if you are bored of debating a given bill, call the question. If you believe that calling the question would be a good underhand ploy to prevent somebody from speaking, don't call the question.

- Don’t speak right after someone spoke on your side, unless you absolutely have to (you probably don't have to).

- Don’t use precedence/recency to give the first pro speech if the writer of the bill is in the chamber and wants to speak. I have no idea if writing a bill allows you to give the first pro speech regardless of precedence and recency, but that should be a rule. This should give you an indication of my level of experience with Congress.

---

Policy/LD: If I am judging you in policy or LD, I might have a slight bias towards a more PF style of debate. Read my PF paradigm since most things will apply. I find the ideas and concepts in policy and LD interesting and worthwhile even though I'm not inclined to participate in those styles of debate. Just keep it under 300wpm, use PF-level lingo, and keep in mind I can flow spreading but I can't flow it as well as an actual policy or LD debater. I'm probably more down for progressive debate than most PF judges, especially in those events. I know I can be a hard judge to adapt to for circuit policy and LD, so I'll cut you some slack with speed and clear you like 10 times before I stop trying to flow.

---

BQ:

I judge BQ exactly like I judge PF, but obviously framework matters more because it's philosophy. Just read the PF section. It all applies.

I judge based on the quality of arguments that you advance on behalf of the resolution. That means you clearly state your claims, provide reputable evidence in support of those claims, and drive home the implications of your claims. Your arguments should be well-developed and category-relevant. Rarely do I find Kritiks persuasive.

Keep in mind that in public forum, the goal is for you to make arguments that are persuasive to a “citizen judge” or lay person. Thus, you should speak deliberately (at a reasonable pace) and clearly, avoid jargon, and demonstrate the logical connections between your evidence and claims, and the resolution. Style/delivery are important considerations but I am most interested in and persuaded by the quality of your arguments and evidence.

Please engage one another respectfully and respond directly to your opponents’ claims and evidence. Ad hominem attacks, grandstanding, and condescending remarks are not appropriate. Good debates, grounded in classical rhetoric, explore relevant claims and evidence, and empower the audience to make an informed decision.

My Background: More than 25 years of teaching argumentation, persuasion, and public speaking at the undergraduate level, a Ph.D. in communication and rhetoric, and a research focus on the implications of argumentation on public policy. I have been actively judging on local and national circuits since 2021.

I was a policy debater at Bronx Science in the 1980s and currently run the upper school public forum debate team at Nightingale Bamford. I flow and can handle speed, as long as it is clear. I listen to crossfire, but do not flow it. If there is something important said in CF that you need to win, please apply it during your next speech. No new arguments in summary or final focus, please. Also, it makes me a little crazy when people call for a million cards, and/or when a team takes 10 minutes to find evidence. You can be on the internet now and everyone is working off computers--there is really no reason on earth not to be able to provide your evidence if called for.

Lastly, and most importantly, I like debaters to clearly explain their arguments, and to weigh them. In a perfect round, debaters would be assertive but polite, enjoy themselves, and make it easy for me to know how to vote by weighing in the back end of the round. Overviews are find and can help frame things if there is something you want to emphasize, etc. Mostly just be clear and imagine what you would like to RFD to say....then say that ;-) Good luck and know how important this activity is and how much respect we judges have for you all. Best of luck.

WHile I am a policy coach, I have coached many LDers over the years and am traditional.

Debate History: I debated for Towson University & Binghamton University (4 years college).

First and foremost, I will not tell you how to engage in the debate. Whether it be policy or K affirmatives I'm open to debaters showcasing their research in any format they choose. However, I do prefer if debaters orient their affirmative construction towards the resolution. 

When evaluating a debate I tend to weigh the impacts of the affirmative to any disadvantage or impact the negative goes for in the 2NR. Therefore, if the affirmative does not extend case in the 2AR it becomes more difficult for me to evaluate the debate unless you tell me the specific argument I should be voting on otherwise. 

Next, is framework. I evaluate this before anything else in the debate. If you run framework in front of me go for decision making, policy research good, learning about X (insert topic related policy discussion i.e. warming, tech, economy, education, etc.) is good, clash or ground. I do not want to feel as though your framework is exclusionary to alternative debate formats but instead debate about its inherent benefits. 

I also really enjoy case debate. If you are on the negative please have case turns and case specific evidence so that the debate for me is a bit more specific and engaging. 

CP's and DA's are also arguments I evaluate but I need to have a good link for both or it will make it difficult for me to vote for them. 

Please focus more on explanation of evidence and not on the amount of evidence introduced in the debate. 

I tend to keep up on politics and critical literature so don't be afraid of running an argument in front of me. I will always ask for preferred pronouns and do not tolerate racism, white supremacy, anti-blackness, sexism, patriarchy, transphobia and xenophobia. 

About myself: I am a building substitute at Holland Middle School (in Council Rock School District) and an assistant speech/debate coach for Council Rock North.

In debate: I prefer a style of argumentation that fuses quality evidence with strong analytics. If you can clearly state your card's statistics and then connect them your argument, impact, and/or framework, that is a strong argument that will win my attention (quality of cards over quantity). Please try to speak at a pace that allows me to understand you so that I can effectively take notes about your case --- no 'spreading' (do not skip syllables while you speak). Also, please clarify arguments at the end and make evidence very clear on the flow.

In speech, depending on the event, my focus will be on your vocalization/delivery (volume, tone, flow, fluency), performance/blocking (gestures, facial expressions, movements), and cohesion and comprehension of ideas and/or scenes. My attention is very easily grabbed with passionate acting, so strong control of facial expressions and tone of voice are good ways to receive high marks.

Good luck and have fun!

A parent judge with 2 years of judging experience. Still not a technical judge, I prefer the debater state your point slowly and clearly. Also, when you can, please email me (wenyaohu@gmail.com) your cases or arguments so I can follow your arguments better.

Debate is about how you present your research and analysis work. It is about the quality of you work, not the quantity, nor how fast you can speak. If you try to jam 10 arguments with 20 sources within 4 minutes of time, I probably will not be able to follow your thought.

So

1. State your point clearly
2. Give data/source directly support your point
3. Provide a clear link between your source and point
4. Finish with a firm conclusion

Greetings everyone! My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director of forensics at The Bronx High School of Science in New York City. I am excited to judge your round! Considering you want to spend the majority of time prepping from when pairings are released and not reading my treatise on debate, I hope you find this paradigm "cheat sheet" helpful in your preparation.

2023 TOC Congress Update

Congratulations on qualifying to the 2023 TOC! It's a big accomplishment to be here in this room and all of you are to be commended on your dedication and success. My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director at Bronx Science. I have judged congress a lot in the past, including two TOC final rounds, but I have found myself judging more PF and Policy in recent years. To help you prepare, here's what I would like to see in the round:

Early Speeches -- If you are the sponsor or early speaker, make sure that I know the key points that should be considered for the round. If you can set the parameters of the discourse of the debate, you will probably have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Middle Speeches -- Refute, advance the debate, and avoid rehash, obviously. However, this doesn't mean you can't bring up a point another debater has already said, just extend it and warrant your point with new evidence or with a new perspective. I often find these speeches truly interesting and you can have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Late speeches -- I think a good crystallization speech can be the best opportunity to give an amazing speech during the round. To me, a good crystal speech is one of the hardest speeches to give. This means that a student who can crystal effectively can often rank 1st or 2nd on my ballot. This is not always the case, of course, but it really is an impressive speech.

Better to speak early or late for your ballot? It really doesn't matter for me. Wherever you are selected to speak by the PO, do it well, and you will have a great chance of ranking on my ballot. One thing -- I think a student who can show diversity in their speaking ability is impressive. If you speak early on one bill, show me you can speak later on the next bill and the skill that requires.

What if I only get one speech? Will I have any chance to rank on your ballot? Sometimes during the course of a congress round, some students are not able to get a second speech or speak on every bill. I try my very best to evaluate the quality of a speech versus quantity. To me, there is nothing inherently better about speaking more or less in a round. However, when you get the chance to speak, question, or engage in the round, make the most of it. I have often ranked students with one speech over students who spoke twice, so don't get down. Sometimes knowing when not to speak is as strategic as knowing when to speak.

Questioning matters to me. Period. I am a big fan of engaging in the round by questioning. Respond to questions strongly after you speak and ask questions that elicit concessions from your fellow competitors. A student who gives great speeches but does not engage fully in questioning throughout the round stands little chance of ranking high on my ballot.

The best legislator should rank first. Congress is an event where the best legislator should rank first. This means that you have to do more than just speak well, or refute well, or crystal well, or question well. You have to engage in the "whole debate." To me, what this means is that you need to speak and question well, but also demonstrate your knowledge of the rules of order and parliamentary procedure. This is vital for the PO, but competitors who can also demonstrate this are positioning themselves to rank highly on my ballot.

Have fun! Remember, this activity is a transformative and life changing activity, but it's also fun! Enjoy the moment because you are at THE TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS! It's awesome to be here and don't forget to show the joy of the moment. Good luck to everyone!

2023 - Policy Debate Update

I have judged many debates across all events except for policy debate. You should consider me a newer policy judge and debate accordingly. Here are some general thoughts to consider as you prepare for the round:

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Non-Topical Arguments: I am unlikely to understand Ks or non-topical arguments. I DO NOT have an issue with these arguments on principle, but I will not be able to evaluate the round to the level you would expect or prefer.

Topicality: I am not experienced with topicality policy debates. If you decide to run these arguments, I cannot promise that I will make a decision you will be satisfied with, but I will do my best.

Line-by-line: Please move methodically through the flow and tell me the order before begin your speech.

Judge Instruction: In each rebuttal speech, please tell me how to evaluate your arguments and why I should be voting for you. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.

Speed: Please slow down substantially on tags and analytics. You can probably spread the body of the card but you must slow down on the tags and analytics in order for me to understand your arguments. Do not clip cards. I will know if you do.

PF Paradigm - Please see the following for my Public Forum paradigm.

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Cheat sheet:

General overview FOR PUBLIC FORUM

Experience: I've judged PF TOC finals-X------------------------------------------------- I've never judged

Tech over truth: Tech -------x------------------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with PF speed: Fast, like policy fast ---------x--------------------------------------- lay judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory ------x------------------------------ not receptive to theory

Some general PF thoughts from Crawford Leavoy, director of Durham Academy in North Carolina. I agree with the following very strongly:

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should be very good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

Now, back to my thoughts. Here is the impact calculus that I try to use in the round:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing x----------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----------x------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact -------------------------x----------------------- Not a severe impact

(One word about magnitude: I have a very low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts. Probability weighing really matters for my ballot)

Quick F.A.Q:

Defense in first summary? Depends if second rebuttal frontlines, if so, then yes, I would expect defense in first summary.

Offense? Any offense you want me to vote on should be in either case or rebuttal, then both summary and final focus.

Flow on paper or computer? I flow on paper, every time, to a fault. Take that for what you will. I can handle speed, but clarity is always more important than moving fast.

What matters most to get your ballot? Easy: comparative weighing. Plain and simple.

I think you do this by first collapsing in your later speeches. Boil it down to 2-3 main points. This allows for better comparative weighing. Tell me why your argument matters more than your opponents. The team that does this best will 99/100 times get my ballot. The earlier this starts to happen in your speeches, the better.

Overviews: Do it! I really like them. I think they provide a framework for why I should prefer your world over your opponent's world. Doing this with carded evidence is even better.

Signpost: It's very easy to get lost when competitors go wild through the flow. You must be very clear and systematic when you are moving through the flow. I firmly believe that if I miss something that you deem important, it's your fault, not mine. To help with this, tell me where you are on the flow. Say things like...

"Look to their second warrant on their first contention, we turn..."

Clearly state things like links, turns, extensions, basically everything! Tell me where you are on the flow.

Also, do not just extend tags, extend the ideas along with the tags. For example:

"Extend Michaels from the NYTimes that stated that a 1% increase in off shore drilling leads to a..."

Evidence: I like rigorous academic sources: academic journals and preeminent news sources (NYT, WashPo, etc.). You can paraphrase, but you should always tell me the source and year.

Theory in PF: I'm growing very receptive to it, but it really should be used to check back against abuse in round.

Pronouns: I prefer he/him/his and I kindly ask that you respect your opponents preferred gender pronoun.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds. This portion on speed is credited to Chetan Hertzig, head coach of Harrison High School (NY). I share very similar thoughts regarding speed and spreading.

• Parent Judge, your job is to convince ME why you have won, think as if you're presenting to a person who has no idea about the topic
• Don't speak too fast. Spreading or reading too fast will cost you, might not catch arguments on the flow
• Eye contacts and body languages are also important

Voting Issues

• Direct clashes between arguments
• Weighing the two arguments

I cannot stress this enough, but please speak slowly and make sure to reiterate your points.

Most of all, respect your opponents and have fun!

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

----------------------------------------

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and have their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

Hello Debaters,

I have resumed my debate participation after a long break last year. I enjoy Public Forum judging and coaching.

I don't have speaker preferences and will judge mainly on flow, and the overall case. I weigh the round on the established parameters, each team's framework, and how the speakers appeal their case. I accept spreading as much as anyone in the field. Have fun, debate is a wonderful life experience!

For email chains sga1011@gmail.com

Hi! I am a current second-year student at Princeton University and debated in World Schools for Team Malaysia, and British Parliamentary tournaments. I may not be the most familiar with updates to PF rules.

In terms of style, I value clarity most, please don't spread and speak at a reasonable pace.

I appreciate evidence to substantiate claims, but evidence/cards themselves do not stand without analysis and reasoning to prove the validity of a phenomenon/trend in the majority of circumstances. Laying out the incentives/warrants to prove your claim can set your argument above your opponent’s. While this may be necessary at times, please avoid fixating on the credibility of various sources of evidence; such disputes should not be the crux of the round.

In general, I appreciate teams with strong strategic focus, who show me why their arguments are, not only true, but also more important. Such teams usually do multi-layered refutations, where they take the other team at their best and still prove why the case stands. They should also have a clear path to victory in their later speeches. In general, teams with strong awareness regarding the dynamics of the round do well.

Regarding equity, please do not resort to ad hominem attacks during crossfire sessions. Avoid interrupting a speaker and keep your questions/comments concise. Please be sensitive to all speakers and stakeholders mentioned in the round as well.

Based on past experience, I am a very generous judge in terms of awarding speaker points, so do not worry about your performance and enjoy the round. I look forward to watching you debate and am wishing you all the best! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me anything before the round or contact me at wl5294@princeton.edu.

Brookelyn Leblanc

she/her/hers

LSU '21 (geaux tigers)

This will be my first time judging, but I've received some training and I forward to hearing you debate! I have a theater background, so strong rhetorical skills and presentation will contribute to your speaker points, while your actual argumentation will determine my ballot. I'll do my best to flow you, but PLEASE speak at a conversational pace, limit your jargon, and time yourselves. Be polite to your partner, and each other, and have fun.

Typical parent/lay judge. Engineer by training. Please don't run any unrealistic scenarios, I like my impacts simple and easy to understand. Don't spread and don't read over 200 wpm. I will do my best to walk into the room with a clean slate and leave all preconceived notions at the door. I wish all of you good luck and look forward to hearing thoughtful arguments that are easy to understand.

David Levin (he/him/his)

Head Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT

Email Chain: levind@stlukesct.org

All Formats

be decent to one another (this includes your partner). don't use oppressive rhetoric. put me on the email chain.

Paradigms for PF, PD, and LD below.

----------------------------------------------------------

Public Forum

>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for Kritiks. i'm a pretty good judge for theory. this format has so much potential for innovation - don't be afraid to try something different/new.

General:

"Progressive debate" debate doesn't mean much to me. I love to evaluate kritik and framework debates. I like evaluating purposeful T and theory rounds (I'd especially like to see more fiat debates). I also like judging a good salt-of-the-earth "substance" round. I don't enjoy evaluating what you might call "tricks", but I'll judge them fairly. I'm not here to tell you what you can't run (outside of oppressive/exclusionary arguments). It's good to interrogate the normative expectations of PF debate, and to have discussions of what forms of exclusion undergird debate, and specifically this format, to begin with. I likethis article from Stefan Bauschard a lot.

Housekeeping:

Please pre-flow and create the email chain before the round. Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting (see "Evidence"). If you have a shell (T, theory, etc), please send it in the card doc. Let's work together to trim down the time spent on evidence exchanges.

DO NOT send a "locked" document to me or your opponents. This is a competitive equity AND academic integrity concern.

Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one.

Speaking:

Speed/spreading is fine with some exceptions. Arguments presented in shell form (T, theory, etc) should be read more deliberately than case, otherwise I may miss an important warrant.

If you have an auditory processing concern, please address it with your opponents rather than me whenever possible. If someone comes to you with an auditory processing concern, accommodate them. Be good to each other.

How I flow:

I flow digitally, and divide my flow by contentions. For contentions with multiple subpoints, just make sure you sign post. I flow warrants and read card docs during crossfire and prep, so don't just extend your author/tag.

I don't judge-extend or judge-kick whenever possible (maybe once in a while in a novice round).

I flow overviews at the top of the first contention. I'd rather flow weighing on the contentions individually, rather than en-masse at the bottom of the speech.

How I evaluate:

A-priori arguments are, as the name implies, evaluated first. Absent an a-priori debate, I go to framing.

Framing should be complementary to your impact/weighing. If framing is not argued, or if both teams drop framing, I default to utilitarianism. Once the framework debate is resolved (if there is one), I move to the contentions.

I like comparative link weighing a lot. Speculative impacts require a bit more work on uniqueness than empiric impacts. I think the status quo can be an impact in itself.

If neither team is able to garner offense, presumption defaults to the side of the resolution which most resembles the status quo. Presumption can be flipped if the status quo is the impact.

Crossfire is binding.

Speaker Points:

I average around a 28.7 for varsity rounds. For a well-executed technical debate, expect something in the 28.8-29.4 realm. Above a 29.5 is reserved for performances that "stick to the ribs", demonstrating both technical mastery and rhetorical salience. Remember that debate is largely a practice in storytelling.

Specific Arguments

Topical "normative" Cases:

Truth is determined by the flow, and I don't judge-extend or kick arguments. Otherwise, do what you do. Turns rock.

Topical "critical" Cases:

Win your framework and role of the ballot. "Role of the judge" feels redundant, but if you make a distinction between my role and my ballot's role, I'll listen.

Again, links and solvency usually the most vulnerable components of the case. K solvency shouldn't be restricted to discourse - but what does the fiat-ed adoption of the critical worldview look like?

Textual alts that suggest specific actions get a little too close to plans/counterplans for comfort - instead, "vote [your side] to endorse/reject [something]", then go win the link.

These rounds are where I can offer my most helpful feedback, whether you're running a K or debating against one.

Non-topical criticisms:

Win your framework. Explain why the criticism is a prerequisite to topical debate, answer the TVA/TVN, and the perm.

Remember that I default presume to the side of the ballot closest to the status quo, whether you're reading a Non-T K or debating against one.

Presumption can be flipped either way. If you do a performance or narrative of some sort, implicate that stylistic choice.

"Off-case" Criticisms:

I'm not quite as fond of these for time constraint reasons (they often result in messy back-halves), so if you read one, do so in 2nd constructive or first rebuttal.

If you're critiquing a specific problematic discourse your opponent advances, consider running it as a short theory shell instead (example: I don't need you to spend 120 seconds dissecting gendered structures of power to claim misgendering is bad - it's pretty straightforward).

Topicality:

I prefer T be read in shell form with an interpretation, violation, standards and voter(s).

I believe that fairness is an internal link to various more objective impacts, rather than an impact itself. If you go for "drop the team" on T, it should be the whole FF.

T against kritiks should center standards for why I should hold the line for the resolution.

Theory:

Strong theory debates should focus on defining best practices for the activity.

"Theory bad" arguments are inherently theory arguments themselves and I'll evaluate them the same way I evaluate other forms of theory.

I prefer competing interpretations, but if the theory is clearly infinitely regressive or needlessly punitive, my threshold for reasonability lowers. This is especially true for theory "tricks".

Disclosure is good; Open-source disclosure is the gold standard; from my experience and observation, disclosure serves to benefit small programs and under-resourced programs; community minimums for disclosure are debatable. Paraphrasing, rather than reading actual evidence, is unethical.

Evidence:

Cut cards are an ethical standard for debate and non-negotiable at the varsity circuit level. Paraphrasing is not an automatic loss, but I will have no basis to trust your analytics absent you producing a marked copy of your evidence.

I have a low threshold for voting for paraphrasing theory against you, absent a performative contradiction from the other team.

Novices should learn to cut cards, but for them this a goal, not an expectation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Policy:

I'm a little rusty, but regularly judged policy between 2016 and 2020. K v. K and K v. FW/T rounds were my favorites.

Hello again! It's been a minute! If you have me in a policy round, my most important request is that you help me flow you. I can normally follow at decently quick speeds, but if I "clear" you, it's a request for you to help me catch what you're saying. Sign posting is important and please please read tags and shells more slowly than your internals.

I debated policy in HS and coached/judged for a few years before moving to more PF. That said, policy directly informed the way I coach and evaluate PF. I don't have particularly strong opinions about most arguments, so run what you're good at running. I understand that this is quite vague, so if you're unsure how you'll pref me, or what to run in front of me, just ask.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln-Douglas:

Run what you want, but understand that I don't know the norms as well here.

You can likely infer my judging style from the PF and Policy sections above. Any questions, just send an email.

Parent judge for Germantown Friends School.

Speak clearly, speak confidently, and do not be aggressive. Keep the environment comfortable.

Explain your argument clearly. Speak slow and articulate. I will try not to intervene but if I am not sure what is going on I will have no choice.

Hello!

Bronx Science 23' Princeton 27'

My name is Evan Li (He/Him). I debated Public Forum for 4 years at Bronx Science.

Email chains/Questions/Feedback: el2319@princeton.edu

Please be respectful to your opponents and the judge (me) during the round. I believe that debate should be a fun and educational activity so anything that infringes on that will upset me. I usually give reasonable speaker points but I will dock points for rudeness.

I will try my best to give everyone feedback on their individual speeches and on the round as a whole at the end. Feel free to ask me questions.

General info:

• I’m a flow judge, tech > truth

• Please give me warranting for all your contentions

• I listen to cross but generally don’t flow it

• I try to flow card names but don’t expect me to know what the card is saying just by repeating the tagline.

• I’m fine with speed, as long as you’re not spreading

• Running prog args is fine, just run it by your opponents first
• I'm also not a prog debater so keep in mind I won't be very good at flowing it; tldr run it at your own risk

DO NOTS:

Do NOT: make sexist, racist, homophobic, discriminatory, hateful etc. comments in or out of round.

Do NOT: harass or berate anyone participating in the round.

I will decimate your speaks and immediately drop you if you do either of these, and I will most definitely be reporting it to your coach and tournament staff.

Good luck to everyone competing and have fun!

'24 Spring Note: Being at nationals is a huge achievement (and privilege) and I hope you are all incredibly proud of yourselves for having made it through a year of debate as the world falls apart over and over. I take my role as a judge especially seriously now because I know that this competition is incredibly important to the debaters. I also see now as a more critical time than ever to ensure that our research projects in debate are based in facts, not fascism. On a personal level, please remember that this is one weekend out of your whole life, and I hope sincerely that you are taking care of yourself, your mental, and your physical wellbeing during the tournament and after.

Who I am

I (she/her) debated college policy (CEDA/NDT) at The New School, where I started as a college novice. I read Ks that were research projects about things I cared about. I value debate for its educational value, the research skills it builds, and the community it fosters. I have no issue dropping speaks or ballots for people who undermine the educational value of the activity by making people defend their personhood.

**I will be wearing a mask. I don't know y'all or where you've been and I don't want you to breathe on me. It's not personal. Please ask me for any other accessibility accommodations you need before the round and I will do my best to make the round comfortable for you!

For all formats (specifics below)

Email for the chain: newschoolBL@gmail.com

I vote on the flow. Do what you're good at and I will evaluate it: what is below are the biases I will default to without judge instruction, but if I am given instruction, I will take it. If provided them, I follow ROBs and ROJs seriously in framing my decision. I have voted both on the big picture and on technicalities.

I am excited to be in your debate, especially so if you are a novice, and I would love to chat post RFD if you have questions! :)

Policy:

DAs, CPs: Fine, no strong opinions here.

Ks: Yes, fine, good. Explain your links and your impact framing.

T: Hate when blippy, like when thorough & well-explained and have voted on T when it has won the debate many times. I am unlikely to vote on an education impact vs a K aff, though.

High theory for all of the above: Explain yourself. I don't vote on arguments I don't understand.

Likes: Clear spreading, smart debating, impact calculus, well-warranted arguments, case debate, thorough research, debaters from small schools.

Dislikes: Unnecessary hostility, bad evidence, blippy T blocks, strategies that rely on clowning your opponents, mumbling when spreading.

I am by far most comfortable in clash and KvK debates. I don't really care about policy v policy, but will give it the proper attention if put in them.

Public Forum:

If you don't share evidence, strike me. And also re-evaluate your ethical orientations.

Non-negotiables:

1) Email chain. The first speakers should set up the email chain BEFORE the round start time, include everyone debating and me, and share their full cases with evidence in a verbatim or Word document (if you have a chromebook, and in no other instances, a google doc is fine).

2) Evidence. Your evidence must be read and presented in alignment with the intent of whatever source you are citing. I care about evidence quality, and I care about evidence ethics. If you are paraphrasing or clipping, I will vote you down without hesitation. It's cheating and it's unethical.

Debate is a communication activity, but it is also a research activity, and I think that the single most important portable skill we gain from it is our ability to ethically produce argumentation and present it to an audience. I believe that PF has egregious evidence-sharing practices, and I will not participate in them.

I like smart debating, clear impact calculus, and well-warranted arguments.Do what you're good at and I'm with you! This includes your funky arguments.

I am fine with speed, but going fast does not make you a smarter or better debater and will not make me like you more.Debate is above all else a communication activity that is at its best when it's used for education. I can't stand it when more experienced or more resourced teams use a speed strategy to be incomprehensible to the other team so they drop things. It's bad debating and it perpetuates the worst parts of this activity.

Please be as physically comfortable as possible!! I do not care what you are wearing or whether you sit or stand. It will have literally zero impact on my decision.

I am far less grumpy and much more friendly than the PF section of my paradigm might make me seem. I love debate and go to tournaments voluntarily. See you in round!

Hi! I am a current third-year student at Princeton University and debated in World Schools for Team China, British Parliamentary, and PF tournaments. In recent years, however, I have competed mainly in WSDC and BP, so I may not be the most familiar with updates to PF rules.

In terms of style, I’m able to flow relatively fast speakers, but please don't spread.

I appreciate evidence to substantiate claims, but evidence/cards themselves do not stand without analysis and reasoning to prove the validity of a phenomenon/trend in the majority of circumstances. Laying out the incentives/warrants to prove your claim can set your argument above your opponent’s. While this may be necessary at times, please avoid fixating on the credibility of various sources of evidence; such disputes should not be the crux of the round.

In general, I appreciate teams with strong strategic focus, who show me why their arguments are, not only true, but also more important. Such teams usually do multi-layered refutations, where they take the other team at their best and still prove why the case stands. They should also have a clear path to victory in their later speeches. In general, teams with strong awareness regarding the dynamics of the round do well.

Regarding equity, please do not resort to ad hominem attacks during crossfire sessions. Avoid interrupting a speaker and keep your questions/comments concise. Please be sensitive to all speakers and stakeholders mentioned in the round as well.

Based on past experience, I am a very generous judge in terms of awarding speaker points, so do not worry about your performance and enjoy the round. I look forward to watching you debate and am wishing you all the best! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me anything before the round or contact me at jl2127@princeton.edu.

As a parent, I have been following PF for several years and am familiar with the format, but this is the first year and fourth tournament I serve as lay judge.

In my daily job, I am a scientist focused on Stem Cell research, and English is my second language.

If you could, please send constructive documents to ylinster@gmail.com before the round so I can better follow your speech while you are speaking.

Please speak in conversation speed that I could follow along. No spreading as I have difficulty keeping up with fast pace.

I will not time speeches but expect the debaters to do so and watch their opponents.

I value debates showcasing constructive, logic arguments supported by solid evidence. I highly appreciate the skillful addressing of opponents' flaws or claims during crossfire, and final conclusion.

Please be polite and respectful. Personal attacks to the opponents or bullying are not tolerated.

I assure you that I will be unbiased and will work diligently to give a fair decision.

Enjoy the game!

email: cbm2158@columbia.edu

I am a judge and coach for Brooklyn Technical High School. I mostly coach public forum now, but I have more experience with policy. I competed on the national policy circuit in high school ten years ago. I am currently a PhD student in English and Comparative Literature.

I do my best to maintain a detailed flow and place a premium on clear and consistent signposting.

I like Ks and theory, but I think they are difficult to run well in public forum.

I don't typically ask for evidence after the round unless there is some contention about what a piece of evidence actually says. Flag it in your speech, and I'll be happy to look.

Feel free to raise any other questions or concerns before the round!

Treat me like a lay judge. Please be polite, and keep the debate at a conversational speed and tone. Do not sensationalize your case--keep the impacts realistic. It will be easier to vote for you if the case seems both practical and plausible. Also, weigh and explain your sources so we can keep evidence debates and exchanges to a minimum. As a side note, I will probably be in the room early, especially for the first flight, so figure I'm going to do my best to start a round as soon as possible.

Great Communicator Series: Please refer to just the Main PF Paradigm and the GCS Rules.

Background:I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
• Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but also know if you aren't clear, it will be harder for me to flow.
• Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
• Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
• I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

• Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
• Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
• ***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

Hello everyone, I'm Vinayak. I'm a current first-year at Princeton. I competed for 4 years in VPF in the national circuit and served as the captain of the USA National Debate Team in World Schools.

I can flow relatively fast speakers, but if you are going to spread, send a case doc to me and your opponents.

Because this is PF, I prefer tech over truth. But, the more crazy your argument is, the more warranting I'm going to need to flow it through.

Don't clip or misrepresent evidence and don't make me have to call for a million cards after the round is over. I also care a lot more about your warranting than what some random author says.

Teams that win will weigh impacts, meta-weigh, properly frontline case, and show a clear path to the ballot by FF. Also, when extending evidence, don't just tell me the author/date; give me the specific warrant you want me to flow through.

You can read theory or kritiks, but I'm not going to lie, I'm not the greatest at evaluating non-topical stuff.

Making jokes and/or references to Kendrick, Cole, or Tyler the Creator during speeches or cross will result in a bump in speaker points.

Don't be mean, disrespectful, or cut people off during crossfire. It's genuinely not that deep.

Email is vm2850@princeton.edu

I coach PF at Phillipsburg High School and am a pretty standard PF judge. I make my decisions based on weighing, rhetoric, topical arguments and argumentative structure.

PF Paradigm:

Email Chains: Do not include me on any email/evidence chains, I trust and expect you to present any evidence fairly and accurately. If there is a lot of argument on a specific piece of evidence (or more) I will ask for that card and evaluate it .

Progressive Debate: I’ll never drop anyone based solely on their case (unless it is offensive or otherwise egregious) but I will say that running theory or a K won’t get you very far with me. I’m open to the idea of a good faith interrogation of the logic of a particular resolution but just I would say don’t do it unless you have something really good.

Weighing: To me, comparative weighing and clear impacts are the bread and butter of debate. Impacts should be explicit and clearly backed up. I value clear PF debate: good frameworks from the start of the debate, I care very heavily about impact-driven debates, and good weighing.

Other Notes:

• Frontlining in the second rebuttal is crucial.

• Spell out any links, turns and extensions clearly. I don't just want to hear the cards, I need to know what piece of evidence you are using. So don't say "Extend the Johnson card," Say "Extend the Johnson card which says a increase in..."

• Be sure to Signpost. A messy debate makes for a worse decision, so for everyone's sake it's good to know where we are on the flow

• Keep it civil during crossfire and grand crossfire

• I am usually good with speed but if you start spreading, I will stop writing. If you are going too fast i will motion to you to slow down

• I will almost certainly not buy your nuclear war impact unless it is directly related to the resolution

• If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I can and will drop you

Shreeram Modi (he/him)

Lynbrook '22, currently at NYU.

I'd like to be on the chain, ask for my email before the round if you don't have it.

You can find my full judging record here.

TL;DR

I am tech over truth – I find that any line a judge will draw to exclude "silly" arguments, arguments too "generic" to supposedly rejoin the aff, or burdens for a position to be "substantive" enough are all arbitrary and thus I choose to not draw them. The only exception to this is the 2AR, where I will protect the 2NR from new arguments that could not have been expected from what was in the 1AR. Truth influences tech to the extent that a profoundly untrue claim will require a higher burden of execution to win when contested, but contestation is required for me to question the validity of an argument.

Procedure

I care much less about form than most – Fully open cross-ex, flex prep, taking cross-ex as prep, etc. are almost always fine with me. Your time is your time and you can do with it whatever you feel will maximize your chances of winning. The only thing that is set in stone is the number of speeches you have and your speech time, which you may not extend.

Deciding a Round – I will list the arguments flagged in the 2NR/2AR, resolving each in favor of either side until a sufficient win condition has been met. For each argument won/lost, I will ask myself what winning this gets the aff/neg, and whether losing this can still allow them to win the debate. I have read arguments across the spectrum and only feel uncomfortable evaluating the following debates: phil vs phil, tricks vs tricks, K vs high theory K, dense CP competition.

Kritik

– Policy (Aff) vs Kritik (Neg)

2NR either needs framework and links that say plan focus/the aff's rhetoric is bad or needs the alt + links to the plan and says the plan is bad. A 2NR on framework does not need the alt the aff's performance generates uniqueness. Similarly, the 2NR with links to the plan does not need framework to generate uniqueness because the alt should function as a uniqueness cp.

Examples are key – "In-depth knowledge of your theory is not a substitute for historical examples. Tailor your offense to specific lines from your opponents' evidence instead of relying on jargon. If I cannot explain the K in your words after the round or articulate how it solves, I will likely presume for the other team." –Nick Tilmes

Don't forget about your 1AC – "Long framing contentions in the 1AC which don't get extended into later speeches and 2ACs that include every generic K answer are disappointing to watch and a blow to your credibility." –Nick Tilmes

– Kritik (Aff) vs Policy (Neg)

Don't forget about your 1AC – When the 1AC spends a lot of time justifying a broad-sweeping claim of the world and their first response to the politics DA is "Biden wins now," you have just lost all your credibility. Responses to off-case positions, including DAs/CPs, should leverage your 1AC. Otherwise, you are better suited just reading a policy aff.

Agnostic about what T impact you go for – I have only ever gone for clash, but know the fairness 2NR can be strategic and has its place. Go for whatever you want.

Recycled T blocks are boring – It's obvious when you have barely changed your T blocks in the context of the aff, and these rounds not only become incredibly boring, but incredibly winnable for the aff if they invest time into argument specificity.

1NCs vs K affs should be bigger – Frame subtraction, impact turns, DAs to test whether they'll defend the topic, etc. can be very strategic.

CP

Judge kick – It's good, but has to be on my flow by the 2NR.

Prefer competition debates over theory since the latter usually presumes that you've won the counterplan isn't competitive.

Better than most for process – see stuff at the top about tech > truth.

DA

Politics DA – It's a thing.

"No war ever" probably not the correct move to frame out DAs. Prefer indicts of util or epistemology.

T

I have not thought about the LD topic at all. Don't know what people agree "WA" or "NA" is or what counts as military presence. Explain your stuff.

T 2NRs that win usually explain to me a vision of what the topic looks like and give me things like examples of topical/non-topical affs, caselists of arguments they lose, and reasons why the aff's specific plan leads to that abuse.

The more cards the better.

Phil & Tricks

Prefer logic tricks with actual warrants to the same recycled theory spikes.

I am very comfortable giving an RFD of "I did not catch that argument" which means you should slow down in these debates or have your warrants be longer than 3 words.

LD judges are too trigger-happy to vote for tricks – Yes, tech over truth, but if you are going for Curry's Paradox ("Condo Logic" is NOT the name of the argument) and can not explain to me what exactly I'm voting for, but just assert a bunch of formal logic in my face, you will lose and the RFD will be "I don't have a coherent warrant flowed."

Misc

Debaters should be flowing – You don't need to flash analytics, doing so is a courtesy but not necessary. Similarly, there is no flow clarification slot in debate; cards should be marked orally but you do not need to specify which cards/arguments you did or did not read. Ask for a version of the doc without the cards not read and I will ask that you start cross-ex or prep.

Speaker Points – they are mine, not yours; I will not evaluate speaker point theory. The logical conclusion of evaluating this genre of arguments is that everyone reads and agrees to speaks theory at which point they serve no purpose.

I do not feel comfortable adjudicating call outs, events that occurred outside the debate that I did not witness, arguments related to prefs (or in that genre). Y'all are high schoolers and it is not my business.

Public Forum:

NOTE: I don't know what compels PF debaters to immediately start speeches without verbal confirmation that everyone in the room is ready. If you don't ask me whether I am ready for your speech and just immediately begin talking, I will miss arguments you make and you will not have the opportunity to restart your speech.

Although the majority of my experience in debate has been on the national circuit, once upon a time I did trad debate too so if that's your jam feel free. I don't care about the content of your argument so long as you can present it coherently. What this means is that given PF's speech times, it's maybe not the best idea to pull your varsity policy team's backfile Baudrillard K but rather to read arguments you're comfortable with, while upping your tech.

That being said, I find some of the norms in the PF community either unproductive or exhausting. I would very strongly prefer that all the cards you read are sent out in a word doc to an email chain before your speech rather than wasting time "calling for" cards during prep. I strongly believe that paraphrasing is a terrible norm for any academic activity and as such will treat any paraphrased evidence with the same weight as an analytic.

It seems logical to me that arguments must be referenced in next speeches for them to count, and must be responded to in your next speech to not be considered dropped. I.e. the second rebuttal must frontline case, summary speeches must extend frontlines and rebuttals, etc.

Any other norms I am either unaware of or agnostic about, feel free to ask before the round but chances are I will defer to the consensus between you and your opponents. This also means that PF vocab (e.g. "defense is sticky") means nothing to me.

Email: cm3054@princeton.edu if you need it for any reason, I prefer docs to email chains but up to you, I like to be shared on the evidence.

TL;DR: Ex-PF debater currently a sophomore at Princeton. Don't spread, for the love of all things debate signpost, weigh WELL, I won't flow after time for speech is up. I'm not well-versed in theory or K's; you're welcome to run it but I can't guarantee I'll understand it. Won't drop you for misconstrued ev but I won't consider it in my eval of the round.

Me: I'm a current Princeton student and ex-debater with 4 years of PF experience. I went to several National Circuit tournaments and won a few local ones. As I was a flow debater, I would consider myself a flow judge; I'm not necessarily up to date on what has happened in the world of PF in the past ~3 years.

Timing: Since I'm judging varsity, please time yourselves. If your opponent is over time, that's up to you to call them out.

Speed: Speak as fast as you would like as long as you aren't spreading. Take that to LD or some other form of debate where spreading is welcome. I'll accept a speech doc if you want to spread, but if you spread without one I'll dock your speaks significantly.

Theory/Kritiks: I am not well-versed in either (again, I haven't been in the PF space in years). I'm decently familiar with disclosure theory but in all honesty I find it somewhat idiotic and get bored listening to rounds entirely on this topic. You're welcome to argue it though. Assume I don't know theory jargon/terms so please make sure to briefly explain them. I can't guarantee I will understand how to incorporate theory and/or K's into my evaluation of the round but run it at your own risk. I really dislike theory run against opponents who aren't familiar with it - imo that's mean and an abusive way to pick up wins, I'll likely drop you if you do this. I'm generally not a fan and think this stuff belongs in other forms of debate unless you are genuinely trying to change the debate space and not just trying to use it to win.

Signposting: Hopefully the following reminder should only apply to novices - PLEASE SIGNPOST! (AKA, "In my opponents' contention 1, [tagline], they say xyz. In response, we say zyx.") In the words of my favorite debater, Dorothea Newman, signpost so much that I feel like I'm driving in a construction zone. My biggest pet peeve is not signposting. I also appreciate numbered responses and if you do this I'll give you decently high speaks; it just makes my flows pretty. I will subtract -1 speaks if you fail to ever signpost in the round.

Weighing: Make sure to do a good job weighing, I would rather vote off of who does a better job weighing than my own personal view of impacts. Additionally - you can't just say "we win off of probability and magnitude (insert other weighing buzzwords)", you must tell me why your argument is more probable/has a greater magnitude. Metaweighing is great.

Reasons for drops: I can and will drop you if you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. Xoxo. Maybe if you run really abusive theory against opponents who are not familiar with theory.

Misconstrued evidence: As disclosure becomes more common within debate, we're seeing less of this, but that being said I won't drop a team for misconstrued evidence, but I will consider that piece of evidence null if it's sufficiently proven to be misconstrued.

Extra: Make the debate interesting!!

Good luck and please don't postround me. I'm just a tired college student. You'll live. Also more than happy to email you a picture of my annotated flows if you don't find the RFD sufficient.

I'm a parent volunteer judge. I did parliamentary debate in Ireland in the late 1980s — in other words, I know little about contemporary American PF jargon. I've been listening, and I've read the paradigms of fellow judges who have deep and recent PF experience and I'm slowly learning from them! Learning on the job, from judging, from talking to coaches and from talking to my daughter who debates.

So what do I understand? I want to understand you! Speak slowly, I want to follow your argument, and I want to feel like you're having a powerfully felt conversation with your opponents and with me. Don't talk at me, talk with me. Use tone intentionally. I'm your kind but slightly cranky uncle at the Thanksgiving table, you want to persuade me. You can use warmth and humor, as well as clarity and ruthlessness. Give me facts, but give me a point of view.

Lastly, and above all. Listen to your opponent. Really truly listen to them. Don’t talk over each other, but also don’t take a minute to ask your “question”—“don’t take up cross.” Try to understand the very heart of their argument. If you "block" the heart of their argument, you are more likely to win than five little nitpicks. (Yes, I'm learning, I know what "block" means, and heart of the argument is another way, perhaps, of "weighing"—the heart weighs more than five nitpicks..)

One last thing—my day job is as an executive and leadership coach. In that capacity I work a lot with leaders of large organizations, often helping with public speaking and executive presence. Show leadership, gravitas, charisma and presence out there!

Truly the last thing: a debater told me I should say, Truth over tech. Though her coach pointed out that’d be pretty obvious from the above.

PF Paradigm 2023-2024 Season:

Email: sebastiennordenson@gmail.com

Debate Experience:

I'm a freshman at Princeton University studying either Physics or Econ and a member of the Princeton Debate Panel and the Princeton Model UN team. I went to high school at Trinity School in New York City. I did public forum all four years of high school. I won the 2021 Varsity New York State Championship, won the 2021 Varsity tournament at Georgetown, placed tenth at 2021 TOC silver, and was 6th best speaker at 2022 TOC Gold.

General Round Preferences:

1. Tech>Truth

2. I care more about underlying warrants than I do about cards. As a debater you should always be asking "why?"

3. Weigh. Weighing determines the winners of close rounds. Tell me why your argument or your impact is more important. If you and your opponent weigh using different mechanisms (i.e. magnitude vs probability, scope vs magnitude, etc.) tell me why I should prefer yours.

4. I listen to crossfire but what happens in cross does not affect my decision unless you bring it up in a speech. Please make sure you're actually asking questions.

5. I will time your speeches and prep time.

6. I don't care if you read paraphrased cards or cut cards but during constructive or other speeches if your opponent calls for a card please have it readily available. If it takes you more than 3-4 minutes to find the card I will discard it from my flow.

More Specific Things:

1. The person giving second rebuttal must frontline responses to arguments they are going for and all turns on their case. I will consider defensive or offensive responses not responded to as dropped if they are extended into first summary.

2. Frameworks are great.

3. Offtime roadmaps before speeches are fine but don't over do it.

4. Resolve clash. If both teams extend links, responses, or frontlines through ink it makes my decisions way harder. Give me a reason to prefer your warrants (i.e. does your evidence postdate and what has change that makes that matter?, is your evidence more specific?, is your evidence better at illustrating a trend? etc.)

5. You must extend the uniqueness, warrants, and impacts of the arguments you collapse on in summary and final focus if you want me to vote on them. If something is in rebuttal, disappears in summary, and then reappears in final focus I won't evaluate it in my decision.

6. Arguments or responses that are dropped are not inherently true, though they do become more persuasive. You still have the burden of proving to me why your argument makes sense in future speeches.

If you have anything you want to ask about or clarify just do so before the round starts, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Good luck

I'm Cole Presten and I'm currently a junior at Princeton. I did public forum debate for all of high school, so I'm familiar with general terms and jargon.

With that being said, I would prefer a round that would be understandable by a lay judge, or for that matter someone completely unfamiliar with debate. Remember the point of public forum debate. I would especially stress that you clarify your impacts. Telling me that you "win on scope," for instance, without a clear explanation of cause and effect may be true, but making me look at my notes and deciding for myself where you "win on scope" is far less compelling than a clear argument and explanation.

Although it's within your right as a debater to use information so long as it's backed up by a source, I will be skeptical if something sounds fishy, and I hope your opponents will be too. Because of this, I find it useful to say "X of New York Times" when noting your source rather than just "X", because "X" could be a writer from any random blog for all I know.

In general, winning the round ultimately comes down to convincing me that you won the round, not some esoteric system of points here and there. So keep that in mind and good luck.

Former corporate lawyer and switched to a career in finance for the last 15 years. Parent of a PF debater. Preferences on style: Speed kills-if I did not hear it then it was not said. I would focus on clearly communicating and emphasizing your important points in lieu of speed. I do not vote on Theory or K arguments. Please practice good debate etiquette and most importantly, have fun.

Hello! I'm Alejandra Ramos, a first-year student at Princeton University, considering a major in Politics or Comparative Literature, with potential minors in Latino Studies and Translation and Intercultural Communication. Throughout high school I did PF and at Princeton I've done APDA and British Parliamentary.

I value well-structured arguments supported by clear analysis and reasoning. I appreciate debaters who can effectively convey their points without delving into overly complex or spreading techniques. Teams that not only prove the truth of their arguments but also demonstrate their importance in the context of the round are typically teams that I find very strong and look forward to judging. Multi-layered refutations that engage with the opposing team's best points are speeches that I enjoy and speeches that I believe encompass what PF is all about.

While evidence is important to certain types of debates evidence alone cannot win you a round unless it is accompanied by strong analysis and reasoning to validate your side of the argument. I source should/can be questioned once and then dropped-- credibility of a particular source should not be the main focus of a crossfire.

In terms of equity, I expect a respectful and concise crossfire session without rude remarks or statements about the other speaker. Interrupting speakers should be avoided, and all questions and comments should be considerate of the person that is speaking.

Debaters should focus on delivering their best performance and enjoy the round-- I personally find myself getting higher speaker points when I really enjoy the round. If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me at ar8603@princeton.edu. Best of luck, and I look forward to seeing some great debates!

Parent judge. Please speak clearly. Don't spread.

Prefer well-developed arguments with good logical reasoning, crossfire must be civil. Respect each other and enjoy the debate.

Truth>Tech

Arguments need to be extended effectively. Prioritize, and weigh.

Clarity, Evidence, and Courtesy go a long way.

Good luck!

Hello! I'm delighted to serve as your judge. I'm a parent and a law professor.

I appreciate clarity and precision. What are we actually talking about? What is excluded / included in the scope of the resolution?

I pay attention to fallacies, including hyperbole. Don't claim a catastrophe unless your argument and evidence actually shows a catastrophe. Don't charge that a small benefit is not a benefit. Most policy changes have small effects on the margin.

I am interested in being persuaded on the topic. Long, weak link chains feel like a change of topic.

Causation is really the hinge-pin of any debate. I need to understand the mechanism. Merely citing a source that says "A will lead to B" is not persuasive, if I don't understand HOW.

I am very interested in the quality of the sources that you cite, so feel free to challenge not just whether the source says what it says, but also how authoritative it may be. Random blogposts, journalist side-comments, and partisan advocacy groups are not impressive. Peer reviewed science may be, depending on methods.

I can follow fairly fast speaking, but I'd rather see a few points made well than many made thinly. This is a "public forum", which means that your pace is within the range of normal human speech. Therefore, it is important that you be clear, preserve enough time for emphasis, and ensure that your points actually land.

Keep time for yourselves and each other. Raise your hand when the other team goes past time. If it goes past about 10 seconds I'll stop the round.

Good luck!

Heritage ‘23 - ethanroytman@gmail.com & germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com - add me to the email chain

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW GOOD SHARVAA SELVAN WAS

Basics

• Tech > Truth
• Fine w/ speed
• Did PF for 4 years

How to win with me/get good Speaks

• WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and lwk rlly enjoy if weighing lets me evaluate the round without much thinking.
• Send Cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. There is zero reason not to - you should be disclosing it anyway. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send rebuttal and case docs. Also if one team sends all their ev and the other doesn't I will just err towards that team on evidence questions.
• Creative strategies - judging the same round over and over again gets so boring - multiple layers of offense r very fun, rebuttals full of impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. are all really fun and actually keep me awake during rounds
• Keep off-time roadmaps to "neg, aff" or "aff, neg" they shouldn't be 15 words long - literally just signpost in your speech and you will be fine. Speaks are capped at 29 if its longer.
• If you are going to be spreading and going hella fast in front half - slow it down in the back half and isolate clear offense that I can vote on.
• I'm particularly receptive to disclosure theory and SPARK.

Prog Run Down

• Theory - What I am most confident with and read it a bunch in high school. I'm also fine with friv, I think it makes debate fun every now and then. I haven't heard a team beat para in a while so if you win para good in front of me ill give you a 30. Also, apparently there is a spec RVIs shell on the circuit - dont read that in front of me its so stupid.
• Kritkis - I am fine with Ks, but understand them less than theory and don't know a lot of big critical lit words. As a whole, I don't enjoy these debates as much; they are usually not read properly and aren't compelling. However, I will not carry that bias in evaluating the K. The only Non-T K that has ever been persuasive to me is WakeWork.
• Trix/Other Random Stuff - Don't know as well, but stuff I have heard/vaguely understand: Skep, Baudrillard (ONLY Charity Cannibalism), and that's basically it. TBH I will vote on something that is well warranted and explained, but if you read something that I haven't mentioned, please explain it 2x more.
• TLDR if the argument was at my wiki at some point I understand it (with some exceptions), if not err on the side of caution.

Miscellaneous

• If you are looking for a free debate camp - novadebate.org.
  
• If you don't know how to debate theory - https://pfforward.weebly.com/theory.html - pretty good explanation. If you read my paradigm, that means you can't say theory debate is inaccessible, and if you make that argument in the round, you will get a 27. "Varsity level debaters should be able to handle varsity level arguments" -[redacted].
• I don't care about formalities - wear whatever makes you comfortable. I prefer Ethan to Judge, but it's really not that deep.
• If it is an outround and you disagree with my decision, post round me.
• Please DO NOT use blue highlighting lwk hard for me to see and if you are going fast I cant flow off the doc if its blue highlighting.
• If you have any other questions, ask before the round or on messenger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCe5M3dWx30

As a judge, I highly value speaker clarity. I expect debaters to articulate their points in a clear and understandable manner, and their arguments should be comprehensible to all participants and the judge. Debaters should be confident speakers, and engage in a persuasive manner, while maintaining poise.

Lastly, the importance of straightforward, clear, and concise arguments is paramount. Debaters should present their points logically, avoiding unnecessary complexity or ambiguity. Clarity and brevity in argumentation facilitate better understanding and enable effective engagement with the topic

I am an assistant coach at American Heritage Palm Beach and served previously as a director for four years. I have both speech and debate experience.

PF

I can flow the round fairly well and prefer for you to be explicit with your contentions and impacts when you state them. Please make it clear what I should be writing down and striking from the flow as well as why any arguments have been dropped from the round. I do not consider questioning as part of the debate. If your opponent made an error in questioning, it must be addressed in later speeches. I can handle some speed.

Congress

I enjoy when competitors follow the debate on the floor, create interesting conversations, and ask hard-hitting questions. I think structure and organization to your speech are vital; use signposts in your delivery so I know what your impacts are.

**EMAIL FOR EVIDENCE CHAIN**: semplenyc@gmail.com

Coaching Background
Policy Debate Coach @

Success Academy HS for the Liberal Arts (2020 - )

NYCUDL Travel Team (2015-PRESENT)

Brooklyn Technical High School (2008-2015)
Baccalaureate School for Global Education (2008-2010)
Benjamin Banneker Academy (2007-2008)
Paul Robeson HS (2006-2007)

Administrative Background
Program Director of the New York City Urban Debate League (September 2014 - Present)

Debater Background
Former Debater for New York Coalition of Colleges (NYU/CUNY) (2006- 2009)
An alumnus of the IMPACT Coalition - New York Urban Debate League (2003-2006)

Judging Background
Years Judging: 15 (Local UDL tournament to National Circuit/TOC)

Rounds Judged
Jack Howe is the first I will judge on this LD topic.

LD Paradigm

I've judged LD in the northeast and given my policy background, I can judge a circuit LD debate. My thoughts on LD are pretty similar to Policy given that you can run whatever you want... just make an argument and impact it. My specifics on LD (which I judge similar to Policy) is listed below.

PF Paradigm
I've been coaching PF for a few years now and to talk about my judging paradigm on PF, I would like to quote from Brian Manuel, a well-respected debate coach in the debate community when he says the following:

"This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, mis-cited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in the debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you"


Policy Short Version:
I try to let you, the debaters decide what the round is about and what debate should be. However, as I enter my fifteenth year in this activity, I will admit that certain debate styles and trends that exist from convoluted plan texts/advocacy statements where no one defends anything and worse; debaters that purposely and intentionally go out of their way to make competitors and judges and even spectators feel uncomfortable through fear tactics such as calling people out in debate because one doesn't agree with the other's politics, utilizing social media to air out their slanderous statements about people in the debate community and so on is tired and absolutely uncalled for. I say this because this has been an on-going occurrence far TOO often and it has placed me in a position where I'm starting to lose interest in the pedagogical advantages of policy debate due of these particular positions. As a result, I've become more and more disinterested in judging these debates. Not to say that I won't judge it fairly but the worst thing you can do in terms of winning my ballot is failing to explain what your argument is and not telling me what the ballot signifies. So, if you are the type of team that can't defend what your aff does or how it relates to the topic and solely survives off of grandiose rhetoric and/or fear tactics... STRIKE ME!

Long Version:

The Semantics of "So-Called" Rules or Norms for Debate Rounds


THE INTRO: I try to have zero substantive or procedural predispositions prior to the round. But as I judge, judge, and judge policy debates, that tends to shift. So, in out of all honesty, I say to you that all debaters will have the opportunity to argue why you should win off with a clean slate. If you win a round-ending argument, I won't shy away from voting for you just because I think it's stupid. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning (or whatever else you find persuasive), but if you fail to explain why you should win, I will feel personally licensed by you all to make things up. So at the end of the day, don’t make me have to do the work to adjudicate the round… you do it. DON'T MAKE ME HAVE TO DO THE WORK THAT YOU SHOULD DO IN THE ROUND!!! I don't mind reading evidence at the end of a debate, but don't assume that I will call for evidence, make sure that if you want me to evaluate your argument with your evidence at the end of the round just tell me what I should review, and I'll review the argument for you. Also, if you intend to use acronyms, please give me the full name before you go shorthand on me.

TOPICALITY: I've come to enjoy T debates, especially by those that are REALLY good at it. If you are that T hack that can go for T in the 2NR then I am a lot better for you than others who seem to think that T isn’t a legitimate issue. I do, which doesn’t mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means that if you win it, that brings major weight when it is time for adjudication. FYI, T is genocide and RVIs are not the best arguments in the world for these debates but I will pull the trigger on the argument is justified. (and I mean REALLY justified). Voting on reasonability or a competing interpretation as a default paradigm for evaluating T is up for grabs, but as always I need to know how the argument should be evaluated and why it is preferable before I decide to listen to the T debate in the 2NR (e.g. predictable limits key to topic education).

COUNTERPLANS: I don’t mind listening to a good (and I mean) good CP debate. I don’t really have any set opinions about issues like whether conditionality is okay and whether PICs are legitimate. I award debaters that are creative and can create CPs that are well researched and are competitive with the AFF plan. Those types of debates are always up in the air but please note that in my experience that debaters should be on top of things when it comes to CP theory. Those debates, if executed poorly are typically unacceptably messy and impossible to resolve so be careful with running theory args on CP debates that A) makes ZERO sense, B) that is blimpy, and C) that is not necessary to run when there is no abuse. Violation of any of the three will result in me giving you a dumb look in your speech and low speaks. And it really doesn't hurt to articulate a net benefit to the CP for that would win you some offense.

DISADVANTAGE: I evaluate Disads based on the link story presented by the negative in the 1NC and what is impacted in the 2NR. To win my vote, the story needs to be clear in terms of how specifically does the affirmative link to the DA. Any case can link but it’s how specific the link is and the calculus of the impact that makes me lean more towards the neg.

KRITIKS: I can handle K debates, considering the majority of my debate career has been under critical arguments (i.e. Capitalism, Statism, Racism, Biopower…) But, if you are a team that relies on the judge being hyped up by fancy rhetoric that you learn from camp, practice, or a debate video on YouTube, you don’t want me. In fact, some of you love to read insanely complicated stuff really fast without doing enough to explain what the hell you’re saying. I like a fast debate like anyone else, but if you read the overview to your tortuously complex kritik at top speed, you’re going to lose me. If your kritik is not overly complex, go nuts with speed. I will vote on offensive arguments such as "K Debate Bad/Good or the perm to the alt solves or turns to the K, as long as you win them. Overall, I’m cool with the K game, ya dig. All I ask of you all is a comprehensive link story for me to understand... an impact and what does the alternative world looks like and how that is more desirable than the aff policy option. "Reject the aff" as the alt text.... very long stretch on winning the K if I don't know what it means.

FRAMEWORK: Like Topicality, I also enjoy framework debates, if done properly. And like topicality, I try to not have a default preference in terms of defaulting to policymaker or activist or whatever in the fairness of approaching the debate round from a clean slate. At the end of the debate, I need to know what the round should be evaluated and what is my jurisdiction as a judge to evaluate the debate on a particular framework versus the opponent's competitive framework (if they choose to present one). If there isn't a competitive framework, I'll simply default to the original framework mentioned in the debate. In essence, if I am not presented with a framework of how to evaluate the argument, I'll take the easy way out and evaluate the argument as a policymaker. However, it is up to the debaters to shape the debate, NOT ME.

PERFORMANCE/ K Affs: I'm slowly starting to dislike judging these types of debates. Not because I don't like to hear them (I've ran critical affirmatives and neg positions both in high school and in college) but more and more I'm stuck judging a debate where at the end of round, I've spent nearly two hours judging and I've learned little to nothing about the topic/subject matter but instead subjected to grandiose rhetoric and buzzwords that makes no sense to me. I really dislike these debates and the fact that these types of debates are growing more and more places me in a position where I'd rather not judge these rounds at all. As a judge, I shouldn't have to feel confused about what you are saying. I shouldn't have to feel pressured into voting a certain way because of one's pessimistic view of the debate space. Granted, we all have our issues with policy debate but if you don't like the game... then don't play it. Changing the debate space where diversity is acknowledged is fine but when we lose sight of talking about the resolution in lieu of solely talking about one's personal politics only becomes self-serving and counter-productive. For that, I am not the right judge for you.

That said, if you want to run your K aff or "performance" affirmative, do what you do best. The only burden you have is that you need to win how your level of discourse engages the resolution. If you cannot meet that burden then framework/procedural arguments become an easy way to vote you down. If you can get through that prerequisite then the following is pretty straightforward: 1) I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. 2) If you want me to engage the debate via a comparison of methodologies, you need to explain what it is and how it functions in the context of the resolution and prove that its preferable against your opponent or vise-versa. 3) I want you to act like the other team actually exists, and to address the things they say (or the dances they do, or whatever). If you feel like I should intuit the content of your args from your performance/K Affs with no explicit help from you, you don’t want me, in fact, you will just hate me when I give you lower speaks. However, if you are entertaining, funny, or poignant, and the above constraints don’t bother you, I’m fine. 4) If you answer performance/ K Affs arguments with well thought-out and researched arguments and procedurals, you’ll easily pick up my ballot.

THEORY: This is something that I must say is extremely important to mention, given that this is greatly a big issue in policy debate today, especially in the national circuit. So let me be clear that I have experienced highly complex theoretical debates that made virtually NO sense because everyone is ready to pull out their blocks to "Condo Bad" or "Vagueness Good" or "Agent CPs Bad" without actually listening to the theoretical objection. With that I say, please pay attention. Good teams would provide an interpretation of how to evaluate a theory argument. Like a procedural argument, you should prove why your interpretation of the theoretical argument is preferred for debate. It would also help you to SLOW, SLOW, SLOW down on the theory debates, especially if that is the route that you're willing to go to for the 2NR/2AR. If the affirmative or negative are planning to go for theory, either you go all in or not at all. Make sure that if you're going for theory, impact it. Otherwise, I'm left to believe that its a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

FLASHING EVIDENCE/EMAIL CHAIN: I have a love-hate relationship with paperless debate but I can accept it. That being said, please be aware that I will stop the prep time once the flash drive is out of the computer of the team that is about to speak. I take this very seriously considering the on-going mishaps of technical issues that are making the paperless debate, in general, a notorious culprit of tournament delays, considering the flashing of the evidence, the opponents searching for the correct speech file, and the infamous "my computer crashed, I need to reset it" line. If you are capable of having a viewing computer... make it accessible. I'm also cool with email chains. You can send me your speeches to semplenyc@gmail.com. Same rules on flashing apply to email chains as well.

BEHAVIOR STYLE: To be aggressive is fine, to be a jerk is not. I am ok if debates get a bit heated but that does not allow debaters to be just plain rude and ignorant to each other. That said, please be nice to each other. I don't want to sound like the elementary school teacher telling children to behave themselves, but given the experience of some debaters that simply forgot that they are in an activity that requires discipline and manners... just chill out and have fun. For example, POINTLESSLY HOSTILE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS really grinds my gears. Chill out, people. Hostility is only good in cross-ex if you making a point. And oh yeah, be nice to your partner. At the end of the day, they're the one you have to go back to practice with.

Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socio-economic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate gives you an opportunity to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals of their individuality when presenting arguments however I will not condone arguments that may be sexist, racist, or just plain idiotic. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament and most importantly respect yourselves.

HAVE FUN AND BEST OF LUCK!!!

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

Hello, I am a former traditional LD debater, with some experience with PF from Maggie Walker Governor's School in Richmond, Virginia, and current pre-law student at Fordham University. I have had experience at all levels of debate in high school.

I am flexible and responsive to various debating styles. If you debate progressive, I will flow your debate. If you are traditional, I will flow your debate. I appreciate when debaters offer their opponent the option to have a traditional round because this creates a better space for newer debaters, but I do not by any means expect it or drop debaters for not doing so.

If the round is non-traditional in any way, I will ask for speech docs. My email is pikaz1337@gmail.com. It helps me keep everything in order on my end, and it also means I can keep your arguments organized should I fail my flow. I will note if any cards are unethically cut or arguments misrepresented, but it will still be the duty of the opponent to point out that the evidence is deficient before I strike it. The counter to this is that if evidence is so unethically cut to the point that the argument is simply incoherent, then I just cannot flow it. This has only ever been a problem once, but the disclaimer is needed: bad evidence ethics makes for bad debates.

The only thing I don't like flat-out are tricks. All your opponent has to do to win the round if you use tricks is say "Tricks are For Kids," and I will immediately scratch it from the flow.

Make sure that if you are using progressive debate tactics, whether that means Kritiks, Theory, or some other thing I am not familiar with, it is clear what your tactic is intended to accomplish. It should make sense or be explained by the debater in-round during speeches. If I cannot rationally buy into it or the logical flow of the argument is just not there, I will not vote for you. I need to also buy that the goal you are seeking to achieve is more important than any discourse advantages of discussing whatever the resolution is. If a ballot for your K does not accomplish more than a ballot for your opponent to reward them for learning about a topic, I will default to voting for your opponent for contributing to an instructive debate on the merits of a specific policy. Respect for debaters' and all people's identities is also paramount: that is one thing not up for debate. If you have any questions about this paradigm, please bring it up before the round. If you are worried that I won't let something fly, I probably will but just ask me before the round. Treat your opponent with respect and honor the activity we are doing, and I'll be a happy judge.

Michael Siller Paradigm

About Me: I am a parent judge on behalf of either Stuyvesant High School or the Bronx High School of Science, depending on the tournament. I am not a "technical" judge. I have been a practicing attorney for over 30 years and have a good sense of what makes a persuasive argument and an effective presentation style.

Procedural Preferences: There are a few guidelines I will ask you to follow as you present your case, to allow me to most effectively understand and judge your arguments:

(i) Please identify yourself at the start. I want to make sure I get your names, schools, the side you will be arguing, and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points.

(ii) Please try to avoid speaking too quickly. I prefer that you speak clearly, focus on your most important points, and avoid trying to cram in every argument you can think of. It will be more difficult for me to follow the flow if you are speaking too quickly.

(iii) Mind your time: I will not be judging you by how many seconds you are under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized; on the other hand, you should strive to use up as much of your available time as possible in a meaningful way.

(iv) Be polite. There's an apt maxim from the field of legal ethics: One may disagree without being disagreeable. Attack and criticize your opponents' arguments, not your opponents.

"Theory" arguments. If you intend to make theory arguments that's fine, provided you also engage on the merits of the topic at issue. Debaters will be judged and scored on how they address the assigned topic.

Evaluation Criteria: I will evaluate your presentation based on a combination of how well you: (a) appear to demonstrate a mastery of the substance (about which you may I assume I know far less than you); (b) present your arguments logically, coherently, and persuasively; and (c) refute and weigh your opponents' arguments, as well as on your presentation style (e.g., poise, professionalism, and ability to think on your feet). Concerning thinking on your feet, I pay particular attention to how well you comport yourself in cross-fire.

For purposes of sharing evidence, my email is mbsiller1@gmail.com

I wish everyone good luck and look forward to your presentations!

I favor hearing arguments that have enthusiasm backed up with valid data. I enjoy seeing debaters that have respect for one another and belief in their ideas.

The debater should not be trying to throw out as many facts as possible…in short a time as possible. I would like a balanced with reasonable time frame, with appropriate pauses between statements.

Finally, someone speaking should have a flow. Make me follow your argument with valid points and summaries. Try to be natural, relaxed and clearly share your argument with appropriate facts. Enjoy your time presenting and give it your all.

I am a parent.

Please speak slowly and clearly; I want to be able to properly understand your points to judge effectively and fairly.

I believe that debates should not be overly aggressive and everyone should display good sportsmanship.

Lastly, I want you guys to stay on topic so I can be better informed while judging.

I am a debate parent.

I've been judging JV Public Forum for a year and am a lay judge. I deeply appreciate clarity of argument and for debaters to speak slowly enough that I can understand what is being said and follow the connections made.

I usually don't have a lot of topic knowledge. So, be sure to implicate everything, have a clear collapsing strategy, and really explain your points well.

Be sure to extend EVERY part of offense/defense you're going for in back half.

No prog, no spreading.

Crossfire plays a role in my decision.

Lastly, the debate space should be inclusive and fun. Be assertive, not aggressive, don't mock your opponents, etc.

I am a lay judge, but have been taught to flow and have five years of experience judging PF. I prefer clear, slower speaking. Signposts are also super helpful. I don't intervene; I will judge your contentions by your ability to extend them and your opponents' ability (or lack thereof) to undermine them. I look for a logical argument. I like summaries and final focuses that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I've never called a card, but if an email chain is created, I would like to be on it. I'll give my email in the chat during the round. Speaking with passion is cool; aggressiveness is not. I do not like debates run on theory.

WEIGH. WEIGH. WEIGH. Otherwise I will be forced to do link/impact comparison for you, and you may not like how I do it.

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

anthony "andy" stowers forest (they/any pronouns)

anthonymstowers@gmail.com

My personal bright lines (updated for TOC PF):

#1: I will drop you if you claim that victims of human trafficking, child abuse, and childhood sexual assault are more likely to be criminals. This is unnecessary and harmful, do. not. do. it.

#2: Please omit graphic depictions of SA, child abuse, and human trafficking.

#3: My yarmulke is not an invitation for you to make hateful comments about Muslims or Palestinians, nor is it an invitation to make weird (and usually ignorant) virtue-signalling comments about Israel, Oct 7th, or the Holocaust. In rounds, these comments happen often. Please be cool, I love my Muslim friends very much and they love me very much too.

Technical debate preferences:

-SPECIFY SCOPE.

-Any speed is fine w/ me. If your opponent is spreading and you don't want to, that's also fine.

-K is fine, as long as it's genuinely well-considered and sportsmanlike (eg don't run K against a novice who clearly doesn't know what K is.).

-Speak with respect about all groups of people. I have beloved friends from China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Syria.... It's really tough to take xenophobic arguments seriously when I've been received with unbelievable hospitality by the people you're talking about.

-Please don't waste the entire debate arguing about the rules: make verbal note of the violation and move on. I can take it from there.

-Please do not make your main impact in every round nuclear apocalypse or climate apocalypse (or claim your argument can uniquely prevent them). I think those things are high-probability no matter WHAT, and I don't think it's realistic to say that one side or the other will uniquely cause or prevent them.

-Differentiating people and government is critical. The Russian government makes extremely questionable choices. Russian PEOPLE have fed me repeatedly when I was a stranger to them, showed me cool sights in their hometowns, and made sure I was safe visiting dangerous places (both in Russia and in the US). I really do try to be tech over truth in a lot of ways, but it tends to be laughable to me when I hear broad generalizations about Russian, Chinese, or Iranian PEOPLE (etc.) being anti-American. I need you to make that people vs. government differentiation because otherwise some of the claims being made are absolutely laughable in comparison to what interactions with these groups of people are actually like.

I am a parent judge and would love to judge the debate tournament. To help me judge effectively here are some pointers. Don't speak too fast, and don't yell during cross. Practice good debate ethics and respect your opponents. Don't cut others off. You need to convince me to win my ballot.

At one time, I judged a fair amount of LD on the circuit. It's really been about four years since I've been active, though. I am not up on anything new or even nuanced. I'll do my best to be as tab as possible.

Please add me to email chains: jacob316@gmail.com

NCFL NATIONALS 2024

jamesthompson@princeton.edu for any chatting, inquiries, and email chains.

Decided to keep this a bit shorter for y'all since each round has three judges:

- Hey! I'm a new-ish judge, but I have also debated for three years in PF, mostly on the local/regional circuit and a little on the national circuit as well. As such, I'm okay with debate lingo and fast speech (except spreading).

- I love extending and weighing, and I will prioritize arguments/rebuttals that have been extended from case/rebuttal -> summary -> final focus.

- Make sure weighing mechanisms (scope, magnitude, etc.) are clearly stated, followed by a brief explanation of why that mechanism applies.

- I do not judge cross, but I do note and appreciate when arguments are carried from crossfire into speeches.

- Please cut cards with clear links to the original source so your opponents (and, maybe, I) can scan them quickly.

- All arguments are welcome, as long as they follow a logical line of reasoning. (Though, of course, the longer the chain, the greater the burden of proof).

Other than that, just have fun and learn from each other. Let me know if you have any questions about debate, college, or other stuff, and I'm looking forward to seeing everyone in rounds! :)

Background: I debated Parli in High School and College. I am currently a coach for PF, have been judging PF ever since

-I don't mind speed, just speak clearly

-Time yourself, I will also keep time and will stop flowing when you run out of time

-I do prefer when you stand when giving speeches

-I vote on impacts. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims. Extend these through final focus.

-Please cut your cards in advance - if you can't find your card quickly, I will assume it does not exist and strike it from my flow

-I expect you to frontline, and please weigh in final focus

-I will not flow crossfire, if it is important bring it back in your speeches.

-Please signpost, makes flow easy

Please send all evidence and speeches to mgt2130@columbia.edu

Hello everyone! My name is Michael. I work in college counseling. This will be my very first time judging Public Forum Debate (or any debate for that matter.) I have no experience with debate in any capacity (Yayyy) other than sitting in on a few rousing rounds as a spectator. While I am a lay judge, and not familiar with much of the PF verbage, rythyms and format, I understand how important timing is and can certainly comprehend a somewhat faster paced speech. Debaters should feel free to speak more quickly than in a normal conversation but not so fast that comprehension becomes an issue and my head spins off my shoulders and rolls out the door. I appreciate patience, preparedness, civility, mutual respect, surprises, and good humor (see also: vibrant sunrises and a quality jump-scare.) Let's have some fun!!

Email for chains or questions: undercommonscustomerservice@gmail.com

Background

Influences: Will Baker, Alex Sherman, Taylor Brough

Pronouns: he/they

Experience:
2016-2020 Debater @ Bronx Science -- Qual'ed to TOC
2020-2024 Debater @ NYU -- CEDA quarterfinalist, 2x NDT
2020-2022 Head CX Coach @ Bronx Science
2023-2024 Assistant PF, LD Coach @ Collegiate

Conflicts:Collegiate, Bronx Science, U. Chicago Lab, NYU

Last Updated: Updated for TOC 04/16/2024

Policy and LD general: Good for anything, mostly read Ks in high school and college. "Debate is a game" is a silly argument. You don't need to go for the alt on the K or a CP to win, but I won't judge kick unless instructed to. I actively coach multiple events and keep up to date with research, so I will have fairly decent topic knowledge.

Policy specific: Fairness might be an impact, but you need to prove it. I don't care if you read a plan, you just need to justify it. Strongly convinced by K condo arguments and I disfavor contradictory K arguments.

LD specific: Honestly fine for anything except tricks. I don't inflate speaks. Order of experience would probably be K > LARP >> phil > trad >> tricks.

PF Paradigm: Don't paraphrase. Cut cards, not corners. Read whatever you want in front of me. I don't care if you spread. Please read theory properly.

IMPORTANT if I am in the back of your debate:

1. 1AC should be sent 3 minutes before start time, emails should be collected before that. If sending the 1AC pushes us more than 5 minutes past the start time, I will take all additional time past 5 minutes from you as prep.
2. Pen time is important, slow down a bit if you want me to get something down. Speeding through a 40 point 2AC block will not result in all 40 points on my flow. I flow your speeches, not your doc.
3. Stop stealing prep. Depending on how I'm feeling I'll call you out for it, but regardless of how I'm feeling I'll drop your speaks.
4. I assign speaks according to the speaker point guide provided to me by Tabroom. It is the most standardizable method and consistently lowers the standard deviation of speaker points when provided to judges. Please do not email me after the debate asking for a justification of your speaker points. They should speak for themselves.
5. If you are consuming products that I am aware are on the BDS list, I will drop your speaks by 2 full points. Throw out your Starbucks before I see you. This is non-negotiable and excludes computers.

I am a Professor of English literature who spends his professional life thinking, writing, arguing, convincing, influencing, and teaching. I am new to judging high school debate, and I will not always be familiar with technical language. I will be judging on substance more than form, but I expect all speakers to follow the rules scrupulously and to approach their own preparation and performance, as well as that of their opponents, seriously and with respect for the occasion and the hard work everyone has put into their preparation.

I value clearly presented, well-organized thinking that is original and inventive in its argumentation but never gratuitous. All arguments need to be pertinent. They should also be logical, by which I mean that they should follow from other arguments you are making and connect clearly to arguments you are about to make. I expect speakers to know their arguments and evidence inside and out and to be able to defend every single word. The best arguments form an unfolding chain, and I should (in principle) be able to pick up any single link in the chain and examine it closely. People often say that even very complex ideas can always be expressed simply if the person explaining really understands them, and I agree. You should be able to explain your ideas to many different audiences (ages, knowledge, background, experience and walks of life) and have them follow and understand it. Controversial arguments are fine if they have a logical place in your presentation and are pursued carefully and with serious purpose—if you walk out on a dangerous limb, you’d better have perfect balance.

Strong evidence is important to me, as is relevance; don’t bother trying to muddy the water with evidence that doesn’t strengthen your case or speak directly to the arguments confronting you. Unexpected but reliable, solid sources earn points from me, but so does awareness of potential bias in the sources you or your opponent are using. Unspecific, undocumented, or overly broad assertions don’t do you any favors. But artful generalizations that succinctly capture a point or issue impress me. It is a mark of true mastery when someone can characterize a situation or a complex idea in a single phrase or even a single word. I appreciate a refutation that counters a strong argument with even better reasoning, fundamental re-framing, and / or precise and relevant evidence.

Whether you speak quickly or slowly, I’ll be able to follow, but you should always be in control of your ideas and words. I appreciate individual style and integrity of approach. I want to see seriousness of application of mind but also a lightness of touch and a facility to think with improvisation and to adapt as necessary. Overall I personally favor a plain style that weighs every word and makes every word count, but I appreciate all styles if they are effective.

All speakers MUST be respectful at all times; measured irony has its appropriate place in debate but dismissive sarcasm, mocking language or tone, or outright insult never does. Offensive or hateful language, characterizations, implications, or ad personam attacks are of course totally off-limits.

I started judging PF in 2016. Prior to that I judged middle school parli for 5 years.

I was a policy debater in high school and college 30 years ago, so I am comfortable flowing, can deal with real speed etc. For context, I have never heard a PF debater spread faster than I can flow. Ha! However, I am not deep on any on any technical aspects of PF---still learning :-)

Some pointers on me:

1.) Please signpost. I like to flow so I am annoyed when you do not signpost.

2.) I like evidence so I will sometimes ask to see it after the round. Don't over-represent what it says as that undermines your credibility. However, this does not mean that I don't value analysis. The best strategy involves excellent analysis backed by strong evidence.

3.) No new arguments in Final Focus.

4.) As I am a civilian judge, you should assume I know very little about the topic, i.e. what a college educated adult would know from 10 minutes of NYT reading per day. The only exception to this is business/technology as I work at a tech company on the business side. You should assume I am deep on those issues.

5.) I am lazy. I won't do anything that you don't instruct me to do. If you assume that I will connect things without you explicitly saying so, you do so at your peril.

6.) Humor is important. You get bonus points for having a sense of humor. I am kind so it counts even if you just try to have a sense of humor and aren't actually funny :-)

On a personal note, debate is the only thing I learned in high school that I have used at work every day for the past 25+ years. So great to see all of you competing!

I'm a freshman in college, and I debated in public forum in high school. I judge a lot, so I'm happy to give advice and answer questions at the end of the round.

Add me to the email chain: rv2529@barnard.edu.

• I'm open to theory and progressive arguments when ran well.
• I can follow speed, but please provide a speech doc if you expect I will miss something on my flow. That being said, speed shouldn't tradeoff with clarity.

• In both rebuttals, I expect teams to 1) signpost as you go down the flow so that I know where you are and what is being responded to 2) weigh the arguments and not just say, “we outweigh, ” tell me which weighing mechanism and WHY you outweigh.

• For second rebuttal, frontline terminal defense and turns.
• PS: I like link-ins from case and preq. arguments a lot. I don't like when teams use their case arguments as their only responses ie. deterrence vs. escalation debate (interact with the individual warrants and links!)
• In summary, extend all contentions, blocks, frontlines you are collapsing on. Please weigh to show me how these arguments compare against one another.
• I like meta-weighing -- tell me which mechanism is better.
• Not a fan of sticky defense but I will consider it if that's what the round comes down to.
• The final focus speech is a good time to slow down and explain the argument and the direction the round is going in. Please do not bring in any new responses or implications during this speech.
• I generally enjoy listening to crossfire. Still, I will LISTEN to crossfire, but I will not FLOW crossfire. I can only evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.
• Clarity and strategy are the key factors that will impact your final speaks.

• I like framework when it is well warranted and unique... I don't like "cost-benefit analysis" framework

Hello! My name is Christie and I am a parent judge with some PF experience. I value respect and politeness during rounds, speaking at an understandable pace, and refraining from using specific jargon. Remember that being loud doesn't mean you're winning the point. I expect you to keep your own time and respect PF rules. Signposting is a must for me to fully understand your argument. Have clear links to your impacts that you expand throughout.

PF: I am a traditional judge who likes to see contentions well developed through strong, logical arguments supported by evidence. Ad hominem attacks, implied or explicit, are not appreciated. Spreading should be avoided so I do not miss a critical point in your case. I recognize when debaters know and understand their material rather than reading what has been written. Civilly presented, compelling, and supported arguments and counter arguments are valued. I appreciate the need to challenge evidence when warranted, but do not support requesting multiple pieces of evidence throughout the round as a tactic to disrupt the opposing side. This is an annoyance and slows the pace of the tournament.

Congress: I will judge the quality of your speech over the way it is presented. I do not appreciate one sided debate and would prefer an extemporaneous speech in the opposition for the sake of the chamber. I enjoy hearing clash and questioning is important to me. I am a new judge to Congress so I prefer traditional debate.

This is the first time I am being a judge. I think lucidity is more important than speed in one's speech. Also I am a number guy by training; hence I tend to be more convinced by correctly quoted statistics than emotive appealing.

This is my first time judging but I will evaluate the round with an open mind! Speak clearly, articulate your arguments, and most importantly, be respectful to everyone in the round. Good luck and have fun!

Personal Background: I competed in PF debate for all 4 years in high school (HHH HSE, 2014-2018) and was a NYS finalist as well as a TOC & NSDA qualifier. I am intimately familiar with the format and coached teams and taught at camps up until 2021 after my exit. While at Cornell, I competed all four years in Worlds/British Parliamentary debate and was quite successful in that event as well. Because Worlds is a very analysis-focused format, it definitely will shape what I value in a round.

Preferences:

• Evidence should bolster/support consistent analysis and not be used or chopped up in lieu of proving links or arguments analytically. Given this, just because a certain journalist makes a claim in some article does not necessarily prove your argument. All evidence is not equal and I will definitely rely on common sense. Analysis is the key for any supportive evidence you present to matter.
• The most effective strategy for winning my vote will be collapsing on the most important point(s) and weighing their impacts (this is hardly a preference but rather the point of the format itself). This means cleanly making, extending, and defending an argument completely so that I can credit you with it, and comparing its impact to those of your opponents' arguments in order for me to understand how you win the clash.
• When making your speeches, be sure to signpost (flag for me which argument and point you are addressing) if you want to ensure that every point you make gets appropriately flowed and credited for you.
• Please have fun with the debate, especially during crossfires; feel free to be informal with language but be sure to remain respectful.
• Please hold each other accountable for prep time and be respectful towards the tournament's schedule.
• Spreading is at your own risk. Simply put, if I can't keep up, that is on you. Be sure that your pace is appropriate and you are speaking clearly if you want to rely on me catching everything on the flow.
• I am not sympathetic to Kritik’s or any efforts to avoid debating the topic.

Good luck and have fun!

I consider myself a lay judge, but I will attempt to flow during the round. Here are a few of my preferences to keep in mind:

• Please be clear and concise. You should be explaining your arguments (and context) in-depth. Give me a clear link that I can follow. As always, I need to hear good warranting in case AND hear it be extended.

• NO SPREADING. If I don’t understand an argument, I’m not voting for it.

• Organization matters, please signpost.

• Do comparative weighing. Give me something tangible to vote for. Tell me what is most important, and why I should be valuing this over everything else.

• It is easier for me to follow along if you could send the rhetoric of your case(s). My e-mail is treeonrock3@gmail.com

• Finally, the best debate rounds are inclusive and respectful. Be a good, kind person. You can be skilled and assertive without being rude.

Best of luck everyone!

I used to be a debater in college years, started to be judge six year ago after my children began debating.

As a judge, I would only monitor time, also expect debater monitor their own time, wouldn't involve or say much unless have to step in for delay, well over time limit and bad behavior. I am not against fast speaker, but good speaker/debater never speak too fast, I pay attention to true evidence or facts and logic conclusion, manner is important too.