Greetings! I am thrilled to be your judge, and look forward to seeing you soon!

About me: I debated for four years in most events—NSDA National Qualifier in Congress (4x), Public Forum (2x), Extemp, Big Questions, and Duo; second-most NSDA points in the U.S. for class of 2022; and four-time elimination round qualifier at NSDA Nationals. Since then, I have judged a lot of Speech and Debate, mainly in Wyoming.

My paradigm is simple: be yourself. This is your space! I will do my best to be objective and consider everything said in the round: framework, then voters/contentions, and any weighing of impacts underneath them. However, I’m not a robot. I will vote for the team that appeals to me the most. Debate is more than an exercise in technicalities—it is an appeal to human thought, logic, and values.

Three quick notes: First, have fun and smile! Debate is such an awesome experience, and I find myself enjoying rounds more when y’all are, too! Second, no off-time roadmaps. Usually these are unnecessarily long, for little reward. Third, presentation matters. Speed should not preclude clarity, and eye contact, rhetoric, and dynamism are instrumental in ensuring that I am convinced by your arguments.

Note about Congress (borrowed from Joshua Hansen): This is a debate, not just a platform speaking event. Speeches on a bill should flow coherently between one another, with rebuttal and refutation, not just existing in a vacuum. Outside of a sponsorship, I'll be much more impressed by a primarily extemporaneous speech that interacts with the round than a perfectly recited, pre-written speech read verbatim off your computer.

Additionally, I'm judging you for the entirety of the round—your questions matter, as does your behavior when you think no one is looking. Excessive whispering or disruption during another competitor's speech is grounds for losing ranks, as is talking over other competitors or otherwise lacking decorum during motions and segues between speeches.

I really enjoy judging, and I will always leave some written feedback for you. For any further questions, please email me at willaepli@princeton.edu.

Now in college, debated in high school all four years, mostly in PF, earned a TOC bid one upon a time

PF:

-I can follow progressive rounds, but be careful running a K in PF. As long as your opponents actually understand you, I'm cool. If they don't understand you, it's simply not constructive to the educational value of the activity.

-Second rebuttal has to engage with first rebuttal in some way; second summary is far too late to address first rebuttal. I was a second speaker in high school, I know it's hard, but it really isn't optional.

-Summaries have to collapse to be effective. I found this concept hard to grasp as a debater, but the more I judge the more painfully clear this becomes.

-It's good for you if there is a framework against which I can evaluate the round that has been proposed by you.

-When judging PF I default to viewing the round as a straightforward comparison between the Con and Pro worlds. Though you can win without doing so, I welcome discussions on theory, burdens, etc.; I think they can be really helpful in PF to clarify what those worlds would look like, which is a prerequisite to weighing them well. That being said, stock issues are far, far more important, so spend your time accordingly.

-Cross is not flowed, so make arguments in speeches, not cross.

Above all, please have fun and keep things light. If you have any questions pre-round, please do not hesitate to ask! My email is firstlast at outlook if you are starting a chain.

Hi! I'm Dana. I debated PF at Potomac Debate Academy in high school, and I'm now a freshman at Princeton.

In round, make sure I can follow your narrative. Signpost and don't speak too fast. Flush out links and weigh impacts. Tell me what I should be voting on and why it is important.

Note: I'm not a fan of theories and Ks.

Please be respectful, I very much take that into consideration when giving speaker points. Thanks!

Hi, I am 4th year PF debater at Lexington, and you can treat me like a tech judge.

- short version: weigh comparatively and extend your case in the last two speeches, signpost, frontline, and don't have anything new in your final focus that was not in summary.

- weigh weigh weigh, including comparative weighing. If one team runs probability and the other magnitude, I have no idea which to choose.

- signpost. If I don't know where you are, I won't be able to write your responses where you'd want me to and your arguments aren't going to come across cleanly.

- tech>truth. that being said, if you say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. I will drop you.

- I will vote off the flow, so don't drop things and make sure to extend your argument completely (don't only extend the impact without the link chain or vice versa). Make sure you're frontlining and extending defense throughout. Collapsing in first summary or earlier will help you in this way.

- I am fine with speed if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, enunciate, make sure your opponents are okay too, and signpost clearly.

- summary and final focus should be mirrored. I will not consider anything new in final that was not in summary and for an effective backhalf strategy, you and your partner should be on the same page.

- cross shouldn't be three minutes of extra debating or responding. Please ask and answer questions in a CIVIL manner. However, I will not flow cross so if there's anything you want me to vote off of that happens in cross, bring it up in your next speech.

- timing speeches/prep time is your responsibility. I will also be timing , but I expect you to be keeping track of how much time you have and how much prep you have - after you take prep, just let me know how much you took. I understand that sometimes you don't finish perfectly on time, so if you're in the middle of a sentence and the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence given that it is less than ten seconds over. Please do not abuse this grace period, I will cut you off.

- feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused. I will not dock speaks and I feel like it helps you learn how you can improve in the future. i'm happy to give specific feedback after round as well.

- you got this, have fun!! If any of the more advanced things on my paradigm don't make sense to you, please ask me any questions. Debate is a game: this means that you should not be exclusionary. Follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make the debate more accessible to you.

email for evidence chain: atreyib18@gmail.com

I am a Princeton freshman who joined the Princeton Debate Panel this year. I have served as a college debate panel judge before, but I am not super familiar with the PF format so please speak slower. I will take tech over truth and judge based on what is spoken, not what is implied so please warrant and impact clearly.

Updated for Harvard 2/17/2024:

I don't typically judge LD; given this, I will try to be as tech as possible but no promises. I am comfortable with Ks, theory, etc. whatever weird arguments you want to run. Just be clear ab what you're doing and be ready to time yourself (lol)

Updated for Princeton 11/30/2023

In high school in Houston, TX, I competed in PF and FX for 4 years on the state and national circuits. In college, I competed in American Parli (APDA) and British Parli (BP) for 4 years. I graduated from Boston College in May 2023 with majors in philosophy and biology. I now work in clinical trials.

• Please be as clear as possible about where you are on the flow. Signpost and let me know which side you are starting on. I am going to be typing fast but I am paying attention :)
• No new evidence after 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary
• Speaker points based on strategy, not fluency
• Spreading is fine
• I DONT FLOW CROSS - let me know during your speech if something happened that you want me to put on the flow
• Weigh terminal impacts!!! Meta-weigh issues of scope, probability, etc. Impacts are NOT intuitive in PF and not for the judge to discern.

Plz let me know if you have any questions. Put me on the email chain!

alexandraboehning@gmail.com

I am a parent judge who did forensics in high school. I prefer to hear arguments at a natural cadence and am more interested in a few coherent and cohesive ideas rather than a shotgun of info. The logical reasoning around how the data support your position should be clear and lay out a map of what you mean. Please respect your opponent.

I want to be on all evidence and file sharing email chains. (Briggsc24@stlukesct.org)

TLDR: My paradigm isn't that long but I'll evaluate everything just do it well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

General

I was a HS policy K debater so I will evaluate everything, Ks, theory etc. Speed is good so go as fast as you want just be clear. Don't spread faster than you can because bad spreading sucks so don't be bad at it.

Other than that I don't really care what you run I will evaluate it regardless of what the rest of my paradigm says.

If you have any questions about my RFD ask me. If there is no round disclosure at the tournament I probably will disclose anyway just don't tell tab <3.

For in round stuff (for policy, open cx that kind of thing) do whatever you want as long as the other team agrees.

All of this is for whatever event I am judging. The rest of my paradigm is just my personal thoughts on some arguments to let you know where I personally stand even though it will not impact my decision.

Theory

I'll evaluate it just do it right.

Tricks are for kids. That being said, I am a kid.

Theory - CX

If you run ks bad, cps bad, or try to convince me that ks and cps as a whole are abusive or don't belong in the space I will evaluate it but the burden on negative team is low, it's not the 70s. Go to open ev, do research, get good. (Obviously there are some CPs that are actually abusive thats a different story) I just generally hate this theory but I guess I'll evaluate it.

T-T is a theory you need all the parts.

CX - General

KAFFS -I love them. I ran one my senior year and loved it. I don't have any major opinions about kaffs but I do believe they have a space in the activity. That being said I will vote on framework. I don't really think that fairness is a voter I think it is an internal link but I could be wrong and will vote on it being an impact.

KVK- Please do this. I love kvks I think they are awesome and probably the most interesting debates I've seen.

K-the previous 2 sections should tell you enough but I love them

PF

I probably have a fair amount of knowledge of whatever topic you all are doing and I would like to be on ev share, whatever that looks like.

K- It belongs in PF just don't suck at it

For novice, you probably shouldn't be running prog anyways but if you know what you're doing go nuts.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

this is my third year debating in PF for princeton high school.

add me to the email chain (if needed): ang3192007@gmail.com

notes + preferences:

generally tech>truth.

run fun arguments!

please collapse (i cannot emphasize this enough). the earlier you weigh, the better, and make sure it's comparative. be respectful (no -isms, -ophias, etc.)

make sure you extend and weigh the same in summary and final focus.

no new frontlines or responses in final focus- the purpose of final focus is to review the round and point out how you won.

i won't vote on cross unless you are extremely disrespectful to your opponents (mocking, scoffing, laughing, etc.)

speaks are determined on fluency and rhetoric. speed doesn't matter as long as you're comprehensible.

TLDR: basic flow judge, have fun and be polite to your opponents.

For PFD and LD.

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to PFD or LD so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is not Policy.

Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen, and voted on, for a reason.

It is helpful to "bullet-point" and number your arguments.

Do not bring in new topics/arguments when summarizing. This is unfair to the opposing team who will have had no opportunity to rebut. Doing this will lose points.

So, with that in mind, life is simple, right? If LD your Value should simply win out and and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you (please!) slow downed so I can actually hear them. If you speak too quickly and I cannot catch what you say, it is as though you didn't say it. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it! Nevertheless, if I do not catch what you say this will likely result in lost points. This also applies to PFD.

Similarly, acronyms are great short hand but do not assume I will be familiar with them. Define them at the outset before using them freely.

I like consistency in the points made and creative solutions to challenges. Twists in an argument and subtle nuances can be fun as well as win the day! Quantification of issues versus qualification of emotions, and specifics versus generalizations are both approaches which work well. Best is when your position paints a consistent and coherent picture, and exceptions and rebuttals are removed by logic and data. Logical arguments supporting your position are far more important than rewording the same statement, except when there is a need to clarify ambiguities or terms.

If PFD, well your contentions and impact better win out too! Good cards everyone, good cards and roadmap please. If you have evidence for me to see, then make sure I see it. You are responsible for confirming it was received and can be read by me.

Finally, if you want me to tell you when it is time, or 5 seconds or other time before your time is up tell me in advance and be explicit. This includes prep time. It is your responsibility to communicate this and to be sure I received and accepted the message. This is not the time to be subtle. You will only lose points if I have to tell you that you went overtime.

Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is not policy ! If I am judging policy, well that is a whole other matter.

I employ a tabula rasa approach-I will only judge based on the evidence and argumentation brought into the debate by the contestants.

I'm a volunteer new to judging. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I will appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals. And I will welcome your assistance in guiding the process today as I get up to speed.

If there was an accessibility, disclosure, or other request made before the debate that you plan to bring up in the debate please inform me before the debate.

I’d be grateful if you could follow these guidelines:

1. Please time your own prep.
2. Speak clearly. Focus on clarity over speed.
3. Have coherent arguments — although I also welcome innovative arguments. Every argument should explain exactly how you win the debate.
4. The fact that debate is competitive does not license you to be rude, exclusionary or un-interactive. I believe in good argumentation but delivery and in-round behavior have an impact on the quality of the argument you deliver.
5. Your opponent needs to have access to anything you read if they ask
6. Have fun. Enjoying yourself will hep you argue better. Find your voice. Be willing to take risks and be confident.

I'm a volunteer new to judging. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I will appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals. And I will welcome your assistance in guiding the process today as I get up to speed.

If there was an accessibility, disclosure, or other request made before the debate that you plan to bring up in the debate please inform me before the debate.

I’d be grateful if you could follow these guidelines:

1. Please time your own prep.
2. Speak clearly. Focus on clarity over speed.
3. Have coherent arguments — although I also welcome innovative arguments. Every argument should explain exactly how you win the debate.
4. The fact that debate is competitive does not license you to be rude, exclusionary or un-interactive. I believe in good argumentation but delivery and in-round behavior have an impact on the quality of the argument you deliver.
5. Your opponent needs to have access to anything you read if they ask
6. Have fun. Enjoying yourself will hep you argue better. Find your voice. Be willing to take risks and be confident.

Previous coach, tab director (be on time!), and judge of long ago. Never debated. I can flow arguments made at slightly above conversational pace and appreciate when winning arguments are made clear enough that I don't have to think too hard.

• Don't time torch the round - there are guidelines in the Live Doc about prep time deduction if your evidence takes an excessive amount of time to find. You should be able to find your cards within ten to fifteen seconds in our digital age. Use hyperlinks to your advantage!
• There are also specifications about no prep during evidence finding since, if it's as fast as it should be, that time isn't deducted from prep.

Theory: Debate is a game that should be equitable, educational, and played respectfully. I'll listen to arguments that impact to the shortfalls of the debate space in any of those domains.

I did PF during high school and did BP in college. Coached PF for a bit too.

I'm a pretty basic flow judge who will be open to most arguments that are brought up.

What makes me unhappy:

1) Progressive arguments like K or theories. I think those ruin the entire point of PF, which is to be at least somewhat accessible and be an actual debate. I'll evaluate them, but I'll be unhappy doing it :(

2) When debaters just spit cards with no underlying logic and expect me to vote on it. I don't care if a random professor or journalist said something. You personally need to be able to explain the logic to me of why your point is right and your opponent's is wrong.

3) Lying about/blatantly misrepresenting evidence. If you catch someone doing this, tell me to call the card at the end of the round.

4) Being rude/overly aggressive

What makes me happy:

1) Weighing your arguments as much as you can. Just tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponents, and give me legitimate logical reasons for it. If nobody does this, then I'll have to choose for myself which arguments I find the most important, and I'm sure that will make people unhappy.

2) Humor. If you throw in some entertaining quotes from Seinfeld, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, or another sitcom in a relevant way, I'll like you. No pressure though.

Lastly, remember that this is just a game. Have fun with it.

Hey everyone, I’m a first year here at Princeton. I have over 3 years of experience in the world schools format and about 2 years in BP - never done LD before.

I value clarity and weighing - this means structure your arguments well, identify your strongest points and tell me whythey’re good enough for me to give you the debate. I also appreciate thorough and genuine engagement, so direct rebuttals generally take preference over simple mitigation, although I will credit both. Refusing to engage will cost you dearly, as anything left standing will generally be assumed as true. Generally, I will assume whatever you’re bringing into the debate is true, but I do need to be able to follow your premise structure and see logical links to credit your argument. Do not rely on assumptions!!!! Thoroughly explain your warrants.

I’m pretty comfortable flowing fast speakers, but I won’t be reading cases that are emailed to me, so please make sure that the speech you’re giving is coherent.

I also have not judged tech debates before, so they won’t help your case much.

Do feel free to email me at fh9991@princeton.eduif you have any questions. Most importantly, have fun and be nice.

I am an attorney with experience in mock trial and moot court, but I have not participated in debate. I will be looking for debaters to speak clearly, answer the questions, and be professional.

Flow judge, former Policy debater.

HOWEVER I do try to honor the spirit of PF, which is that you should be able to convince the 'person on the street'. I want to hear an argument that would be intelligible to a person without a debate background, not too heavy on the jargon. Give me a clear argument and tell me how to weigh.

Speed is okay as long as you articulate.

Hello,

My name is Jaewon.

I am a parent volunteer with one year of experience judging mostly for PF and Parliamentary Debate.

I like:

- A moderate pace, not too fast or too slow.

- Solid and clear reasoning to support your argument, based on concrete evidence and simple examples.

- Delivering your argument forcibly and convincingly, showing your pathos.

I don't like:

- Reading your lengthy writing on a laptop screen with a monotonous tone. Effectively communicating means speaking passionately and persuasively to audiences.

- Ranting and yelling during CX or rebuttal.

- Beating around the bush. Get to the point of the argument and attack it.

Good luck to everyone!

As a judge, I'm here to fairly evaluate your arguments. Keep it clear, concise, and backed by solid reasoning.

A clear structure for the debate would help me to understand your flow. Whether it's value/criterion or another format, make it easy for me to follow.

I prefer strong arguments with good analysis. The depth of your understanding will make your speech shine.

I value quality, recent, and relevant evidences. Don't overwhelm me with citations; focus on explaining the evidence's significance.

When it comes to rebuttal, engage with your opponents' arguments. Identify weaknesses and respond directly.

Speak clearly, avoid jargon, and be respectful. Non-verbal cues matter, so maintain a balanced and assertive demeanor.

I also appreciate different styles and strategies. Respond to the flow of the debate and adjust your approach accordingly would show your adaptability.

I'll vote for the team that presents strong, well-supported arguments. Be creative, think critically, and maintain a positive atmosphere.

I expect all competitors to be respectful to each other with good understanding of the format and order of debate. I judge based on logic, flow, and strength of evidence provided. I aim to be fair and respectful towards all teams and competitors.

I am a parent volunteer judge. My primary format is speech. I also have experiences judging PF.

Hello! My name is Aamir Malik. I live in Summit, NJ.

I have experience judging at a number of National and Local Debate tournaments, mainly with Public Forum events.

I was not involved personally in Speech & Debate in high-school or college, but had many friends who were, and I have also familiarized myself with the current formats by referring to the various resources on TabRoom and YouTube.

Professionally, currently I am a senior executive at a major global life-science company and focus on creating scientific breakthroughs to improve the lives of patients experiencing disease. Prior to that, I spent 25 years as a management consultant at a leading global consulting firm.

I value thoughtful analysis, compelling facts, and specifics vs. generalities. I value substance over style and I place an emphasis on brevity and clarity. I also value debaters who speak at a normal pace rather than those who "speed-speak."

I am inspired by all the students who participate in Speech & Debate and while I recognize the inherent competitive nature of the programs, I genuinely believe that simply having the courage to participate and taking the time to learn and reflect from the experience will carry the real long-term impact in students' personal development.

Thank you for the chance to be a part of this with you and good luck!

Name: Tammy Molina

Pronouns: she/her

Email: tl4826@princeton.edu

I’m a sophomore at Princeton majoring in economics. I have 1 year of APDA experience and a few months into BP.

Please do not speak too fast. If you are a natural fast speaker, just speak at a speed where I can clearly understand your arguments and take some notes.

Please no theory.

Be polite and equitable. Do not make offensive generalizations about any particular identity group, and do not be excessively aggressive in-round.

Do not forget to weight!

I am a parent judge.

Preferences: No spreading and do not use debate jargon or fully explain it. Make sure you self time and keep track of your prep. Signpost and be respectful. Have fun!

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

4 years of PF experience.

Add mukilanmuthukumar@hunterschools.org to email chains.

Generally tech > truth.

Speed is okay, but make sure to always be clear and signpost.

To win: weigh comparatively, collapse, and extend.

I don't flow cross; bring it up in a speech if you think it's important.

Be respectful and have fun!

I have been judging PF for a little over two years now. I am a scientist at heart. So it should make sense that in order to evaluate your arguments I need to understand them. This is PF, not LD and that should mean something to you. I want to hear well-warranted arguments supported by evidence extended and explained in rebuttals.

You need to weigh with rationale and impacts. Everything in the final focus should be said in summary.

Be respectful to one another and to me. Be polite in the crossfire. You should learn something new in every round and remember to have fun.

As a side note, I am here to judge the resolution. I will not listen or judge side topics or arguments. Do not bring your own agenda into the round, specifically I am not judging your critique of debate theory.

I have a fair amount of experience judging LD on the national circuit. I am usually ok with speed, but I really have not been active recently, which means that I will not be able to handle top speed.

I'm probably best adept at LARP. I know some K literature, but not all. At any rate, if you're reading anything dense, no matter what it is, slow down.

T/Theory is ok, but I have a fairly high threshold for abuse.

I'll certainly entertain disclosure arguments, but my personal beliefs don't favor disclosure. Keep that in mind.

I do want to be on the email chain.

Please feel free to ask follow up questions before round.

my email: thomasj@newtown.k12.ct.us

Hi! My name is Ify Obianwu and I am a first year at Princeton and competed in public forum in high school!

Just some things to keep in mind:

I really value organization. Off-time roadmaps are great and I look for logical links in arguments.

I can flow pretty well but don't like spreading so be cautious of speed.

I love cross and value rhetoric - it puts argumentation over the top (I also don't mind a little heat in cross but be respectful:)

Make sure impacts are tangible - I'm more likely to vote for something tangible vs. theoretical.

If you don't mention your impacts consistently throughout the round I will not flow them through.

I also hate Kritiks so please don't run them:)

Good luck you got this!!!:)

17+ years as competitor and coach in Texas and New Jersey

Spreading - I am fine with spreading as long as you can be understood. The point of spreading is not to confuse your opponent, it's to deliver as much material as possible within the time limit. Articulation and enunciation are key. If you aren't doing vocal warm-ups before the round, you probably aren't ready to spread.

Case sharing - I do not give my email for case sharing. Unless there is something specifically mentioned in the debate that I need to read, my job is not to read your case to understand it. You should deliver your case in a manner that is comprehensible without having to be read. That is the art of debate; this isn't just about reading, it's about presentation.

Sportsmanship - Part of being a good debater includes the time when you are not speaking. Be aware the round starts the minute you enter the room. Carry yourself with professionalism and respect.

Hello, my name is Susan Phelan and I am a lay judge. I have mostly judged at local tournaments.

Prefs: I am a judge best for traditional debates

Please do not spread. I do not need to be added to any email chain. I won't interfere.

Please be kind and respectful, no discrimination will be tolerated in the round.

My contact is swphelan07@gmail.com

My opinion? All good debate starts the same way:

Stand up, introduce yourself, confidently and clearly. You are representing your team, your school; most importantly, yourself - and perhaps even a position with which you do not agree. Be counted. Be heard. Gird Your Loins...

Be prepared. Know your material profoundly. Present it, rather than reciting or speed-reading it. Effective Public Speaking is a connection with your audience, not a listing of innumerable facts.

Draw from the strength of your convictions. Ergo: Have conviction. Every argument deserves its airing. This is true even of the one you're making. Convince me.

Words matter. Speak slowly to present your argument. If your words are too fast to be heard, you've already discounted them yourself. Cut to the chase. Distill. Edit. Much better to make a thoughtful, clearly-articulated argument than to try to pack in the absolute limit of facts.

Amaze me with the quality of your research, the extent of your reading - and the depth of your insights... Show me you have some overview of the history underlying the arguments you're making. Study. Learn. Study it again. This is what you're here for.

If you think you've covered it all, go back and dig deeper. There's more.

You're all brilliant. You make the job of judging difficult, which is why we're here.

Keep up the Good Work!

I am a Social Studies teacher who has judged a handful of tournaments over the past year. I look forward to judging novice level this tournament.

While I am comfortable with a medium speaking rate, please help me out by not speaking overly fast. I'll take flow for the round noting arguments and note-worthy evidence. I'm looking to be persuaded by well-reasoned arguments and a speaker's unique style. I'm hoping to hear strong analysis (link) of the evidence in support of your claims.

Arguments that have successfully persuaded me in the past are those supported by sound and credible evidence, used skillful questioning to counter-argue the opposing argument, and maintained links throughout the rounds.

Please maintain respect throughout the debate.

I judge based on my ability to follow an argument, its logic, and the strength of evidence used to support it. I am generally skeptical of statistical evidence and often find it vulnerable to challenge. I will not flow crossfire but I will listen. Summary and final focus are the most important speeches; I depend on these summaries to clarify and refine arguments. I do keep my own time as a way of ensuring that each team uses time equitably. I will try to follow speedy arguments, but I am, myself, on the slower side.

Hi! I'm Veer(he/him). I did PF for four years at Durham Academy as part of Durham HP. Now I'm a freshman at NYU Stern and an assistant coach for the Taipei American School.

Put me on the email chain: vp2150@nyu.edu AND taipeidocz@gmail.com

TLDR: I'll vote on the flow. Read whatever you want, but please make sure it's warranted properly instead of blippy arguments.

General

Debate should be fun. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, and you can make it funny(it makes my job a lot more entertaining), but don't be condescending. Enjoy every round.

To win an argument, it must be fully extended in both summary and final focus, i.e. the uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impact with warrants on each of those levels. If it is not, I will not vote on it.

Signpost — tell me where you are on the flow clearly and efficiently, number responses, clear contention tags, etc.

Please collapse. Slow down in the back half and don't go for your whole case. I'm not voting off of a 5 second extension of a half fleshed-out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than five arguments poorly.

I don't flow cross. A little bit of humor goes a long way in making my judging experience more enjoyable and shouting over each other will go a long way in tanking your speaks.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. Send a doc, don't clip, and remember you're allowed to yell "clear" if your opponents are incomprehensible. If you're going to go fast, slow down for the tags.

If you misconstrue evidence and the other team gives me a reason to drop you, I'll do it. Please do good research and read good evidence.

If you are _ist or discriminatory in any way, you will lose the round.

How I Evaluate

I look at weighing/framing first and then evaluate the best link into said weighing. Make sure your weighing is actually comparing both arguments efficiently, use real weighing mechanisms and do the metaweighing if you need to. I will not evaluate non-comparative weighing.

Defense is not sticky — respond to everything the previous speech said. Everything in the first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal or it will be considered conceded. Similarly, everything in second rebuttal must be responded to in first summary, including weighing.

Prog

Theory: I have read theory, but I think that it is most often used in PF in a way that significantly decreases accessibility for the entire space. I will evaluate theory, but only if your opponents know how to engage with those arguments OR are in the varsity division of a TOC-bidding tournament. Please do not be the team that reads 4 off on novices for the ballot.

Read whatever shells you want to read but interps should be read ASAP in the speech immediately following the violation; counterinterps should come in the speech immediately following the interp.

My threshold will be low on stuff that’s obviously frivolous. If you're going to have a tricks debate or anything that resembles it, it's probably best to make sure everyone's comfortable with that decision beforehand.

I default to competing interps and yes RVIs, you have to read No RVIs and reasonability with warrants if I'm going to vote on it.

Topical Ks: Don't steal it off of some policy or LD wiki page. Do your own research and make the round accessible by explaining implications that you do based on the literature. I want to understand the argument if I'm going to vote on it.

Non-T Ks: I've had experience with these, but it's hard to pull off in PF. I've seen it work and I've seen it not work. Avoid personal attacks and stay respectful. Also, please make my role as the judge and the role of the ballot as explicit as possible.

SOME OF MY FAVORITE JUDGES WHEN I DEBATED: Gabe Rusk, Brian Gao, Bryce Pitrowski

Hey guys

I'm Avni (she/her), and I'm a junior at lex :) This is my third year doing LD. add me to the email chain 25stu090@lexingtonma.org

For novices, you can speak fast but just make sure your opponent is ok with it, and if you aren't clear/I can't understand you, just know that i'm not flowing it

I like policy/trad the best, but if you wanna run a k or theory I'm very familiar with too - I'm not the biggest fan of T but i will vote on it if its warranted and I am not a big fan of phil or trix. my number one biggest thing is to have VOTERS and WEIGH!!! tell me why I should be voting for you and why you outweigh. also make sure to tell I should frame the round and how you win under that FW.

just some other general noyes - please signpost and tell me where you are on the flow - if there are multiple offs, give me a second to switch flows before you keep speaking

Don't be homophopic, racist, etc. and if you say anything offensive to your opponent regarding that I will drop you

Finally, debate is supposed to be a fun activity, so don't take it too seriously! Have fun!!

Hello,

I am a parent volunteer judging mostly for PF debate:

I prefer to see:

• Clarity in reasoning, backed by evidence/examples
• Persuasive articulation style
• Moderate pace of delivery
• Efficient time management

Good luck!

Avik

I judged a fair bit of PF some 13 years ago when I had to fill in as interim debate coach at a brand new school. Judging PF is a joy; it gives me confidence in our future. Young voices who have made the effort to dig deep into both sides of an issue earn my respect before they've even begun debating. I am a veteran college professor and high school teacher (just not debate). Helping students develop their written and oratory talent is my passion. I believe in the power of debate to hone students' power to convince on any conceivable topic and to any possible audience.

Think of me as your informed and educated lay audience. Signposting will prepare me to focus on your argument and absorb your ideas. Debaters who present clear arguments and revisit them, debaters who don't stray far from the topic and synthesize well will keep my attention.

No spreading. I will not be able to keep up and your efforts will be in vain. Above all else: Civility and respect for one another, no matter what.

My name is Joe Rogers and was an Extemporaneous speaker at Pittsburgh Central Catholic. I have judged PF and LD for 10 years. As a judge, I am looking for consistent arguments that carry throughout the debate, a central theme, appropriate clash, and civil discourse.

Your arguments should be clear and concise, and you should address your opponent's points as well.

Mr. P. J. Samorian
Mr. Samorian is the Communications Department Chair at American Heritage Schools Palm Beach Campus. His teams compete in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and Individual Speech Events, Worlds School Debate with possible Policy Debate addition. AH Achievements: LD State Champion, Declamation State Champion, Sunvite PF Champion, Emory PF Champion, NSDA/NCFL Finalists in IE and Congress, Grapevine PF Champions, Bronx Congress RR Champion, Blue Key PF and LD Champions, GMU Congress Champion, Blue Key 3rd Place Sweepstakes, NSDA district champions. He is the former Director of Forensics at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. He was the Director of Forensics at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois for 18 years and before that was an Assistant IE Coach at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, Illinois under the direction of William (Mark) Ferguson. He coached the NFL Poetry Reading National Champion (1993), NFL Congress(Senate) Runner-Up (2000), ICDA State Congress Champions (2000), IHSA State Congressional Debate Runner-Up (2008), and his team won one of five NCFL Eleanor E. Wright Debate Awards (2009). He has coached finalists and champions at Wake Forest, Grapevine, The Glenbrooks, Blue Key, The Barkley Forum, U.C.Berkeley, Sunvite and Harvard. Mr. Samorian is an NSDA Triple Diamond coach. He holds a B.A. from Northern Illinois University and a M.Ed. from Loyola University Chicago. He attended Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook, Illinois where he was involved with drama and music. He was involved with hosting five NCFL National Tournaments in Chicago, and was the President of the Chicago Catholic Forensic League and has served on both the Northern Illinois NFL District Committee as well as the IHSA State Debate Committee. He was the director of public forum for Millennial Speech and Debate (Georgetown and Boston College) and was the Co-Director for Public Forum Debate at the Harvard Summer Workshop. He has hosted NSDA webinars on different aspects of congressional debate. He has been the director of public forum at Georgetown as well as teaching and directing programs in Business, Stem, and Debate for Capitol Debate at Notre Dame Baltimore, American University Washington DC, Yale University, Babson College, Dartmouth College, The Hun School. He is currently the PBMSFL Treasurer and serves on the congress TOC advisory committee.

FOR ALL DEBATE EVENTS, the flow is so important. You have to listen and make note of what your opponents are saying. I am flowing, so you should be as well. Then it is important that you DO something with that information.

I am open to any argument you may make and then ask that you support that idea.

If you are going to spread, please sign post and accent key terms you want me to get down on my flow.

I work hard to not let any of my personal opinions have any place in the round.

I prefer that debaters be strong in their conviction but not be abusive in their treatment of others.
I also require you to be truthful. Present accurate evidence. I have been witness to false information and it really bothers me that you would just present it as though it is true and keep going until someone questions it.

Persuade me that you are right and your opponents are not.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND (Obviously in person debate) This was posted BEFORE Covid and still applies now.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I prefer that contestants stick to the philosophical arguments in the round. It bothers me when LD turns to a plan of action. (With exception of a topic that requires a plan...) While topics are sometimes hard, I am looking for the theory that is supporting what you are saying. To this end, you may consider me "old school" when it comes to LD. Yes, I do think that Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others should provide foundation for the direction you are going. That doesn't mean I am not open to other theories and philosophies, however if you do run theory or other arguments, know why you are running them. Please don't run them because you do that at every tournament so you don't have to prep each topic!!! An entire round of arguments not related to the topic will not win my ballot. Ignoring a judge who says "clear" when you are spreading, will not win my ballot. Clear, persuasive arguments will win my ballot. Arguments that are constructed and carried through the debate will win my ballot. Weighing at the end or your final rebuttal could win my ballot. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

PUBLIC FORUM
I like the original intention of this event that it should be a debate that would take place in a public setting and would have ideas and delivery that any person off the street could understand. To this end, I don't want you to be a policy debater. While I do want structure to what you are saying and evidence to support your ideas, it is the PUBLIC approach that I prefer. Are you clear? Do your points make logical sense? Are you able to persuade me that your side is the side that is best for our current population? I have been extremely bothered in the past few years with students who are falsifying evidence. I judged a semi-final where one team built an entire case around one key piece of evidence. Their opponents called for the evidence during the round, but it was never produced. The judge next to me called for the evidence after the round and sure enough, they were blatantly misquoting the evidence. I have also researched evidence that simply does not exist. Have some integrity. Do the work needed to prepare yourself for the topic. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
Yes, I was around when the event was called Student Congress and it has been an honor to have been a part of the evolution of the activity. I think there are many roles that congressional debaters play. To that end, there are many styles of speeches that I enjoy when judging a congress round. The authorship should explain the legislation and set the tone and standard for the round. The first con should be equally as strong. Both should have strong supportive evidence and equally strong explanations. Every speech after that should further debate with new evidence and should also extend or refute previous speakers. For me, politics are a waste of time. That being said, I also don't like it to be a speech competition. It should be a series of debate speeches on both sides so that at the end of debate on each piece of legislation, I have a better idea of the issues and in a sense; I have been persuaded to one side or the other. If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch crystallization is in order and very much enjoyed when done well. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. A good PO brings energy to the room and fosters an atmosphere of healthy debate. I enjoy students who have their own unique style and don't just copy what everyone else is doing and saying. Play to your strengths. Recent developments in more complicated scenarios have been interesting as has the development of 30 second questioning periods (direct questioning). Traditional questioning is one question one person, it should not be called indirect questioning.... Congressional Debate is still evolving and I think we should enjoy the growth. Some styles work better than others, but I am not convinced there is just one way to speak or preside. I enjoy some of the regional and league differences. I serve on the TOC Congressional Debate Advisory Committee. I do not shake hands at the end of a round. Can we please put an end to frowning chairs? Congress does not have an equal number of speeches for or against a piece of legislation so why should we. It is natural that one side will have more than the other. So stop frowning. If you cannot extend, refute, or produce new arguments, then don't rehash, vote to move on to the next legislation and speak early on that. EVERYONE SHOULD BE PREPARED ON BOTH SIDES. Then strategically you should choose which side will benefit you the best and speak on that side.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS
I don't think anyone checks the wiki for IE philosophy. LOL I mean, its not like you could change your cutting of speech because I am in the back of the room. IE was my first love and passion. Do well in performance. Be honest and true and you will win me every round. I often write an IE ballot as though I am coaching you. So, if I give you ideas and then see you a month later and have to just write the same exact ballot again, what did you learn and do my notes even matter at that point. IE students often try to read the judge. You can't really read me. I may be writing feverishly to give you as many suggestions for improvement as possible, I may be writing how much I am enjoying every moment, or a may stop writing because I don't have much to say because you are so amazing. I also rank as I go so there is no advantage or disadvantage to your speaking order.

ONLINE SPEECH AND DEBATE - At first, I had enjoyed moving to online speech and debate. I was involved in rules development, ideas for communicating online and framing ideas. I worked all summer with online speech and debate and so understand glitching etc but you also need to make sure no other devices in your home are on and that your framing doesn't include anything moving, like a ceiling fan, as they will detract from the strength of your signal. FOR DEBATE EVENTS, I prefer that you present your speech seated. I think in person standing is fine, but when you stand online we often lose facial expression, gestures are hard to see, walking off camera isn't good, and your voice may drop off. FOR SPEECH EVENTS-For many, ok, most, events you must stand and that is perfectly fine. Have fun and enjoy that we are still able to keep our activity vibrant and growing. 2022 Update - I am tired of being online and I am crossing fingers we will soon return to in person speech and debate. I AM IN FAVOR of students who are finding creative ways to perform online and I am not in favor or adults making new online rules that limit creativity. (Ex: Moving toward or away from the camera for emphasis)

I'm open-minded, and a good listener.

I believe debate is an educational activity.

Prefer typical conversation speed and lean toward quality over quantity.

Background

I debated for Delbarton for four years in high school so consider me more of a flow judge.

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 end of constructive. If case is paraphrased, also send case rhetoric. I will not accept locked google docs. Additionally, teams should 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 matthew.seb15@gmail.com and greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain.

Evidence

Have cut cards if they are called.

I might ask for evidence after the round if needed.

PF

I evaluate the round based on the flow from an offensive/defense paradigm.

Generally tech>truth.

I can handle moderate speed, but DO NOT sacrifice clarity for speed. If you're going to be going fast please send a speech doc

I will not flow cross so anything important said in cross should be brought up in the subsequent speech.

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline all defense and turns.

Extend offense and defense in summary, this means case, turns, responses, etc--- nothing is sticky. Evidence extensions should extend both the card tag and the warrant (eg. simply saying "extend Jones 20" is not a sufficient evidence extension)

Signpost (tell me where you are on the flow). Off time roadmaps are welcome.

Progressive Argumentation

I have some experience with theory. I usually default to competing interps and have a very low threshold for responses on frivolous theory. I have limited experience with common K's (i.e. Feminism, Capitalism, Securitization) and no experience with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche) I will try my best to evaluate these arguments but run them at your own risk. I prefer topical K's but will evaluate a nontopical K if you want to run it. Make sure you explain and warrant your K really well in the back half because if I don't understand it I'm not voting off it.

How you win my ballot:

1. Weigh (tell me why I should prefer your argument). Start weighing as soon as possible.

2. Collapse

3. Always warrant and extend

If this paradigm is too short here are some other paradigms I generally agree with, Eric Moldoveanu, Noah Mengisteab, Alex Sun, Zach Dyar.

Good luck debaters!

Please abide with the following:

1. Start weighing at summary and carry weighing throughout the round.
2. You are responsible for keeping your time.
3. Sign post with arguments not authors.
4. Collapsing after summary speech is prohibited.
5. Do not run theories and/or K's - K's are abusive in PF.
6. Do not forget to warrant and link.
7. Remain respectful to all debaters.
8. Speak slowly and clearly.
9. Be sure to frontline speeches
10. During final focus, absolutely no new evidence should be presented. Speeches should clearly tell me why your team wins the round - make my decision easy and simple!

Remember - this is a fun experience and a learning opportunity for all debaters!

He/Him

ts0530@princeton.edu if needed

Hey! I'm Thomas, a first-year at Princeton. I've never judged or debated PF, but I've familiarized myself with the format through friends who have and various resources on TabRoom and YouTube.

I prefer to hear arguments at a natural cadence and am more interested in a few coherent and cohesive ideas rather than a shotgun of info (If I can't understand something, I can't give you credit for it!). The logical reasoning around how the data support your position should be clear and lay out a map of what you mean.

In general, be nice. I believe in debate access for all so I will cut your speaks if you create an environment where other people don't want to participate in the activity.

Good luck and have fun!

NYU 26' and College Prep 22'

add me to the chain please, callum.theiding [at] gmail.com

I did 4 years of policy in high school and I'm currently in my second year of college policy. I'm happy to judge anything you wanna read, barring anything bigoted and harmful. I think debate is an awesome community where you can show off whatever you've been researching.

There's a fine line in cross between being confident and being rude or mean. Err on the side of being nice.

Note for PF at the bottom

LD/Policy

T

people should go for T more. I like it. good T debates are beautiful

-I think fairness is an internal link to education, more education happens pre round during prep and research

-aff creativity has always been kind of ridiculous to me, affs that say this usually do explode the neg research burden, but i will vote on it if you can effectively weigh it

-love love love when affs on the fringe of topicality have a clever c/i or w/m, its smart and strategic

Ks

-links of omission are kinda lame, find specific lines or instances where the aff actually links

-i prefer a more material and defined alt but this not all at required. that said, if you're reading a rejection/inaction alt please have a specific warrant for why inaction is key

-lowered speaks if you're reading an incommensurability alt and say the k is conditional, either stand by what your authors actually say or don't read it

-i do not want to hear your high theory buzzword soup

CPs

-love a creative adv cp

-i think more than 3 condo is pushing it but if you can win your interp, do what you want

-not a fan of the 2ac perm shot gun

-please explain your process cp, a good chunk of these are way wonkier than they need to be. theres definitely a huge advantage to confusing your opponents but a confusing cp is hard to vote for

Theory

-be clear, if i can't flow it and you try to weigh it, good luck

-please impact your arguments out early

-prefer condo or process cp bad over things like a 5 sec vague alts bad that get exploded in the 1ar

Case

-for the neg, those hard right aff link chains are often very dubious, your speaks will be rewarded if you use a badly written case to your advantage instead of just spamming CPs and DAs

-2As, I get the need for speed but gimme at least half a second between answering 1NC case args to let me move my pen

DA

-pls pls pls do your impact calc, earlier the better, give me in depth comparison of impacts, not just "it happens faster, vote neg"

-not a fan of ptx, but if you win it, ill vote for it. it's been a hot second since i've seen a decent one.

K affs

I think the best ones are related to the topic but effectively articulate what the resolution is missing/why it's bad.

I'm more familiar with the cap debate than the fw debate. If you're going for fw, don't blitz through your blocks and slow down for your standards. Actually debating on the line by line and not just reading a script is mega ethos boost.

PF

-I will flow each round. If something is new in the last two speeches, it's much better if you flag it and implicate it. The more work you do yourself, the less I have to intervene.

-You don't have to ask to take prep. It's your prep time. You decide when you want to take it.

-I think teams should probably send speech docs. It's a good norm for ev ethics. Also it wastes less time than calling for cards.

-Impact calc is what wins round, not buzzwords. However, I think more people should be doing internal link work. It seems like most people don't have great defenses of their cases besides basically saying "nuh-uh".

-I do not want to be in theory rounds in PF. PF is too short to have meaningful theory debates with depth. If you want to read theory, I'd recommend switching to policy. There probably are cases where theory is warranted but the threshold for that is so insanely high. Also, RVI is not a thing.

I am a relatively new and very traditional PF judge. I appreciate competitors clearly articulating some sort of framework within the constructive and offering key voters in the final focus. I do not appreciate spreading or unwarranted calls for evidence.

"Tout ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément." ~Boileau

I vote on the clarity of the arguments and on the clarity of their articulation, so it is wise to avoid spreading.

I am looking for proof of your argument - make sure you cite cards throughout, and be clear about what point you are drawing from the evidence you're quoting.

Language matters! Don't assume that speaking faster / louder = making a stronger point. If the words you're using are not clear, or if your syntax / grammar is obscuring what you're trying to say, then it doesn't really matter how loudly you shout it or how fast you say it. There are plenty of examples of overemphasis in the world; be different. You should aim to stun your opponent & judge with an argument (or speech) that is worded with precision, starting from a solid framework, methodically laid out with a logical progression, and reinforced throughout with sound and airtight research / data that you have thoroughly cited.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, be respectful of your opponent(s). You can and will lose your argument if you resort to incivility. Again, there are plenty of examples of rudeness in the world; be different. And please, keep your own time.

Ph.D., Emory. I've judged on the regional and national circuit, mainly LD and PF, although I've also judged speech a bit and quite enjoyed it. ;)

Email: lupadhyay@chapin.edu

pronouns: he/him
I am a varsity PF debater. There are 4 things I look for when evaluating a round:

1. Case: Having a well-warranted case is essential to winning a round. Your link chain should be extremely clear
2. Responses/Frontlines: Explain your responses well and implicate them. Dumping a lot of very poorly warranted one-sentence responses isn’t helpful. Frontlines for the 1st speaking team should be in 1st summary, frontlines for the 2nd speaking team should be in 2nd rebuttal. Don’t bring up new responses in summary/final focus.
3. Extensions: PLEASE extend in summary and final focus. It not only helps me know what you’re going for, but it helps you highlight your most important pieces of warranting or evidence. I won’t necessarily drop you for not extending, but it’s going to be an extremely uphill battle for you if you don’t. Having good and efficient extensions will help your speaker points.
4. Weighing:Make sure your weighing is comparative and explained extremely well. Weighing should be the same in summary and final focus.

Other things:

- don’t be mean in cross.

- don’t be mean in general.
- good turns are very fun, bad turns are insufferable
- collapsing is generally beneficial
- I don’t flow cross, but if your opponent says something important in cross, bring it up in your next speech.

- don't spread

tl;dr — Treat me as a slightly informed person in society without super specific knowledge on your topic and your objective is to persuade me of your argument and its potential effects :)

Aight:

— Be kind and respectful: you are all human (I hope maybe not tho) and here to have fun and learn! Any disrespect will lower speaks.

— Love signposting since it makes everything super clear to follow

— make sure to explain why your evidence makes sense and supports your argument

— Speak slowly and clearly; emphasize your main points

— I'm not a huge fan of spreading

— def don't misconstrue evidence

— don't bring new arguments into final focus; it's not fair

— Always recap everything that has been said and make sure to weigh!

— Engage with your opponents' arguments. This is why we debate!

— I don't enjoy theory or metadebate since it means you are not really debating your topic.

Hi! I'm Sophia, a first year at Princeton. I debated/judged WSDC/ Asian and British Parliamentary in high school where I represented Taiwan.

just a few things:

• Truth>Tech
• Structure and speed are important to me! make sure you are understandable and clearly mark out argumentation and responses. this is especially relevant if you have a lot of material to get through.
• Because I am most familiar with worlds format, I appreciate debates most when they are strategic, well-framed, and impacted clearly. Try to minimize running complex K's/theory because there is a high chance technicalities will not be understood by me.

• Please be respectful in and out of rounds! Debate, as competitive as it gets, should never be a platform to hurt, slander, or dehumanize each other.

i'd be happy to give post-round feedback and further explanations. contact me at: sz5856@princeton.edu.

have fun!