Here's the best ways to avoid losing a round that I am judging: DON'T read fast. DON'T be rude to your opponents in crossfire. DON'T cite just a name and date without any other information. For example, if you say "Baker 2017 argues ______" what am I supposed to do with that if I don't know who the person is, why they are qualified, who they are writing for and so on? For all I know you could be citing your uncle, but maybe your uncle is qualified to speak on the subject matter. But how would I know without a more complete citation than just a name and a number? If you speak at a reasonable pace, are generally pleasant and have great evidence, you'll sound like a winner to me.

Speed: If I say "clear" that means I want you to slow down.

To win my ballot you must:

1. Extend in Summary and Final Focus
2. Signpost
3. Weigh
4. Metaweigh
5. Implicate
6. Warrant
7. Engage with warrants (Warrant debate is real debate)
8. As intuitive as it sounds, you need defense and offense but as a judge I vote only on offense.

Other things:

1. Defense is not sticky.
2. I listen to crossfire but I don't flow or vote off of it. If something big happens in crossfire, say it in a speech.
3. No new evidence after 1st summary.
4. I don't mind if you go a few seconds over time, just wrap up and don't add anything new. Don't abuse this and I can stop paying attention whenever I want.

Hello! My name is Payton Clark and I'm excited to be judging your round. All you need to know about me is that I'm a former PF debate coach and I love this event.

These are my expectations during rounds:

• I do not disclose the results of my rounds.
• Do not spread. In my experience, this often leads to loss of tone and disorganization. Quality over quantity.
• Be respectful to your opponents.
• Be clear about what contention you are addressing and the impact of your evidence. If the structure of your argument is messy and unclear, it will appear weak and hard to provide feedback on.

If you have any further questions, please ask me prior to the beginning of the round. Thank you!

(she/her/hers)

Speed is fine. Please weigh impacts at the end of the round.

Overall, please make the environment inclusive for everyone. Run arguments that are challenging and that you actually care about/believe in. Have fun!

Treat me as a flay judge. I pay attention to what is going on in the flow but at the same time, I prefer the lay appeal and narrative style of argument.

Weigh, Weigh, Weigh. Make the ballot easy for me to write and weigh your cases and impacts and show me that they are better than your opponents.

As for speed, I can handle speed but at the same time, I'm not gonna be happy to hear full-out policy spreading in a PF round.

I would not suggest running theory on me but if warranted properly and the theory itself is not abusive then I will consider it in a round. If you run disclosure theory, say goodbye to your speaks.

I fully believe in truth over tech.

Hi there! This is my 5th season judging public forum. That being said, I am not a debate wonk. I am not a lay judge, but not as technical as many other judges in the circuit. I do not coach and really don't dive into the ethos and technicalities of this activity. This being said, I have a few expectations.

Clash

I love love love clash in debates. One of the best things for me is weighing the merits of arguments and cards rather than a game of everyone throws whatever they can at the wall to see what sticks. This being said, a debate that devolves into constant critiques of the ethos of sources is frustrating to me: there's a fine balance.

"Spreading"

I can follow kids talking fast in debate but after constructive you need to be able to extrapolate what is important instead of just auctioneering your arguments to me. This isn't super important to me relative to more of the fundamentals to me, and I don't expect you to re-tool your debate style for me.

Pre-written Blocks, Turns etc. and Speaker Points

Especially on the local circuit, this is easily my biggest pet peeve. I won't hold it against you, but as an alum, the single biggest skill I gained in this activity was my extemporaneous speaking abilities. I think pre-written blocks and turns really hinder that from you, especially when I've heard the same blocks from your teammates over the course of the same or multiple tournaments. I do weigh this when I consider speaker points (not heavily, but no one with pre-written blocks is getting a 30 from me). In general, speaker points come from your ability to conduct yourself professionally and effectively during extemporaneous parts of the debate (everything except constructive).

Conduct during Cross and Rebuttal/Summary

My BIGGEST pet peeve in debate is how high-level debaters act in response to their opponents during responses, especially the sort of hyper-casual style that is condescending. I don't care about archaic notions of "professionalism" because I believe they are rooted in classist and racist connotations, but I'm really not okay with being condescending to your peers. It's hard to articulate this conduct, but every debater knows it when they see. I don't expect you to refer to your opponent's as "my good friend" or "the right honourable gentleman" but just be respectful.

Arguments with Nuance

If you're going to make a claim that relies on an assertion that isn't a universal belief or value (e.g. "free market solutions are inherently better than government solutions" or vice versa), you need to justify your assertion. I enjoy unconventional arguments, but if your case relies on a belief that is often challenged in the court of public appeal, you can't just state it and move on.

This is my first year judging, but I debated all four years of high school.

Please time yourselves, and keep track of your prep time.

I will vote mostly on how YOU argue and the connections YOU make. I know it can be easy to assume that your judge knows what you're talking about and will make connections for you, but that's not always the case.

Keep it respectful. Snark and sass have their places in debates, but when overdone it can be distracting and make you look bad (I do take this into consideration when voting). If it's witty and clever I might allow it. Just be mature. :)

As I said, I'm experienced with debate, so I can keep up with slightly higher-than-normal speeds. However, if you're talking too fast for me I will ask you once to slow down. After that, anything I miss as a result of your speed is on you.

I require sign-posting. This isn't just for me but your opponents as well. It's just courtesy.

Make sure you're weighing in ff. If you don't, I'll have a hard time deciding what to vote on. This might just be a me thing, but I wouldn't want my judge to pick and choose the important parts of my case.

I'm also not a fan of appeals to emotions. Please don't rely on them. Give me numbers. If you don't, I will not vote for you.

When judging a debate, I want to see that you are following the rules established by the National Speech and Debate Association for whichever debate form you are competing in. Honestly, if I catch that you have broken a rule it will not flow kindly in your favor.

Other very important things to note:

• I want you to stay on topic: You have a given topic for a reason.

• Be respectful: This is an educational forum established for students to benefit educationally and no one benefits from disrespect. How you present yourself and how you treat your opponent(s) will be considered when choosing a winner.

• Presenting a solid case that is backed by credible resources is also imperative. Furthermore, there should be plenty of evidence to back up your claims especially in the rebuttals. You the debater are not a credible source. Logical arguments are great if you can back them up

• Plans/Counterplans: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions (Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

• “Non-existent evidence” means one or more of the following:

1. The debater citing the evidence is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when requested by their opponent, judge, or tournament official.
2. The original source provided does not contain the evidence cited.
3. The evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify the accuracy of the paraphrasing.
4. The debater is in possession of the original source, but declines to provide it to their opponent upon request in a timely fashion.
(Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

Another note to consider, I do not support the blending of the debate styles. LD is not Policy debate, nor is PF. They are all unique styles of debate with their own educational value. Trying to make LD or PF like Policy Debate will not be voted on favorably.

Spreading offers no educational value to debate. Talking fast I am cool with if you have the diction for it!

I am a parent judge. (do not run theory k's tricks etc I will not vote for you)

Please articulate your arguments concisely and convincingly with relevant evidence from credible sources.

Please attempt to persuade your points slowly and avoid using jargon. You will win only if you can convince me so I am your key audience.

Be respectful (otherwise I will dock speaker points) to your opponents, and avoid talking over each other during crossfire. I will only flow impactful arguments made during crossfire.

Please keep track of your prep and I will stop flowing when speech time is up.

Good luck and have fun.

I was told to write something here

Dont be rude and debate well!

I have been judging debate in MN regularly since at least 2004. I judge at invitationals, Sections, NatQuals, and State. I started judging LD debate, but as PF has grown in MN, I now judge mostly PF debate. I also started coaching PF in 2017.

When judging debate I want you, the debaters, to prove to me why you should win my ballot. I listen for explanations as to WHY your contention is stronger or your evidence more reliable than the opponents' contention/evidence. Just claiming that your evidence/arguments are better does not win my ballot. In other words, I expect there to be clash and clear reasoning.

I listen carefully to the evidence entered in to the debate to make sure it matches the tag you have given it. If a card is called by the other team, it better have a complete source cite and show the quoted material either highlighted or underlined with the rest of the words there. The team providing the card should be able to do so expeditiously. I expect that author, source, and date will be presented. Author qualifications are very helpful, especially when a team wants to convince me their evidence is stronger than the opponents. The first time the ev is presented, it needs to be the author’s words, in context, and NOT paraphrased. Later paraphrased references in the round, of course, is a different story.

The affirmative summary speech is the last time new arguments should be entered in the debate.

If arguments are dropped in summaries, they are dropped from my flow.

When time expires for a speech, I stop flowing.

I expect that debaters should understand their case and their arguments well enough that they can explain them clearly and concisely. If a debater cannot respond effectively to case questions in Cross Fire, that does not bode well.

I expect debaters to show respect for each other and for the judge. Rude behavior will result in low speaker points.

PF and LD are separate debate events, but I don't think my view as a judge changes much between the two activities. I want to hear the resolution debated. If one side basically avoids the resolution and the other side spends some time answering those arguments PLUS supporting their case on the resolution, I will likely lean towards the side that is more resolutional. In other words, if one side chooses to run something that does not include looking at the pros and cons of the actual resolution, and chooses to ignore the resolution for the majority of the debate, that choice probably won't bode well for that team.

I only give oral critiques and disclose when required to in out-rounds. I promise I will give a thorough RFD on my ballot.

I’m a Congress Coach for East Ridge High School in Woodbury, Minnesota

Background:

-I competed in Congressional Debate for all four years of high school. I am extremely well versed in Robert’s Rules of Order and the NSDA rules. I was ranked first in Congress in Minnesota, went to Nationals and broke to out rounds three times, qualified for the Tournament of Champions, and competed on both the national and local circuits during my time as a debater. I coached policy for the MNUDL for one year, then in 2022, I started coaching Congress.

Congressional Debate:

-Above all else, treat everyone with respect and civility. If you are rude, condescending, insensitive, or have unsportsmanlike behavior, then it will be reflected in your ranks

Speeches

-Congress isn’t a Speech event; I want to hear good argumentation that furthers the debate

-I value quality over quantity, 1 amazing speech will always beat out 3 mediocre speeches

-I expect refutation, rebuttal, and clash in speeches

-You need to include cited evidence, you can’t rely on logic alone

-The delivery of your intro should be smooth and include a clear roadmap

-I appreciate clever jokes or puns but make sure it’s appropriate and relevant

-Author/sponsorship speeches should explain the problem the legislation is trying to solve and how the legislation uniquely solves it

-Mid-round speeches should offer something new, clarify or expand on arguments that have been said, or refute arguments

-If you’re giving a late-round speech, you should not be bringing up new arguments, I expect you to be giving a crystallization speech

-Crystallization speeches should not just be a summary or a line-by-line of the round; the purpose of a crystallization is to weigh each side of the debate and prove why one side wins over the other

Questioning

-I really value participation in questioning; staying involved, asking good questions, and using questioning to further the debate can be the determining factor between two speakers who are tied in my ranks

-Refrain from talking over each other, cutting each other off, or shouting—keep it civil

-Avoid prefacing (making a statement instead of asking a real question) while it technically isn’t against the rules, it’s not a good use of a question and I don’t consider it helpful to the debate

What to Avoid if You Want a Better Rank (Speakers)

-Being disrespectful

-Reading off prewritten speeches

-Reading off a laptop (unless it’s for accessibility reasons)

-Repeating and rehashing points

-Giving an oratory speech (not including refutation/clash or interacting with the debate)

-Breaking cycle and having a one-sided debate

-Being unprepared and then recessing to figure out what you’re going to do or to write speeches

-Not participating in questioning—even if you give a great speech you have to stay involved

-Prefacing in questioning

-Trying to move the previous question even if someone still wants to speak

-Ending the debate early or using excessive recesses when there is still time to debate and get more speeches in—I understand that might mean some people get an extra speech, but remember, it’s quality over quantity

Presiding

-I consider the Presiding Officer (PO) to be one of the most integral parts of the round; if you preside, you will start with my 1—it is your rank to lose

-As PO, you should have good control over the chamber—it should run so smoothly that I never have to step in

-You need to follow NSDA rules, Robert’s Rules of Order, and then any tournament-specific rules

-Clearly explain your gaveling procedures, how you will call on speakers and questioners, and how you will be keeping track of precedence and recency (p/r)

-I dislike online PO sheets, especially ones that automatically track p/r and determine the next speaker to call on. Even if your sheet is not automated, unless I can see it, I have to assume it is. Having an algorithm do all the work for you is neither skilled nor impressive—I rank competitors, not algorithms

-I expect you to be able to provide speech times, what side a speech was on, and current precedence and recency at any time

-I can provide clarifications, recommendations, and assistance, but I expect you to guide the chamber and promote a healthy debate

-I will not call you out for small mistakes such as P/R because it’s the duty of the chamber to keep you accountable, but I will take note, and every mistake you make will hurt your rank

-Overall, you need to follow the structure of Parliamentary procedure, uphold the rules, and preside fairly, accurately, and efficiently

What to Avoid if You Want a Better Rank (Presiding Officer)

-Using an online PO sheet that automatically tracks and says what speaker to call on

-Using an unnecessary amount of words (not being efficient)

-Gaveling too loudly—I’m sitting right next to you, please don’t give me a headache

-Incorrect Parliamentary Procedure, especially:

-Not knowing the vote needed to pass different motions (like 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, etc)

-“Assuming unanimous consent” for important votes

-Calling for orders of the day to go over the stats from the chamber (that’s not what it is, it’s used for voting on tabled legislation at the end of the session)

-“Amending the docket/agenda” (this motion does not exist and should be ruled out of order)

-“Motion to address the chamber” (this motion does not exist and should be ruled out of order)

Public Forum:

-I have neither coached public forum nor have I competed in it, but I know the basic layout of the debate

-I can handle some spreading, but remember, if I can't get it on my flow, I can't judge you on it

-I try to balance traditional and technical debate, so I value winning the flow, but also sounding persuasive—your argument should be understandable to someone who doesn't know PF terms, but also prioritizes content and responding to arguments

I'm fine with everything that isn't some weird complicated K. Just debate the resolution with framework and contentions and I'll be able to judge :)

Start with the basics -

Stand up!

Look at your judge, not your opponent!

Treat your opponent with respect!

PF: Impacts and weighing!!! Obviously this is pretty standard, if you want to win you need good impacts and you need to weigh them against your opponents. I really appreciate explanation and context, one card which claims to save (insert whatever number) lives is generally not as effective as explaining how the resolution leads to those live being lost (supported with evidence of course). I do my best to only judge based upon what debaters say in round, please identify voter issues and weigh them in speech, don't make me disentangle those at the end.

LD: I first assess the value debate, then I assess which criterion best upholds the winning value. From there I look at which impacts/voter issues apply to the winning criterion and weigh their merit under that criterion. I do my best to base considerations only on what is said by the debaters in round, so make sure that you weigh impacts in your speeches.

Framework - I love the framework debate. In LD framework debate is incredibly important. Direct clash on the criterion or value is best, but even if the framework has been collapsed or agreed to, I need to hear how you are linking into it and outweighing in every speech.

Values: my pet peeve -Why would you include a value in your case if you never say anything about it past constructive? There is plenty of debate to be done on the value level, but it just never seems to happen. If you include a value and it is different from your opponents, argue about it, or concede to theirs and link in, whatever you do don't just forget about it entirely for the rest of the round.

Other Stuff:

Speed - I have never heard a debater on the Minnesota circuit who spoke too fast for me to process. I have heard many debaters who spoke so fast they could no longer enunciate clearly, don't be like them. I will not yell clear or anything like that, if I really can't keep up I will drop my pen.

Progressive stuff - K's, Theory, etc. - I don't know any of this jargon and I generally steer clear of progressive debate. I am happy to vote on anything so long as it makes sense and relates to the debate. If you truly believe in the validity of your K, give it a shot, but make sure to explain it fully and clearly.

Off-time roadmaps: Why? Please don't, just signpost as you speak.

Hello! I’m an assistant coach in PF at Eagan High School. I debated PF for 4 years in high school.

I use they/them pronouns. Please check your emails from Tabroom for your opponents' pronouns and don't purposefully misgender people.

I prefer fewer, well-explained arguments to ten poorly warranted contentions. Please explain your warrants logically as well as just stating evidence. I won't easily vote for an argument that I don't understand; although I ultimately vote off the flow, the clarity and reasonability of an argument will help you a lot, especially if it's close.

Don’t be rude. I’m not impressed by how loudly you can talk over your opponent in crossfire. Try to have fun (it’s just debate, guys) but failing that, don’t stop your opponent from having fun.

Do not speak or whisper during anyone else's speech. If you want to talk to your partner, write it down or message them, but it's rude to speak or whisper while someone else is talking and I don't know how it became such a norm. Additionally, do not speak to your partner during your own speech. I will dock speaks every single time I see this happen and it will be cumulative.

Please weigh. Weighing means comparing your impact to your opponent's, and specifically telling me why yours is more important. For example, don't just say "We outweigh on magnitude because our impact is 900 million people in poverty." I know that 900 million people in poverty is bad, but so is nuclear war. Tell me that you outweigh on probability because a recession is significantly more likely than a nuclear war. Bonus points if you weigh weighing mechanisms (for example, tell me why I should vote based on probability instead of timeframe).

I’m honestly not that fast at flowing, and I often don’t get authors/sources. I’ll do my best, but if you just say “Remember Feinstein” and move on, I probably don’t remember Feinstein, and I can’t vote off something I don’t remember. Explain stuff to me in every single speech.

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will most likely not vote on any other kind of theory. I don't understand it and even if I did try to evaluate it, my decision would probably not make sense. If the round has an accessibility issue (ex. your opponent is using harmful/discriminatory language), you can point it out to me in a speech and/or respectfully ask your opponent to change their behavior in crossfire, you don't need all the fancy formatting.

When your time is up, finish your sentence (in a reasonably concise way) and be done. If you go 5sec over, I’ll stop flowing. Once you hit 20sec over, I will verbally cut you off. Please don’t make me do that. If your opponents are consistently going 10+ seconds over, I’m probably gonna be more lenient with you on speech times, but don’t take it too far either.

Anyways, don’t stress, don’t be rude, you’ll do great :)

Email chain: harshita.nandyala@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Harshita, and I go by she/her pronouns. I debated at Eagan High School for three years, and I'm currently a freshman in college.


The way to my ballot:

• Please be respectful. Aggression isn’t necessary to win a round. Your speaks will tank if you are disrespectful, sexist, homophobic, ableist, and etc.

• Weighing and extending your case. WEIGH. WEIGH. WEIGH. Comparative analysis should happen in all of your speeches throughout the round. It is understandable you will drop arguments and condense your arguments as the round progresses (please do appropriately). However, while doing so, please extend your narrative/case for the round and why YOU should win the round- this should be extremely clear to me in summary. Don’t make me choose what arguments to vote on. You should decide that for me with consistent and comparative weighing. Your arguments should be clearly explained and warranted.

• Signpost. Whenever extending any cards or evidence, make sure to signpost. In addition, briefly explain what that card was about and how it applies to your argument/why you’re extending it. I will not just extend a card, if you say “Extend Rund 19.

• Speed. I can flow pretty well, but please don’t spread. I would consider myself a flay judge, and oftentimes, you will do a better job laying out your narrative and voters for the round if you just slow down. (Keep in mind- PF is a category where someone random who has knowledge of the topic being debated should be able to sit in the round and understand what is going on).

• Good evidence/ethics. Please try to stay away from paraphrasing/making up evidence (PF has gotten really bad with this.) Just use well cut cards like a normal debater, and if for some random reason you have to paraphrase, follow the NSDA rules. If there is any kind of a rules/ethic violation, bring it up in round, and I will try my best to evaluate it.

Other:

1. Speaker Points

• I will start at 27 for all debaters. If you received less than a 27, that means you said something offensive and were not a good person in round.

• I will give out relatively high speaks as long as you are a decent human being, and you speak clearly and respectfully.

• Ok time for the fun stuff:

• +0.5 points -> Every time you read a turn, sing it to the tune of a Taylor Swift song.

• +0.5 points -> Say something nice to your opponents at the end of the round.

2. Time. I will time your speeches and keep track of your prep time. However, I expect you’re also timing yourself. If you’re a few seconds over time, I don’t mind; if you’re more than 10 seconds over, I will stop you.

3. Also, try not to run theory if you can.

Be good, and have fun :)

I'm a debate parent and judge, and during the week I'm a software engineer and musician.

I judge rounds based mostly on these things:

• The quality of arguments presented in the initial contentions, including whether primary assertions are backed by evidence.
• My ability to understand you. If you speak too fast, I have a really hard time understanding the argument. If the argument is convoluted, rapid or slurred speech makes it even harder to follow. I will not give as many points to teams who I cannot understand.
• The character of the debaters. I appreciate passionate speeches, but I will deduct points for ad-hominem or otherwise needlessly critical statements.

Last update: December 2022; a few clarifications, a few additions based on things that have come up recently, removed bullets that were specific to virtual debates (long may they remain unnecessary)

Debate Background and General Info:

I did PF for four years in high school (I graduated in 2014). I consider myself a flow judge, but I will still drop for offensive or inappropriate behavior or rules/ethics violations even if you "win" on the flow. Details on my preferences below, I'm also happy to answer questions before the round.

Details

1. Frontlining: In most rounds you should probably be spending at least a minute on your side of the flow if you are giving the second rebuttal, but I'm willing to be a little more generous in how I flow a "response" given the time constraint (e.g. I would view saying "cross-apply Card XYZ from my response to their C2" without the full level of analysis/impact as a full response, assuming you did actually give a full response to their C2). A good rebuttal that covers the entire flow will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

2. I like to see the round start to condense in Summary, but I understand that in some rounds you need to cover at least part of the flow line-by-line. I leave it up to your strategic discretion how to balance those two approaches; similar to above I will reward you with higher speaker points if you can effectively respond to key points made in the rebuttals but also start to crystallize the round.

3. I like creative arguments, I don't like non-resolutional arguments (and I won't vote for non-topical arguments). If you aren't sure how I would categorize the argument you are planning to run I'm happy to answer questions before the round.

4. If you are giving me "voters" still tell me where you are on the flow.

5. You should be responding to the specific warrants within your opponent's contentions, not just to the taglines.

6. Signpost. Extend arguments fully. Weigh. Impact. Don't be rude.

7. I'll assume CBA if neither side has an alternative framework. Don't introduce a new framework out of nowhere late in the round.

8. I don't flow CX, so you should mention important points in your next speech. I am still paying attention though, so don't lie and say something was said in crossfire that wasn't.

9. I'm really not a fan of offensive overviews in the first rebuttal that don't relate to anything said in the constructives. I'll still flow it, I might even vote on it, but you will probably get lower speaker points if you're doing this.

10. My default speaker point score is 27; I will move up or down from that based on if you impress or disappoint me relative to my expectations for the tournament/pool (i.e. a Novice 29 is not equivalent to a Varsity 29).

11. I don't usually have an issue with speed in PF, so unless you are an outlier you are probably fine. That being said, if your entire speech consists of blippy, one-sentence cards I am probably going to miss some of them if you are going fast.

12. I hate evidence exchanges that take forever. At a minimum you should be able to show them the card immediately because you just read it. I get it might take a minute to pull up the article, but part of your prep should be organizing your evidence in a way that makes it easy to find in round. We shouldn't be sitting around for 5 minutes waiting for you to find something.

13. If you are doing an email chain, I'd like to be on it, BUT I will probably only look at it if there is a question raised in the round as to what a card actually says. I don't view the email chain as a substitute for a clear flow, and I don't want to spend a ton of time reading through your cards if I don't have to.

Personal Pet Peeves: (I won't drop you for doing something on this list. But if you want a 30 these are some things to avoid):

1. I seem to judge a lot of teams that are rolling their eyes or openly scoffing at things their opponents say. Don't do this. Maybe their argument really is bad, but that's my job to decide, not yours. I will dock your speaks if you do this.

2. Spending significant time in all speeches and crossfires on a framework debate and then using an unrelated framework (or no framework at all) to weigh the round in FF.

3. Yelling. I've really never understood why people think this is necessary.

4. Having one mega-contention with a bunch of unrelated subpoints. If your subpoints don't relate to each other they should be separate contentions.

5. Saying "Partner ready?" before you start your speech. If you are stopping prep it's assumed your partner is ready.

6. Talking to or passing notes to your partner during speeches and/or solo crossfires. You have prep time for a reason, you should make sure you are on the same page before you start speaking.

7. Speeches that go over time, especially in Varsity. I will stop flowing once time is up, so trying to squeeze in one more card when you are 10 seconds over isn't going to help you and I will dock speaks for this.

I teach middle school language arts, which includes an introductory unit in debate. I tell my students that anyone should be able to judge a round of debate. This puts the burden on you, the debaters, to MAKE YOUR CASE CLEAR AND EASILY UNDERSTOOD.

By emphasizing your contentions, clearly citing your evidence, and using appropriate examples and analogies to thoughtfully and thoroughly explain and support your position, you will ensure your own success.

CLARITY BEFORE SPEED.

Thank you!

I am a head debate coach at East Ridge High School in Minnesota with 10 years of debate under my belt and 15+ years of speech coaching / judging experience as well. I love both activities, and I love seeing creative / unique approaches to them. I've sent several students to Nationals in both speech and debate categories for the past several years.

In 'real life' I'm an intellectual property attorney. I love good arguments in all types of debate. But I will NOT make logic jumps for you. You need to do the legwork and lay out the argument for me, step by step. I LOVE legal arguments, but most of all I love a good Story. Frame your arguments for me. Make the impacts CLEAR. (e.g. in PF / LD - WEIGH them.) Tell me how and why to write my ballot for you and I probably will!

Voting Values
I vote on topicality in any type of debate that I judge. If your arguments are non-topical, and you get called on it, they will be struck from my flow. Everyone got the same resolution / bills, that's what I want to hear arguments about.

I am NOT a fan of Kritiks - you got the resolution ahead of time. Debate it.

SPEED

THIS IS A COMMUNICATION ACTIVITY. Your goal is to effectively communicate your arguments to me. If you are talking too fast to be intelligible, you are not effectively communicating.

If you make my hand cramp taking notes, I'll be crabby. I am a visual person and my notes are how I will judge the round. If I miss an argument because you were talking at light speed, that's your fault, not mine! :)

Attitude / Aggressiveness

100%, above all, you are human beings and citizens of the world. I expect you to act like it. I HATE rudeness or offensive behavior in any debate format. Be kind, be inclusive. By all means, be aggressive, but don't be rude.

Public Forum: I am a huge framework fan. You have the evidence, frame the story for me. If you give me a framework and explain why, under that framework, your evidence means I vote for you, I will. Don't make me do summersaults to get to a decision. If only one team gives me a framework, that's what I'll use.

Re: Summary / FF - I expect the debate to condense in the summary / final focus - and I expect you to condense the story accordingly. Look for places to cross-apply. I do need arguments to extend through every speech to vote for them - but I do not expect you to reiterate all evidence / analysis. Summarizing and weighing is fine for me.
WEIGH arguments for me. Especially if we're talking apples and oranges - are we comparing money to lives? Is there a Risk-Magnitude question I should be considering?

Re: new arguments in GC/FF - I won't weigh new ARGUMENTS, but I will consider new EVIDENCE / extensions.

Re: Argument / Style - I'm here to weigh your arguments. Style is only important to the extent you are understandable.

I generally don't buy nuclear war arguments. I don't believe any rational actor gets to nuclear war. I'll give you nuclear miscalc or accident, but it's a HIGH burden to convince me two heads of state will launch multiple warheads on purpose.

Lincoln-Douglas: If you give me a V/C pairing, I expect you to tie your arguments back to them. If your arguments don't tie back to your own V/C, I won't understand their purpose. This is a values debate. Justify the value that you choose, and then explain why your points best support your value.

Congress: This is debate. Beautiful speeches, alone, belong in Speech categories. I expect to see that you can speak well, but I am not thrilled to listen to the same argument presented three times. I expect to see clash, I expect to see good Q&A. I love good rebuttal / crystallization speeches.

I DO rank successful POs - without good POs, there is no good Congressional Debate. If you PO well in front of me, you will be ranked well.

World Schools: This actually is my favorite form of debate. I want to see respectful debate, good use of POIs, and organized content. I've judge WSD at Nationals for the last several years and I do adhere to the WSD norms. Please do not give me "regular debate" speed - I want understandable, clear speeches.

Be logical. Be clear. Solidify your statement with proof and evidence.

High speaker points will be awarded for exceptional speech skills, creativity, and margin of victory.

I am a parent judge. I participated in debates during my school years.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Please be concise, speak clearly and call out contentions
2. I prefer progressive arguments that are presented well
3. I weigh evidence favourably over complicated analytics
4. Prefer impacts that are substantiated and are likely

Julia Soczynski - Juliasoc@gmail.com

George Mason '22

Wayzata '18

I now work for Ford Motor Company

Update: If I look cranky, I'm not (maybe).

A little bit about me. I debated for George Mason University, formerly Wayzata High School, I was a 2N. Come Sophomore at college they brought me to the dark side of being a 2A. I think that debate is a game, that said, the way you play is up to you. As a sports fan, I may disagree with some things but does not mean I do not see the value and understand why you play the game of debate the way you do.

As my friend Ezra Serrins puts it, "I appreciate it when debaters take arguments seriously, but you shouldn't take yourself too seriously, it'll just piss me off." The only thing I have to add to that is a good person and have fun.

PF

I've been judging a lot of it lately. Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective warrant-level evidence comparison. My 4 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, (2) saying "de-link,", and (3) using "frontline" as a verb. (4) stealing prep - you will get 15 speaker points. <-- a note on this, I have done this 0 times. It needs to be pretty bad for me to call you on this. I am not evil

Ask me questions, I wrote this quick.

Framework

I probably am 60/40 on voting on framework. The farther the aff is from the rez, the odds of me voting on FW significantly increase. I was raised with the Ogbuli ideal of framework "Fairness is an internal link more than it is an impact, but with sufficient work it can be an impact, this is work missing from the vast majority of framework debates. It's probably not the best impact against teams making identity-based arguments, against all other teams it should make an appearance. Substantive framework impacts such as cede the political, agonism, deliberation, etc are generally more persuasive especially against identity based arguments." The idea of debate being fair. Eh.

Topicality

Both teams (especially aff teams): articulate your vision of the topic/debate and why it's better than the other team's. If I don't know what that is, it's not an insta-kill for the other team, but it will definitely hurt you. Please have an impact, please do framing, thank you in advance. Aff teams: I like it when the aff relates to the resolution in some way. That doesn’t mean you have to have a plan, but the further you go from the rez, the likelier I’ll be to Vote neg on T. I really like when the aff has offense outside of "procedurals are violent". Internal link turn stuff, that's fun. Neg teams: yes, I'm in the camp that thinks there is a difference between T and FW. Just because I think this doesn't mean you get to blow off their offense with "we're T not FW" and leave it at that (explain stuff please). I like it when there's a TVA, especially on this topic.

Nontraditional/K affs

Both teams (especially aff teams): articulate your vision of the topic/debate and why it's better than the other team's. If I don't know what that is, it's not an insta-kill for the other team, but it will definitely hurt you. Please have an impact, please do framing, thank you in advance.

Aff teams: I like it when the aff relates to the resolution in some way. That doesn’t mean you have to have a plan, but the further you go from the rez, the likelier I’ll be to vote neg on T. I really like when the aff has offense outside of "procedurals are violent". Internal link turn stuff, that's fun.

Neg teams: yes, I'm in the camp that thinks there is a difference between T and FW. Just because I think this doesn't mean you get to blow off their offense with "we're T not FW" and leave it at that (explain stuff please). I like it when there's a TVA, especially on this topic.

Kritiks

I understand at least the basic theory behind most Ks, and increased the number I run tremendously between junior year of hs and the end of my debate career. However, please don’t blow off explanation and contextualization. Too many aff teams let negs get away with read generic links or links that are about the status quo - call them on that. Impact comparison is severely underutilized in K debates. Alts are usually the weakest part of these debates, so the neg should devote time (before the 2NR, come on now) to explaining how the alt functions/solves. Floating PIKs are probably not a reason to reject the team, but reading one will make me a lot more sympathetic to the perm. Links of omission are not real links. PS. If you call someone out of there link of omission and say "oh yes, the link of omission." I will bump your speaks up.

Counterplans

Love them!

I will only kick the CP if asked. 2As tell me why they shouldn’t get to I will listen!

Disads

I Love DAs. The unfortunate a lot of people read with hyper-generic links that require a ton of spin to win. With that in mind, case specific disads (or even just hyper-specific link cards) are awesome. Politics is great. Politics and a CP were 80% of my 2NRs. I love really unique, well-explained turns-case stories.

Theory

I have no predisposition to sides when theory is run as a as a reason to reject the argument, but I most likely won’t vote on theory as a reason to reject the team unless it’s condo. On the condo question, I really don’t care. You can win that one condo is bad/good or 5 condo is bad/good. More reasonably, 5 condo may be is pushing it. (I have been informed this is a hot take). Please slow down and do line by line on theory, as it makes it easier for me to judge.

Yeah, that's it. Have fun!

Hello,

I just want to see solid link chains and analysis. Tech/Lay strategies are both okay, but make sure you are adapting to your opponents. If they are confused, I might be too. Make sure to be respectful!

Also, remember to weigh! I want to be told what impact is the most important. It's okay to be drop things and collapse, that's a part of PF - just make sure you collapse on the most important contentions.

Welcome & Thanks for completing. I enjoy polite and respectful debates. As a student parent you will be happy to know I have a year of experience and a lifetime of accrued knowledge. My goal is to be fair and impartial. Let's have an educational and enjoyable debate. Best wishes, Richard.

Debate: Make your contentions obvious, don't spread, and don't be an offensive/abusive idiot. I believe that theory (especially disclosure theory) is counterproductive to the debate community and if you run it you will lose my ballot.

Please send your case to my email so that I can pre-flow the round: sasha.warbritton@ephsspeech.org

Speech: If you are not memorized, I will always rank you below someone who has done the work of memorization. In PA, I am looking for well-structured speeches with a good balance of analysis and evidence. Performance quality matters with tone, hand gestures and overall confidence, and while jokes are fun, they are not necessary to win my round. In Interp, I am looking for well defined characters, clear blocking, and a speaker who is fully immersed in their performance.

Hello !

This is my second year as a parent Judge. I am a lay judge that will vote for the team presenting me strong arguments supported by accurate, convincing and relevant evidence and outweighing the impacts

1. I would prefer you state a source with more information while reading cards. For example: John Apple reports from the brooking institute in 2022, instead of Apple 22, this way it gives your source credibility and I will know that it is not from some random angry Reddit user’s post.

1. Please speak at a reasonable pace. Remember, this is not a speed reading competition. ABSOLUTELY NO SPREADING. If I get lost in your speech because you're reading too fast, I won't be able to judge your case fairly.

2. Please be mindful of the time limit. If you are 5 seconds over the time limit, I will stop to flow your speech.

PLEASE NO RUNNING THEORY, KRITIKS OR FRAMEWORK I will immediately Vote against you.

Above all else, PLEASE TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS AND JUDGE WITH RESPECT.

I am excited to be your judge and I can’t wait to listen to your debate. Best of luck to both teams!

Hello all!

I hope your tournament is going well and I am excited to be a part of it! I have been doing debate since I was a high schooler like you, so please, don't be worried about me keeping up.

That said- I appreciate good structural analysis in your flows, so do your best to sign post to keep things neat. Impacting out to something weighable will make my job, and consequently your job, much easier- so where you can, do! Try and define topic specific terms because you will have spent more time researching this than me (keep that in mind for most studies to- your speech may be my introduction to a study or term- so quantify what it means).

Above all else, and in regards to speaking point scores, I request that, to the best of your abilities, you practice good etiquette and class; remember you are debating the arguments, not your opponents (but don't be shy to defend your points or be assertive).

My ballot will likely come down to who can best provide a through-line in the flow for me to judge on, and a reason to weigh it above that of their opponents. Please remember that despite being your judge (and therefore judging you), I am rooting for you all the way, so try not to be too nervous.

At the end, if you have learned something, the day is worth it- and I commend you for your choice of activity.

Good luck!