I am a lay judge and a volunteer parent.

Please don't talk too fast. Please allow time for your opponents to answer your questions and to ask questions .

I have read up on the topic. Looking forward to hearing your presentations!

I am currently a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying physics; I learned the basics of parliamentary debate as a part of my middle school debate club but do not have experience judging, so please speak clearly, efficiently, and make sure to define all relevant terms of your argument.

Hello this is my first year of judging. I enjoy judging debate and here are some things I look at during round…

*the way you speak during round including tone and variety

*well prepared and researched

*strong responses in cross ex

*weighing

*respect towards the oppponents

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 new parent judge. Please do not talk too fast or use any debate language as I probably will not understand it.

All arguments should be thoroughly explained with reasoning to back them up.

Crossfire is important to me, use questions to point out flaws in your opponents' arguments.

Please tell me what the order of your speeches will be as it will help me follow along.

Most importantly, have fun!

Emphasis on:

• Best effort from the debaters
• Good speaking
• Good presentation
• Should be well-versed in the context of the topic
• Persuasive speeches

I prefer concise arguments with well-supported by evidence. I value the quality of the arguments rather than the quantity, and would like debaters to speak at a moderate pace. Please remember to have fun, and I am excited to hear your arguments!

* 30 year high school English and theatre teacher

* Looking for clear explanations of contentions, and rebuttals.

* Articulation and enunciation is essential.

* Cruel and profane language is NEVER acceptable.

* Be kind above all else

1st year lay parent judge: I am a practicing attorney with a background in moot court. I have judged numerous tournaments this year and can keep up with your flow. I do judge cross.

truth>tech

While I understand the temptation to pack in as many arguments as possible, avoid speaking so quickly as to be unintelligible.

If you believe the other side has dropped a contention, I encourage you to point that out.

Be respectful. One note of caution -- I am familiar with NSDA rules. Please be certain of the rules before you decide to cite the rules as an objection.

I will award high speaker points to both sides, if such are earned.

Most importantly have fun!

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

General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF:

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

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

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

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

LD:

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

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

Congress:

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

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

BQ:

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

Hello!

My name is Adrian. I’m a student at NYU. I have been a part of Mock Trial since high school.

· Speak confidently and clearly

· Respect other team while they are speaking

· Don’t stress & have fun

Hi! Thank you for taking the time to read my paradigm before the round. I am a relatively new judge, so please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus, and please do the weighing for me! It exudes confidence when you clearly lay out why your stance has a greater impact.

Send me docs please: copland.nicholas@gmail.com

Freshman at UNC Chapel Hill. Did 3 years of circuit LD. First year of judging so feel free to give me feedback on anything.

Basics:

Dont be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. This will be an automatic loss and the lowest speaks possible.

LD:

I prefer policy style rounds however, I am ok with pretty much anything LARP, performance affs, Ks, phil, and theory (not frivolous). Plan on overexplaining most things and always tell me why something matters.

Please no tricks, frivolous theory, and disclosure will never be my number one priority in round.

0.5 Speaks boost for GOOD NFL or NBA metaphors (know ball).

PF:

Don't be a jerk

I prefer more lay PF (if you want to spread try policy) but am fine with anything so please run what you want.

0.5 Speaks boost for GOOD NFL or NBA metaphors (know ball).

I prefer that you speak slowly so that I can understand the arguments especially in the constructive round.

Backup arguments with data like numbers, percentage,etc.

Do not repeat the same argument or rebuttal over and over in different sections.

Attack any and all points of your opponents.

Nicolas Dorazio • they/them • njdorazio@gmail.com • HS senior

-----------

Semi-experienced, likely considered a flay judge looking for contention defense, argument cohesiveness, strong and consistent weighing, and informed, direct questioning during crossfire.

Generally no concern with speed. Tend to favor teams collapsing on strongest contentions and reasoning instead of needless extensions during summary + FF. Will review cards only if your opponent contests. Be concise!

Appreciates civil conduct. Raising your voice, becoming rude, and all that is unnecessary. Respect and politeness are key. Anything remotely considered racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, or anything similar will not be tolerated (automatic SP<20). Back-and-forth yelling is not debating.

Will strike new responses for FF. Will keep track of extensions through ink (please do NOT even try). Do not expect me to know anything you haven't explained or haven't provided me with cards to read.

Will try my best to flow and keep organized notes, which I'm happy to share at the end of the round. Love to see thoughtful note-taking and cooperation between teammates! Not afraid to cut you off when your time is up, so please be respectful and keep track of how much time you have left (especially with running prep). Generally easygoing but am steadfast with this. Once time is over, my flow is over too. I'm happy to give time signals, but YOU need to set them with me pre-round.

Speaker points will generally be high and primarily based on crosses. Think on your feet. Be critical. Be analytic. I know you know this material. Just make sure that's clear in your speech. Explain what my ballot does during FF! Emphasize impact + cost-benefit analysis. Be careful with K's and calls on topicality. Anything major in crosses you want to ensure I note should be restated in a later speech.

Signposting is greatly appreciated! + especially when beginning speeches post-opening

If you are ever uncomfortable with anything said, please let me know, and we may pause the round. This will not affect judging.

This is my first year as a alumni/student judge.

I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important, for example, it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded.

I was a public forum debater for all 4 years of high school and I value evidence and sources as well as argument.

I find that there is plenty of time during the round for teams to present arguments cogently and marshall evidence. Don't rush. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

Add me to the chain-- mayaelsharif@gmail.com

Pine Crest '21

UPENN '24 - debating hybrid with Dartmouth

YOU DO YOU! I love this activity (clearly), I want you to as well!

If you are someone who is mean about post-rounding - strike me. I am happy to answer genuine questions, but will not tolerate malignant comments:)

Alright, now for the specifics:

Theory/T-

T: I hate judging T debates unless an aff is actually NOT remotely topical OR you are clearing winning on your interp. I LOVE T-USFG - fairness or clash style impacts are great in front of me, done both.

Other: I do not take a firm stance on theory. Condo is good, I can be persuaded it's bad, but it is good. "Cheating" counterplans are less and less cheaty in front of me.

Kritiks--

K-AFFS- Did not run them in high school, way more persuaded by T when the K-AFF is not even attempting to critique the resolution. If the topic is Fiscal Redistribution do not read an aff about vacuum cleaners. I tend to lean in favor of a well-fleshed-out T argument and went for clash offense in hs, and fairness offense in college. I now read a K-AFF in certain debates, so I am familiar with both sides of clash debates!

Kritiks- I read a lot of K literature - DO NOT read a K that you do not understand. Identity Ks, High Theory, and Cap/Security Ks are all fine with me, but really explain the literature and convince me of the framing. If you can't understand the card, I won't either.

Disads--

I like them, I love when the neg goes for the status quo. They exist on this topic. Politics is more real than before, Econ DA slaps, Horsetrading and Federalism are B-tier.

A well executed straight turn is a solid place to be in front of me.

AFF write me a try-or-die ballot lol

Counterplans--

I lived for a process CP in high school. All CPs except delay are good! Go for PDCP more. I reward good competition debates.

Speaker points:

I hate giving speaker points, everyone has a different style and your score out of 30 points means nothing to me. Things I reward: jokes, humor, personality, flowing, LBL, roadmap, strategic cross-ex questions.

You must disclose!!! I hate teams that try to avoid disclosure; this will affect your speaker points dramatically. If any racial slurs, sexist comments, or degrading language is used intentionally in the round, I will give you a 0 for speaks. Being mean is fun for nobody, don't do it. I am okay with curse words, but not when they are directed at the other team.

Points:

>29.3- AMAZINGGGGGG

29.0-29.3-- great debater, needs more persuasion

28.6- 29 -- need some technical work, but was good

28.2-28.6 -- you were great, but need to work on both technique and picking the best args

28-28.2 -- Needs improvement. It will come with practice

<27 -- lots of improvement or extremely rude/offensive

Please be funny and kind in rounds. I am always tired, if the speeches are boring, everyone will be bored. Make comebacks in a smart manner, but DO NOT be mean. Sarcasm is always welcomed.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ANYTHING ABOVE OR THE BALLOT AT THE END OF THE DEBATE, EITHER EMAIL ME OR ASK ME, I WILL ANSWER!!! I am also more than happy to send you an email with constructive comments; debate is about improvement, I am happy to help! I also like to get to know people, do not be hesitant to share your name and some fun things about you; the debate community could use more friends!!!

PF/LD

• I did not compete in these formats, but have friends who did. I will likely be a point fairy because of policy points.
• Extend arguments and do ballot instruction!
• Have fun!

Parli

• Organization and line-by-line matters to me.
• I hate that this activity does not have evidence BUT if you can explain something clearly and persuasively that will make me hate it less.

I formerly debated and coached LD (high school level) and Parliamentary (college level).

I judge traditionally. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the resolution topic. I look for compelling arguments and responses. I will be inclined against tricks, theory, etc.

I listen and take notes during cross.

If you tell me that you win the round on some point in the final speech, I expect the point to have been well developed throughout the round.

You may want to explain or simply avoid debate lingo. I prefer intuitive explanations over excessive reliance on shorthand like "framework," "claim," "warrant," "impact," and other terms not commonly used outside debate. You should assume I won't know them. Good explanations accomplish each of those things without specialized, confusing jargon.

Speed is a negative. I prefer a speed comfortable for a non-trained person to understand your point.

Treat your opponents with respect.

Most of all, have fun!

I am tabula rasa; did policy debate in HS and college. Fine with speed and K.

I am a first-time lay judge this year and the parent of a tenth-grade debater. I'm excited to be a judge during these debates. Good luck to all of you!

I find sign posting and off-time roadmaps helpful. You can time yourself and keep track of your prep time or I can do so via the electronic timers on the ballot. Debaters are responsible for checking each other's cards if they want to. Keep crossfires respectful and allow all participants to ask questions. If possible, please speak at a pace that I can follow and don't talk in a rushed manner.

I am fine with theoretical and analytical arguments as long as they are easy to follow. While your own contentions are very important, poking holes in the other side's arguments will be very impressive to me.

Obviously, be respectful at all times and do not use any offensive arguments or language. Thank you!

Congratulations for participating in Speech and Debate!

I’m a debate enthusiast, and my leisure time is spent promoting the sport for all students. Whether you win or lose this round, you are developing competencies that will carry you throughout your life. Now for how to win my ballot.

I'm a FLAY (Flow /Laymen) PF judge, so while I flow the round, I expect a respectful and civil atmosphere— and make sure your narrative makes sense. In other words, don’t read a bunch of statistics to support arguments that don’t seem reasonable in the real world.

In my evaluations, I prioritize the following three factors, listed in no particular order:

1) Weighing: clearly explain the arguments made by both sides as early as the second rebuttal and throughout the remainder of the round

2) Warrant: provide logical reasoning behind the evidence presented and critically interrogate your opponents' warrants.

3) Clash/Crossfire: fully engage with and provide quality responses to the arguments made by your opponent, rather than simply disagreeing with them. With that said, don’t stress the crossfire. The crossfire is NOT going to make or break the round. At most, it may impact your speaker points. Thus, it's important to use that time to thoroughly interrogate and understand the opponent's narrative to have a meaningful exchange of ideas for the remainder of the round.

If evenly matched on all the above, perceptual dominance (i.e., tone, presence, confidence, and team dynamic) wins!

Automatic Loss:

Warning: If tempted to give false evidence, Don’t Do It!

Speaker Point deduction:

Icks:

• Repeatedly (3 or more) asking opponents for cards. You might as well ask them to send you their entire case- SUS!

• Looking only at the judge the entire round without ever looking at your opponent; I find it dismissive and rude to your opponent. It’s important to fluctuate your attention and consider both the judge and your opponent during the round.

I have coached LD and PF for about 15 years now, but I am not a professional debater. I am a flow judge, and I prefer classic debate with clear clash, not jargon-laden spreaders with theory and K shells. I value clash and technical debate, but I will not vote for a blatantly false argument even if it is dropped.

Clear your impacts. I am OK with some speed, but you must be clear. At least slow down through authors and taglines. In the end, if I can't understand you, you will lose.

Extend, don't drop. I will consider dropped arguments to be conceded. Even if the other turn drops a turn, you should extend your warrant. Tell me what was conceded and why it matters.

Weigh your argument. The last two speeches should be about weighing and crystallization, not new arguments or a rehash of old ones. Tell me how to weigh your round, because if I choose the weighing mechanism, you might not win.

Don't make me work. If you tell me, I'll flow it, unless it goes by too fast. The more you link, the less I have to think. I will make reasonable assumptions and discount abusive arguments even if you don't call them out explicitly, but the more work I have to do, the less predictable the outcome will be for you.

Evidence clash is mostly neutral. I don't judge Policy. Trying to outweigh on evidence is not going to go very far for me. In most cases, if you toss just cards at each other, I will call that a wash.

What I Prefer to See in a Debate:

1.) Please dont go too fast. Take the time to ensure that the points you are making are being well understood by me and the opponents. Debates and presentations in real life are NOT about incoherently cramming lots of points, rather its about a clear and concise articulation of a few compelling points with a cogent delivery. These competitions are meant to prepare you for the real world.

2.) Summarize the topic and your position at the onset, to frame your argumentation.

3.) Please cite sources/references to back up all facts that you use in your argumentation.

4.) Be respectful to the opponents even if they appear underprepared, or have weaker arguments.

5.) Stick to the allotted time limits.

• Hi. My name is Maah Gul Khan. I am a volunteer and this is the first time that I will be judging this event.
• Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.
• I believe debate is all about and communication and any argument that is made clearly will ultimately be more persuasive. More than anything, I believe the primary emphasis of a debater should be their ability to coherently express themselves. There is no right or wrong argument…as long as it is made intelligently, effectively and politely.
• Please speak at a reasonable speed, not too fast to make comprehension difficult and please have evidence ready when opponents ask for it.
• Lastly and most importantly please use a respectful tone in your speech and body language.

Karissa Kromminga - she/her

Debated 4 years of policy at Washburn Rural - (arms sales, CJR, water, NATO)

Seton Hall University - International Relations and Diplomacy

Pls add me to the email chain: kkromminga04@gmail.com

Top Level:

Tech>truth

I love good line-by-line and case specific debating

Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. I will auto vote you down for being discriminatory (racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc.) and I will not feel bad about it.

General rule - I need a warranted explanation of what your argument is and why it outweighs/solves whatever the other team went for in order to vote for it.

DAs:

Impact calc is super important for both the aff and the neg. All parts of the DA need to be extended in the 2NR for me to reasonably vote on it. If you only extend the link or only extend the impact I won't give it much weight. The more specific of a link the better, evidence is great, but an in-depth explanation of why the specific mechanism of the aff triggers the link is better than non-contextualized/generic evidence.

Impact turns - I love them, read them. However, this does not include death good, if you read it don't expect me to vote on it.

CPs:

Yes. That being said, I need a 2NR explanation of what the CP actually does in order to vote for it. There has to be a net benefit to the CP that the perm can't access in order for me to vote for it.

I tend to think that CPs that fiat the aff (consult, QPQ, etc) are probably cheating, or easily beat by a perm, but I will vote for them if the aff doesn't extend theory.

I won't judge kick the CP, unless I am told to.

Ks:

I am fairly familiar with the traditional K lit, so if you are reading a K outside of that assume that I am not super familiar with the lit. I have a high threshold for you reading noncontextualized blocks, especially in the 2NR/2AR. Please please please do not just spread through your blocks with no interaction, it will piss me off, and I will tune you out.

Be very clear with signposting during framework and large link walls - however, when extending links please do not just say, "extend X link" with no explanation, that means nothing to me.

K affs: I tend to lean more towards affs having a plan being good, and can be pretty persuaded by a good T push in the 2NR. That being said, I think a lot of 2N’s are bad at extending T, so you might not have that much trouble getting my ballot. I have a very high threshold for T=policing or T=genocide arguments.

K v K: This is area where I am the least familiar. If you want to have this debate, go ahead, but I'll need clear impact calc and explanations from both teams. If I don't understand what your argument is I probably won't vote for it.

T:

I love a good T debate. If you are going for T, make sure to extend your impacts and clash with what your opponent is saying. I tend to lean towards reasonability being a bad standard, but I will vote on it if it is not answered in the debate.

For T-USFG: clash>fairness. Same as above, I have a high threshold for just reading uncontextualized blocks. I think that switch-side debate solves is pretty persuasive, but only if it’s paired with a good TVA, otherwise it’s pretty hard to hedge back against a 2AR “we can’t access our lit” push.

Theory:

I think theory is usually a reason to reject the arg not the team, with condo as an exception. I think disclosure is good, and I have a low threshold for theory if an aff team refuses to disclose before the round.

Speaks:

I am fine with speed, but clarity is important. Please don't spread through analytics at top speed and expect me to catch everything. I will clear you twice, and after that I will just stop flowing. Good, strategic CX will lead to higher speaks. Flex prep does not exist, if you are asking the other team questions outside of cross I am not listening and I do not care. I will boost speaks if you give the 2NR/2AR off the flow. If you get 26 or less, you were probably incredibly rude or literally did not debate.

I flow on my computer, so if I am not typing, assume I am not flowing. Watch for nonverbals, I give them. That said, I have been told I have a RBF, so if I am not making an expression don't assume negatively.

I’m a parent volunteer judge in my for the last 2 years. I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to see the competitors in action!

POLICY:

Truth > Tech

Please ask me for my email in order to add me to the email chain. I'm not a big fan of spreading, but will not penalize debaters for doing so. However, I may not be able to keep up with it and it may ending up harming my understanding of your arguments and I may not be able to flow it. I prioritize clear speaking and factual arguments with clear evidence.

PFD:

As PFD is meant to be understood by a lay judge, please use clear delivery, everyday language, straightforward organization and credible evidence.

Please speak at an understandable pace. If you're speaking too quickly during an in-person round, I'll put down my pen as a sign that I can't understand what you're saying. In virtual competitions, I will place my hand near my ear to signal my inability to understand you at that pace. In both instances I will no longer be able to flow so those arguments will be dropped.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. If excessive time is spent trying to produce requested evidence, I will verbally warn you that I will soon begin to run prep time.

All jargon and acronyms should be clearly defined.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Since I'll base my decision on the voters you provide in your Final Focus, it's your responsibility to convince me that you have won the round. Voters that do not accurately describe what occurred in the round will not be considered and speaker points will be lost.

CONGRESS:

Speak directly to the audience in a clear, loud voice and at a pace that allows your speech to be understood. Make frequent eye contact and only reference notes you have rather than reading your speech directly from paper.

Your speech should have distinct organization and be supported by credible evidence. Both the introduction and conclusion should clearly list your claims. Speeches with creative, memorable introductions that are then linked to your conclusions will earn more speaker points and improve your ranking.

After Authorship/Sponsorship, negative and affirmative speeches on legislation should present new perspectives or further refute opposing arguments rather than simply repeating previously stated points. Please do not merely read a speech that was entirely prepared beforehand.

When answering questions posed by other speakers, I'll be looking to see if you demonstrate a strong defense of your case as well as in-depth knowledge of the topic. Responses should be made with confidence and clarity.

While you won't be scored based on the questions you ask, your active involvement in the session will be noted by your participation in the question and answer periods.

SPEECH:

Speeches are ranked according to the following: (not in order of importance)

Originality of piece

Personal connection

Structure

Vocalization

Phrasing, pacing and fluidity

Speaker presence

Character development

Emotion

Transitions

Introduction/Conclusion

Looking forward to a wonderful competition!

Be respectful to your opponents. I do not tolerate hateful or discriminatory speech or actions of any kind.

What I prefer to see in a Debate:

1. Please don't go too fast. I can follow arguments faster but not super, super fast.

2. Don't give me hypotheticals and try not to use just theory to support your points. Real solutions/real things get across to me much better.

3. Please speak actively, don't just read your notes from the computer.

To Whom It May Concern--

My name is James Lewis (he/him/his) and I have participated in various forms of debate for six years (as both a competitor and a judge). My debate specialties include Big Questions, Public Forum, Congress, and World Schools. My speech specialties include DUO, DI, and Impromptu. The following are general notes that I apply to my paradigm:

• Do not insult your opponent (passion is understandable, but not at the expense of respect)
• I do flow cross-examination
• Have physical or downloaded copies of all of your evidence (I will need the full piece of evidence in the event of a dispute)
• Do not refer to Africa as a country (I will be strict with this)
• Be mindful of your speaking style (pace and projection)
• In regards to evidence, please refer to the citation rules provided by the NSDA (https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Rules-2015-2016.pdf)

I will also review my paradigm before rounds begin, please do not hesitate to ask any questions.

Warm Regards,

James Lewis

Hello! My name is Zachary Li (he/him), and I'm a freshman at NYU!

Education:

New York University '27 (B.S. Business + B.A. Mathematics)

Coppell High School --> TAMS '23 (debated 3 years LD as well as some PF and CX)

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain! My email is zcl1578@gmail.com. I will skim the doc but won't intervene on evidence ethics unless it is brought up in the round. I do keep time, but I would love it if you timed and stopped yourself. Feel free to sit or stand, and spectators are fine as long as competitors are okay with it.

General Thoughts:

1. PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU WIN. You can do this in a couple of ways.

a) First, ballot painting - write my ballot for me by telling me exactly how you win the round.

b) Second, impact calculus - weigh your impacts against theirs and tell me why they are more important (magnitude, probability, scope, reversibility, timeframe, whatever) and why that particular weighing standard is important, as well as why you weigh better under the framework (LD).

c) Thirdly, clash/argument resolution - tell me the most important questions in today's round and why you're winning them - if two cards make competing claims, give me a reason to prefer your card/evidence/analytics, whether it be timeframe, credentials, we take into account something they don't, biased view, whatever - just give me a reason why you win a key argument rather than just extending the card.

d) Fourthly, argument impacting - why does conceding/losing this argument matter to the round? Does it disrupt the CP? DA? Sever the link to the K? Does this mean they have no offense? Does this mean I have to evaluate through sufficiency framing? Does this mean your impact o/w?

2. I'm a 7 out of 10 for speed. Not a huge fan of spreading but I'll survive with a speech doc. Maybe about 275 words with speech doc and 200 otherwise - I will use clear if necessary.

3. I consider myself to be a flow judge. That is, I will look at my flows after the round, adjudicate arguments, and decide on a winner.

4. Generally, I give speaks between 27-30 based not only on your clarity but also your strategy and organization. I try to view it as independent of the ballot - that is, you might get higher speaks but not the ballot - but more often than not, the ballot goes to the debater who is more clear and has better strategy and organization. (for math nerds) Speaks~Norm(28.5, 0.5)

5. (for novices) PLEASE STOP DROPPING MAJOR ARGUMENTS - please respond to important arguments during the 1nc/1ar or I'll be forced to accept them as true :(

Lincoln-Douglas (LD):

1 - LARP/Policy-style arguments

2-3 - Theory/T

2 - Phil

3-4 - K

5 - Tricks

LARP/Policy-style arguments: I ran these almost every round in high school. I am fine with plans, CPs, DAs, and other LARP stuff. LARP debates are almost always hard to resolve, so please tell me why you are winning an argument/the opponent is behind, and then why that argument is important.

Theory/T: I am generally ok with theory/T, but be reasonable.

Phil: I am not the most phil-educated person, but I do really like phil arguments and often find them persuasive. If you go for phil be sure to explain why I should prefer your framework/way of thinking.

K: not the hugest fan of Ks but I'll evaluate them, especially if they are topical. I can understand basic Ks, but chances are I won't understand more complicated ones. In my opinion, Ks function as DAs and CPs - you need to win that the DA (link and impacts) matter and the CP (alt) solves/reduces. You should also probably win framing. I tend to take the side of LARP debaters against the K on issues such as fiat and the state, but you can still win if you show me clear warrants.

Tricks: tricks are for kids

Public Forum:

debated a little public forum (~10 rounds) in high school, so I'm relatively familiar with how the event works. I'm ok with disclosure and counterplans, but other than that I would like to see an actually topical debate on the genuine merits of the resolution. Please read #1 on my general thoughts, because I find that PF, in particular, is very difficult to resolve. Put yourself in my shoes - why should I vote for you?

Congress:

never judged this before but I go off of who was the clearest and had the most insightful arguments/analysis. Be sure to genuinely respond to points brought up by your fellow representatives and senators and advance substantive debate about the topic rather than theatrics and hand-waving. POs start slightly above the middle of the pack and move up based on performance; PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE respect the time limits not only for speeches but for questioning periods as well to create the best experience for your fellow members of Congress.

I am a very lay judge-- that means if you run prog or spread, I will not understand you, and will probably not vote for you.

My ideal round is clean, slow, and civil. Please be respectful during the round, and make sure to not interrupt your opponents. Any obviously racist, sexist, or homophobic arguments are L25's.

I am truth>tech. If you tell me that fishing conflicts are going to escalate to nuclear war, you'd better have the best evidence in the world to back it up. Even then, I'd say it's somewhat risky.

Please time yourselves, and if your opponents go over time, feel free to show me your timer. Prep stealing and taking a long time to find evidence will irritate me.

(My daughter wrote this paradigm-- if you've hit Hunter MM tell me about them :) )

I debated public forum for 4 years in high school, so I am familiar with the format.

Please do not spread.

Don't misconstrue or exaggerate evidence.

Don't straw man your opponents arguments or misrepresent what they said.

I prefer good arguments grounded in the truth as opposed to technicalities.

Make sure to explain why your arguments are more impactful than your opponents instead of just explaining why yours are true and theirs are false.

Though I am familiar with some jargon, I'd rather you explain your arguments without using them.

Debate the resolution and not theories or k's.

General

I believe that debate should be about discovering and communicating the truth rather than following the technicalities associated with high school debate. Thus, your top priority should be to offer true, well-warranted, and clear arguments. Although I will flow the entire round and appreciate you following the technicalities of debate, technicalities are a secondary concern in my mind. In other words, I would much rather you go over time or miss an argument in a speech than spread, manipulate evidence, or deliver a false argument. Finally, while it goes without saying, rude or disrespectful behavior of any kind particularly towards your opponents is not acceptable and will likely result in an immediate loss.

Argumentation

As I said earlier, I place a high value on good arguments. I am pretty familiar with the PF topic and should be able to understand technical and complex arguments as long as they are clear, well warranted, and founded in facts. I also tend to prefer tangible arguments with a clear link to the resolution than ones with long link chains or loose connections to the resolution.

Please also avoid progressive argumentation such as theories or Ks. I don't really know how they work and will almost definitely not vote on them.

Timing

1. Please don't spread. I will try my best to understand you, but if your speaking over 250 words per minute, the chances are I probably won't.

2. I am generous with time. You can go a few seconds over as long as you are not spreading.

Speeches

1. Case:

- Don't rush and make sure it's not too long (over 850 words)

- Make sure you cite the source and the date of any statistics or quotes you cite (author last name and year is fine).

2. Crossfire:

-Be polite in crossfire. Do not interrupt your opponent and try to share the time as evenly as possible.

3. Rebuttal:

-Quality over quantity of responses. One or two good counterarguments is often enough.

- Please frontline in second rebuttal so you don't leave that for second summary.

4. Summary:

- I won't evaluate new arguments by second summary. Also, you don't need to waste responding to new arguments in final focus. Just point out any new arguments and I'll judge whether they have been said or not.

- Don't just repeat your case and rebuttal. Compare your contentions to your opponent's arguments and explain why yours are better.

- You should "extend" anything that you want me to evaluate, but that means re-explaining the argument not simply namedropping the tag-line

5. Final Focus

- You don't need to re-explain every argument unless it wasn't clear in summary. Just take what has been said and explain why your arguments and overall narrative is better than your opponents.

- Please weigh your impacts so I can keep my decision as objective as possible

Evidence

Please don't manipulate evidence. I will mostly likely tell if a card is embellished and will call for it at the end of round. If I find your evidence to be embellished in any way, I will disregard it completely.

Miscellaneous

- Please don't lie about what your opponent said or did not say. If you're not sure about what your opponents said, they don't make assumptions.

- Try to avoid using jargon like internal link, prereq, magnitude, scope, or reversibility, especially as a replacement for good logic. They make debate inaccessible, and I don't know what many of them mean.

Hi,

I am new at judging at school forums. That said I do get to listen and judge on a lot of topics at work - judgements that have to be made based on facts and presented such that there is no conflict in the information presented and the citations / data / sources. Well formed arguments rooted in evidences and backed with sources are what I will be looking for in the content you present. While debating I do believe that respect to opponents and engagement with audience are a basic requirement and I hope to see you do well on that requirement.

Wish you the very best and good luck at shining on the stage.

I am a second year parent judge who was never an academic debater (although I have been involved in countless corporate debates).

Hence, let's make the debate as much of a real world discussion as possible.

1) Please speak at a normal pace. No one "spreads" when trying to convince any other human being of anything useful.

2) Offline roadmaps and outlining the arguments are very helpful, remind me what you are arguing or refuting, and how that fits into the overall structure. Use the off the clock time to do this before you begin your speech!

3) Generally accepted concepts are welcomed. Logic and reason do not need citations. (i.e. high interest rates lead to lower stock prices)

4) "Truth over tech". Valid, engaging, impactful arguments win for me over tech every time.

5) Convince me why you should win in the Summary and Final Focus - be clear, structured, impactful, it really matters. Many of the debates are very close, and the Summary and Final Focus make all the difference. Wrap up the debate neatly.

Thank you and good luck.

I have several preferences regarding speaks:

• Speak at a measured pace - Clarity over speed. It is not the amount of content covered but the idea is to convince the judge of your arguments - Ensure that your debate is comprehensible - Speak with volume to modulate your tone in conveying your arguments effectively - Appropriate eye contact with your opponents or judges as required
• My preferences for argument - I favor strong and logical arguments supported by facts and warranting - Extend your warranting - I judge the rationality of an argument based on your impact, but the entire case must be cohesive - I will vote for the larger impact only if the point is warranted properly and well articulated - Strong impactful arguments made by opponents left unresponded to will go in your opponents' favor - As a judge, I won’t contribute my knowledge to this debate and will solely judge on information presented to me. Make sure to address your opponents' arguments appropriately. - Speaker points do not affect my judging decision, but I prefer a well-articulated argument conveyed effectively.
• What not to do - Do not source battle unnecessarily, argue, and extend with your warrants. Rather convey your arguments with a force of rationality. - Do not belittle opponents' sources - Evidence should support your arguments, not arguments supporting evidence. The point is not to sprinkle pieces of evidence but to weave those into your story with consistency. Best of luck and most of all enjoy the debate!!

I judge based on the arguments made by each team, and which team extends points across the flow. The winning team will make successful arguments and defend them with cards while successfully defeating their opponents points.

My friend Henry Anastasi made this for me. I debated in middle school but am mostly lay.

My name is Hana Menkari and I'm a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania.

Generally, I have experience in the past with debate by winning multiple top awards including Best Delegate and Best Public Speaker among others due to Model UN. I will attempt to judge using a balanced approach that focuses on content, delivery, language, and quality of research.

General Bio:

I'm Laura (she/her) I am a college senior majoring in Anthropology and Political Science at Haverford. I've competed in Parliamentary style debate for a little over 6 years and I have done some tournament judging for the past 3 years. I have also worked part-time as a high school parliamentary debate coach.

PF or Parli:

Signpost, signpost, signpost. Otherwise I'll have no way to clearly flow the round.

I tend to dislike speed or spreading, its not something I've encountered in my debate league and I'm unfamiliar with it. If it is absolutely necessary, make sure you are clear and have a good roadmap.

I want to see in every contention a claim, warrant, and impact that is clearly signposted or otherwise stated in layman's terms. If I don't see this I will consider the case to be relatively weak.

If you are using theory or high theory in a round you should fully understand it and be able to explain it. I would also caution against that as I am not overly familiar with it and probably won't fully understand it.

I try to be tabula rasa but I do have my own biases, I'm a liberal arts college student so just take that in mind. I will generally privilege the human/social argument over realpolitik, etc. but that's not to say that I haven't debated like that or have never advanced debaters that do so.

Policy:

(some preferences for PF apply so keep that in mind)

Please explain all your acronyms and try not to speed too much, I won't understand it and I am unfamiliar with the jargon.

I am comfortable and happy with K debates.

I'm okay with Critical Aff, K, etc. however these all need to be explained very clearly to me. I'm a political theory major so I have read most common theorists and generally have a good grasp of them. I have some knowledge of common Ks, but I will need debaters help with clarifying these. I also generally prefer Ks that are less broad sweeping and a little on topic.

Counterplans are fine by me.

I love CX so be sure to use this time effectively, I won't flow the whole thing but it will make an impression on my decision.

Have clear impacts that are brought up throughout the round, don't forget points in the debate and don't be too in love with jargon.

I don't really want to be on any email chains unless you feel strongly about it. I'm just going to be flowing what I hear.

DON'T ( PF, Policy, Parli)

I don't want to hear racist, sexist, ableist, etc comments in my room. I don't care how knowledgeable you are in a round, you will automatically be dropped and reported.

I don't want to hear any extreme "devil's advocate" arguments that could cause offense to anyone in the room, don't make assumptions about anyone's identities or background. Remember that the topic we're debating could personally affect some of the people in the room on different levels, be empathetic.

(I will flow based on arguments rather than debaters unless instructed otherwise, call people in if you feel uncomfortable)

Generally try not to be too rude, although we've all been a little snarky in a debate I'd like to keep things civil and fun.

Please don't be super performative or emotional (?). This is just a personal preference but I'm not sure what to do with tears, etc. if they're not genuine they just feel odd. If you do genuinely feel upset and need to take a break please tell me.

DO's ( PF, Policy, Parli)

Use trigger warnings ahead of the round if you are running a case which you think could be particularly sensitive for folks.

Disclose your Ks to opponents ahead of a round (this is my strong preference as a judge, it's okay if you choose not to but know that if you don't I will consider arguments re accessibility and non-disclosure).

Be funny! I love when debaters regularly tell jokes in a round or make things light hearted and fun (where it is appropriate of course).

Please always remember to be empathetic of your competitors. I want to see cordial introductions and goodbyes at the end of the round, no rushing off!

I am a former debater who focuses on plain speaking and argumentation.

Simply stating evidence will not suffice to win you the round. Please use your evidence intelligently and weave it into your argumentation.

This is a debate so whoever can most effectively argue the point will win the round. Once again, simply stating evidence will not win you the round though it is certainly important.

If you want me to weigh evidence please continue to use the evidence throughout your argumentation. If you fail to respond to evidence continually used by the other team throughout their argumentation then I will presume it to be true and flow it to your opponent.

Please be mindful of your time and respectful during crossfire.

Good luck.

Hello, Here are some things I look at during round...

-the way you speak during round including tone, variety, and clarity

-should be well-versed on the topic

-strong responses in crossfire

-weighing

-respect towards the opponents and judge

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, this is my first time judging. I am a lay parent judge. Please speak slow and no jargon. Please send me your cases to yogi.rakasi@gmail.com so I may follow along, because English is not my first language.

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!!

My name is Colin Riley. I am the debate coach for Saddle River Day School in Saddle River New Jersey. Prior to this year I had not participated in debate. I have judged once before at a tournament in New Jersey. I teach Psychology and United States History at Saddle River Day School so I care deeply about the quality of arguments and the validity of your source material. My approach to judging is gauging the quality of your argument, critical engagement with your sources, and effective communication with your teammate.

Things I look for:

Quality Over Quantity: I prioritize well-developed, coherent arguments over a large number of superficial points.

Evidence and Sources: Credible, relevant evidence is crucial. I expect debaters to cite their sources clearly and explain how their evidence supports their arguments.

Counterarguments: I look for debaters who can anticipate and rebut opposing points thoughtfully and respectfully.

Professionalism: Respectful discourse is a must. I expect debaters to maintain decorum, treat their opponents and myself with respect, and adhere strictly to time limits.

I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. Speed is deterred, if you speak too quickly those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive.

Thank you and looking forward to a great debate!

TOC Update: STRIKE ME if you don't send constructive speech docs, it helps check back for miscutting and other ev abuse, as well as ensuring I can flow everything. Anything not on the doc willnot be flowed. Send it to srdebate24@gmail.com

• Rebuttal docs are not mandatory, but will boost your speaks.
• Please keep your speed <200wpm so I can flow everything.
• Truth > Tech, don't read spark or dedev or I'll drop the ballot and your speaks.
• NO THEORY/PROG IN PF

I will mostly disclose, but if the flow is too messy I won't. Extended RFD will be in writing, though.

Hi debaters! I'm new to debate this year; going too fast doesn't help me understand how you are actually debating within the round. I don't have a great understanding regarding this topic, so I expect arguments to be understandable and well supported. Please be respectful to each other and have fun!

Born and raised in the Philadelphia area, I work for a local regional bank where I put financing in place for business acquisitions. I am also currently an officer in the Navy Reserve.

My Background:
I have recently started judging public forum debate and consider myself an amateur "parent judge."
I have a background in Business and Finance.

My Requests:
I request the contestants to speak a little slowly - I am a novice judge.
I request you to track your time. I would like the teams to strictly follow their allocated time to keep the debate fair.
I request the debaters to provide their contentions in a written bullet form as it will ensure that I fully understand and track their arguments. I request you to not provide details, just the title of your contentions.

I'm a senior at Lexington High School, qualified to TOC twice, NDCA thrice, NSDA Nats twice

-send me your case docs and +Evidence (For a speaker point boost): ambilusiva@gmail.com

• if you show me that you use cut cards not paraphrased that is very good

General (Everything you need to know)

• Debate is a game so tech>truth (I'll buy any argument (that's not exclusionary)

• Speed: go as fast as you want, but I'm not going to ask you if I miss something (ie be clear), would prefer you to debate on the slower side

• You should respond to the opponent's responses immediately in the speech after; thismeans 1st summary needs to frontline second rebuttal

• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me

• If I look confused, I probably am

• give trigger warnings for certain arguments- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.

____________________________________________________________________________

Detailed Stuff:

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to do (However I prefer that you debate the topic provided)

Rebuttal

• I think you need to frontline (respond to their responses) in the second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,

• Anything not responded to in the second rebuttal is regarded as conceded

• Turns that are conceded will have a 100% probability

Summary

• do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"

• Don't do "extend our link"

• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended

• please extend warrants(reasoning), I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary

• this also goes for arguments that are conceded

• First summary

• Should address your case, front lining, weighing and if possible, their case

• The second summary should do the same as the first summary but doesn't have to frontline unless there are no responses left over

• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link, and impact.

• Don't change what a response means or read a new response

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech if something important is conceded

• I'm most likely not going to be paying attention during cross, so don't mind any nodding/movements from me

If you say anything homophobic/sexist/etc, I will stop the round, drop you, and give the lowest speaks possible. Just don't please, make sure to treat everyone with respect

Feel free to ask me anything before and after round.

Good luck and have fun!

Happy to judge an informed debate on the given resolution.

Been a while since I judged PF or LD.

I am an English teacher and a first year coach to debate. I am new to judging Public Forum, thus please approach this like you would a lay judge. I am looking for the following:

· Present your arguments in a clear and organized manner. Make sure you are signposting as you speak.

· Slowly speak; do not speed through your speeches. Assume I have never learned anything about the resolutions given. I want you to explain and debate as if I this is my first-time hearing about the topic. If you speak faster than I can flow, I will put my pen down.

· Create realistic impacts that fall within the scope of the resolution. Do not pretend the world will end if it won't.

· Avoid a lot of jargon.

· Make sure your judges are actually ready before you begin speaking. Don't simply ask them out of habit.

Finally: I do not flow during questioning, so if there is something you'd like me to note, please return to it in your summary.

I am new to competitive judging. I have a Master's Degree in Devised Theatre. My expertise is in communication and collaboration.

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

anthonymstowers@gmail.com

My personal bright lines (updated for TOC PF):

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

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

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

Technical debate preferences:

-SPECIFY SCOPE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi! My name is Hannah and I debated with Horace Mann School as the second speaker for Horace Mann YS. I qualified for the TOC in both my sophomore and junior years and have 4 career bids. I really like narrative debates that tell a story.

For the UPenn tournament, I'll definitely be more of a flay judge leaning more towards lay. I'll have absolutely no prior knowledge on the topic so please make sure your arguments make logical sense.

A couple of things to remember:

1. Please introduce yourself (name, school, side you are debating) when you walk into the room/before the round so I know who you are.
2. Extend the contention you are going for in BOTH summary and final focus
3. Please signpost in all your speeches
4. I don't mind an "aggressive" crossfire as long as everyone remains respectful- Crossfire was always my favorite part of the round when I debated so don't be afraid to have some fun.
5. When weighing, please make sure you interact with the other team's weighing/argument.

I'm a current freshman at the University of Pennsylvania with little to no experience in debate (lay judge). Please speak at a reasonable pace, enunciate, define terms that a non-expert may not be familiar with, and be respectful :) I will take notes and put aside my own views when judging.

25stu286@lexingtonma.org

Junior at Lexington High School

9th grade: Novice Policy

10th grade: Varsity Policy

11th grade: Varsity PF

Please read my paradigm it's short and encourages quality debates

Do:

• Clear speeches (signposting, good organization)

• Reasonable speed: Please use depth over breadth (quality > quantity). That is what PF is for

• Tech > Truth

• Collapse on your best arguments

• Weigh arguments

• Tell me what to vote on

• Show respect for opponents and partner

• Cross ex is for you -if you want me to vote on it then bring it into your speeches

• Show up on time

• Run whatever arguments you want

• PLEASE USE EVIDENCE

Don’t:

• Attack the person (attack their argument please)

• Be pretentious if I tell you that you won (laughing, excessive celebrations)

• Cheat (e.x. steal prep, consult out of round help)

• Strawman arguments and lying about evidence or authors is unacceptable

Other thoughts:

• Can’t vote on it if I didn’t hear it

• Good speaks = you did the things above

• Bad speaks = you didn't do the things above

• I like framework but will not vote down if you don't use it

• time yourself- opponents should also time to ensure you arent stealing

FAQ:

• LD: never had any LD experience so tell me what I need to know before round
• Policy: hopefully I'll never have to judge policy but if I do send speech docs

I debated at PolyPrep. My team code was Poly Prep TS.

Email Chain: gdtiesi@gmail.com

I hate when judges are way too picky about how kids debate so literally just do what you want. I'll adapt to you and anything you wanna do. I'm open to any args just if you're are running some crazy stuff, warrant well and make it digestible to my dumb pf brain. Also I don't care about the speaking part of the round but if I can't understand you I'll be a way worse judge.

Frontline is 2nd rebuttal, 2nd sum is too late imo

Also obviously nothing offensive, I'll instantly drop you if you endorse any sort of hate speech.

Disclosure theory: I will evaluate Disclosure like any other theory argument and will be as impartial as I can be. With that being said, you need to understand that I am probably the most anti-disclo debater on the circuit. Anyone that knows me well knows that. I truly do believe it's a bad norm and bad for debate. If you want, convince me! If you want to run it, and you are confident, I urge you to do it!

Speech docs:I don't like when teams use speech docs to get their point across. If I can't understand your speech I'm not reading your doc. If I don't get something on my flow, that is your fault.

Good Luck and have fun!

Shout out to my boo thang Jonah Sah #thepartnership

If you need more details, I will be mostly (some of her takes are... questionable) aligned with Sophia Lam.

Hi, I'm a new judge and I will really appreciate it if you keep your analysis slow and clear.

In the final focus, please present clearly as to why your argument should win the day.

Thanks!!

Experience: I have been judging Public Forum Debate for 2 years, and am a former congress and forensics coach.

I am a public speaking teacher and a parent.

Public Forum in essence is the clarity of persuasion. Clarity is driven by the ability to tell a compelling story that is supported by effective evidence. What I am looking for is the following:

Speeches

· Present your arguments in a clear and organized manner.

· Slowly speak; do not speed through your speeches. Assume I have never learned anything about the resolutions given. I want you to explain and debate as if I this is my first-time hearing about the topic.

· Robustly support your contentions with thoughtfully presented evidence. I am a truth over tech judge.

· Create realistic impacts that fall within the scope of the resolution. Do not pretend the world will end if it won't.

· Thoroughly understand your source. Be able explain how the study was done, who did the research, the credentials of the expert, etc. And be able to explain why this a strong piece of supporting evidence.

· Create a compelling story.

Crossfire and Grand Crossfire

· Propose incisive questions that the other team understands clearly.

· Succinctly answer questions using relevant evidence.

· Expeditiously produce the card for evidence if asked.

· Translate your thoughts into coherent speech quickly. Do your best to avoid "like," "y'know," and "um;" you are still speaking and being heard during cross; a judge should not have to ignore what you say or how you sound.

· Be polite and have respectful exchanges, and please do not talk over one another. Both partners should participate in grand cross.

Summary

· Explain which of your arguments flow through and weigh your impacts, noting which of your opponent's arguments you have discredited.

Final Focus

· Clearly present the weaknesses of the other side.

· Be able to extend the weighing mechanisms your partner used in summary to tell the end of the story.

Other Notes

· Make sure your judges are actually ready before you begin speaking. Don't simply ask them out of habit.

· Clearly demonstrate an understanding of the narrowness or breadth of the resolution.

· Oh, and do your best not to use nuclear war as an impact unless the topic is clearly of a military nature.

I am a parent judge who loves debate and debated LD in High School and worked as a lawyer. I am a lay judge who is learning (flay?). That being said, I do not fully know debate jargon.

Do not speak too quickly to be understood. If I do not hear an argument and understand it, I am not weighing it in the round. If you are speaking to quickly, I will not penalize your opponents for missing points in your speeches because they could not hear them.

I am a tech > truth judge. If one team does not rebut or weigh against another team's argument that argument, however untrue, stands in the round.

I do not know the specifics of card-cutting, but I value good evidence ethics. If another team asks for your evidence and you cannot produce it in five minutes, you don't have that evidence. I would like to be included in email chains with evidence. My email is hvarah@yahoo.com

That being said, debate is an amazing activity and one that I love. Compete with each other, but show respect to your opponents and the art of debate itself. Let's have some fun.

tl;dr

LAY - No speed - no jargon - signpost - WEIGH

Hi. I'm John.

Minimal debate experience. Please refer to me as "jdub" during the round instead of "judge" - very important to my decision

LAY

Truth>tech

Remember that debate is a game - HAVE FUN

If you tell me to read a piece of evidence in speech I will - otherwise I'm assuming it doesn't really matter

Speech prefs:

No speed

No Jargon

I value crossfire and being constantly addressed as jdub.

I'm Sean, any pronouns. I've debated 1 year of JV CEDA Policy debate and I've done about 2.5 years of pf and half a year of Parli. I like to think I'm pretty experienced, I can handle whatever speaking speed, if you're going to go fast just send me a speech doc. My general judging philosophy is that debate is a game, there is no truth value when the round starts. Tell me whatever and I will probably flow it unless it's violent to someone in the debate space.

If I see you consuming an item on the BDS strike list or from starbucks I'm giving you 25 speaks.

I love to be included in things, especially things like email chains! sw4641@nyu.edu

I've read/hit pretty much everything, I like Ks quite a bit, especially weirder ones, so run whatever your heart desires.

I like link level debates a lot, and I feel like I see them pretty rarely in pf. Actually interacting with the other team's arguments rather than talking about your own is probably going to be more productive to me and other judges.

When it comes to weighing, I need you to tell me why your impact is better than the other team's, not just why your impact is good. Comparative weighing makes my job as a judge easier. I'm hearing way too many buzzwords like scope and magnitude, let's just cut it with the terms and tell me straight why your impacts matter more than the other team's.

For pf:

Second summary is a little late to be bringing up new responses, I don't weigh these as heavily and I'm really generous for the first final focus frontlining. Other than that, evidence and new stuff in final focus kind of goes out the window for me.

I know y'all are probably not too used to it but please make an email chain and get your opponent and me on it. Evidence ethics are super sketchy in this event and I just do not want to deal with the 20 minutes wasted every round looking and reading for cards. Just send your speech docs, especially if they use evidence, and we'll all be happier.

Hi, I’m Kyle (he/him/his)

BACKGROUND

I currently coach for Ridge High School and competed extensively in speech as a student there. I coach both speech and PF, meaning I emphasize both good delivery/style as well as clear argumentation.

PUBLIC FORUM:

Add me to the email chain or, create the Google Doc: kwatkins@bernardsboe.com

Either way, do this before round if possible.

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

GENERAL

I will flow your arguments as long as you are clearly spoken, but I heavily encourage considering me more on the lay side of debate.

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

Clear weighing/voters are incredible :)

Use ff to write my ballot

If you’re speaking too fast you run the risk of me losing stuff, and I won’t knock your opponent for missing stuff cause you tried to fit too much into your case.

I love strong narratives and cohesion of arguments — simply saying “extend this” or “extend that” doesn’t explain anything to me.

All arguments should have clear warrants and impacts.

IN ROUND

Signposting is so important–y’all all want to get through a ton of content, but it doesn’t matter if I have to waste my limited brain cells trying to understand how what you said interacts with your case.

Don’t be rude? The bar is low.

Take a breath before you speak! Don’t forget how incredible and unique y’all are for the amount of work you put into this activity, and the breadth of knowledge you have. Remember, I always want to vote for you, so you have no reason to be nervous.

IMPACTS

I wanted to make a whole section for this cause I think it’s so important

Timeframe, Magnitude, Probability

How your impacts relate to your opponent's impacts

How these impacts actually happen, the full story behind them, paint a picture. ELI5

CROSS

In crossfire, don’t ask questions with long preambles that come across as you trying to have more speech time.

I don’t flow cross, but you need to extend contradictions your opponents say for me to consider it.

RULES

Do not misconstrue evidence — if you do have an issue with your opponents’ evidence, please bring it up in the round and contact tab accordingly.

Read content warnings about potentially triggering content. If you don’t like content warnings, bummer. Content warnings allow speech & debate to be inclusive.

If you have spectators from your team, I fully expect your team members to be off their technology and not communicating with you. If you’re cheating in any way, you lose the debate and get to chat with tab.

FINAL FOCUS

Gosh I love final focus.

This is your time to explain voter’s issues, weigh on the valuable args in the round, and overall just write your own ballot. FF is time for your persuasion to shine, and my favorite speech in PF :)

SPEAKS

I believe speaks are important, and the points I give you relate to what I feel you should take away from my judging.

30: Lovely speaking, no notes.

28-29.5: Good stuff, minor issues or stumbles, mostly I vary here based on comparison in round.

27.5: You have work to do on your speaking style, and I would encourage you to record yourself speaking to recognize it.

27: You have lots of work to do on your speaking style, and I would heavily encourage you to record yourself speaking to recognize it.

26.5: I felt you said something disrespectful or behaved disrespectfully in round.

26 and below: You’re gonna hear from tab.

ARE YOU IN NOVICE? READ THIS:

Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, then stop speaking.
I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are egregiously over time. If I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for the last 30-60 seconds.

I love seeing people new to debate, so I’m never going to mark you down if you don’t use conventional debate jargon, break conventional norms from inexperience, etc. I will still fairly judge, and novice-ness is no loophole to missed arguments and the like.

I currently am mentoring a PF debate team. I aim to coach later on. I was a policy debater before, therefore I am familiar with the rules, techniques, and theory behind debate.

I have a high threshold for speed however I believe speech clarity (tone & articulation) to be much more important. Try not to go past 300wpm. Do not spread. I am more of a pragmatic thinker than a philosophical one. Evidence, practicality, and logic are fundamental in arguments. I have a certain threshold to theory, however as PF is now more common, the threshold is pretty low. Try to stick to the warrant and impact. Continuously stick to weighing, and collapsing on your oppn.'s core points. Sign posting, tagline, line-by-line, and flow are effective.

Attack the argument, not the person. Actively listening to the argument is the only way to attack the opposition effectively. Establish your framework. No CP, avoid K, and avoid suddenly adding a DA. Avoid adding new contentions after 1st rebuttal. Evidence should be reliable, robust, recent, and relevant. I pay extra attention to the quality of your cards.

Prep time - I am strict with times in general. With prep time, you stop what you are doing when it is the end of prep time. Be clear that you are using prep time. If the timer is not running, it is no one’s prep time. Do not steal prep.

Be respectful and use etiquette. Do not make oral signals or whisper/talk during an opponents’ speech.