Flay Judge.

Prefer speaking at a normal pace (not super fast), and making clear points (even if fewer) instead of spreading.

The quality/strength of your arguments matters much more to me than the number of points made.

Be more convincing

I will not judge points that are not explicitly stated and will not interpret anything on my own except if there is bad evidence ethics.

Lay parent 3rd year judge

Speak relatively slow, explain and weigh, no theory/Ks

Hello, I am a new judge, this is my first time judging public forum. All I ask is that you speak slowly and be respectful towards one another.

Hello debaters,

I would appreciate slow speakers as I am new to judging. Please don't use too much jargon. Please do not spread. Reminder: be a respectful debater!

Email Jororynyc@gmail.com

Perry Hs

ASU Finance

Assistant LD coach at Peninsula, 2023-Present

Cleared at the Toc.

Alot of the way I think comes from Amber Kelsie, Jared Burke, Tay Brough and Raunak Dua - LD thoughts from Elmer Yang and Gordon Krauss.

Condense the debate to as few arguments as possible and have good topical knowledge.

Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: Fairness is an impact,
I also have an increasingly higher threshold for K debate because most of it done in LD is bad.

I wont flow until 1NC case so I can read evidence. I also have no problem telling you I did not understand what you said if its not explicit by the last speech. I also wont yell clear.

As a jury adjudicating the Public Forum Debate, my primary goal is to ensure fairness, clarity, and effective communication. I highly value rational arguments and the use of good quality, relevant evidence to support claims. I'll assess the strength of arguments*, responsiveness to opponents**, and adherence to time limits. Respect and professionalism are essential, and I'll provide constructive feedback to help debaters grow. The goal is not only to win but also to promote critical thinking and skill development. My decisions will be solely based on the merits of the arguments presented in the round, and I'll maintain transparency in my feedback. Good luck to all participants!

(*): A well-structured argument is more persuasive. I will be evaluating the organization of content, including the use of assertions, reasoning, evidence, and conclusions/link-backs to ensure logical flow and coherence. The substance is crucial. I will assess the quality of the arguments presented, their relevance to the resolution, and their logical consistency. Debaters should provide strong evidence and analysis to support their claims.

(**): What I mean by responsiveness is debaters should engage with their opponents' arguments. I will take into account how well each team addresses their opponents' points and refutes them effectively in cross-examination***.

(***)Cross-examination: I value the ability to ask insightful and probing questions during cross-examination and the ability to respond to them effectively. It's an opportunity to clarify and strengthen your position.

(+ For Congress: more or less same with the PF, additionally to the quality of the content (argumentation, organization, evidence, & relevancy) & responsiveness (how you rebutt/respond to rebutt), I'm also taking into account how you deliver your speech given the dynamics of the congress (is your case compelling to the audiences? are you advancing the debate/bring more nuanced angle/evidence? are you listen & address/response the prev. speaker? how proactive in questioning?) and crystallization is expected in the closing appeal speech. Last but not least, always be mindful and respectful to others. Good luck!)

Warm regards,

Yumna Apta

• parent judge
• present your arguments well, deliver clearly and slowly
• clarity of thought
• use common terms, I do not know debate jargon
• good pace and pausing
• happy debating!!

I did KYA (a Kentucky-specific congress event) throughout high school. I now do PF at UK.

At the beginning of a round, you should assume that I know nothing about your topic/case; I'm not going to make assumptions, so if I need to know something, tell me (and if it's important, make sure not to drop it at any point throughout the debate). By the end of the round, I should have a clear understanding of 1) why you have won my vote, and 2) why your opposition lost.

I prefer off-time roadmaps before arguments.

I 100% prefer a stylistic, personable speaker to someone who is just regurgitating facts. Also, please don't spread at me.

for email chain purposes: amba300@uky.edu

Hey everyone,

My name is Amit Bansal, and I am a lay parent judge. My child does pf, so I have judged in one PF tournament before. However, I don’t have much experience, so I would prefer if you speak slowly so that I can understand you. Don’t use debate jargon, and I look at how you speak to your opponents. Please be respectful, especially in crossfire. Also, it would be nice to have an explanation of the topic, as I am new and likely won’t understand the topic right off the bat.

I will try my best to flow and understand arguments dropped and extended, but I won't be flowing crossfire.

Thanks, and good luck!

I am the parent of a (former) Hunter College High School debater and a current Horace Mann debater. I am also a litigator. Most of my experience is with public forum debate. My preferences are: No "theory" and no excessive spreading. Thanks!

I will be listening to the speakers carefully and looking for flow, consistency, evidence and sources of evidence. Will be noting down all the key points and assess based on content presented and will go by the data for final out come. I have judged in Berkley and other tournaments around Bay area before.

In terms of experience with debate, I did KYA and KUNA (two congress style events) throughout high school. I now do PF at the University of Kentucky!

At the beginning of a round, assume I know nothing about your topic. Anything that is important should be explicated in your case and made accessible for me to understand exactly what you mean! I will not make any assumptions. I am operating solely off what you tell me throughout the round. Try not to drop any arguments - I flow during round and will likely pick up on drops, especially if they're major points! By the end of the round, I want to not only understand why you won, but also why your opponents did not.

In terms of general preferences:

I like an off-time roadmap before each speech to get me oriented. It'll help us all stay organized throughout the round!

I prefer a stylistic speaker over someone who will just regurgitate facts at me. Debate is about more than evidence - the most successful debaters will also be excellent public speakers!

Please do not spread at me. If you are absolutely attached to spreading, please send me your outline once pairings drop so I can roadmap your case for myself.

For email chain purposes: mbl257@uky.edu

Speak comprehensibly please. If you speak too fast and I am struggling to follow, its not in your favor

do not speak over your opponent or partner, or cut-in. its disrespectful

Avoid being loud; create more impact with evidence than decibel levels of your voice

mis-stating evidence is not good.

delaying cards sharing is also unprofessional

Newbie Coach for ADL

I flow.

I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.

Email Chain: Brandonchen.135@gmail.com

Ask in round if you want to know more about me

Lay parent judge with little topical knowledge, speak slowly and clearly. (child of judge speaking here, 200 wpm should be the absolute max). The probability of the argument is very important. Do not be toxic, and have fun!

Hello,

My name is Dan Chen. I place significant value on quality of argumentation, particularly with solid sourced evidence, personal logical analysis, and find your competitor’s logical fallacies. Be coherent. Speed is fine as long as everyone in the competition is happy with that. I try to focus on the debate itself and throw away my own opinion the topic.

Thank you! And good luck!

I am a parent judge. No Jargon please.

Please speak clearly, email: hua.chen.debate@gmail.com.

I will post the results to Tabroom for the prelim rounds.

Be respectful and good luck!

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing but I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

Hi! I'm a first time parent lay judge. I don't have any topic knowledge so expalin your arguments well and slowly and singpost so I can understand and vote correctly. I'm also a high school English teacher. I really look forward to watching you!

I debated Policy/Oxford and LD from middle school through college (admittedly, many years ago), as well as Congress in high school. I also competed in multiple forensics categories throughout middle school and high school — consequently, I appreciate good oratory skills.

As a PF judge, I am hoping to hear:

• argumentation that is well-reasoned and clearly presented
• as much direct clash as possible, with no points left unaddressed — I would rather hear a creative, if obscure or even slightly outlandish, rebuttal to an opponent's point, than for you to ignore it
• arguments to evolve and deepen as the debate unfolds, rather than to simply be repeated without any extension
• some attention paid to relative impacts
• some attention paid to highlighting your opponents' weaknesses — I will be flowing, and will notice when your opponent has dropped an argument or has weak evidence to support their arguments, but I will also be hoping to hear that you've recognized the same
• solid, persuasive oration — remember, your goal is to convince me that your arguments are stronger than your opponents', and persuasive delivery can be a very effective tool here
• a civil and courteous exchange between teams who respect each other

hi, im jasper! i debated in high school and read every argument you could think of when debating! add me to the email chain: jaspervdatta@gmail.com, and contact me on facebook if you have questions :)

my only unwavering bias in the round is that debate is good. that is not to say our current model of debate is good or your method of debate is good, but just that debating, in general, is a good thing, and more people debating is a good thing. to that end, please read content warnings with opt-outs, be respectful to everyone, and try to be as ethical as possible. i do not care what arguments you read or how you present yourself, just that you make well-warranted arguments and compare them to the other arguments in the round.

preferences:

second rebuttal needs to answer everything from first rebuttal that you plan on collapsing on. defense isn't sticky.

30 speaks if you open-source disclose with highlights.

debate is a communication activity (especially pf), so i can handle speed but im not flowing off a doc.

i presume neg.

dont read anything -ist, read arguments without a warrant, be overly technical on novices/debaters who are out of their depth, or read identity positions against debaters who share that identity.

ask any other questions if you have them :)

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

I am a parent judge, and this is my first time judging on this topic. Please time yourselves, and make sure to stay within the time limits. I will stop flowing if you go over the time.

If you want to win, I need to understand what you are saying. If you want to speak fast, speak clear.

I value well written arguments. If the core argument does not make sense, even with no refutation against it, I cannot guarantee I will vote for it. Even so, make sure you are prioritizing touching on all of your opponent's points down the flow. I think that using evidence or logic as a refutation is good, as long as it makes actual sense with realistic backing.

I will listen in on crossfire, so make sure you are able to answer questions and understand your own case, but I will not flow cross or vote on arguments brought up in crossfires. Make sure to further them in later speeches.

Again, I understand the need to cut people off in cross, but please be sure to stay respectful to your opponents.

Hi all,

I am a collegiate debater involved in the British Parliamentary debate with over 5 years of experience. In addition I also have over an year of APDA experience.


I go by a rule of minimize intervention and same standards of judging i.e. I am not exactly what you would imagine a perfect tabula rasa judge to be (but to be fair one doesn't always exist and we all vote for our biases or break deadlocks in ways that are familiar to us or seem intuitive which varies across audiences).

What I mean by this is that I would attempt to judge without intervention but am willing to do so to break deadlocks, rather than try to use unproven non clashed ballots to resolve a win (ofc if that clean ballot is proven to a reasonable extent to at least give you access to any partial impact and the main clash is probably a "wash", I can vote off it if the weighing demonstrates exactly this). I believe no clash is ever a wash and usually lean one side even if very very marginally but I do believe in offensive strategies that attempt at high level of washing out of impacts and then weighing out that line of offense (ofc this needs to be explicitly or implicitly demonstrated and executed).

I also will credit you only for the impact your warrants prove and not the impacts you claim so make sure that you "prove" your arguments, but also will not intervene to underimpact your case to make it creditable if you exaggerated your impact excessively unless it is really warranted by the state of the round --- this is because I think impact selection is an equal part of the game and me having to do impacting for your case because you exaggerated the impacts you went for is also intervention that is unwarranted --- the suggestion here would be if you plan to exaggerate impacts relative to your warrants, to do layering of impacts starting from base level impacts before moving to the exaggerated impacts (which allows me to credit the former even if you dont access the latter without any intervention).

Another suggestion to have easier ballots and speak higher in front of me is to run comparative argumentation, ie don't just prove your argument's impacts but prove them in comparison to other side's case, and do sufficient level of weighing work (both for the first layer of why your impacts matter but if necessary in a round with competing weighing of how why your weighing matters)

I also want to be explicit that if I do intervene and apply standards of proof to break deadlocks, I attempt to apply them to both sides and therefore if the other team is also not having sufficient degree of warranting work, there is nothing you can lose by making sure your case is warranted.

For speed, I am fine with tracking fast speeches, as long as you don't spread! I I do want to note that speed tradeoffs a little bit with clarity even if you are a really good and clear speaker (the teams and judges are human beings too). Nonetheless, you won't be penalized just for the speed alone ( and it is not necessary the speed will have huge tradeoffs with clarity; after all some of the world's best speakers at the university level are pretty fast yet pretty clear).

Finally I am not a huge fan of Ks and Theory Blocks. I don't believe in solving out of the round issues in round! Nonetheless, if you do run it, I will attempt to judge it (but I do want to point out that I might be a much worse judge in this instance than if you just debated the round as it was).

Good Luck

hey! i'm katheryne. i debated natcirc for whitman for 3 years, went to toc 3 times, toc sems senior yr, ranked high junior and senior yr blah blah, now am a sophomore at uchicago and assistant coach at taipei american school. i will flow and can evaluate whatever, with a preference for some good, hearty substance rounds. if you wanna get wacky and wild, scroll down and read some stuff at the bottom.

putting aside my personal preferences and just thinking about what i'm capable of: am a v good judge for substance! pretty good judge for Ks (but hate bad K debate and will give higher speaks + often the W to a team that responds well)! pretty bad judge for theory (have voted for it but it makes my head hurt and causes a questionable decision every time)! hate IVIs! what on earth is an IVI! just read a shell!

i will try to adapt to the panel i'm on for you - if you prefer that means i judge like a lay when on a two lay panel lmk and i will try. but it also means feel free to kick me and go for the two lay ballots! similarly if i'm with two theory judges and that's your strat, go for it! my preferences should not dictate your strategy in outrounds.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com to the chain.

** preferences:

pretty standard tech judge i think. weighing is the first place i look to evaluate, every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need to be responded to in next speech, links and responses must be extended with warrants (not just card names), i love narrative, speed is chill but if i'm flowing off your doc you're probs getting a 28, nothing is sticky but can't go for stuff you conceded ink on earlier, clash is fun. when you have two competing claims (links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc) you need to compare them! if no offense i presume neg. have said wayyyy more in my paradigm about my substance prefs but took most of the specific stuff out cuz it got too long, but feel free to ask me anything!!!

signposting has gotten really bad, especially in doc-heavy rounds when frontlining. plz signpost or i cant flow and then youll be upset and its a whole thing

no matter what type of round, i will make my decisions by figuring what weighing is won, then looking at what pieces of offense link into that weighing, then figuring out if they are won. that means the simplest path to my ballot is winning weighing + one argument. i love good weighing debates!

** can i read xyz in front of you?

experience: by the end of my career, i read everything from substance w/ framing, theory, IVIs, ks with topical links, and non-t ks w/ performances. having read all of these things, i am pretty strongly of the opinion that they are not executed very well in pf, to varying degrees.

no tricks

i won't evaluate any arg that is exclusionary. bigotry = L + as few speaks as i can give you.

stolen from my lovely debate partner sophia: DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. i very often get emails after rounds asking me for help with debate and i try to respond to all of them but if i don't facebook message me!!!

** theory section sigh:

if you are going to read theory in front of me, here are my preferences

• speedrun defaults: CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. theory must come speech after abuse, very hesitant to vote on out of round harms i am not married to any of these things and probs above mean willing to vote up arguments that say the opposite! ie -- messy rounds are better if u let me eval under reasonability!

• RVIs DO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. i know there is disagreement on this, but to me this is what an RVI means, and under this definition i lean no RVIs/will default that way without warrants. I will still vote on a counter interp or a turn on theory EVEN IF NO RVIs IS WON.

• you need to extend layering arguments, ESPECIALLY if there are multiple offs! i will not default to give you theory first weighing or a drop the debater!

• in general, i refuse to give you shitty extensions on theory warrants just because you think i may know them. saying "norm setting" is not enough, explain how you get there and what it means.

ultimately: theory i am probably just not a good judge for! i never read theory much and in my experience these rounds become unresolvable messes based on technicalities that i don't understand well very quickly. if you disagree, think you are a very clear theory debater, or feel like rolling the dice go for it! basically: feel free to read theory if it's your main strat, not an auto-L, but absolutely no promises about my ability to evaluate it, pretty good chance i make a decision that makes no sense to you.

** k debate :0:0:0

among PF judges i am probably above average for Ks of all kinds, lot of experience debating and judging them in PF, but i really hate poorly executed Ks. reading a K poorly = real bad for your speaks, but will give a lot of feedback, so if that's what you're going for, bombs away! but i like good K debates, LOVE good K v K debates, and generally think it is educational to engage w that lit in high school. so hooray! however, the k debates i have judged so far have not been my fav. pls don't assume i'm super enthusiastic to see them.

if you are going to do k debate though, here are some thoughts i have: i like ks with topic links much more than non-t ks. i'm probably not a terrible judge for non-t stuff, but i also don't think i'm the ideal judge. i prefer really specific link debates. omission is not a good link. a general claim about their narrative without substantiation is not a good link. how does X piece of evidence (or even better X narrative which is shown in Y way in ABCD pieces of evidence) display the assumption you are critiquing? the same need for specificity also goes for the impact debate. also, the way alts function in pf is hyper event specific and is probably a good enough reason in itself that this isn't the activity for k debate tbh. you do not get to just fiat through an alt because you're reading a k and everyone is confused! if your alt is a CP and you can't get offense without me just granting you a CP you will not have offense! i think alts that rely on discourse shaping reality are fiiiiiiiiiiiiine i guess. i am open to different ways to see my ballot, but i am equally open to arguments about topicality that say it is not just a question of whether or not you have a topical link, but also the way you frame discussions of the topic in certain scenarios can make it non-topical -- harms/benefits resolutions being explicitly reframed is an example. i love perms! read more perms!

finally, some no-gos. having read all of these things, here are some things i think are bad: links of omission, discourse generating offense, and reject alts.

I hope you have a great time debating! Please remember to state the side that you are representing and speak slowly enough so that hear the points of your debate clearly.

Flow. Tech >>> Truth. If you don't say something I can't evaluate it.

Extensions: All pieces of offense needs to be extended in summary and final focus. If it's not in summary, it shouldn't be in final focus. No new responses in second summary or final focuses.

Prog: Theory uplayers substance and Ks. Default to competing interps. Run theory if you want I can understand it. Everything needs to be warranted on theory (explain why no RVIs, when opponents should respond etc).

Speed:Go as fast as you need to just be clear. Slow and clear is fine, fast and clear is fine. Just don't be unclear.

Run any argument you want, how you want it, I'm not going to tell you how to debate.

I'm a freshman at UMich. I am a lay judge, please speak at a slow speed. This is my first time judging, though I did a little bit of debate in high school. I love to hear interesting arguments, as long as they are explained sufficiently. Please no progressive arguments, or complicated PF jargon. I don't need to be added to an email chain.

Have fun!

I am a lay judge, I will take notes on the round but I will only flow what I can hear and understand so please slow down. I encourage clear articulation and arguments.

I am a new judge. Please speak at 1x. Time each other and call out if any rules are broken. My email address is sgarg.usa@gmail.com, if you guys want to share cases and evidence with me prior or during the round. Good luck and enjoy the tournament.

I am a parent judge.

Be clear and concise in your speeches. Don't speak too fast.

I will try my best to flow the round.

Be polite and respectful.

Please put me in the email chain if you have one! My email is: audreygoode2021@gmail.com

General/Background:

I don't have much experience with this year's resolutions, and I'm not familiar with the 'standard'/mainstream arguments and cases for it, so please explain well! I debated (mostly policy and congress, I don't have much experience in PF or LD) for four years in high school, and now I'm in college doing mock trial. For the most part, I don't really care what you run as long as you know what you're talking about and understand/explain the arguments well. Don't have one partner totally dominate all of your crosses. Don't be a jerk (especially to your own partner). Dropping/kicking is fine. Please give clear roadmaps, signposting, and line by lines. Speed is fine as long as you are enunciating clearly. General debate jargon is also fine, but be careful on case-specific abbreviations, etc.

Case:

Solvency, plan, and impacts are typically the most important to me, but if a case has literally already happened or has very old inherency, harms, or uniqueness evidence, then by all means attack it.

Neg Block:

PLEASE split the block. I don't want to listen to the same exact arguments two speeches in a row. I'm absolutely fine with new case arguments and new impact scenarios/extensions/case turns for off-case you've already read in the 2NC. If you read brand new off-case in the 2NC, I might vote you down IF the aff claims abuse but they'll have to be very specific and convincing. You can also read new impact scenarios/extensions for off-case in the 1NR, but make sure you don't do that at the expense of your uniqueness or link story. A little impact calc in the block is good.

Topicality (T):

I love a good T debate, but most of the argumentation should be happening at the standards/voter level. If you don't extend your voters, I will not vote on T. If you're aff, you won't get any extra points for being topical. Don't say your voter is "RVI", if you want to make me flow T aff, you have to have some really good voters and you have to explain them well. Usually, T either flows neg or is irrelevant.

Disadvantages (DAs):

DAs are solid neg offense. If you're neg, make sure you extend impacts and have up to date uniqueness. Generics are fine as long as you clearly explain how the aff triggers the DA. If you're aff answering a DA, your best bet is to take out the link. If the aff turns a DA, the neg can't kick it. If they do, it flows aff.

Counter-Plans (CPs):

I don't care what the status is (it's okay if you kick it), but I'll listen to theory on conditionality if the aff decides to run it. I'm most likely to vote aff on perms (they are a test of competitiveness, not an advocacy). I'm fine with the neg running contradictory arguments as long as you collapse to a coherent strategy by the 2NR. If you don't read a DA for the net benefit, make sure you have some sort of internal net ben or show that the aff can't solve, or there's no reason to prefer the CP.

Impacts and Impact Framing:

Don't put framing in your 1AC if you aren't going to extend it and make it matter throughout the rest of the round. I like more realistic impacts, but that doesn't mean you can't run big impacts. Just make sure to explain the link chain well. If the neg doesn't answer framing or have impacts that adhere to the aff framing, they will almost always automatically lose the round, because they will have no offense.

Theory/Ks:

I'm out of practice, so please explain any Ks in depth. Be very specific on links. K affs are okay if they are made relevant to the resolution, but I will still vote neg on theory/T if they're good at arguing it, just have some solid answers ready if you're running a K aff. Other theory is fine. I don't really like theory that sounds whiney (like no new in the 2NC).

The bottom line is to have an educational and fun debate with clash. Be nice to each other and explain things, and you should be good.

Hi, I am a parent of an avid debater, and I am a scrupulous note taker. I always read up on the topic prior to judging, but explain things to me as if I am learning about it for the first time. I have an extensive history judging on the national circuit for PF. I like teams which have good evidence to support their claims. Try to tell me a story with your arguments about why your impacts matter in the first place. Links in your logical reasoning should be clearly explained, and I won't consider your impacts unless your links make sense. Also, if it is not in summary, then it shouldn't be in final focus. During Cross-X try be as respectful of your opponents as possible, and being respectful helps your speaker points. If you're going to turn your opponent's argument, make sure there is an impact. Also last but not least, weighing during summary and final focus definitely makes it easier for me to judge your round. Look forward to judging your round!

I am a parent judge and have judged a few tournaments. I won’t be familiar with the topic so please talk clearly and provide definitions. While I do not flow I will be taking notes. Please convince me why you should win and make sure to weigh. In order to win, please make sure to clearly outline your arguments and respond to arguments from your opponents clearly.

Hi all,

This is my second time judging a debate tournament as I am a lay judge so here are some of my preferences.

• Please speak slowly, I will not be able to understand you if you talk too fast.
• Be respectful with one another!
• Make sure to condense your points at the end of the round so that it is easier for me to make my ballot.

Good luck!

Hello,

I am a parent judge since 2018, judging PF Novice and Varsity tournaments.

* I try to take notes as much as I can on the content, facts, rebuttal and reasoning. However, if the speaker presents too fast, then I may not be able to comprehend. So, try to pace it at a medium to fast speed.

* I typically judge on how clear and effective the speaker is, and the facts that are presented to prove their contention

* I like when facts are juxtaposed compared to the opponent, not only numbers but reasoning as well

* I like to hear cross examination, to see how you defend you case and respond to opponents in an effective way

Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun debating!

- Stuti

I am new to judging. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly in round.

Hey there! Please feel free to ask me about my philosophy before round.

email: david.bo.hansen@gmail.com

Experience

Competitor

2 years - Community College NPDA/IE's
3 years - National Circuit NPDA/NPTE

Coach
2 years - Asian Parliamentary Debate/Public Forum
2 years - NPDA/NPTE
Some BP

My preferred pronouns are he/him/his.

Public Forum Notes

Do you have any strong predispositions for or against any particular arguments? If so, what?

I am open to any kind of argument as long as it is well warranted and reasoned. As a debater and coach, I have worked with all kinds of arguments and tend to think that debaters should read the arguments that they are the most personally compelled by.

What is your stance on student delivery? Should debaters be fast or slow?

I have no strong predisposition for or against speed. I just ask that all debaters are able to comprehend the debate round.

Do you call for evidence in debate rounds? What do you look for?

I call for evidence if there is a dispute on interpretation, but I tend to defer to debaters' interpretation.

What do you tend to think the most important questions in a debate are?

How should the judge decide who wins? Which arguments matter most? Why does my evidence support my claim? I find more specific arguments more persuasive.

I am not prejudiced strongly for or against kritikal arguments.

I tend to think providing a framework for the round is important.

Policy/Parli

General Notes

Specificity wins debates.

(Parli) Interpretations and advocacies should at least be read twice and slowly. Ideally you provide the judge(s) and competitors with a copy.

I tend to believe that the way we discuss the world has real impacts outside of the debate round.

If debaters are debating ethically, I tend to believe that framework arguments are more persuasive than the arguments against it. However, I will vote based on how the debate plays out. If you win that defending the topic is bad and you reject the topic, you will likely win the debate.

An argument without a warrant isn’t an argument.

I tend to believe that recording, sharing, and watching rounds is good for debate.

Theory and Framework

I love a great theory or framework shell. I am happy to vote here. I think a great shell isn't the right buzzwords, it's a specific articulation of how behavior implicates debate as a game.

Counter Plans

I’m uncertain about conditionality. I am sympathetic to arguments about the 2AC/MG being key and difficult. However, I also believe the negative should have some flexibility. The community goes back and forth on condo and I do too. Feel free to run your shell. Feel free to be conditional. I will vote depending on how condo plays out.

PIC’s are usually abusive in NPDA debate, but often strategic and occasionally justified – especially if the topic provides aff flex.

Delay is almost always bad, so are process CP’s.

Kritiks

These are fine. I read them a lot, and went for them occasionally. Please provide early thesis-level analysis. I think most K shells I’ve seen are incredibly inefficient and vulnerable to impact turns. Teams should likely cut major portions of their FW page and instead develop solvency and internal links to the case.

2A/MG’s should be more willing to go hard right (or left) to answer K’s. The aff probably links to Cap, but there is SUBSTANTIAL lit in favor of cap.

K/Critical affs

Can be amazing. However, they are easy to do inefficiently and hard to do well. An aff that is rejecting the motion needs to justify why: 1. Your thing matters more than the topic 2. Why you can’t discuss your thing on this topic OR 3. Why your thing is a prior question to the topic.

On the neg, you need to prove that you are an opportunity cost to the aff. Maybe it’s as simple as you need to keep debating, but you need a reason.

Hello, This is my third year as a judge. I value the quality of your case and the clarity of delivery more highly than the sheer number of contentions you may make, (ie use spreading sparringly.)

In a related field, I have 15 years of public speaking experience through Toastmasters. I am more than happy to give you feedback on the public speaking aspect of your round. Good luck!

Hi, I am an IT executive in Healthcare company. I am a fairly new parent judge. There are a few key things I prefer to see in a debate round.

• No spreading or talking too fast
• I like clearly weighed and implicated arguments, don't just read evidence out but tell me exactly WHY it matters and how I should prefer it over your opponents
• I will be taking notes but again weighing your arguments and explaining what I should vote on is key as that's how i resolve a debate.
• Judge instruction in your last speech is good.
• No Ks, theory or progressive arguments
• Avoid the use of debate jargon please

1. No speed and warrant everything clearly
2. No theory or progressive arguments
3. Respect your opponents - minimize interruptions when they're speaking
4. Email: kevinhhu32@gmail.com

I am a "lay" judge and English is not my 1st language. Please speak clearly, do not speak too fast, explain thoroughly, and use simple
assumptions about my knowledge of the topic.

hyt60435@gmail.com | she/her | college freshman

TLDR: flow judge that hates progressive arguments.

Current debater at Carnegie Mellon University. I have debated 4 years of varsity PF on both local and national circuits during high school at Cranbrook.

You can assume I know enough about the topic/stock arguments/abbreviations.

Include me in speech docs and email chains. My WiFi is terrible -> please speech doc.

Logistics

The more I have to intervene in a round (cut you off for overtime, wait for a debater to show up, get asked how much prep you have left, etc), the lower your speaks will be.

I will drop you if your case requires a trigger warning and it is not read at the beginning. I don't need a Google Form opt-out. Just read your warning before constructive or ask everyone before round.

If there's a piece of evidence that is contested in the round, I will call for it again. If I find it to be paraphrased poorly or if you are misrepresenting the evidence, I will automatically drop you.

I will usually disclose if there is longer than 20 minutes between round ending to next round release. I do not disclose in Novice/JV.

Speed

Spreading is okay as long as you are clear. I will let you know clear once, and after that, if I still can't understand I will not evaluate your argument. In general, 250wpm - 300wpm is the max speed for clarity with a speech doc.

If you are online, remember that it's much harder to hear you over NSDA campus/Zoom.

Substance

Quality over quantity. More arguments or evidence doesn't guarantee a better case.

Tech over truth. If your opponents tell me the moon is made of cheese with warranting, it's made of cheese until you point out otherwise with warranting. I'll be very happy if someone reads global warming turn because it encourages space exploration or arguments like that :)

Extend and weigh. Defense is not sticky. If you don't extend something (contention, defense, weigh, turn, etc.) through a speech, I will assume it's dropped. If the round is close, I will default to the weighing in round.

I don't flow cross.

Progressive

If you're in PF I will not evaluate theory or K unless it is warranted extremely well, with the exception of obvious discrimination or micro-aggression from your opponents (although at this point I'd drop them regardless).

Even then, I cannot guarantee I will be able to vote correctly. My threshold for responses to theory is very low. A counterinterp is not necessary. Do not run disclosure theory. I will not vote for it.

Framework

Framework is fine. Framework that calls for a response in your opponent's constructive is not fine. Framework that is read in rebuttal is not fine. Default to util if no framework in either constructives. Cost/benefit = util framework.

I don't like frameworks that are warranted to "vote for this argument to spread awareness" or "because this issue is on the back burner in the real world then we should evaluate this first in this round."

I will vote correctly on frameworks but it doesn't mean I like them. If your framework is obviously a time suck or abusive towards the opponents I will drop you. If you aren't sure ask before the round.

In general, if you're defaulting to util, I highly suggest you write a 3-4 point warranting on why util is better (or just find one on Wiki).

TLDR: Util > other framing

Hello! I am a parent judge without formal debate training. I will listen attentively to both sides with as little personal bias as possible and take notes. Please speak clearly and logically. Please keep your rate of delivery conversational and avoid jargon. Arguments should be clearly extended from speech to speech, with the last speech telling me what a ballot for your side looks like and why that is a better option than a ballot for your opponent. I will vote for any argument that is reasonable and has an impact. Additionally, I will only vote based on the information offered to me during the round. I do not evaluate progressive argumentation. Be kind and respectful to everyone in the room. Please time yourselves.

I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.

I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.

Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

Hi everyone! I'm Ben. I'm currently a student at Vanderbilt studying economics and history. I debated for 3 years in PF for Myers Park on the nat circuit. I now do collegiate BP and coach PF on the side for Myers Park and Canyon Crest Academy. You can call me Ben, not judge.

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

Send all cases on an email chain with a label (ie. TOC R1F1 Myers Park BJ v Cary LJ).

I don't care what you wear. Speak how you want. Embrace the human element of speaking and don't turn into a robot in speech.

My paradigm is disgustingly long, so, if you are just doing a trad round and need my basic round preferences then read the stuff with a ❤️ by the title.

Debate is a game- play to win and have some fun.

WEIGHING❤️-

• Weigh early and intentionally. Just saying I outweigh on scope so you should vote for me is barely anything. Name dropping STIMP is boring and usually promotes non comparative weighing. Think harder and deeper in your weighing if you can. Obviously these things are the building blocks of weighing and will be involved but don't expect saying "ours happens first so we outweigh on timeframe" to convince me to vote for you.

• I don't hack for high magnitude low probability args- if you are telling me a nuclear winter is going to happen you need to give me a step by step warrant not just some random conspiracy theorist on the internet saying we are all going to go boom.
• Good Analytics> mid cards any day

SPEED ❤️-

I will not flow spreading nor will I flow off a doc (I like it when you send a doc but I won’t flow exclusively from it). I don't mind you talking fast and can flow faster than your average judge, but I don't enjoy flowing the absurd. The only time you should be using speed is for depth, not spamming arguments. The faster you go, the worse my flow gets and the worse my decision will be.

SPEECH PREFERENCES ❤️-

• Give me a quick off time roadmap before your speeches (ex. "My case then their case"). That's it.
• Always put FW at the top of the speech if present.
• I RARELY FLOW CARD TAGS so just remind me what the card says if you are telling me to flow through a response.

THEORY-

Theory is usually boring. I think it is only reasonable as a defensive mechanism against unreasonable Ks or framing. I don't mind paraphrasing and I think that too few teams think critically about the values of disclosure. Nevertheless, you should come to the round prepared to defend the way in which you debate if it is outside the norms of the nat circuit. I will vote on disclo and I will vote on para, I just don't like those rounds much. I will vote on either CIs or reasonability. Don’t need a CI for friv stuff but would like one for more common debates.

It is my expectation that any debater in varsity on the nat circuit can defend against theory. This does not mean beating up on first time nat circuit debaters is a good idea for me, I will tank your speaks for it. It just means "I don't know how to respond" will never be any form of defense.

Ks- These are fun. I was not a K debater but definitely had K rounds. I am becoming increasingly open to these arguments when they are run well.

The Non Topical K

If we can link everything in debate (even organic agriculture) to nuke war then you can link every topic to feminism, the patriarchy, cap, etc. I think the ability to link these in are an important skill for a K debater. You can try to change my mind, I won't auto vote down a performance K or other non topical K because I recognize that they have had some positive impact on the debate space- I am just trying to be honest about how much I will demand from them. I will still need to see well run T to vote on topicality.

The topical K

I am happy to hear a topical K, they are super fun if they are run well. I may have read some of your literature but pretend I am unfamiliar entirely, because, more frequently than not, I am. I hate Ks that are super complicated. It is your job as a debater to simplify your arguments for presentation or it is going to be really hard for me to vote. My 2 biggest difficulties with most PF Ks I see are as follows

1. The literature is too dense and those who read it barely understand what it is saying because they have just stolen cut cards from policy and LD. Thus, I implore you to cut the card in a way that your message could be clear to the public forum, not someone who has a PhD in the subject. You don't just get to drop all efforts at persuasion because you are running a K. You don't have policy time so don't make policy arguments. Get depth not breadth.

2. The alt is heavily under-warranted and vague. Ex. If you are running cap, you can't just read some poli sci professor who claims socialism is the solution to the world's problems and that we have to have a worker's revolution. You have to actually tell me why this exact scenario leads to better outcomes than the squo of capitalism.

A well run, persuasive K with a based alt makes for a very fun round. If you believe this is what you have come to the round with, fire away.

If you have reached this point in my paradigm then tell me the starting lineup of any NBA team and I will floor my speaks at 29 (no cheating...). You can also tell me your favorite TV show and I'll bump everyone's speaks +1 for actually reading my ramble.

POSTROUNDING

I always disclose. I already submitted the ballot but you can tell me you think my decision was wrong if it makes you feel better (it might have been).

QUICK IN-PERSON ROUND NOTE ❤️

I need two pieces of paper to flow on.

Hi everyone!

I am judging for Dougherty Valley.

Here is how I judge:

Number 1: Don't talk fast and do not spread. Be loud and clear so I can make proper notes.

Number 2: Please be polite, don't scream at your opponent.

Number 3: Please provide a definition and make sure to explain everything you say clearly.

Number 4: Make sure to give an off time road map.

Number 5: Quality over quantity

Number 6: Offense over defense

Number 7: Weigh properly, impact is critical

Number 8: Probability of your argument is also key for my ballot

Number 9: Look professional

Number 10: Have fun

I am a lay judge.

I judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round throughout the speeches and how each argument is weighed by each team. I prefer that you speak clearly so I can understand.

I am a lay judge.

I am interested in well organized opening arguments supported by good research.  I also would like to hear thoughtful and to the point rebuttals to opponent's contentions/counter arguments. 

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

Voting Issues

• Direct clashes between arguments
• Weighing the two arguments

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

Most of all, respect your opponents and have fun!

I am a veteran teacher that loves vigorous debate and discussions. I prefer students to engage the topic with insightful and meaningful arguments. Be kind in the debate to the other students and make sure to respond to arguments made by your opponents.

Don't spread - I prefer conversation speed. If you go faster than that then you do so at your own risks.

Be firm and aggressive but not rude - I enjoy a heated debate but not mean and rude comments or disrespectfulness during speeches.

I wouldn't consider myself to be a specialized debate judge so if you use a bunch of debate jargon that may not work out well for you.

If you have questions feel free to ask. Good luck!

I am a parent judge and this is my first tournament.

1. I know very little about the topic.
2. I know nothing about the rules of debate.
3. I need you to speak slowly.
4. Please be respectful of everyone in the round.
5. Have fun!

Hi! Please put me on the email chain: zahrak031905@gmail.com

I use she/her pronouns and I am a freshman at the University of Rochester. I debated policy for 4 years at Lexington high school.

I’m open to all arguments, and if you are a novice it might be better to run something that you understand well so that it is easier to explain and support. The most important thing is to learn, try your best, and have fun!!

DO:

• Line by Line - make sure you are responding to all of your opponents’ arguments and extending your own, and keep track to see if your opponents’ didn’t answer one or more of your arguments, so that you can use that to explain why that makes your argument stronger

• Explain the warrants of your arguments

• Impact calc, explain why your argument is more significant by comparing your magnitude, timeframe, and probability to your opponents’

• Prioritize your arguments in your rebuttal speech

• Tell me the lens that I should vote through, and why I should vote for you

DON'T

• Be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc.

• Be rude

• Interrupt your partner or your opponents

Also

• Let me know if you have tech issues!

• With online debating, clarity > speed

Remember, try your best, learn some new things, and have fun!!

Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '24

contact: vedaprasana@gmail.com

she/her

Debate experience:

I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments

PF:

- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.

- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.

- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.

- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrue the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.

- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that

- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.

- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.

- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.

- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.

- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.

- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary

Email me if you have any questions!

As a lay judge, I come to the debate without extensive experience or expertise in the specific subject matter being discussed. This means that I will be evaluating the debate from a perspective of common sense and general knowledge, rather than technical or specialized knowledge.

While I will be looking for clear and convincing arguments, I will also be paying close attention to how effectively the debaters communicate their ideas to a general audience. I want to see debaters who can explain complex concepts in simple terms and make their arguments accessible and understandable to someone without specialized knowledge of the topic.

Overall, my goal as a lay judge is to provide a fair and objective evaluation of the debate that reflects the values of clarity, simplicity, and persuasion. I am excited to see the creativity and ingenuity of the high school students as they present their arguments and engage in a thoughtful and respectful debate.

Hi, I am a lay judge. If this is TOC Digital 2, it is my first time judging(I judged once 4 years ago but I’m not counting that)

I’ll vote for the more persuasive team and whichever argument I understand the most.

No spreading!

No racism, homophobia, etc.

Good Luck!

I am a tabula rasa judge. 

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

Parent judge.

Describe your frame

No spreading (speak at a conversational pace). No Ks, no theory, only run substance.

Be very clear about your arguments, well warranted, be CLEAR about impacts.

Have well-carded responses.

Be clear with weighing in Summary and FF. Write the ballot for me.

Don't talk over each other in cross.

flow judge

didn’t read theory much but i’ll evaluate it

near 0 K experience so read if u rly want

typically do not feel like flowing off a doc, but it depends on the day

be nice

Hello,

This is my first year judging PF. Please speak legibly and maintain the logical order of the arguments. You will see me focused on taking notes over the course of debate.

Diversity in arguments supporting your case along with any available quantification is perceived positively as it reflects the amount of research and preparedness. Out of the box and/or quick analytical thinking aiding your case is always welcome!

It is important to me that the teams respect each other and maintain the decorum of debate.

Wish you the Best and have fun!

I am looking for fluency and confidence while speaking as well as your ability to ask and answer questions during crossfire. Make sure you don't drop any contentions or subpoints in your rebuttal speech. I will take that into account while judging. Don't be rude to your opponents either, and have fun!

I am a "lay" judge. Please speak clearly, avoid speed, explain thoroughly and do not make
assumptions about my knowledge of the topic. Public Forum is an event designed to be judged
by anyone - that is what appears in the description of the event provided by the NSDA. Debate
accordingly.

Please speak slowly so that I may do a fair job. Absolutely no spreading.

Quality and quantity of evidence matter.

Logically and clearly articulated warrant is important – explaining why the evidence/data supports your claim.

Above all, let’s be respectful. Enjoy!

email: xjleex@yahoo.com

Hi,

I will mainly look at the consistency in argumentation for both teams, and I prefer strong reasoning with concrete examples. Please speak slowly and clearly so that I can understand. I do not have much knowledge about this topic, so please try to make my job easier by going over the topic.

I am a history professor and a parent judge.

Good luck to all!

Hello! I'm a professor so I routinely evaluate defenses, debates, and discussions, however, I have never been a NSDA debater and am a lay judge.

In a round, I mainly look for strong and logical argumentation, clear evidence to support your contentions, general eloquence (no spreading please), and decorum (especially during crossfire).

No progressive argumentation like theory, ks, tricks, etc. You will be dropped.

I can't wait to hear all of your arguments. Have fun!

I'm a parent judge with some experience judging public forum and speeches. I'd appreciate if you could speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Clarify and quality of argument are valued more than quantity. Thank you and good luck!

I am new to judging. Please speak slow and clear and actively interact with the warrants of each argument. Good luck and have fun!

Greetings, debaters! I am a lay judge and a parent. My paradigm focuses on creating a fair, educational, and engaging debate environment for all participants.

The following is what I am looking for in a debate:

1. Clarity and Organization: I value clear and well organized arguments. Please structure your points logically for better comprehension and prioritize clarity in articulating your ideas.

2. Research and Evidence: Please provide well-researched arguments supported by credible evidence.

3. Crossfire Engagement: I acknowledge and reward effective engagement during crossfire. You are are encouraged to think on your feet, respond directly to opponents, and maintain a constructive tone.

4. Time Management: I value effective time management. You should use your allocated time wisely to cover key points and provide thorough analysis. Please keep track your own time. I will track time on my side as a backup.

5. Fairness and Respect: I appreciate a positive and inclusive atmosphere, where opposing views are challenged respectfully. You must treat each other with respect throughout the entire debate.

6. Adaptability: I acknowledge adaptability in debates. Debaters should be flexible in responding to unexpected arguments or shifts in the discussion, and reward creative thinking and adaptability to various debate scenarios.

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

This is my second year working as a parent judge. So far I've been sitting for 7-8 sessions. I base my decision on the quality of the flow and effectiveness of the rebuttal. I am most comfortable with a speech speed of ~180 words/min. Thank you

About Me:

Undergrad at Northwestern University

Studying Mathematics and Religious Studies

Have some background in US legal system & politics of China

I am a student judge with conservative leanings though I understand you don't get to choose your sides

Philosophy:

Emphasize succint, clear, & articulate arguments

Don't overwhelm me with information or assume unreasonable prior knowledge, it is helpful to repeat your main points at the end

Facts over emotions, please use logic & common sense

Preferences:

Send speech docs - email: lubohaiing@gmail.com

Speak clearly and a reasonable pace - no spreading

Keep arguments simple

I am new judging PF debate. I have been a finance professional for 20+ years, therefore sentences with numbers catch my attention without a doubt.

1) Signposts tidy things up and help me to follow better.

2) I value accuracy, practicality, logic, and evidence over polished words.

3) Be respectful and use etiquette. Attack the argument not the person.

4) Speak at a reasonable speed and good luck.

Hello. I am a parent judge and a periodontist by trade. I appreciate clarity, logic, evidence, and reasoning. I also value teamwork and respect for your opponents. A good debate will rely less on unbelievable impacts and more on good, well-thought-out arguments. Be respectful to the other team always throughout the debate. I will not disclose my decision after the round but I will leave comments on the tabroom. Good luck to everyone!

my email for the email chain is: dralmanesh@gmail.com

For the plastics topic -- I will not vote on medical exemptions. As a member of the medical community, I think it's important to debate the issue of plastics in medicine and the exemptions argument is just an unfair way of getting out of that debate.

Hello! I am a parent judge from Fairmont Preparatory Academy. My son competes in Varsity Public Forum. Here are some important considerations when I judge you:

• I do want to be on the email chain. Send me speech docs for constructive and rebuttal at minimum --> nazilamanesh@gmail.com
• I am a "lay" judge: I won't know jargon and it'll be best if you treat me as your own parent and speak calmly and simply in a way that's understandable. Big ideas will be easiest for me to understand, backed up by evidence that has explanations for why it's true.
• Talk SLOWLY and SIMPLY. If you talk fast, you will get lower speaker scores and you will probably lose the round because I won't be able to understand your arguments and thus why I should vote for you
• Have good clash. Discuss the evidence and the reasoning and the examples! This makes the round fun to watch.
• Treat your opponents with respect, in cross fire and otherwise throughout the round. Disrespect will lose you speaker points and makes the round less enjoyable. In cross fire, the approach I favor is each opponent trades off asking a question with followups being allowed if agreed upon by both teams. Be civil, be calm, and be nice!

Have a simple narrative with good clash.

I will not be disclosing my decision. Good luck to everyone!

For the plastics topic -- I will not vote on medical exemptions. This just unfairly takes away arguments from the topic.

General

- Speak as fast as you want, but try not to spread. The words should be clear

- Focus on understanding of the topic and the depth at which one understands a topic

- I can time the speeches but prefer you please time yourselves

- Add me to the email chain: vishwas.manral@gmail.com

- Be respectful - don't say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

• Flay/treat me more lay
• Send me your cases

Arguments/ Debate etc.

I don't like progressive debate at all (No Tshells, K's, CPs, tricks, etc.) I will probably end up dropping you if you run it. If you do end up going for it -- please explain to me clearly why it should be a voting issue at the end of the debate.

Squirrelly arguments are ok but you need to actually explain your link VERY clearly or you can't access your impact.

I love when people signpost; it helps me follow along with what you are saying in your speech.

Please make sure that you can your provide evidence to your opponents. If you fail to do so, the argument is dropped.

I prefer off-time roadmaps but keep them brief.

Dropped args should not be brought back into the flow, but point out when your opponents' arguments are dropped. You know the rest of the rules, so please follow them.

As far as framework goes, I am fine with anything as long as you are following your framework. Debating against framework- if the opposing team provides a better framework that works and proves why the other team's framework is irrelevant or etc. then I will consider that. If you run SV you need to tell me why I should prefer that over any default util FW.

You run the show, so show me why you should win this debate. Impact weighing is greatly valued.

I won't flow cross (unless they contradict themselves), but if something big happens, tell me in your speech.

I am fine with disclosing cases as long as both teams are ok with it. If not, then please do not be forceful. (No disclo/para theory)

Speaks usually from 28+

Good luck, be kind, happy debating!

Public Forum-

Background-

My email is cammays05@gmail.com

I did PF debate all four years in high school so I'm pretty familiar with anything that could come up in the debate. Speed is fine, but I think debate is supposed to be an educational activity, accessible to anyone who watches, so I highly discourage spreading, but if you really feel like you have to spread in a constructive of rebuttal just send the doc.

In Round-

I expect everything y'all are going for in the debate to be clearly extended, especially in summary. With this, dropped points need to be pointed out by each team, I will be flowing but dropped points should immediately be jumped on as a cause for winning. At the end of the debate I vote on what offense is left (obviously), so be sure to introduce voting issues and weighing mechanisms for me preferably starting in summary or rebuttal. Please clearly explain your weighing mechanism don't just say, "Vote on this impact because of scope," incorporate some analysis and explanation with it. Also, extend warranting and link chains not just the impact and its stat. I will also vote on mishandled evidence or faulty evidence, I think those are strong arguments that can undercut a case well. Finally, please do some case defense, don't just reread your case or not respond at all to arguments against it. I really don't know what else to put just be respectful in speeches and questioning and ask me any questions if you have them.

LD-

A lot of the same stuff from PF, don't just extend claims and source tags, but extend the warranting with it. My vote is based on whichever argument better fits under the value and value criterion I buy in the debate.

Post Round-

I'm fine with disclosing and answering questions about my decision and the round and giving feedback as long as a tournament allows it. However, doing this can get pretty contentious, so if y'all are trying to be post-round debaters I'm going to cut my feedback short, like I said earlier just be respectful. I get tournament days can be stressful but just remember I'm trying my best. Thanks.

Hi, I’m Dylan (he/any). I competed in PF at James River(‘22) mainly on the VHSL circuit and a few online natcirc tournaments. I was a mediocre debater but I love this activity and my coach (Castelo) is awesome. My email is mcentyredylan89@gmail.com. Reach out if you have any questions or if there’s anything I can do to make the round more accessible.

General

- I evaluate rounds from an offense-defense paradigm and you only need one piece of offense to win. Rounds come down to either A) one piece of offense and who has the best link in or B) two pieces of offense and which outweighs. The difference between these rounds is that round A comes down to link weighing and round B comes down to impact weighing. Either way, all rounds come down to weighing. Saying “we outweigh on magnitude” is not real weighing. Please do the comparative analysis and tell me why your world is preferable over your opponents.

- Judge instruction is the best way to ensure a decent decision. I’ve made bad decisions before and don’t want to again. I will think my decision through and do my best not to intervene because y’all deserve it and I don’t want to think about this round for months.

- All arguments need to be warranted and implicated. A response may be good but it won't matter if you don't tell me what it means for the round and my decision.

Specifics

- Extensions don't need to be super in depth, but you should be extending each part of the argument you collapse on even if it’s functionally conceded.

- There shouldn’t be any brand new analysis in the final speeches.

- If you want an argument to be evaluated then you should say it in each speech with the obvious exception of restating case arguments in rebuttal

Speed?

- I flow by ear and you should not trust me to flow well off a doc. I can keep up with ~275 wpm but not with real spreading

Speaker points

- I give speaker points based on strategy and clarity and tend to be somewhat generous. I start around 28.5 and go up or down from there.

Kritiks

- If you read a K, I need to know who does the alt, what doing the alt actually entails in literal terms, and how the alternative solves the harms outlined in the K.

- Now, my opinion on whether or not Ks work well in PF does not matter at all but I’ll add this..if the rules of the event do not let you specify who does the alt and what doing the alt entails then I don’t think the K is the best strat. Speech times also make it difficult. I think framing and kritikal-esque arguments can work but the specifics of K debate become strange in PF. I think this is probably because the format was designed to not let K debate happen. Are kritikal arguments important? Yes, definitely, but I think they work better in LD and policy.

Theory

- Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but I really don’t care if you do either as long as you have cut cards and aren’t a douche.

- If the problem could’ve been solved by contacting tab or your opponents then it’s probably not worth our time. If you contact them and they still violate the interp then go for it but you should have screenshots. You should also be able to clearly explain the in-round implications of the violation.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ll disclose my decision and can disclose speaks if you ask. Postround respectfully if you want. I'm here to learn and improve just as much as y'all are.

If you're reading this before a PF round consider: skip to the bolded "this is a note for PF" which is about my views on evidence. Otherwise do what you want in round; have fun, go crazy. Read the rest of the paradigm if you have time, but it's mostly about LD/Policy.

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3.Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you shouldprobably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply toall the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea.

I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

Hello everyone,

I am a parent judge, so am new to PF. Please remember to speak clearly and concisely as well as restate your arguments. Start your speeches by introducing your team, your name and your side. Please do not spread or use any theories, K's, or frameworks. I am looking for good discussion and debate so be respectful during cross as well as during the round.

Experience

Umich'25

PF & a fair amount of policy -- currently coach a few circuit PF teams, many of whom have done well nationally.

Note: guys I was telling everyone for, like, MONTHS that they were gonna learn how to debate fwk and ontology vs. planless affs for the PF TOC and nobody believed me!!!!! But I was right!!!!!

Email chain: MCDPrepDocs@gmail.com & Meskouri@umich.edu

General/TLDR

Top: fairly experienced tech -- have evaluated basically everything. Adam, not "judge."

Yes K (both pre & post), yes theory, no excessive speed (usually good for like ~250 wpm with docs I think but anything further and I'll be cooked). Swearing is fine, just don't be egregious w/it.

PF judging is in a rough spot right now -- I frequently see bad judges get away with hilariously terrible decisions, even in elims and bid rounds (many of my 2-1s are blatant parent screws lol). I will do everything in my power to ensure that this does not happen to you.

I thus encourage debaters to use my rounds to do/practice things that they can't do in front of other judges -- this means you should consider me open to any style of debate including substance, debates about debate, debates about debating about debate, etc. Do whatever you want, just be clear -- be flayish in presentation (err on the side of urgent > speedy) and I'll 100% catch everything. To clarify, this means that I am willing to evaluate any and all types of arguments (dedev, spark, prefiat/postfiat K, theory etc etc) so long as you aren't spreading (>250 wpm) through them. My camera will usually be off as it helps me flow better.

This paradigm is purposefully blippy as I recognize that, more often than not, paradigms aren't read in full prior to round. If you have any burning questions, ask!

Make a Garfield or Babytron reference for +0.5 speaks!

Specs

• Email me the 1AC and 1NC (non-negotiable) & preferably rebuttal docs with all ev and (only if you can) analytics-- I will cap speaks if constructive docs are not sent and will raise speaks if rebuttal docs are. To be clear, constructive docs are non-negotiable.

• I really like good rounds and really hate bad rounds. Generally, “good” teams will be diligent about the LBL, give good OVs, signpost extremely well, and extend the right pieces of big picture offense/defense -- write my ballot for me. I tend to reward debaters for tricky responses, but that is not to say that you should be blipping out 15 incoherent analytics per minute. Remember to extend your warrants as a way of resolving clash!

• K is chill, but only if you’re good at it – I haven’t been convinced that PFers can debate K like they can theory or substance quite yet. I can follow most reps Ks and many prefiat/performance ones. Similarly, I feel comfortable evaluating the responses to Ks (T-FW, TVA, SSD, ballot pik, perm etc). I can't follow phil.

• DISCLAIMER: apparently I borderline hack for perfcons. I think they usually outweigh the ivi/shell/K and it is tough to convince me otherwise unless you're reading unfairness good.

• Theory is cool! I like to think I’m a decent judge for it who has seen or evaluated most shells. Feel free to pref me if you read stuff like disclo, paraphrasing, speed, or any wacky non-friv (tbh, you can read friv, j be willing to commit to it). Don't spread through your shell. Going for 1-2 standards is usually better than blipping out 5 in final. The only part of theory that bores me is the bottom half (CI, RVI, etc). Obv, disclo is good and para is bad. But, I've voted for disclo bad and para good. Writing "contact info is term defense" on your wiki is silly and almost always unpersuasive and wrong.

• T is a voter. Debated equally vs. a Kaff, it'll probably win. I'm pretty receptive to TVA and SSD on a truth level -- not sure how I feel about the ballot PIK. My views on debating vs. alts are the same as my views on debating vs. impacts: both of them deserve more analysis and defense/offense. Procedural fairness probably o/w most impacts absent a great explanation of how the performance does something tangible and why that round specifically is k2 something important. I'll vote on fairness impact turns.

• Egregious speed is bad -- assume I can follow 65-70% of your top pace. The back half should be slower than the front half. Not sure how I feel about new ev in second sum.

• Cheating is bad. I will do my best to ensure that the 2FF doesn't get away with murder. Have cut cards ready to send ASAP -- I won't accept hyperlinks. You have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal. DAs in rebuttal are obviously fine. (and probably underutilized if you can explain why the DA o/w their link).

• A lot of "turns" in PF are just DAs. If your turn isn't responsive to the actual link and instead says that the aff/neg does something tangential which makes their impact worse, you need to spend way more time weighing the turn against their link. If the turn IS responsive, you need to do a little less of that.

• Defense is kinda sticky because the time constraints of PF make extending everything hard, BUT that does not mean you don’t have to say “extend the mining NL” for me to flow it.

• A quick tip: if you're spending 30s/speech on it while they're spending 2m/speech, they're probably winning it.

• Debate in a way that allows fun for everyone.
  
  

As a new judge, I am excited to participate in this high school debate tournament and learn more about the intricacies of competitive debating.

1. Clarity and organization of arguments: I appreciate well-structured arguments that are easy to follow and understand, even for someone who may be new to debate.
2. Presentation and speaking skills: I will assess the debaters' ability to communicate their ideas clearly and effectively, considering factors such as enunciation, tone, and overall delivery.

I'm a first-time parent judge, speak clearly and slowly so I can hear your arguments. Have fun!

he/they

Email: david@notiosolutions.com

Experience: Debated in high school and college, now coach.

Paradigm: Persuade me. Warrant it.

...no really, that's it. Persuade me. You can persuade me using any number of techniques, but whether I'm voting off the flow, on theory, or topically on a well impacted argument, I'm still just voting on what I find the most persuasive.

I'm ok with speed. However, If I can't understand you, I'm not being persuaded. If you are going to spread, share your case with both me and your opponents.

If an argument is important, make sure you've clearly communicated it. If it's an online debate, make sure you repeat or slow down when making important points. I will not vote on arguments not carried throughout the round.

If only one side in a PF debate gives me voting criteria or framing, I will most likely be voting for that side.

I will highly favor teams which actually interact with their opponent's case as opposed to simply reading a counter card and not addressing substance.

A few other things:

-Nazis equal Nazis. If you are going to link to Nazis or the Holocaust, do so carefully and avoid trivializing Nazis or the Holocaust by comparing everything to them.

-if you have a preferred pronoun, please let me know how you would like to be addressed prior to the start of the round.

-If you are reading a case that might be upsetting/triggering to your opponent, please provide a content warning at the beginning. If your opponent requests you not read triggering content, I will seek guidance from Tab and see if a side switch or other accommodations can be made. However, just because content is uncomfortable does not automatically mean it should not be read.

Overview

Don't be rude to your opponents. You might win the round but I'll tank your speaks. Tech>truth. Weigh, metaweigh, implicate + weigh turns on the lbl. Defense is NOT sticky.

Spreading

I know this is lame but I can't follow it. Talk as fast as you want but don't sacrifice clarity. If it's not on my flow because I couldn't understand you, that's on you.

Signposting

Do it

Extensions

You can't just say "extend (card name)" and call it an extension. I'll flow card names but you need to extend claim + warrant.

2nd Rebuttal

Frontline everything ESPECIALLY turns + terminal defense.

Summary

Extend every part of the arguments you want evaluated. You should probably collapse here if not earlier.

FF

Nothing new in first final except weighing; second final can respond to new weighing in first final.

Dropped Arguments

If you drop anything and your opponent implicates and weighs it, you're probably screwed.

Speech Timing

You get 10 seconds grace. After that I stop flowing no matter how important what you said is.

Framework Debate

I default util if no framework is read. Pls read a carded framework or at least warrant why I should prefer your framework. Also no random framework dropping in summary or final. You can't randomly tell me not to evaluate half your opponent's impacts mid-round. It should've been in constructive or rebuttal.

Evidence

Cut cards. Jesus. Just do it. IF YOU MISCONSTRUE EVIDENCE, AND THE OTHER TEAM CALLS IT OUT, you will lose. IF YOU MISCONSTRUE EVIDENCE, AND THE OTHER TEAM DOESN'T CALL IT BUT I FIND OUT, I'm not sure what I'll do but it'll be bad. So don't do it.

For sharing, add me to the email chain: leilasbfdg@gmail.com. If you take forever to send evidence I'll drop your speaks.

Know your cards. Don't say "our evidence says/indicates..." Instead, say "(card name) says/indicates..."

Cross

I won't flow cross so bring it up in speech if something important happened.

If y'all are friends let me know before the round so I don't think you're being mean when you make fun of each other.

Feel free to joke around lol

If I'm the only judge, both teams can agree to not do GCX and get 1 min prep.

Collapsing

You should probably collapse as early as possible. Make it clean.

Weighing

Taken from Willie Tsai's paradigm:

"Weigh please. Weigh EVERY point of clash. Broadly, I need to know whose impacts are more important. I love a good link-in but they aren't enough unless you weigh your link-in against the original link. I love good pre-reqs and they will boost your odds of winning the impact calculus. Also weigh contrasting claims. If one team argues that a plan causes wages to go up and another team argues that a plan causes wages to go down. I need to know how to break the clash. Does one team have a warrant that specifically applies to the status quo? Does one team's wage impact go global as opposed to domestic? I also love when teams use evidence to compare clash. Tell me a flaw with your opponents evidence and tell me why that matters as well as why such evidence flaws win you the clash."

That's a great summary of how I feel.

THAT SAID, the weighing doesn't matter if you're not winning the arg to begin with. Link weighing > impact weighing; you need to win your links into the impact in order to win the impact weighing but if you prove their links fail then you'll be winning the arg even if they do a great job of impact weighing.

Disclosing

I always disclose unless I'll get in trouble for it. Ask anything you want.

Theory

I will evaluate any theory argument.

Competing interps + no RVIs default. Paraphrasing is probably bad. Disclosing is probably good. But you can argue anything.

I think the best arg against competing interps is that if you read a counter interp, you use reasonability to decide which shell is better anyway so judge intervention is present regardless.

Respond to the shell in the next speech or you basically lose the round.

If your opponent doesn't respond to the shell in the next speech, call it and you'll basically auto-win as long as you extend it.

The only reason you won't need a shell to prove is if there is evidence misconstruction. If it's sufficiently bad, an IVI will suffice.

Theory USUALLY up-layers the K; but I think it would be easy to warrant otherwise.

Kritiks/Ks

If you're gonna read these, dumb them down for me unless its cap. I'm not the best at flowing these but if you read them I'll try to evaluate regardless. Don't read a non-t k.

Tricks + Friv T

These are hilarious. Feel free to read 5 tricks and collapse on the one they dropped. Threshold for responses will be low, but you can absolutely win on a cool strat even if its BS.

Be careful with Friv tho bc if someone tells me your useless shell is crowding out substance that is a real impact I can vote on.

TW Shells

I won't punish a team for reading a TW, I also won't punish them for NOT reading a TW. Please try to be safe and respectful -- but also, to some extent, debate should be a safe space for ideas, not people.

It's probably safest not to read this in front of me. But if you want to go for it, feel free. Just know that I do believe that limiting speech is broadly bad; I would only read it if your opponent does something egregious e.g. graphic descriptions of sexual violence, violence in general, etc.

Speaks

Speaks are fake, and probably racist/sexist. You'll do well trust. If your round is past 10pm or before 8am you'll get auto-30s.

Other

I'm probably hungry so if you bring me a snack, +0.5 speaks.

Auto-30s if you read exclusively impact turns in 2nd constructive.

Min 29 if you read climate change good, nuke war good, etc impact turn at any point in the round.

Auto-30s for EVERYONE if both teams agree to no prep.

Hello. =)

I am Nicholas Murado. I'm a lawyer -- I sue debt collectors for a living.

I played LD some ~20 years ago and have judged every format at some point in my judging career. Recently I've been judging a lot of PF. This paradigm assumes I'm still judging PF.

Overall philosophy: Above all else, I am a gamer. I love strategy games. I do not like punishing a player for making a strategic decision in a debate round. I will not assume positions you advocate for in the round are positions you advocate for in real life. For example, I'm a very left-wing/progressive person in real life, but I have many times given my ballot to players who I know are also very left-wing/progressive in real life but who ran conservative positions in the round because the flow called for it and it was strategically beneficial for them to do so.

Provided you do not run afoul of the advice contained herein, run whatever arguments you want without worry.

Speed: I hate speed. I believe debate should be won by the smartest player, not the player with the most lingual dexterity. I am okay with players speaking at a faster-than-normal pace, but it should not be excessive. I did an experiment: I read some random judge's philosophy, out loud, at "slightly faster-than-normal pace." It came out to ~230 WPM for something I had never seen before. This means that if your constructive (in PF) is somewhere around 850 words, you are fine. If you get up any higher, though, that may be nearing the top-end for what I like. I tend to ask players to read me the first couple of sentences of their constructive before the round to make sure their pacing is okay if they seem worried about this. ALSO, give the card name before the card, not after, and you should wait a second or two to make sure I get it down correctly on my PC and don't fall behind on flowing. A flaw of mine is that I usually gloss over card names and tend to flow only the argument itself, and in later rounds when people refer to the argument by the card name, it can be confusing. (This was a big problem for me in law school... remembering the holdings of cases and never the case names. Meh.)

Feedback: I am a very facially-active judge. If I do not understand something, it will be clear on my face. I scrunch my forehead, I tilt my head, etc. If I like what is being said, that should be clear on my face, too. If I think you just hit a major point, I may crack a grin and nod my head.

I very often stop flowing and look up at the players during a speech. This is not always a bad thing. It usually isn't a bad thing. This can mean many things. Sometimes I realize I have not paid attention to the actual speaking style and I need some data for determining speaker points. Sometimes I have already figured out where you are going and have already flowed what you are about to say. There are many reasons for this and you should not worry when it happens while you are speaking. Generally, though, if I am focused on my flow, my face is easily readable.

Speaker points: My award of speaker points is completely and entirely separate from any substantive aspect of the debate. I award speaks based on how well you speak, nothing more. Therefore, low point wins are common in my rounds. On the rare occasion that disrespect occurs, I may deduct some speaks based on what happened and the surrounding circumstances.

Aesthetics: I do not care what you wear, how you look, whether you sit or stand, etc. This type of stuff has absolutely no bearing on my decision-making. I do prefer having AFF/PRO on my left and NEG/CON on my right, if possible... but I tend to instruct this at the start of the round anyway.

Kritiks/etc: I consider debate a game where the smartest players should win. Games need to have rules. Rules are important as they are the only way for players to prepare their strategies beforehand. At the heart of the K (and most proggy stuff) is a shirking of the main idea of this game: debating the merits of the resolution. Sometimes this can be useful... but it is very rare.

Theory: My threshold for voting on most common forms of theory is extremely high. You probably won't meet it. I don't agree with disclosure theory in general and the official PF rules already explain how to handle improper use of evidence such that reading paraphrase theory is close to superfluous. I'm also probably not going to vote on any theory relating to the peripheral content of someone's speeches (e.g. pronoun theory without actual malice/actual intentional misgendering, "you guys" theory, etc). If someone is actually abusive, and it affects the round to a sufficient extent, I'll just intervene anyway. But my idea of what "sufficient extent" means will probably change based on the circumstances.

Cross-examination: I tend to consider the CX segments as "shared speeches" insofar as comments made during the cross-examination are binding on the player and the player's case. I know some judges think the CX time "doesn't count" and only the timed individual speeches count, but I do not see it this way. That said, I'm not actively flowing CX.

PF Rules are Supreme: The rules of PF set forth very little, but they do set forth the speech times and the fact that plans and counterplans are banned. I will never change the speech times and I will never accept a plan or counterplan. Arguments that are plans but are disguised as though they are not plans will be ignored even if the other team doesn't point it out. The rules also set forth very detailed procedures on how to handle problems with evidence. I will follow those rules. You should read them if you haven't -- https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/High-School-Unified-Manual-2023-10-19.pdf starting at page 30.

Tech-Truth Spectrum: I'm probably about 70% tech, 30% truth. Where I "intervene" primarily is in three ways.

1. If you misrepresent evidence, cut cards improperly, etc., then I'm voting you down, and I'll do this even if the other team doesn't point it out, pursuant to official rule 7.4.A of the Unified Manual.

2. If you put forth claims that are objectively false ("the Constitution says X" when it doesn't, etc), then either I'm ignoring that argument or voting you down depending on how bad it is.

3. As the absurdity of your argument increases, my threshold for a response decreases. Also, I tend to try real hard not to give ballots to teams whose winning criteria involve absurd impacts. No matter how strong your link chain is, the world is not going to descend into nuclear war because of anything argued for in a debate round. Trust me. To put this another way, if you were to watch a political news show (in real life) and a politician were to argue for the same position you argued for in round, if people on all/most political sides would generally consider that politician to be irrational, then I will probably consider you to be irrational too and refuse to pick up that argument.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS: IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH AND COLLAPSE, YOU WILL LOSE. And your final focus basically should be entirely voting issues.

I am a first-time judge for public forum debate. I am okay if you speak slightly fast but make sure you are clear so your opponents and judge can understand. Apart from that, I want rebuttals, summaries, and final focuses to be cleanly formatted by using signposting and an off-time roadmap.

Hi, I am new to judging pf so please don't spread and speak clearly. Make sure to attack your opponent's points and make good points.

Hi, I'm a parent judge. I judge off the flow of the round, if anything is brought up in the cross it should be in a speech for me to count it. Thank you!

I am currently a sophomore at Emory university. I debated public forum at the quarry lane school for four years.

tech > truth

please add me to the email chain - snellian@student.quarrylane.org. Send speech docs before each speech !

I'm fine with speed, but make sure you're clear. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Any offense you're going for in final focus should be extended completely (uniqueness, links, impacts) in summary. Cross is binding but doesn't matter unless it's in speech. Please collapse !

Start weighing as early as possible and definitely focus on comparative weighing (both link and impact level if possible), when I'm looking at the arguments, I'll start with the one with the strongest weighing.

Always be respectful towards your opponents. I won't evaluate arguments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. Lastly, debate can be stressful but make sure to have fun :)

Regarding prog arguments, I have little to no experience with Ks (I’ve debated a K maybe once or twice). If you want to read a K, I think it’s super interesting but I probably won’t be able to evaluate it well and am not a great judge for that. I’ve debated/read theory before, and have more experience with it than Ks, but I’m not extremely experienced with it either.

Good luck and feel free to email me before or after the round if you have any questions.

I am a lay judge and I have judged a couple tournaments in the past.

-the more confident you sound, the more convincing you will be

-Please speak in a pace I can understand, you can go fast but make sure you make sense

-I will be flowing, so it would be good to be clear with your words

This is my first year judging PF. This means that you must do your job to adapt to me as a judge, but at the same time I will do my best to follow what you say, take notes and provide feedback. I understrand that you have spent time and effort on it so I take judging very seriously.

You can speak as fast or as slow as you want, however, explain everything that you are saying very clearly. Do not skip any steps in your logical chains – things that are intuitive to you might not seem that way to me.

I will do my best to judge the round fairly as long as you do your best to convince me why you should win. Please speak in a conversational tone – don’t yell – and be as persuasive as you can. Be respectful!!

For the October Topic, I do have a little topical knowledge on it and I've seen unique arguments for both sides!

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

I'm a parent judge and new to this. Please keep time throughout the round. I'm looking forward to listening to you debate today!

Please do not say anything inappropriate, racist, homophobic, or anything offensive to your opponent. Please be kind & respectful to your opponent, and do not interrupt your opponent during cross-examination. No offensive terms or personal attacks

I consider evidence, and argument interaction very important. Evidence must be quantitive with clear and credible references. Supporting evidence is critical. I also pay attention whether opponents questions and contentions are addressed or not.

Please speak clearly. Also please define any acronyms you will be using throughout at the beginning. Make sure your key points and values are clear.

I am a lay judge.

I value clear (no rush) speech and warrants for every contention. If you spread, I will deduct speaker points.

I do not flow or listen to cross.

Please roadmap and signpost as much as possible.

Hello, I am Aditi Patel and I am a parent Judge.

Please explain arguments thoroughly at a reasonable pace.

Please time yourself.

Please be respectful to me and I will do my best to take notes and be fair.

Please add me to the email chain @pateladiti@yahoo.com

Hi, Its my first time judging so I'd consider myself a lay parent judge. Please introduce yourselves before the debate and state which school you're debating for. I will allow a 5-10 second grace period after speeches.

Be polite during cross.

tldr: A K judge, but I'm alright with theory and phil, not great with tricks.

Please add me to the email chain: apatrafl@gmail.com

I'm Asha Patra (she/her) and I'm a freshman at UC Berkeley, but I competed under American Heritage in HS. I did LD but also some PF and WSD. I've also coached a good amount of speech and debate events.

I lean towards the idea that the judge ought to act as an unbiased evaluator in rounds (tech > truth). I don't tend to intervene unless a competitor makes the space unsafe. I will not connect the links of an arg for you, so be clean with your argumentation.

Speed: I'm good with all speeds, but I'll tell you to be clear if necessary. However, that'll only happen twice. Past that, if you can't clear up or slow down, I'll still try to flow but I won't feel bad killing your speaker points or if I miss anything. If you're too fast, I'm not flowing off the doc -- that's cheating.

Lay/Trad: I enjoy these rounds a lot when the debaters know what they're talking about. Be persuasive and remember that you're convincing me to vote for you, you're not convincing your opponent that you're right. I'd rather have a shorter, really great speech than you standing up and saying a good speech and then nonsense just to fill time. Please weigh in your last speech! Crystallization of impacts is super important, rounds become pretty disgusting to evaluate when y'all are just throwing arguments at each other and no one is telling me why their arguments matter more. Also, please extend throughout the round. I don't care if your opponent dropped the arg in their first speech; if it's something you want me to vote on, extend it through every speech.

Ks - some of my personal favorites are set col or anthro but I'm comfortable with the usuals too (cap, ableism, etc.). I don't know when people decided not to weigh Ks, but you should. The more specific your links to the aff, the better. Please know what the K is saying, and you're not just reading what your coach handed you a minute before the round.

Theory - I'm good for most theory as long as it's got sufficient warrants. If answering a bad shell, you can't just say that it's bad and not answer the standards. Just saying “Gut check" isn't a thing -- give me a reason to gut check the shell. If it's bad, the standards will be straightforward to answer and I expect y'all to do the work on that. For voters and standards, I remain pretty unbiased. I'll vote for either side (dtd vs dta, competing interp vs reasonability, text vs spirit, etc.) depending on warranting.

Phil - I didn't debate a lot of phil when I was in HS, so you're gonna want to explain this well and probably slow down.

LARP - I enjoy a good LARP round. I don't care if you are reading the most basic util framework, I don't want to do work for you and I'm not going to assume you have access to anything until you warrant why you do.

Tricks - I have a higher threshold for what I'll evaluate for tricks. I know tricks are pretty popular, and debaters like to troll so I'm open to it, but you gotta deliver them well and still weigh them. If you're going to read tricks, please make them clever or funny.

PF: I'm fine with progressive args, just do whatever makes you the most comfortable. warrant args well, collapse in the last speech, LBL > overviews

Stuff I stole from my PF friends' paradigms that I agree with:

- WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and lwk rlly enjoy if weighing lets me evaluate the round without much thinking.

- Creative strategies - judging the same round over and over again gets so boring - multiple layers of offense r very fun, rebuttals full of impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. are all really fun and actually keep me awake during rounds

- analytical debating, I prefer and respect this a lot more than reading off a doc with copy/paste blocks (original analysis is a great skill!) engaging in line-by-line and clash rather than generic overview-esque responses will be rewarded. not exactly a fan of the "let me spread 10 unwarranted responses, hope they drop 1 and go for that" type of debating, although I'll still (reluctantly) evaluate it.

- judge instruction <3 (one example: "judge, they have conceded terminal defense on their only piece of offense coming out of summary. if we have a risk of offense at all that's enough for you to vote affirmative").

- extensions on arguments should be thorough. im voting based on the backhalf, and I need a thorough extension to consider voting for your argument. keep it simple.

Preferences/Tips/Random stuff:

y'all can call me Asha or judge (doesn't really matter)

don't be rude -- I love sass during CX and rebuttals, so I encourage jokes, but don't be a jerk. no mercy for people who are sexist, racist, ableist, etc.

i'll be keeping time, but keep your own time too. If there's a time discrepancy, we're going by my time but I don't like having to deal with cutting people off, so self regulate.

you can post round me, just don't be annoying

don't be grotesquely/excessively violent, and please give content warnings if necessary.

kudos to you if you try to be funny, but please don't be corny. it's more painful for me than you.

there shouldn't be a big delay between speeches -- get email chains preset and don't stall.

please keep it fun! don't take it all so seriously, we are all here to enjoy ourselves. I find debate to be a genuinely fun space when used correctly so don't be super uptight or formal.

if you have any questions, ask me before round

First time parent judge. Please time your speeches and speak at an understandable pace.

background: debated for eden prairie high school in minnesota and glenn high school in texas as a PF competitor on the local and national circuits.

tldr: tech over truth. pls pls pls collapse + weigh. idk much theory, so don't run it. ask questions before round. HAVE FUN. it's the reason we do debate.

general

akhil.perla18@gmail.com for the email chain

i will be timing speeches, but i'd encourage y'all to be timing yourselves. i stop flowing after 10 seconds over.

creative arguments are great! i will evaluate pretty much any well-warranted argument.

i REALLY dislike argument dumps in case. constructives with 4+ unwarranted contentions honestly gets away from the spirit of debate. fewer arguments that are well-warranted and have cleanly explained links will be rewarded far more than contention dumps that force opponents to pick and choose what to respond to.

i am not opposed to speed up to the point that it starts outpacing how fast i can write. if you're going too fast for me to flow, i just won't be able to get the warranting down as well.

i don't flow cross, so if you want something from cross to matter when i'm making my decision, make sure to bring it up in an actual speech.

if there's no offense on either side of the flow, i tend to default to the con team.

this hopefully goes without saying, but at the very least frontline turns in second summary.

evidence

don't paraphrase. if you get called out for it, that piece of evidence gets wiped off the flow for me.

especially egregious evidence/misrepresentation will result in an auto-drop.

weighing

weighing guides my ballot -- win the weighing and I look to evaluate that argument first

the earlier that weighing mechanisms are introduced, the more value i give to them when i make a decision.

extensions

i have a relatively high threshold for extensions. if you want warrants to be flowed through, make sure the argument is well frontlined and fleshed out.

speaks

average is a 28. anything above 29 means that the debater combined exceptional delivery with creative and high-quality argumentation. evidence issues drops you to 25 and anything offensive is an auto-20.

misc

well intentioned feedback from my technical judges was the most helpful advice i got as a debater. also, i think debaters are entitled to know why they won or lost a round. i welcome post-rounding and will stay as long (as reasonably possible) after the round as you'd like to answer questions.

I am a parent lay judge, and I value clear arguments that logically make sense. For speed, please speak at a normal pace so i can understand and flow everything you say.

I’m a parent judge with not a lot of experience judging. I would prefer debaters to not speak too fast.

Please have clear, well-substantiated, logical arguments. I weigh arguments supported by evidence.

Be respectful and have fun.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.

This is my second-time debate judging,

Do not argue a point and end it with a big impact like nuclear war unless you have serious evidence to support this impact.

please don't run framework

no spreading pls

NO K'S OR THEORY

Truth/Tech

For summary make sure you properly state what points your opponent dropped and I dont want to hear you say "they dropped 3 points and 8 rebuttals" tell me what those 3 points and 8 rebuttals are or else I will ignore you.

Speaker points --> I wont give you less than 25 speaks (unless you are very rude and disrespectful)

Please do off-time road maps as this is my first time judging and it helps me understand the flow of your summary/rebuttal.

If you speak fast make sure you are clear and enhance the points you want me to take notable remarks to, or else speak clear and slow.

Keep it civilized. If I hear any rude comments during CX speaker points marked off right away. I expect you to keep track of your own time but I will also keep track. If your opp is going overtime dont be rude and interrupt them, I will tell them they are overtime.

Weigh, if you don't weigh and your opps weigh then I have a higher probability to vote for them. I won't weigh for you.

If you have any questions ask me because my daughter wrote this paradigm (it was based on what he told me he did and didn't like)

Make sure to have fun and be kind!

Follow my daughter's insta rithika.binu shes so cool!!

pls be funny im losing it here.

bonus points for jokes, catchy sayings, metaphors, etc...

auto gold bid if u run a contention about plastics and the kardashians

theory and Ks are welcome

if you want to lose

Add me to the chain and send docs: ssaharoy@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge and doing this for last 3 years

I'm bad at flowing so pls don't go too fast

For me clarity is more important than speed

Hi, this is my first time judging a Debate Tournament. I have presented and debated much as a project manager and took speech in College. Looking forward to participating and being an inspiring judge with thoughtful inputs that helps. Please let me know what I can do to prepare for this role next weekend. Thank you, Sarah

I'm an experienced debater with the expectation to have each team dictate the ballot and paint a picture of who wins and why.

I am a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. I have taught legal thinking and writing for 22 years.

Argumentation: I like clear, concise, and substantive arguments.

Cross ex: You must answer questions asked of you. Do not avoid questions. I will flow cross examination.

Presentation: I must be able to understand you when you are speaking.

please do not spread or talk too fast, I am a parent judge

if you run progressive arguments like theory or ks I may have trouble understanding it

tech > truth if completely dropped

but in general I lean towards arguments backed with good empirics and evidence

Hi everyone,

I'm a parent judge getting acquainted with various debate formats. I try my best to listen to every word you have to say and that would be a lot easier when there is evenly paced speaking. I appreciate a good use of time and adherence to the time limits prescribed for formats. I strongly believe that one can be kind and firm and believe that opposing points of view can be conveyed respectfully and value that the most.

I look forward to hearing various points of view and learning more through this experience.

All the very best!

Chitkala

Debaters should have clarity of thought and should be able to articulate their views clearly. The main points while judging would be the logical and analytical thinking of the participant and the temperament to handle rebuttals during the debate.

I have judged a few PF debate tournaments in the past and so I do have some experience. My daughter has been debating for just over two years now at a competitive level and so I am familiar with the layout of the rounds in PF debate. I am comfortable with medium level speed, not too fast, and please speak clearly to ensure accurate delivery of the content. I will flow the debate and make my decision mainly on the strength of the arguments. I expect both teams to be respectful of each other. I have a background in Finance.

I debated pf for 5 years. My pronouns are he/him.

Time your own prep and speeches.

Only include content that is read in your speech doc.

Be respectful.

Notes:

- Tech > Truth

- Run your own prep time if it takes longer than a minute to disclose requested cards.

- The second speaking team must respond to both sides of the flow

- Do not paraphrase evidence.

- Sourcing your evidence is important!

- Signpost in all your speeches!

Have fun and enjoy the tournament!

Feel free to email me any questions: shivenshekar01@gmail.com

I do not like "theory." Debate the topic.

As always...for me, quality is much better than quantity. It is better to have one or two really strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points.

While I can handle spreading, if I can't understand something you say because you speak too quickly or unclearly, then I can't write it down. If I can't write it down, then I can't refer back to it when making my final decision. In other words, it's as if you never said it.

If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not.

Other points:

Signposting is good. Please signpost. Is this a new thought or more warrants or impacts on the same claim?

Off-time road maps are bad. They are a waste of "real" time. I'm guessing you're going to tell me why you're right and they're wrong. Right? If you signpost, I'll know which order you're going in. This is a more valuable skill to learn. For those of you motivated by speaker points, know that I will deduct a full point for each off-time road map.

Be respectful of your opponents. Let's be real, if the coin toss were different, you'd be arguing for the other side so don't act like your entire life's work has focused on your stance on this topic. Keep it civil. On a related note, rudeness is unacceptable as is outright lying. I've seen too many teams blatantly lie in round. If you lie, you lose.

Yearn to Learn. This is high school debate. It's a learning experience. I don't expect you to be perfect and would hope you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win this round or not.

I am a lay parent judge. Please speak clearly and explain arguments thoroughly at a reasonable pace. I have been judging for about 6 years.

Hello y'all!!

My name is Schylar and I just enetered my junior year of college at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. I debated all four years of high school at Timberline High School in Boise, Idaho. I did policy my freshman and sophomore year. My junior year and senior year I did PF. If you have any more questions, you should ask me before the debate. I will try my best to put everything on the ballot, but if you have more questions you can email me. My email is schylar.jordan.smith@gmail.com. I am not familiar with any of the topics so try and explain them without missing the more niche parts of the debate! Debate is supposed to be fun and educational so I am fine if you do pretty much anything you want. I have some specifics laid out for the different debate types so read those :)

I hate overviews!

I think that they use up valuable speech time and aren't strategic. Also most overviews are just arguments that can be put somewhere else on the flow.

Policy:

I am basically a TABS/ flow judge in policy. I am fine with any argumentation but you better know how to execute it. On topicality you need to go slower than regular to make sure I get all the standards and voters. On disads I am looking for clash. If the aff hasn't done enough coverage and I still think the impact of the disad is reasonable, I will vote neg. If the 2NR goes for a disad or two I still want to see sufficient extention of the case debate. Other than that I want strategic debating. For Ks, I am pretty fine with anything. I am the least framiliar with them, but still understand the debate. Framework on the K is really important to my voting so don't just wash over it or go through it really quick. I am fine with any speed but slow down on tag lines so I can flow them. I rarely flow author names so refer to the arguments by author name and what the argument is. You can tag team in CX but if one partner dominates both answering periods or questioning periods, I will give you both lower speaker points. Put me in the email chain... its at the top :)

PF:

I have the most experience in Public Forum. I went to nationals in PF in 2021 and 2022. I view PF as the debate type that any one can judge. That means that you should be very good at explaining and persuading the judge. Other than that I think you can do anything that you want. I think that you should have some sort of framework because that helps me evaluate the round. Cross fire periods should be an equal amount of questions and answers. If someone dominates then I will lower both you and your partner's speaker points. Final focus is the most persuading to me if you clearly lay out voters. A lot of debaters try and touch on both sides of the flow, but with so little time this is not very helpful.

LD:

LD is very interesting to me. When it comes to arguments I am basically a TABS judge, although I still want the value/criterion debate. I vote on a few things when it comes to it. (1) If the other side proves that your case doesn't fit under your value or your criterion. (2) You should try to prove that your value and criterion are best for evaluating both sides. I am fine with any argument, including CPs on the neg. CX should be an equal amount of questions and answers. If you dominate the CX periods, you will get lower speaker points. In other words, let your opponent answer/ask questions.

I am a debate parent.

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

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

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

No prog, no spreading.

Crossfire plays a role in my decision.

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

Hello,

I have been a parent judge for 5 years. Please speak slowly and coherently. Do not spread.

I would consider myself a novice/lay PF judge having judged only a few tournaments including the Princeton Classic. I appreciate an organized case that is delivered respectfully. Please don't talk too quickly...I want to fully digest your arguments!

I currently work at the University of Pennsylvania and have previously worked in the public policy arena at the U.S. federal and city (City of New York) government level. I also have extensive experience in K-12 and early education policy working for a major national foundation. I received my own undergraduate education at Wellesley College and obtained my masters degree in public administration from Columbia University.

I often favor a team that makes it easy for the judges to decide by collapsing on their strongest point(s) rather than extending all contentions through Final Focus, be bold! Tell me why how have defended your best argument and refuted your opponents’.

If you are going to use catastrophic magnitude weighing such as nuclear annihilation or total climate destruction your link needs to be very strong. In fact, just stop using extinction arguments, I'm sick of weighing extinction against structural violence (for example).

Looking forward to hearing your arguments!

I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.

I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.

I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.

I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.

I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.

I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.

Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.

Hello,

I am a parent judge, so please keep this in mind during your rounds. Try and speak slowly, as I can get the best notes this way. I would like off-time roadmaps, and value statistics in supporting evidences. Furthermore, I also look at the strategy used by teams, as well as how well they attack each component.

Make sure to be polite and respectful during crossfire, and have good sportsmanship.

I wish you good luck, and look forward to judging your round!

Contact email: girish1.srinivasan@gmail.com

· I am a parent judge, but I've been judging for the past three years. If you need to reach me, please do so using: kastencik@gmail.com

· Please speak clear and concise.

. You can spread but keep in mind. I can only write as fast as I can hear. If you’re spreading way too fast there is a chance I can miss something important.

. Please signpost during your speeches. It helps me flow.

· Clearly frame your case, watch the time, and show enthusiasm.

· I would appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus.

. Do not show disrespect for your competitors.

Email: cherellestevens86@gmail.com

My name is Cherelle and I am a paralegal, with 12 years of experience in my field- my practice areas being, personal injury, criminal law, tax law, wrongful death and slip and falls. I intend to go to law school next Fall.

I have competed in Speech for 4 years and Debate for 3 years during high school (2004-2008). I am also a national competitor, placing sixth in the nation, at Bradley University.

My judging experience includes Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Duo/Dramatic Interpretation, Oratory and Prose/Poetry.

I take a lot of notes during rounds. Don't worry, I can keep up.

Your arguments should be clear, convincing, and evidence based. I am not a fan of spreading.

Please maintain respect for everyone in the round. With that said, please note, I appreciate "spirited" debates. Convince your opponent and myself that you have WON, hands down!

I will be paying attention to the quality of the arguments and the competitor's ability to use their knowledge to think on their feet quickly, respond to the opposing side's points effectively, and use clear and convincing evidence to support their side.

Good luck! Let's debate!

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

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

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

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

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

Updated 1/28/2024

Quick Q&A:

1. Yes, include me on the doc chain – mrgrtstrong685@gmail.com

2. No, I am not ok with you just putting the card in the text of the email. Even if it’s just one card

3. Idk if the aff has to read a plan. I went for framework and read a plan, so I'm definitely more versed in that side of the debate, but I'm frequently in support of identity-based challenges to framework. I went for framework because it was the best thing I knew how to go for, not because it was objectively the best

4. No, you should not try to read Baudrillard or other post-modern theories against me. (Yes. Against me.) This is not a challenge. It's not a threat, it's a warning, be careful with me. I am admitting insurmountable bias.

5. Yes, you should (please) slow down while debating if you are online. There are glitches in streaming and it’s hard enough to understand you. For a while, I tried following along with the docs when I missed something, but we all know that just leads to more errors. This is your warning: if you are not clear enough to flow I will not try to flow it. I will give two warnings to be clear (and one after your speech in case you didn’t hear me). If you choose to keep doing you, don’t expect to win or for me to know what you said. On the flip side, if you are actively slowing down to make the debate comprehensible, you will be rewarded with a speaker point bump.

6. JESUS CHRIST PLEASE stop trying to debate how you think I want you to. It's never a good look to over-adapt. The only exception is if you want to go for Baudrillard and somehow ended up with me as a judge. Then please over-adapt. I cannot stress enough the importance of adaptation if you are trying to tell me post-modern theory or that death is cool.

7. I don't like to read cards as a default because decision time is 20 minutes assuming there were no delays in the round. If a card is called into question or my BS meter is going off, I will read the card. Absent that, I'm mostly about the flow and ethos. Tell me what warrants in your card you want me to know about. Point out the parts in the other team's evidence that are bad for them. That makes my judging job easier, causes me to read the card, AND gives you a sick speaker point boost.

WARNINGS:

1. I am chronically ill. If you pref me, there is a chance I have a flare up while judging you. This means I will finish the debate with my camera off but am still there. I just want some privacy while sick/you really don't want to see my face if I turn my camera off. If we are in person this may mean a slight delay in the debate. One time and one time only I have gotten so sick in a debate that a bye was given to both teams. So pref me if you want the chance of a free win!
2. I am a blunt judge. When I say that I mean I am autistic and frequently do not know how to convey or perceive tone in the way that other do. If you post-round me, I wont call you out of your name, but I will be very clear about your skills (or lack thereof) in the debate.
3. I also might cry...I'm clinically hypersensitive from CPTSD. Sometimes people assume I have a tone and "match" or "reraise" what they think I'm doing. If I cry and you weren't being a total jerk, don't over-apologize and make the RFD about me, lets just plan on a written RFD in that case.
4. I appreciate trigger warnings about sexual abuse. I will not vote on trigger warning voters because it's impossible to know everyone's trigger and ultimately we are responsible for our own triggers. All debaters who wish to avoid triggers should inform opponents before the round, not center the debate on it. I'd rather use "tech time" for the triggered debater to try to get back to their usual emotional state and try to finish the round if desired.
5. If the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to sexual harassment/abuse, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.

• This does not include self-expression. I would prefer not to see an erotic performance from high schoolers as an adult, but I am able to do so without sexualizing said debaters. There are limits to this, as you are minors and this is a school activity. Please do not make me have to stop the round because you exposed yourself to the other team, or something similar. If you are in college I still feel like you are a student, but I will honor that you have the right to express yourself without sexualizing you. Please no "flashing" without consent - that is sexual harassment/assault.
• This also does not include a Black debater using the N-word, unless used intentionally to put down another Black debater to the point of distress in the other Black debater.
• When in doubt, don’t make it your goal to traumatize the other team and we will all be fine.
• If you ask a team to say a slur in CX I will interrupt the debate to change course, though I will not auto-vote against you. I don’t think we should encourage people to say slurs to try to prove a point. Find another way, or don’t pref me.

The longer version:

Speaker points:

I've been told you need to average a 29.2 to clear nowadays. Because of that:

-a learning speech will be 28.4-28.7,

-an average speech will be 28.8-29.1,

-a clearing level speech will be 29.2-29.5,

-a top ten speaker will be 29.6-29.9.

I'm not giving 30s. Ya gotta be perfect to get a 30, and Hannah Montana taught me that nobody's perfect.

If you get below a 28.4 you probably severely annoyed me.

If you get below a 28, you were probably a problem in the debate, ethically.

I have yet to give a low point win, to my memory. I generally think winning is a part of speaking well. If you cause your team to lose the debate, you’re likely to get lower points.

Speaker-point factors:

- Did you debate well?

- Were you clear?

- Did you maintain my attention?

- Did you make me laugh, critically think, or gasp?

- Did your arguments or behavior in the debate make me cringe?

- Were you going way to hard in a debate against less experienced debaters and made them feel bad for no reason?

K STUFF:

Planless Clash debates:

-I’ve rarely judged a planless debate where the neg has not gone for framework. In instances where I have, the neg was policy style impact turning a concept of the aff, not going for a K based on a different theory of the world.

-I generally went for framework against planless affirmatives when I debated, and therefore am a bit deeper on the neg side of things. That being said, I also have a standard for what the neg needs to do to make a complete argument.

-I don’t think topicality, or adhering to a resolution, is analogous to rape, slavery, or other atrocities. That doesn't mean arguments about misogynoir, pornotroping, or other arguments of that nature don't work with me. I understand the logic of something being problematic. It's just the oversimplification of theory into false comparisons I take issue with.

-I don’t think that not being topical will cause everyone to quit, lose all ability to navigate existential crises, or other tedious internal link chains. That being said, I love an external impact to framework that defends the politics of government action.

-I would really prefer if people had reasonable arguments on topicality for why or why they don’t need to read a plan, rather than explaining to me their existential impact to voting aff or neg. In the same way that I'm not persuaded the neg will quit or extinction will happen if you don't read a plan, I also don't think extinction will happen if you lose to topicality. Focus instead on the real debate impacts at hand. Though, as said above, I love a good defense of your politics, and if that has a silly extinction impact that's fine.

-I find myself persuaded that the case can not outweigh topicality. Arguments from the case can be used to impact turn topicality, but that is distinct from “case outweighs limits” in my mind. T is a gateway issue. If the neg goes for T, that's what the debate is about. This is why I think many planless 1ACs are best when they have a built-in angle against framework.

-indicts to procedural fairness impacts are persuasive to me.

-modern concrete examples of incrementalism failing or working help a lot

-aff teams need to explain how their counter interpretation solves the neg impacts as well as their impact turns.

-neg teams need to turn the aff impacts and have external offense of their own. Teams frequently do one or the other

Neg K v plans:

-Generally, the alt won’t solve when the aff does a serious push, but the aff will let the neg get away with murder on alt solvency.

-Generally, the alt doing the plan is a reason to reject the alt/team absent a framework debate, which is fine.

-Generally, contradictions justify severance

-Always, the neg is allowed to read Ks

-I'm getting more and more persuaded the neg needs a big push on framework to beat the perm. If the alt is fiated and not mutually exclusive with the plan, there is almost no way to convince me that the perm won't solve. This is not true on topics where the alt impact turns the resolution. You truly can't do both sometimes.

-Framework debates are won by engaging the theory aspect and is pragmatism/action desirable, not just one. Typically the neg spends a bunch of time winning the aff is an unethical method, while the aff is talking about fairness and limits.

-please slow down on framework blocks!

K v K debate:

I tend to find myself thinking of things in terms of causality, so if that’s not your jam you gotta tell me not to think in that way. I have *technically* judged a K v K debate, but I'm pretty sure it was a cap debate that was more impact turn-y than theory of power-y.

I'm interested in seeing debates like this despite my lack of experience.

K stuff in general:

-My degree is in math. While y’all were reading a lot of background lit, I was doing abstract algebra. You might have to break it down a bit. I'm reading a bit more of the stuff y'all debate from in grad school, but it's still safe to eli5. My masters work is mostly on pop culture, hip-hop, and Black Feminist literature. If you want to debate about Megan Thee Stallion, I should be your ordinal one because it is the topic of my thesis.

-I am more persuaded by identity or constructivism than post-modernism. I am the opposite of persuaded by post-modernism.

-I DO NOT recommend reading Baudrillard, Bataille, etc. You might think "but I'm the one that will change her mind;" you aren't. I will be annoyed for having to judge the debate tbh. You have free will to read it if you want, but I have free will to tank your points with ZERO remorse. If this third warning doesn't do it for you, you are responsible for your speaker points. If I was swapped in to judge your debate last minute, I won't tank your speaks. I only clarify because this happened to a team once.

POLICY STUFF:

CPs:

-Tell me if I can (or can’t!) kick it for you. I may or may not remember to if you don’t. I may or may not feel like you are allowed to if you don’t.

-Reading definitions of should means the perm or theory is in tough shape. It's not unwinnable, but I was a 2A… Tricky process counterplans that argue to result in the aff by means of solvency, but are *actually* competitive (more than just should and resolved definitions), game on. If that means you have to define some topic words in an interesting way, I'm fine with that. Also, despite being a classic 2A, I find myself holding the aff to a higher standard sometimes. Maybe it's because I went to MSU, but a lot of times I find myself thinking "this CP obviously doesn't solve. why doesn't the aff just say that or try to cut a card about it???"

-Make the intrinsic perm great again!

-Links to the net benefit is usually a sliding scale. But sometimes links have a certain threshold where it doesn’t matter which links less. Please consider this nuance when debating.

Theory:

-TBH – y’all blaze through theory blocks with no clarity and then get confused when I have no standards written down. These debates are bad. Be more clear. Speak at a flowable pace. Maybe make your own arguments. Idk.

-It is debatable whether an argument is a reason to reject the argument or team.

-2ACs that spend 15-plus seconds on the theory shell will see a lot more mileage and viability for the 2AR. One-sentence blips with no warrants and flow checks will be treated as such.

-impact comparison and turns case are lost arts in theory debates.

DAs:

-Yes, there can be zero DA. No, it’s not as common as you think.

-answer turns case!!!

PF/LD:

I have coached LD and PF for years, but it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates. I was trained for 8 years as a policy debater and continue to coach that format. I have participated in both LD and PF debates a few times in high school, so I’m not a full outsider

LD

I’m not a trickster and I refuse to learn how Kant relates to the topic. Similarly, theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are silly to me. Plan flaws are better when the aff results in something meaningfully different from what they intend to, not something that an editor would fix. I’m not voting/evaluating until the final speech ends. Period.

Dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

PF:

Do not pref me if you paraphrase evidence.

Do not pref me if you do not have a copy of your evidence/relevant part of the article AND full-text article for your opponent upon request.

Please stop with the post-speech evidence swap, make an email chain before the debate, and send your evidence ahead of time. If your case includes analytics you don’t want to send, that’s fine, though I think it’s kinda weaksauce to not disclose your arguments. If the argument is good, it should withstand an answer from the opponent.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be an untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Hello! I am a parent judge. I love to see a good, polite debate. Please do not be rude to your opponents. I’d prefer that you do not speak super fast and utilize complicated language. Simplicity is key. Enunciate your words and speak clearly. A moderate speech with vivid language is definitely better than going rocket speed and spewing as many facts as you can. I will not know acronyms you use (such as THAAD). I’d prefer you say the entire thing or rather summarize it for me in layman’s terms. I like debaters that are able to think on their feet. I hope to judge a great round!

Hello, my name is Ninad Tambe.

Few things to keep in mind:

- I have basic topic knowledge but I would appreciate really clear arguments so that I know at the end of the round without a doubt who I should vote for.

- I can't understand speed, so if anybody goes too fast for me, I reserve the right to shout "CLEAR" or stop taking notes. If you see my pen go up or you see me stop writing, that should be a cue that you're going too fast for me and you've lost me.

- Please don't be rude or overly aggressive, especially in cross - I want to see reasonable and calm crossfires, not the two speakers shouting at each other.

- I appreciate humor, and if you can make me laugh (NOT at the expense of your opponents) I'll award extra speaks.

- If you cannot prove to me why the impact of your case is more important than the opponents', I will have to decide myself.

Good luck to everyone!

I have over a quarter-century of experience in the dynamics of corporate environments, navigating the nuanced terrains of high-stakes boardroom discussions, strategic planning sessions, and vigorous debates with both peers and executives at the highest levels. These experiences have not only underscored the profound influence of adept speech and debate in shaping outcomes but have also instilled a deep appreciation for the art of persuasion, critical thinking, and collaborative problem-solving. Additionally, I’ve been a proud member of SAG-AFTRA for three decades which has enriched this perspective, reinforcing the indispensable value of performance, passion, and precision in communication. This unique mixture of corporate strategy and theatrical expression has profoundly informed my understanding of the transformative power of effective communication—whether it's captivating an audience on stage or influencing decision-making in business.

The model I adopt as a judge in these debates is deeply rooted in the conviction that quality, not quantity, of argumentation reigns supreme. It is a philosophy born out of real-world applications where the power of a well-articulated, passionately delivered argument can pivot the course of discussions, sway opinions, and forge consensus. It is a testament to the belief that the essence of impactful communication lies not in the volume of information conveyed but in the ability to craft arguments that resonate on a deeper, more meaningful level with one's audience.

While it may be tempting to speak rapidly and provide copious amounts of information, I'd like to encourage you to consider the following points that I feel are important:

The Power of Persuasion: In the world of Parliamentary Debate/PF, your ultimate goal is not just to present information but to persuade your audience. Whether you're addressing policy makers, executives, or peers, your ability to convince them of your viewpoint is paramount. Quality arguments, backed by sound reasoning and passion, have a far greater impact with me than a sheer volume of facts and figures.

Effective Communication: Imagine you are addressing a boardroom full of executives or a panel of policy experts. In these real-world scenarios, they are not looking for information overload but for a clear and concise articulation of your ideas. For me, there is only so much information I can consume, digest, and absorb in a given period of time. If you race through arguments you run the risk of diminishing the impact and persuasiveness of your case.

Memorability and Impact: Quality arguments are memorable. They linger in the minds of your audience long after the debate is over. Quantity may overwhelm momentarily, but it often fails to leave a lasting impression. In the real world, your ability to make a lasting impact is a valuable skill.

Real-World Application: Consider that the skills you are developing in Parliamentary Debate/PF are not just for competition; they are for life. In professional settings, you will encounter situations where you need to influence decisions, present ideas, and lead discussions. The ability to make a compelling case while maintaining clarity and coherence is a prized skill.

I want to emphasize that, as a judge, I place a greater emphasis on the qualities that make an argument compelling and persuasive rather than solely focusing on technical details. Craft your speeches with precision, emphasizing persuasive language, tone, and clarity. Remember that your power lies not in overwhelming your audience but in persuading them effectively.

This is my first time judging public forum, but I have experience judging many traditional LD rounds.

My email address is: atijare@yahoo.com

I am a lay/parent judge.

For online tournaments, please send me your cases so I am better able to comprehend your arguments and be in accordance to online tournament rules. Please also send your speech docs for other speeches if you are using one.

Just because I have your cases open does not mean that you can spread. Please keep in my mind that I am a lay judge, and I will understand better if you go around 1.25x conversational speed at around 175 wpm.

Please utilize your summary and final focus to highlight the voting arguments and why you win each one. I'll generally vote for the team that is winning more arguments or winning arguments easier, but weighing is also important and will play a role in my decision.

I won't vote for a team just because they speak better, however it will make it easier to vote for them.

TLDR: Parent judge who votes off Flow
Tech>Truth (except the isms)
Please, no K’s/Theory
If you are discriminatory etc. I will drop you and give you the lowest speaks I can
Squirrelly arguments are fine as long as you can defend your links
I don’t want to be on the email chain
Prefer roadmaps but if not it is fine
Please cut cards

Speed:
In general, don’t spread, I can handle speed, but online debate can be iffy sometimes. You get better speaks if you convince me with less words.

Substance:
In general, I look at weighing first. Whichever team has the best link into the best-weighed impact wins the round. If they say the sky is green, the sky is green until you tell me otherwise. I want to see a clash on arguments, don’t just say the same things repeatedly. I will not vote on anything that is not in Summary and FF, please collapse, defense isn’t sticky, and extend warrants. You can’t just say “Extend our Lee 20 evidence” tell me what that evidence said and why it matters. If you drop something in summary you can’t bring it back up in FF, I won’t evaluate it. I don’t flow cross, but I will pay some attention, so don’t be rude.
TLDR: Collapse, extend, and WEIGH!!!

Evidence:
I don’t want to be on the email chain. If there was evidence that was contested and key to the round, I might call for it afterward. If it’s egregiously paraphrased/not cut properly, I will drop your speaks, and if it’s bad enough that it changes the round, you will probably lose. If it takes you more than 30 seconds to pull up a card, I will drop your speaks, so make sure you know where your evidence is.
TLDR: CUT YOUR CARDS!

Progressive:
TLDR: Run Ks, Tricks, Theory, etc and you will lose.

Miscellaneous:
I’ll give you a 5-second grace period on speeches, after that, I stop flowing.
I will drop you if you are discriminatory and you will get the lowest possible speaks
Be nice in cross
Must frontline in second rebuttal
Topicality is not a voter, but I will drop arguments if you prove to me they're non-topical
Signposting = Very Good, if you can’t signpost, it will be hard for me to flow
Be chill and sound like you know what you’re talking about and you’ll get good speaks

Have Fun!

Prounouns: she/her

Triggers: n/a

Paradigm: I'm a "Flay" judge, but I've been judging PF since 2014, and I've judged at major tournaments like Harvard, Georgetown, and UK. Don't spread - I flow the entire round (including crossfires) and I want to be able to not only understand your arguments, but note when you are or are not addressing your opponents' arguments. I prefer clear logic, solid evidence, and confident rhetoric. I don't believe that the entirety of a debate is evidence versus evidence, so frameworks, weighing, and actually speaking persuasively are a major plus. While I fully understand debate jargon, don't rely on it as you would with more technical judges. Make me care more about your world than your opponents'.

I prefer PF rounds are NOT theory or K arguments. However, I will always judge based on how you handle your case, and how your opponent handles it.

If the tournament allows spectators, those spectators should not be leaving and coming back repeatedly during the round. It's incredibly distracting for me and may hinder competitors as well.

FOR DIGITAL TOURNAMENTS: Please speak slowly enough that the internet connection can keep up with you. Even with a solid connection, going too quickly results in a blur of noise that makes it difficult to listen for judges and opponents alike.

Additionally: During a digital tournament, please speak up if you cannot hear your opponent. Don't wait until the end of their speech to note that, for you, they were cutting out. It is better to handle the issue with tech time and have the speech given normally than having an off-time recap.

Hello debaters,

My name is Nima and I'm a parent judge. This is my first time judging a tournament and I'm not too familiar with debate, so I'd appreciate it if you could speak at a regular pace and really enunciate your words. It will be hard for me to understand your arguments if you spread them very quickly, so it would be a preference of mine if you could kindly refrain from spreading them too fast so I can judge your arguments fairly. Please be kind and respectful towards each other during the round as I will be taking that into account when putting in your speaker points. All in all, I am so excited to be judging this tournament and I look forward to judging your round!

When sharing evidence, please include me in the email chain: nyamdelger2002@yahoo.com

Thank you

Sincerely,

Nima T.

This is my third time as a judge for TOC Digital Series.

Speak at moderate conversational pace, be clear, so it will be easy for me to follow along with you.

I prefer logical and persuasive arguments. Ensure that your arguments are well-structured and supported with enough evidence. Please use quantitative data to support your arguments where possible. You can keep a track of time for each round, a little overtime is ok but don't be greedy.

Be Respectful, have fun!

Please do not talk too fast as it only means that I would not be able to judge you accurately. Please do not use any complicated debate jargon either. I will not be taking notes during cross, you rather have to use the information you gather from there and talk about it during your speeches.

1. I will focus only on what I hear in the debate.

2. Speak slow/medium pace.

3. To avoid disturbance sometimes I mute voice...since I take notes sometimes I turn off video so speakers can focus on their thoughts....

4. I look at the entire debate flow and compare both teams....

Hi, I am a parent judge and this is my third time judging public forum

Important notes:

SPEAK SLOWLY. If you spread, I will likely not understand you. Take your time and keep a reasonable pace. Also remember to signpost in Summary and Final Focus so I know what you are referring to (ex: Our two impacts are, this weighs more than the other teams...) since it's easier to understand. Also say specifically when you are collapsing on an argument.

Make sure that i can understand you, do not use too much advanced terminology I would likely not understand. I have not judged this topic before so I am not an expert, so explain thoroughly. Also please try not to use any Kritiks or debate theory as I am not as familiar with those concepts, but if you do please explain them thoroughly.

Respect the other team, don't call names or yell.

In the end it is about having fun :)

I am a parent judge. I appreciate all the guidance possible on how to improve my judging.

Unionville '23

4 years CX, 3 years LD. i hated reading thru paradigms so i'm keeping this short :)

tech > truth. be nice, have fun! pls add me to the email chain: unionvillewn@gmail.com

CX at cal:

- Haven't judged this topic yet, so please don't assume I know the acronyms

- start slow then build up, takes a bit time for me to adjust to circuit speed.

did all speeches at some point lol. My partner was more policy-focused while i was more K-focused, read plans on aff and neg strat was a combo of DA, CP, and cap K. So i'm def familiar with most argument style and had plenty of rounds on both sides of K v plan.

--> would prefer to have less than 6 flows

--> explain your CPs, would say that I'm def not the best judge there for complicated CPs, usually find them hard to understand & interpret. Also I do think that some random niche process CPs are probably abusive?? Not to say you shouldn't run them, all depends on the round and what's strategic

--> not great for judging topicality against plans, esp w/ my limited topic knowledge here.

--> threshold for voting on theory might be slightly lower than your average policy judge bc of LD experience

--> love clever cross-apps and turns

--> love a good K debate

--> love a good clash debate w/ good weighing

To LDeRs:

1 - stock Ks, larp

2 - creative K-ish phil

3 - theory, T

4 - confusing CPs, Kant & Hobbes (smh), pomo Ks

5/S - tricks, friv theory

for novices:

1 - please use up all your speech time!!!If u still have time left, default to doing some weighing or summarizing your case, those can never go wrong.

2 - Rebuttal Speech Structure (not required but it helps to be organized) should follow a SAR structure: Summarize, Answer, Respond. First, summarize your contention (this is your offense), answer the defense that your opponent has read against you, and then respond and attack (offense) against your opponent's case.

3 - Extending your case--> There's often a misconception that if your opponent drops something, then it's auto-assumed that you win it and it is true. It's only true if you also summarize your contention and provide warrants for why your contention is true and how it outweighs your opponent's impacts

speaks:

+0.2 for being paperless, debate doesn't deserve to waste that much paper

+0.2 for not spreading when you go against novice or traditional debaters, make the debate educational and not inaccessible

-0.2 if you read theory or tricks against novice or traditional debaters (other type of args are fine tho)

TLDR: Time yourself and do what you do best, and I will try to make the correct decision. Extremely low tolerance for disrespect. Do not say death is good. Minimize dead time and read aesthetic cards for higher speaks. Be nice, stay hydrated, and have fun!

Email: Add poodog300@gmail.com. Set up the chain before the round starts and include the Tournament Name, Round, and Teams in the subject. Will start prep if you are taking too long. Please take the two seconds it takes to name your file something relevant to the round.

AFF Things: Know what you are defending and stick to it. I will vote on any theory push if debated well enough, but most things are reasons to reject the argument. Terrible judge for non-resolutional K AFFs.

CP/DA Things: #Stop1NAbuse. CPs should have solvency advocate(s). I think competition debates are fun. Not a fan of UQ CPs. Politics is always theoretically legitimate. Can vote on zero-risk.

T Things: Don't blaze through analytics or at least send them out. Explain what your model of debate would look like. Outweighs condo and is never an RVI. Plan text in a vacuum is silly but I will vote on it.

K Things: Agree with JMH: policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. Don't understand nor plan to learn high theory literature. No good in K v. K. I will be very unhappy if you read a K in a Novice/JV division or against novices. Debate is a game and procedural fairness is an impact.

PF/LD Things: Paraphrasing is fine if you have evidence that can be provided when requested. Will not vote on frivolous theory or philosophy tricks. Ks are fine if links are to the topic.

Nice People: Debnil. Both Morbecks. Michael B. Cerny. Steve Yao. Delta Kappa Pi.

Mean People: Eloise So. Gatalie Nao. Chase Williams. Kelly Phil. Joy Taw.

-Lay judge

-No Ks or theory

-No spreading, please don't speak too fast

-Please make your logic clear, provide evidence and reasoning to back up a claim

-Please treat each other with respect

Have fun!

I am a parent judge, here are what I expect from all participants:

Don't speak too fast

Deliver coherent and consistent story with consideration of depth, breath, and impact.

Emphasize points clearly with variable tone and (reasonable) body language.

Be polite and respectable

Finally, have fun and enjoy the process.

I am a parent judge

• Prefer to not speak too fast
• Please time yourself/keep your own time
• Speak loud and clear
• don't be mean
• do not lie/present false evidence
• I do not flow cross-fire but will consider it
• please do not bring new arguments in the final focus
• value weighing/impact

Hello, I am a parent judge.

Debate is fun (although I don't have debate experience). I enjoy judging. Most of my judging experiences are PF followed by LD. I also judged limited rounds of parli, policy and congress. Except for PF, don't assume that I am familiar with the current topic. I usually disclose and give my RFD if it's allowed and time permits.

Add me to the email chain: cecilia.xi@gmail.com

I value clear warrants, explicit weighing and credible evidence. In general tech > truth, but not overly tech > truth (which means that I have to think about the truth part if you read something ridiculous) if you read substance.

- Speed: talking fast is not a problem, but DON'T spread (less than 230 words per minute works). Otherwise, I can only listen but not keep up flowing. If I missed anything, it's on you. If it's the first round early morning or the last round late night, slow down a little (maybe 200 words per minute).

- Warrants: the most important thing is clear links to convince me with supporting evidence (no hypothesis or fake evidence - I will check your evidence links). Use cut card. Don't paraphrase. If you drop your warrants, I will drop you.

- Flow: I flow everything except for CX. Clear signposts help me flow.

- Rebuttals: I like quick thinking when attacking your opponents' arguments. Turns are even better. Frontlines are expected in second rebuttal.

- CX: don't spend too much time calling cards (yes, a few cards are fine) or sticking on something trivial.

- Weighing: it can be any weighing mechanisms, but needs to be comparative. Bring up what you want me to vote on in both summary and FF (collapse please) and extend well.

- Timing: I don't typically time your speeches unless you ask me to do so (but if I do, the grace period is about 10 sec to finish your sentence but not to introduce new points). I often time your prep and CX.

Non-substance (prefer not to judge)

Ts: limited judging experience. Explain well to me why your impact values more and focus on meaningful violations. Don't assume an easy win by default reading Ts, if you sacrifice educational value for the sake of winning.

Ks: no judging experience. Only spectated a few rounds. Hard to understand those big hollow words unless you have enough warrants to your ROB. If you really want to do Ks (which means you are at risks that I won't be able to understand well), do stock Ks.

Tricks: I personally don't like it - not aligned with the educational purpose of debate.

Finally, be respectful and enjoy your round!

Please add me to email chains: tianyicyang@outlook.com

pronouns: he/him

Tech > truth. I abhor when judges interject their own personal beliefs into their RFDs (with the exception of when teams make arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, ableist, etc).

Top Level:

The below bullet point list summarizes my broader view of debate arguments.

Now a couple of things that will make me happy that I wish novices did more often -

1. Impact calculus and ballot framing in the 2NR/2AR is mandatory - not doing so forces me to intervene/make assumptions about your arguments. In sum, tell me why I should vote for you at the top of your speech.

2. Line by line refutation is mandatory - anything else makes decisions really messy and makes it really easy for me to forget key arguments that you want me to evaluate - THE CHANCE THAT I MAKE A DECISION YOU DON’T LIKE GOES UP SUBSTANTIALLY IF YOU DO NOT DO CLEAR LINE BY LINE

3. SIGNPOSTING IS IMPORTANT - jumping between flows sporadically without indicating that you are doing so is super annoying - I will definitely lower your speaks if you do this

4. DON’T DROP THINGS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THEM -It sucks that you’re facing a new argument that you’ve never seen before, but taking some prep time to figure out how to answer it is better than straight up dropping it and hoping the other team will forget they ever read the argument.

4. Clarity is a must - if you said something incoherently, I won’t have it on my flow.

5. Road maps before speeches are mandatory

Other Things:

1. Open Cx is fine

2. Please do not be rude to your partner or your opponents - being rude will be bad for your speaks

3. Please do not steal prep. If I notice that you are doing so excessively I will dock speaks. I understand that sometimes speech docs take forever to send out or save, so I'll try to be flexible.

4. Be confident! This will perceptually help you, and increase your speaks.

5. You can read basically any type of argument in front of me. On the neg, I've gone for DAs, CPs, Ks, T, impact turns, and various procedurals. On the aff, I've read soft-left affs, hard-right affs, and K-affs.

Here are some specific notes on types of argument:

DAs: I’m fine with politics DAs, I go for them all the time. @aff teams, you can often make bad DAs from the neg go away with a few smart analytics. You don’t need cards to point out that something is utter incoherent nonsense.

CPs: I love CPs that are from the aff's solvency advocate because they show that you (or someone on your team) actually read their ev. I'm fine with process CPs, but I'm even better for tricky perms. I’m also fine with generics like states, especially b/c there is basically 0 core neg ground on the water topic.

Ks on the neg: I'm alright with these, I'm most familiar with setcol and the cap K so with any other Ks a little bit more explaining will have to be done especially on the link level for me to vote for them. I do think that neg teams should win a specific link to the aff.

K affs: I probably won't judge a Kaff round, but just in case, I'll put some thoughts here. The most important thing in framework debates is impact calc - I need to know how I prioritize impacts and arguments. For K v K aff rounds, the aff probably gets a perm (no perms in a method debate never made much sense to me unless it’s dropped).

Topicality: The smaller the aff is, the more receptive I am going to be towards topicality arguments. I do think that reasonability is often a compelling argument IF EXECUTED CORRECTLY (especially when the T-interp is arbitrary), so T should probably not be your A-strat vs borderline topical affs unless you have nothing better to say (which, given the water topic, is an understandable situation to be in).

Theory (not including topicality) - My threshold for voting for theory is high-ish (I think reasonability or non-res theory bad tend to be quite persuasive against many theory arguments), but if they drop theory and you point that out and extend your argument I will vote for you.

Soft Left Affs: I've read these a bit, so I understand their appeal. However, I think that soft left affs are often run badly. Yes, your argument is probably true, but that doesn’t mean it merits a ballot if its not debated well. For example, a lot of soft-left teams say "conjunctive fallacy means no DA" and then proceed to poorly answer the DA, and that won't really work in front of me most of the time. I can definitely be convinced that the DA is so asinine that I should vote aff, but I won't reduce the DA for you.

Public Forum Specific:

I did policy debate in high school, not PF, so my experience in this area is quite limited. Haven't been in the debate space since April of last year so it'll take a bit of time to get used to how things are again. Most arguments should be fine but if you think I might have trouble understanding something make sure to explain it more in detail in your speeches.

Please send your cases and cards to yandebate@gmail.com

Hi, I am a new parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly. No spreading!

In PF, I expect you explain your opinion and argument in a way an average person could understand and be convinced.

If you do progressive argument, I have no idea how it work. If you run theory, unless it’s very strong case and extremely necessary, you will lose my vote. I don't understand 'K" neither.

Be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

New judge.

Don't spread

Be respectful

lay judge

speak slowly and clearly

presentation is very important

TELL ME WHY YOU WIN CLEARLY

I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

Hi, in order to make it easy for me to understand your case more thoroughly, please kindly speak at a reasonable speed since I am a parent judge. Thank you.

Some basic information about me

I will not tolerate arguments that are deliberately incorrect and/or offensive.

I am a traditional judge, and

1) I value a balanced approach between speed and clarity.

2) I appreciate a clear and holistic analysis of why you should win the case not your opponent.

3) I weigh more on the quality of arguments than on the quantity of arguments.

Firstly and most importantly, it'll be difficult for me to follow your argument if you speak too fast. Speak slowly.

I prefer weighing in summary and final focus.

Crossfire matters, I flow cross, although it's not as important as the other speeches to me.

I'm not too strict on time, I'll usually give a grace period of a few seconds after you go over time in your speeches, but please try to keep track of your own time.

Extend your arguments, I also expect both teams to frontline their arguments.

I expect you all to keep track of your own prep time.

Another small thing, I don't really care what year both team's cards are from, although it would be great if both teams cross-examined each other's evidence.

I'm a lay judge but I've been judging debates for a while now. I promise I'll be unbiased and work hard as a debate judge.

Thanks.

i prefer a more lay style of debate

As a lay judge, I am committed to fostering a fair and educational debate environment. To ensure a productive debate, please adhere to the following guidelines:

1. **No Spreading**: Debaters are encouraged to speak clearly and at a moderate pace. Avoid rapid speech delivery commonly known as "spreading."

2. **Clear Articulation**: Effective communication is key. Speak clearly and enunciate your arguments for the benefit of both the judge and the audience.

3. **Signposting Welcome**: Feel free to use signposting to help structure your arguments and make it easier for me to follow your case.

4. **Impact Evaluation**: I will assess arguments based on their impact and logic soundness. Explain not only what your arguments are but also why they matter and how they affect the overall debate.

5. **Thorough Analysis in Rebuttal**: In your rebuttals, provide comprehensive analysis rather than mere refutation. Clearly articulate how your rebuttal interacts with the opponent's arguments and why it strengthens your position.

6. **Speech Documents**: If you believe your case is densely packed or contains intricate details, you may submit your speech document. This can aid in my understanding of your case and arguments.

These rules are designed to ensure a constructive and informative debate. I look forward to a lively and intellectually stimulating discussion. Good luck to all debaters!