This is my first time judging although I've been peripherally involved with Debate. This is my daughter's 4th year in Debate and my son's 2nd, each in different events. I am excited to hear debate that is based on clear clash and tells me how I should vote.

I am generally a flow judge and can follow fast paced debate.

Framework should be established and followed throughout the round. Tell me why your framework is superior and back up your claim with evidence in contentions. If there is no framework debate, the round will rely on weighing evidence in contentions.

Contentions should be clearly stated with supporting evidence and analysis. Your evidence should be fully explained and analyzed as to its impact on the debate. I prefer evidence be referred to by subject/topic throughout the round rather than simply the author's name. Know your evidence well enough defend it in cross-examination.

Your case should be organized, focused and come to a reasonable conclusion that convinces me to vote in your favor. Failure to communicate the importance of evidence, weighing values and impacts, or extending key arguments may result in a loss.

I care most about students being effective speaker. Spreading or cramming in as much information as possible will not be the reason you win and will most likely inhibit your ability to win. Being an effective speaker that effectively conveys their arguments, points out flaws in their opponent's case, and is a persuasive speaker with strong rhetoric skills will bode well.

Hey, I'm Raiyan! I debated for 2 years (2021-2023) in PF for BASIS Chandler, qualled to both nats and gtoc 2x. I now am a PF coach at Durham Academy and a freshman at Duke.

Email: raiyanc2005@gmail.com

TDLR: regular flow judge, down to evaluate anything but I do prefer substance rounds.

General Stuff:

tech>truth. This means I will evaluate responses purely off the flow and how contested they are in the round. However, you still need to give me clear warranting and internal links for me to vote off an argument. I will be hesitant to vote on squirrely arguments if you blippily extend them.

My job as a judge is not to impose my views on debate to you, but rather adapt to your style of debate. As a debater, I didn't like having to adapt to weird quirks each judge had, so I don't want to replicate that experience for any of y'all.

I'll disclose and try to keep my feedback as constructive as possible. I know how stressful debate can be, so let's keep the round chill and lighthearted.

I can handle speed (just like lmk before your speech if its gonna be 250+ wpm so I can prepare myself) but I unfortunately can't comprehend policy level spreading.

Let's try to keep the round moving at a decent speed, please come to the round pre-flowed and ready to start

How I evaluate arguments:

I look to who wins the weighing, then I look to that argument and see who is winning that argument. However, if there is a scenario where team A is winning the weighing but has a really muddled link to the point where it go either way if they still have access to their link and Team B has a much cleaner link but is losing the weighing I'll vote for Team B.

Procedural things I assume about the round:

Frontline in second rebuttal, otherwise it's conceded

Make sure to extend in summary and final, otherwise I can't vote for your argument, this applies for defense and offense

You can't read new offense/defense in summary

However, If a team makes a new implication in summary (i.e. cross applying a conceded response on c2 to c1) I grant the opposing team the chance to make a new frontline

Make sure to weigh, you can only make new weighing in first final if it's responding to weighing from second summary, 2nd final is too late

If a team reads a turn on c1, it goes conceded and they want to cross-apply/re-implicate the turn to another contention, they must do so in summary, not for the first time in final focus.

Speaker Scores:

I start at 28, itll go up or down based on stuff like strategy, fluency, good implications, not extending thru ink, etc.

I’ll give boosts for quick evidence delivery. I have a lot of respect for teams that put in the work, have good cards cut, and are ready to send them over quickly while keeping their docs organized. I’ll also doc points for showing up late (1 point for every minute) without notice (if you have a legitimate reason for being late please email me). This is just so we can keep the rounds going as fast as possible, and prevent delays.

Cross can get heated, just don't say stuff like "shut up" or "what are you yapping about" in cross, it's not nice, I might have to drop you

Progressive Debate:

I prefer substance debates, but am open to evaluating any arguments. During high school, I never really read theory/k's but I do understand the basics of both.I believe no RVI's applies only if there is no offense won off the shell. That is too say, even if you read no RVI's the opposing team can still win the round on the theory layer if they read a turn to the shell (e.g. paraphrasing is good against a paraphrasing shell) or win that their competing interp is better.

If you are running a K please run it properly, have good alts, solvency, links, etc. If you are running theory please make sure it is not frivolous. I don't like paraphrasing, and I like disclosure, but again run what at you want, I'm just informing you of any biases I have since it will be fully impossible for me to completely remove those notions.

The two exceptions to my policy of "do whatever you want" is tricks, friv theory, and panel rounds. Unless it's a round robin, please don't consider running them, just so we can have an educational round. To reiterate, I highly encourage teams to not run frivolous theory if this is not a round robin. I think its pretty dumb and a waste of everyone's time. Let's try to actually take something away from this round. If we're in a panel round, and there is a lay judge please don't read any progressive arguments (or at least present them in a lay friendly manner). That said, I'll still evaluate the arguments as if I'm a flow judge.

Miscellaneous:

If this helps, I really liked having Bryce Piotrowski, Pinak Panda, Eli Glickman, Nate Kruger, Anisha Musti, Elliot Beamer, and Wyatt Alpert as a judge when I was debating. I also learned debate from the goat, Lars Deutz, so I’d say my views and perception of debate is very similar to his.

Just have some fun, I know it's cliche but debate can get pretty heated at times. At the end of the day, this is an activity for y'all to learn from. As such, I'll do my best to be as helpful and considerate before and after the round.

I am a new parent judge. Speed is fine but don't use that as a way to bury your opponents in as many responses as possible. A few well-explained arguments/responses will mean more to me than many unexplained responses. Please be respectful at all times during the round.

I have experience judging since 2022 and have judged about 7+ rounds. Judging is based on looking for following criteria:
Content: organization of speech, evidences, language used

Pace of speech: very important

Projection and Posture during speech

Pronounciation

Eye contact with audience (not glued to the paper)

I have been the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last eight years. This is my eighth year judging. I have taught English for 20 years and Speech for five.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

Please speak clearly and slowly. If I can’t track what you're saying, I won’t be able to effectively judge you. Make sure you are organized in your speeches. Be respectful and professional, especially during cross.

I will try to take a lot of notes. Please make it clear what's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's.

I will keep time and encourage you to do the same.

I enjoy the competition of debate and look forward to judging your round. Good luck and have fun!

Hello,

This is my first year as a judge. I've been judging speech and debate events this year, though it is my first time doing PF.

Some things to get me to vote for you:

1. Speak at an understandable, preferably slower pace. If I cannot understand you, I will not evaluate your information.
2. Keep track of your own speech and prep time.
3. Respect your opponents.

I am a parent volunteer and this is my first time judging public forum debate

Please do not use debate jargon

Please keep your delivery slow and clear and summarize your arguments clearly and compare impacts

Provide topical argument only and be respectful during cross

Please paint a picture of what an affirmative world or a negative world looks like

Extend arguments fully and don't bring up new arguments/evidence after second summary

Good Luck!

Email for disclosure : hussain.zakir@gmail.com

I'm a parent judge, who has judged debate since 2016.

I'm a flay judge..

My preferences:

• I don't mind fast talking, but don't spread
• Don't be rude -- or you'll lose speaker points, and, potentially, the round. No personal attacks, discrimination, etc.
• Don't call out your opponent's mistakes to me -- debate your opponent and let me determine if they, for example, introduced new evidence or arguments too late in the round. Don't try to help me.
• If you have questions for me, ask before the round

Hello, I'm a parent judge and have been judging for 8 years. I prefer you speak clearly and be respectful of other debaters.

If you have any questions for me, don't hesitate to ask me before the round starts.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

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

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

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

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Speaker Points: Aim for an average score of 28.5, considering strategy, efficiency, and argument quality. Scores may vary based on these factors.

Humor Bonus: If you add humor that aligns positively, not at the expense of others, I'll award an extra speaker point.

Final Focus Weight: Utilize the Final Focus as the primary mechanism to explain why your team deserves to win. Summarize your side's key points and bring the debate to a strong conclusion.

Crossfire Etiquette: Emphasize kindness during crossfire interactions.

Argument Quality: Prioritize clearly warranted and well-substantiated arguments supported by evidence. Prefer fewer, well-developed arguments over numerous unsubstantiated ones.

Hello! My fondest memories of high school are from high school debate (PF and Congress) tournaments! I also have memories of terrible judges - I will do my best to not fall into the latter category for you.

- The faster you talk does not = the better your argument.

- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but it really should be.

- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.

- Don't ask for more evidence than you need and use this as more prep time.

- You do not need to give an off time road map, in fact, perhaps do not.

- Winning in cross does not = the more speaking time you have. Ask and answer quickly, concisely and politely.

Each team will be in charge of timing the round. I will not time.

I will flow; make sure you are providing links/warrants/impacts. If I'm not making eye contact it's because I'm making sure the flow enables me to be unbiased in my decision.

Speaker points will not only be based on how well you argue your case, but how you conduct yourself in terms of professionalism and the courtesy you show to your opponents.

less is more: spreading makes you look desperate. Hammer your key points and extend. I'm not a fan of the direct pleas or demands to the judge: ie "judge you must vote for us because of..."

I will always give feedback in my RFD so there is a clear understanding of the decision.

most of all: have fun! I admire all of you so much for your commitment to an extremely advanced and demanding extracurricular.

I am a parent judge with little experience judging PF, LD or Speech events. I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread- I need to be able to understand what you are saying in order to judge it's merits.

I will take a lot of notes and try to judge on the flow. For PF, please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. I don't fully flow Crossfire or Cross-Ex, so anything important that you want noted, please extend in your next speech and make it clear why it's important to your case or detracts from you opponent's. Please don't run progressive debate unless something extreme has happened in the round; I will not know how to evaluate it.

By your final focus or your last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value outweigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round or they will be disregarded.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent of a Myers Park High School speech and debate student and have two seasons of experience judging Public Forum. I have also judged Lincoln-Douglas once. I am a retired accounting professional. I prefer for debaters to speak at a moderate pace rather than a very rapid one. I value argument over style. I will view overly aggressive debaters, and especially disrespectful ones, less favorably. I find weighing by debaters at the end to be very helpful. I provide some feedback in person at the end of debates but do not typically indicate which side won the debate, and in some cases I may need to go through my notes and do more thinking to determine who won. I do not consider any information not mentioned by the debaters in reaching my decisions.

Hi! I'm Nitya! I've done debate since middle school and all the way through high school. I've competed in PF briefly (<1 year) and I did Congress for about 4 years at Southlake Carroll (TX). I'm currently a freshman undergrad student at UNC Chapel Hill.

What I look for in Congress:

*New and unique arguments tend to make the debate more interesting; be creative with what you're saying (I do not have a preference for a certain type of argument)

*Clash in your speeches is essential. Especially in later speeches, do not just repeat what has already been brought up earlier in the round without adding anything new to it.

*Fluency, enunciation, and non verbal communication/presentation matter!

*Have a good balance between evidence and commentary; I want to hear solid analysis but make sure you have sources to back it up

*Prioritize both content and presentation! Even if your presentation is great, if your content doesn't make sense, I won't rank you as high.

*Participate in questioning! I judge you based on not only what you present but how you interact with what others present. (Congress isn't just about the speeches you give but it is also about your presence in the round. I will largely take into account how much you contributed to the quality of the overall debate)

*PO's performance will be taken into account. I will judge based on understanding precedence, parliamentary procedures, and moving the debate along in general.

Overall, be respectful and have fun! Excited to see y'all in rounds!

This is my fifth year as a parent speech and debate judge, most of which has been spent judging public forum and lincoln douglas debate.

Please be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please follow the rules and treat everyone fairly.

I appreciate speaking that is reasonably paced so that I can follow your arguments, so a little quicker than conversation-paced speaking works best for me. You will have enough time to make your arguments without rushing through them. I will listen carefully to your evidence, and to me, a few pieces of strong evidence are far superior to a lot of weak evidence.

I have little knowledge of your topic and have not prepped so do not assume that I know the literature, arguments, or acronyms.

Please convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

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

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

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

General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I Evaluate

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

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

Prog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is my second year as a parent judge. A few things about my judging preferences:

- I value a clear logic flow and argument

- It’s important during a debate to allow the listeners to understand your argument and points, so it’s better to speak slowly and to be heard, rather than quickly (clarity over speed)

• I love a good clash. You’ll get credit for a clear, logical argument, but demonstrating the ability to modify your argument and rebut your opponents’ ACTUAL argument is very important (dynamic arguments are very effective)
• Be civil in your crossfire. You will lose speaker points with me for badgering your opponent.

Most important: have fun. The ability to debate is a crucial life skill!

I am a novice, parent ‘lay’ judge with little experience judging speech & debate events, and honestly find public-forum a little chaotic at times. Speak clearly, at normal conversational pace and stay ‘on point’ with your arguments. I value substance over style and quality over quantity – speaking in a rush to the point of hyperventilation to squeeze in as many disjointed points as possible will not impress me much – making the strongest, soundest, evidence-based case and laying those arguments out in a clear and cohesive style will.

Be sure to back up your contentions with strong evidence and finish strong in final focus. Please don’t run theory or any type of progressive debate because I’m not even sure what those are and I will not understand what you are even talking about.

Good luck, have fun and give yourself credit in advance for having the courage to participate in speech & debate and learning this invaluable life skill.

I am a parent / lay judge. I try my best to flow with a flow tool I've used for the past 4 years I've been judging. I don't really understand theory and would really prefer if you not run it. I will review team balance (teamwork) and clock management for close matches. The pro should convince me that the resolution should be adopted, and the con should prove that the resolution should be rejected. Speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. tomwsmith@hotmail.com is my email.

I debated PF for four years at Delbarton. I currently coach for Charlotte Latin.

my email for the chain is alexsun6804@gmail.com

Tech over truth

go as fast as you want, but if there isn't clarity then none of the content within the speech will matter.

You should weigh and collapse on whatever arguments you think are the most important within the round.

Tell me where you are on the flow (signpost) for speeches after constructive, otherwise I'm going to be really confused.

For Rebuttal

Provide warrants (reasoning and explanation) and implications to your responses
First rebuttal should address your opponent's case and you can do weighing if you want

Second rebuttal should respond to your opponent's case and you should frontline your own case.

For Summary

Collapse on the most important arguments in the round

This is the latest you can start weighing, if you start weighing for the first time in final focus I'm not going to evaluate that.

Rebuttal responses are not sticky so extend them if they are conceded

General structure for summary can be your case, weighing, their case, but you can do whatever you want in terms of the structure as long as it makes sense

Always extend or explain your case in summary

For Final Focus

Should be very similar to summary with exception to front lining and comparative weighing

Other stuff

Have cut cards ready if something is called

Extend offense in the back half, otherwise, I'll be forced to intervene or presume

I've done some stuff with theory and Ks, but don't be really trigger-happy with either. I'll do my best to evaluate them if it goes down in round.

Don't be rude or say something problematic in round. It could cost you the round.

Good luck in round

I am a parent judge.

I give more weight to contents than to style of delivery.

I highly value clarities in your understanding of the topic, in the contentions you are making, and in the logical connections between your supporting materials and conclusions. Simply citing a researcher or a publication to "prove" X leads to Y without you telling me how that is supposed to work won't help you a lot. This means that you have to do some serious thinking by yourself during your preparation.

As of style of delivery, I appreciate clarity and confidence in your speech. So you really don't want to rush it under the pressure of squeezing in more contents.

Of course, rudeness and sarcasm to your opponent are game losers.

I'll not mind if anybody does not pronounce my name correctly and I may not be good at pronouncing yours either. I believe tolerance means we should demand less from others, not more.

I am a parent judge relatively new to debate.

Please, do not speak too quickly or without enunciation. If I can't track what you are saying, I won't be able to effectively judge you on your merits and arguments.

Even when I am not looking at you while taking notes, etc., I will be very engaged, Please make it clear what's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. please don't run any arguments about the event itself.

By your closing, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. In keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded.

I will keep time and encourage you to do the same.

I do not disclose winners unless specified to do so by the tournament.

I very much enjoy the competition of debate and look forward to judging your round. Good luck and have fun!

I debated for four years in high school and for four years in college in CX/policy debate. I also have judged many high school tournaments in a variety of formats (PF, LD, CX) in the time since I stopped debtaing. I am comfortable with all kinds of arguments, speed, and theory.

Experience:

6 years Policy Debate (Edina High School and Trinity University)

2 years Domestic Extemp (Edina High School)

Judging (Mostly Policy, LD and Public Forum) since 2011

Coaching (Public Forum) since 2021

Paradigm:

I evaluate arguments within an offense/defense paradigm. The reasons why your case is good should outweigh the reasons why it is bad or it should outweigh the reasons why the opposing team's case is good.

I do not have any arguments that I will disregard offhand. I try as much as possible to judge based on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I really like impact calculus (or weighing), I get annoyed when teams don't make comparative claims between their arguments and their opponents arguments because it leads to me having to intervene in the round.

Shake hands with your opponents at the end of the round, debate is a small community!

1. What is your experience level? Have you been actively coaching or judging, and how long? How often have you judged rounds on this topic?

This is my first-year judging for the forensic team. I have experience judging some speech categories, but I have mostly judged for PFD. This is my fourth competition this year. I have experience in public speaking and have been trained on both the military side and civilian side in various types of public speaking.

2. Describe your preferences as they relate to debaters’ rate of delivery and use of jargon or technical language.

I recognize that every team is coming from a different demographic and are performing at different levels due to their coaches and their styles. It is a lot of information to fit into a short amount of time and I try to be mindful of that. I want each person to come in and speak at the rate they are comfortable, but please be mindful that I must be able to understand the words you are saying. I judge on the ability to effectively defend your position and I give grace to you when you fumble because I recognize that you are told which side you are debating shortly before you walk into the room. However, I do not enjoy when people give up and state words like “I do not know” or “probably” or “maybe.” You are supposed to be prepared to debate both sides and should have done research on the topic.

3. Describe your personal note-taking during the round. Do you write down key arguments? Keep a rigorous flow?

I’m not a big note taker. Do not take it personal, it is how my brain works. I do not like to be distracted with writing notes during any meeting or interaction I have because I want to be able to listen, observe, and take it all in. I’m a reflector. I write your name as soon as I get in the room and confirm who you are. I will write down single words here and there when there is something specific that I want to be prompted to mention about your performance.

4. Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Are there certain delivery styles that are more persuasive to you?

I value professionalism and follow through. I recognize everyone is different and everyone communicates differently and therefore, I do not have a preference on style.

5. What are the specific criteria you consider when assessing a debate?

I consider whether the team committed to their side and were able to properly defend it throughout or did they get flustered and change their stance continuously when the other team pushed back. I evaluate their professionalism based on how they interacted with their opponents and how respectful they were of each other during crossfire.

I have judged PF debates since 2020. I use computer to take notes of key points delivered. I value the logic in arguments more than style. Balanced defense and offense win debate. I expect each team to show respect to the opponent. Argue with facts and logic instead of rhetoric.

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.

Hi! I’m Elizabeth! I did 1 year of Congress and 3 years of extemporaneous speaking, informative speaking, and impromptu at Durham Academy. I’m currently a first year at UNC Chapel Hill in business and political science. I have very little experience with PF so here are a couple tips to keep everyone happy.

1. Stay away from jargon. I don’t know what you’re talking about

2. Reasonable speed. I won’t read speech docs so make sure I’m able to catch what you’re saying

3. Easy to understand impact and arguments to follow. Make sure you’re warranting and linking every step of your argument.

4. Don’t be rude towards your opponents, it’s not productive at all.

For generalization purposes, I’m probably a flay judge. Excited to see you in round!

I'm a parent judge relatively new to debate. I use computer to take notes of key points delivered.

I track time but won't provide time signals unless requested. I encourage you to track your own time.

I won't interrupt or allow interruptions. I do not penalize lack of professional dress.

I value the quality of arguments more than the quantity. Facts are always encouraged to strengthen your arguments. Use logic not rhetoric.

Speak clearly.