My name is Sam Brown, and I am a former collegiate forensics competitor and Director of Forensics. I have since transitioned to a new career field, but I still enjoy returning to the forensics community to judge in an effort to keep my skill set fresh. My paradigm is found below.

DEBATE

I am a Tabula Rasa style debate judge. I consider the organization, analysis, evidence, and refutation of the teams. Speed—I do not mind some speed, but I think the debaters should be understandable. Arguments—I expect to hear a direct clash by both teams. The rebuttals are extremely important to me as well as the refutation of each team. I will accept, of course, counter plans and disadvantages which are linked to the affirmative. Cross-Examination—I expect the debaters to know their cases well enough to answer questions in CX and refrain from “rereading” their cases when questioned. Finally, I look for the team that shows why I should vote for them. I will flow the debate and as a policymaker will vote for the best policy option. On a side note, I love this activity. When I judge, I get enthused with the intellect and analysis of the teams. I ask that they enjoy debating and demonstrate refrain from rudeness. I do believe that Nuclear War is a disadvantage to my family, so please don't drop that disadvantage if presented in the round!

SPEECH

My specialty was in limited-preparation events including Impromptu and Extemporaneous speaking, competing in NFA and PKD nationals during my time in undergrad. That being said, I have some familiarity with interpretation and prepared speaking events sourced from my time as a DoF at Shepherd University and feel comfortable providing constructive and positive feedback that can aid speakers in rising to the next level. Criterion I rely upon in evaluating close speech rounds include: (1) piece impact, (2) polish, and (3) well-sourced speeches (if applicable).

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Traditional judge. Really appreciates data to be clearly presented so as to no confusion to what we are discussing. I hope for teammates not to speak over one another and no nasty exchanges between teams. Please be respectful in Q and A and bit speak over each other in cross. Please discuss/highlight voting points at the end.

Hi, my name is Debra. I look forward to your speech or debate!

For me, clarity is key. Weigh the impacts at the end of the round for me. Explicitly state what your voters are. And be kind to each other.

Thank you!

I'm currently the Riparian Program Manager for an accredited land trust and environmental non-profit, Clearwater Conservancy. I previously worked for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a regulatory biologist and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an endangered Species Biologist. I'm also a Certified Ophthalmic Technician and worked alongside an ophthalmologist for several years. This is my fourth year judging public forum. I appreciate factual evidence and well supported arguments that logically back up your impact statement. Please remain respectful while debating, and speak clearly. Email for evidence sharing: jkdombroskie@gmail.com

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 3 years now. I am going to divide this into 3 parts because I usually judge PF, LD, and policy (occasionally). Also apologies if this is all very long and confusing! If you have any questions, please ask me before the round and I will answer! Or if you have questions about the round after it's over, ask me!

Public Forum

I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. I have been seeing a lot of shadow-extending recently and if it happens in round, I can't vote for you on those arguments, cards, warrants, or whatever it is. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. In PF, I prefer a line-by-line debate that has a lot of warranting, making it clear what arguments you are winning, whatever it may be. And make sure to signpost too. For summary, I think that the round needs to be brought down to 1-3 key issues on your side and your opponent's side as to why you are winning and starting impact calc. Basically, summary should be treated as a longer version of final focus. For final, I like impact calc that does a good analysis on both sides, with good warranting with why you win and why you win the impact debate. And don't be rude in the round to your opponents, such as being mean during cross or during your opponents' speeches. I am more likely to vote you down solely based on that.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging LD for probably the last 2 years, so I have a lot of experience of the format and how the round works. And also with the background of PF that helps too. My big thing is that I love a framework debate. If you win framework, I am more than likely to vote for you. Because (unless your opponent accesses your framework too), you have the better explanation for why we must evaluate the round based on that interpretation. If both debaters agree on framework, then it becomes a round based on who accesses framework better, becoming more of a standard "line-by-line" debate. If both sides don't discuss framework enough or just drop it, then I will resort to judging it similar to a PF round.

Policy

For the national circuit - I apologize if I am your judge. I will do my very best but please do not spread. I hate spreading and most people doing it aren't amazing at it. I would rather you speak clearly and focus on good arguments.

For the local circuit - I know most of you don't spread, but don't do it regardless.

email - johnevans201413@gmail.com

Name: Jennifer Mazzocco

School Affiliation: Taylor Allderdice High School, Pittsburgh, PA

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 13 years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0 years

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: some speech judging experience throughout the last 10 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0 years

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum debate, Lincoln Douglas debate, Parliamentary debate, Congress

What is your current occupation? 9th grade English teacher

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery – I prefer a traditional, or slower delivery with a focus on robustness of fewer arguments rather than superficial treatment of a higher number of arguments.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) I prefer a big picture review of arguments in the summary speeches.

Role of the Final Focus – I prefer the final focus to highlight voting issues and review where the debate “landed” on those issues.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches – I am in favor of extending arguments into later speeches. I prefer thorough clash on arguments and if there is more new arguments or evidence to be presented, I value that debate.

Topicality - no

Plans - no

Kritiks – no

Flowing/note-taking – I support teams pre-flowing or flowing during the round, and taking notes. I typically take notes while listening on major points.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I think style is important, but ultimately I value argument over style. I think the substance of the arguments and the quality of rebuttals and clash is the most important thing in deciding a winner.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, I think if they intend to win on it, it should be extended.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes, they should do both.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Yes for grand crossfire, no for final focus.

I have completed the PHSSL Cultural Competency Course.

Name: Praveen Jacob
School Affiliation: South Fayette High School, Mcdonald, PA

I am a traditional judge and would recommend you speaking at a decent pace.It should not be the amount of content covered but the idea is to convince the judge of your arguments with supported facts and warranting.
I think the substance of the arguments and the quality of rebuttals and clash is the most important thing in deciding a winner.I expect all participants to be respectful and use etiquette.

My name is Miranda Brown, and I am a former collegiate forensics competitor and Assistant Director of Forensics. I have since transitioned to a new career field in Academia, but I still enjoy returning to the forensics community to judge in an effort to keep my skill set fresh. My paradigm is found below.

DEBATE

I am a Tabula Rasa style debate judge. I consider the organization, analysis, evidence, and refutation of the teams. Speed—I do not mind some speed, but I think the debaters should be understandable. Arguments—I expect to hear a direct clash by both teams. The rebuttals are extremely important to me as well as the refutation of each team. I will accept, of course, counter plans and disadvantages which are linked to the affirmative. Cross-Examination—I expect the debaters to know their cases well enough to answer questions in CX and refrain from “rereading” their cases when questioned. Finally, I look for the team that shows why I should vote for them. I will flow the debate and as a policymaker will vote for the best policy option. On a side note, I love this activity. When I judge, I get enthused with the intellect and analysis of the teams. I ask that they enjoy debating and demonstrate refrain from rudeness. I do believe that Nuclear War is a disadvantage to my family, so please don't drop that disadvantage if presented in the round!

SPEECH

My specialty was in limited-preparation events including Impromptu and Extemporaneous speaking, competing in NFA and PKD nationals during my time in undergrad. That being said, I have familiarity with interpretation and prepared speaking events and feel comfortable providing constructive and positive feedback that can aid speakers in rising to the next level. Criterion I rely upon in evaluating close speech rounds include: (1) piece impact, (2) polish, and (3) well-sourced speeches (if applicable).

My name is Vishaal Komaragiri.

I will flow in the round.

komaragiri.vishaal@gmail.com

I am a traditional judge. Make sure to explain everything very clearly, and I will have a hard time voting if all I get is just evidence and 0 warranting (logical explanation of the evidence).

Hi,

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

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

I have several preferences regarding speaks:

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

I was a policy debater and I love to hear cases that present those real world scenarios.  My Aff philosophy places the burden of proof on the affirmative case for solvency and impacts.  Many times you can win because the Neg does not address case advantages and impacts.  Good impact calculus in the rebuttals is all that is required.

I like an aggressive cross-X and I will not chastise anyone for being snarky unless you get personal.  I like speed, but I need to clearly hear tags and cites.  Don't rush through these or I will stop flowing.  Analysis is critical.  It is not possible for me to read all of the evidence, so you need to tell me how it pertains to your case.

NEG Philosophy -- I am pretty happy with anything you want to put forth.  Disadvantages and CounterPlans can often beat the 1AC.  On K's, I really like to hear a real world impact in the alternative.  I can easily vote for that.  Otherwise, I will give more weight to the AFF impacts.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

PF/LD/Parli: I am a flow judge; however, arguments must be clearly stated and explained (i.e., minimize spreading). Since I will be flowing, please accurately summarize your case during your final focus. If you inaccurately state that someone has dropped an argument or brought up new evidence, I will lower speaks. I like to see technical arguments tied logically to outcomes. I prefer arguments directly connected to the resolution (i.e., I consider long link chains to be generally weaker arguments). I expect all participants to behave in a polite and professional manner.

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

I have been our school's coach/administrator of our speech and debate team for many years. I am also an English teacher.

When judging debate, I would like to hear every word, to follow every argument. I do not like fast-talking because it leaves me guessing what I heard. I would like the two teams/two sides to listen to each other and ask questions and rebut in ways that show good listening. I enjoy clash. I enjoy when clash brings a debate round to greater levels of thinking and crisper points being made on each side. I like when the teams/sides help me, the judge, better see my way to an RFD. (Of course, I have to agree, but I enjoy when sides/teams state in logical and intelligent ways why they should win and show when doing so that they have a solid grasp on what just happened in the round.)

When judging speech, I appreciate the commitment that students show in constructing a well-organized speech and preparing to perform it. I appreciate the energy, pathos, honesty, charm, intelligence, drive to connect with an audience, and all-around skills of a well-delivered speech.

Regarding literary interpretation, I am an English teacher; I love it all.

Liz Scott She/Her liztoddscott@gmail.com

Experienced debate parent judge, I suppose best characterized as a "fl-ay judge", however strength of argument, knowledge of your sources, defense of contentions, and rebuttal of opposing contentions will win over whether you dropped a contention in summary.

I generally have no issue with speed, but more isn’t always better. 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’.

Preference for polite engagement, please be nice. Zero tolerance for anything blatantly offensive or rude, yelling is not convincing.

I have now officially judged 1 kritik round but I have observed and am supportive of progressive debate.

I will call for cards and review evidence only if it is contested by your opponent.

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).

All prep is running prep, IE, I will start my timer when you say you have started and stop it when you stop regardless of if you tell me you are “taking 30 seconds”.

Please remember that most judges are volunteers and listen to the same material all day, often crossfire is the most interesting part of the debate for the judges so don’t discount the round, it can definitely have a large impact on subsequent rounds and the momentum of the debate, however I don’t flow through crossfire so if an important rebuttal or turn comes up in cross, make sure you raise it in second speak and/or rebuttal/FF.

Traditional judge. Please speak clearly.

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

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

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

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

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