Parent judge.

Please talk at moderate speed and make sure your arguments are clear. If I don't understand you, I won't be able to judge you. Be respectful.

I am in my 15th year as an educator, and my 2nd year as a speech coach and judge. I most value the quality of an argument, and assess which side presented the most convincing argument, overall. While I value a dynamic delivery, I find too much passion or animation distracting. Please, don’t shout. I have little use for theatrics masquerading as argument.

I am convinced best by a well-structured, well-researched, cited, and competently delivered speech.

I prefer a conversational rate of delivery, as I can’t note what I can’t understand.

I expect everyone to conduct themselves politely throughout the round, and that includes the avoidance of condescension in word, tone, or gesture.

For email chains, please use kevin@civis.org

Debate background: I debated both LD and policy in high school and both CEDA and NDT in college. I also coached high school debate while in college and coached college debate while in graduate school. I have also directed several tournaments of a public forum nature for embassies in Washington, DC. I now coach and judge for my daughter's high school public forum team, so I have probably done at least some research and thinking about the topic. In my day job I design and publish historical board games.

My ballot is either an endorsement or rejection of the affirmative based on its (a) anticipated outcomes and (b) philosophical underpinnings. If the affirmative is not (reasonably) topical, then I lack jurisdiction to evaluate it and must vote negative.

I have a very strong preference for the probability of impacts over the magnitude of impacts. This is not to say I dislike big impacts, but you need a good link story to access those impacts. I am willing to assign zero risk to a disad if the links are just not there. I also find affirmative solvency to often be lacking - with the proper analytical and evidentiary presses, I am very willing to vote negative on "zero solvency."

I am very fond of counterplans but find that I lean affirmative on most theoretical issues. I find "counterplan solves better" a very compelling argument and can be in itself the net benefit.

As I noted above, the philosophical underpinnings of the plan are also an important consideration. An on-point criticism that engages with the plan can be very compelling to me. I am less interested in some kind of magical "alternative" that wishes away all the cares in the world.

I have 35 years of public forum, policy, and LD debate experience as a participant in high school and college and coaching at the college and high school level. My judging paradigm leans towards a stringent emphasis on logical coherence, depth, and respectful communication. My approach encourages debaters to prioritize quality over quantity and engage effectively with their opponents' arguments. Generally, I am not a fan of debate theory arguments. I also believe debate is an oral activity, so no need to exchange evidence and cases before the round.

Key Principles:

1. Note-Based Judging:

• Objective Evaluation: My evaluations are based solely on the flow/notes taken during the round, ensuring impartiality.
• No Knowledge Injection: I refrain from interjecting my own knowledge or opinions into the debate, maintaining a neutral stance.

2. Engagement and Clash:

• Direct Engagement: Debaters must address and refute opponents' arguments directly.
• Effective Clash: Construct your rebuttals with a clear and direct clash, ensuring that counter-arguments are tailored to challenge the initial claims.

3. Well-Developed Arguments:

• Depth Over Width: I prioritize one to three deeply developed, logical, and well-warranted arguments over numerous superficial points.
• Valid Warrants: Your arguments should be underpinned by credible, well-explained warrants.
• Impactful Arguments: Clearly articulate the real-world implications of your arguments to demonstrate their significance.

4. Category-Relevance:

• Format-Appropriate Arguments: Ensure your arguments, including critical frameworks like Kritiks, align with the debate format (e.g., Policy, Public Forum). I am not a proponent of non-topical arguments.
• Maintaining Relevance: Steer clear of diversions and ensure that your arguments are pertinent to the topic and category of debate.

5. Humanistic and Respectful Communication:

• Respect: Maintain a respectful demeanor towards all participants, including opponents and judges.
• Clarity and Pace: Be mindful of your speaking speed to ensure your arguments are fully understood and noted.
• Avoid Excessive Jargon: Use accessible language to explain any technical terms or jargon.

Additional Notes:

A. Quality of Evidence:

• Credibility: Only utilize credible, verified sources and evidence in your arguments.
• Application: Apply your evidence accurately and ensure it directly supports your claims.

B. Strategic Argumentation:

• Consistency: Maintain consistent argumentation throughout the debate, avoiding contradictory claims.
• Strategic Choices: Make tactical decisions regarding which arguments to pursue further based on their strength and impact.

C. Constructive Criticisms and RFD (Reason For Decision):

• Feedback: My feedback will be constructive, aiming to highlight areas for improvement alongside positive aspects.
• RFD Transparency: My decisions will be accompanied by clear, coherent reasons rooted in the arguments presented during the debate.

D. Timing

• Requesting Evidence: Debate is an oral activity. I do not need to see the evidence or cases. We should be able to look up sources. If you request cards, the requestor will have this time deducted from prep unless tournament rules prohibit this. I see this often abused during rounds to gain more prep time, and I am not a fan of this practice.
• Roadmaps: If you provide these, they will be timed. I do not need them and will follow where you go.

Conclusion:

Debaters are encouraged to view the debate not merely as a competitive arena but as a platform for developing and refining skills pertinent to effective leadership and communication. Focusing on depth, clarity, and respectful interaction, my judging paradigm fosters a conducive environment for meaningful, impactful debates beyond mere point-scoring.

Reminder:

While it's pivotal to be strategic and competitive, remember that the skills you hone here – articulation, critical thinking, and respectful discourse – are the real victories, equipping you for constructive engagement beyond the debate floor.

I look forward to witnessing thought-provoking, well-argued, and respectfully conducted debates!

Paradigm update for TOC 2024:

Very short version: Traditional-leaning debate coach

Short version: I am a debate coach, with 10+ years experience judging PF – mostly in my local area (DC), less on the national circuit. I try to keep a good flow, though some of the speed on the national circuit gets excessive. My background is in economics. Not a fan of K’s.

Doing prefs? I would be a bad person to pref if you are running K’s, know yourself to be faster than average NatCirc speed, or generally tend to the more “progressive” debate end of the spectrum. I am a good person to pref if you have a more “traditional” style, stick to resolution, and have clear impacts.

Speed: I’ll be honest, I don’t like speed. PF was designed to be accessible to a lay audience. While I am fine with debate occurring at a faster than conversational pace, and can handle a moderate amount of speed, debaters on the National Circuit often far exceed this. Keep in mind that the fastest speed at which you can talk and I can reliably understand you is still probably higher than the optimal speed for me to get everything onto to the flow - if you want judges to vote off the flow, you need to speak at a speed optimized for someone writing, not just listening.

Email chain, Speech docs, and Evidence: I believe that PF Debate is a spoken activity, and that debaters should not rely on speech docs to compensate for speed or lack of clarity in their presentation. So don’t add me to the email chain or send me your speech doc. If you want me to flow something, make sure it comes across clearly in your verbal presentation. If a piece of evidence is in dispute, I will ask for it after the round – you can also tell me to call for a card.

K’s/Theory: I am not a good judge to run k’s in front of. I will do my best to follow along and keep an open mind, but I fundamentally expect to see a debate about the resolution, and am very sympathetic to topicality and preparedness arguments against straying too far from that.

Other matters: I really, really appreciate clear signposting, especially with numbers and letters, not just tags. This applies not only to the constructive, but (especially) in your rebuttals as well - make it as clear as possible where to flow your arguments, so I can spend less time searching for where something fits in, and more time writing/listening. I am, in many ways, a utilitarian at heart, and appreciate clearly quantified impacts, though I’m happy to vote on whatever framework was carried through the round. I’m not a fan of all the extremely-implausible link-chains that makes every debate end in human extinction, but I recognize the incentive gradients that get us there, and acknowledge structural aspects of PF (especially time) can make it difficult to fight. Crossfire is important, and I listen to cross (and I can't believe I have to say that), but don't flow it - so get key concessions from cross into a subsequent speech if you need it on the flow. I love off-time road maps. I am happy to provide feedback and disclose as long as the tournament permits it.

Background: I am a debate coach at BASIS Independent McLean with a background in PF, LD, and Extemp. I competed in LD and Extemp in high school (Downers Grove South, IL), a tiny bit of Parliamentary (APDA) in college (Georgetown University, DC), and have coached middle and high school PF, speech, and parli at BASIS DC (Washington, DC, 2012-2016) and BASIS Independent McLean (McLean, VA, 2016-present). I have a degree in economics and am an economics teacher by day. For the past several years, I have spent most tournaments in the tabroom rather than judging per se, but as a PF coach, you can usually expect that I will have a reasonable degree of background knowledge on the topic.

Experienced coach and judge for 24 years in PF, LD, Congress, and PD. Traditional approach - I flow and can keep track as long as speed is clear. Weighing at the end of the round is important - especially in close rounds. Open to unique arguments as long as they are clearly developed and supported with evidence/analysis.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

I am new to judging high school debates and prefer that you speak clearly and slowly. I will be tracking the arguments and the rebuttals. I'll also be looking for strong arguments that use reputable sources.

I have around five years of debate experience. I mainly look at weighing impacts. Please be sure to speak clearly.

My judging experience is only in PF.

Substance:I will judge the round primarily by the winning arguments in the round. The most important aspects for me are well constructed cases/arguments, clearly weighing the impacts and what I should vote on, and clear signposting to follow the lines of the debate.

Style: Speed is not an issue as long as it is clear. Respect is crucial, and lack of it will impact my balloting.

Background:

My name is Kathleen Clark and I have taught high school English for a decade. I started coaching Speech and Public Forum coach this year; my own extra-curricular background is largely in theatre and student government. As an English teacher and general lover of language, my primary focus as a judge is clarity and efficiency of communication. These events emphasize how much our words matter; you should employ them well.

Speech:

For interpretive events, I am all about the nuance. I want to hear every syllable, watch each new idea cross your forehead, listen for the pause that precedes a revelation, witness the development of a fresh idea in your character's mind. Your presentation should cover a range of emotional notes, vary with regards to tempo and volume, and offer a clear, holistic perspective through the piece.

For oratorical events, I look for consistency and clarity. I weigh delivery and content equally; I genuinely believe that what you have to say is important, so the way you say it should be intentional, passionate, and direct.

Public Forum:

This event is defined by the lay judge, and that is my priority. You absolutely must communicate to me, in layman's terms, the merits of your case. I must understand each word you say and the data you present. I will flow your arguments, so it is your responsibility to undo your opposing team's case; if you do not address their contentions plainly, I will continue to consider them as valid. Be polite to each other!

I am relatively new to judging PF. As a former LD debater, I really appreciate well-constructed frameworks. I know how to flow and can handle some speed, but prefer a more natural speaking style.

I am the Upper School Debate Coach at Sidwell Friends School. My email is downesc@sidwell.edu — please put me on the email chain if there is one.

CX

Some stuff you probably care about:

Ks, K affs, performance, and other, non-normative ways of engaging with debate and the resolution are fun and fine in my personal view, but I've voted for framework before and I have no doubt I will again. Even if I think you're being a little bit of a cop about it. I can be convinced of a lot in the space of the round about the proper purposes and form of the activity, but I think the traditional arguments for the virtues of topical, plan-focused, switch-side debate are substantial.

Speed is ok. Clarity is essential. Paperless debate has gotten debaters into some very bad habits, among which is thinking that they can rely on judges to read speech docs to reconstruct basically unintelligible 1ACs and 1NCs. I won't be doing that. This is an oral advocacy competition. It's impossible to articulate a brightline on this but them's the breaks. So consider being conservative on this front. That goes double if the debate is online: you're just flatly not as clear as if we were sitting in a room together and I need you to slow down to compensate for that.

Some stuff I care about:

Cross ex matters. It is a speech, it's binding, we named the event after it, I pay very close attention to it and I firmly believe rounds can be won and lost in cross. It's also just the most dynamic and fun part of the round for me. I have given up on trying to fight for closed cross but just know it's very embarrassing if your 1N can't answer basic questions about the K alt or your 1A can't answer basic questions about your solvency mechanism and if that's obvious it'll be reflected in speaks.

I will vote on defense. A well-articulated, warranted, and contextualized no link argument extended into the last rebuttal can absolutely get me to give zero weight to an impact where the link story is poorly articulated and badly warranted. Relatedly, I will vote on presumption and feel strongly that the aff has the initial burden of persuasion. I realize this all makes me sound a million years old. I don't care.

I care about being told a coherent story. Contradictory off-case neg positions turn me off for that reason, even if you collapse down to some kind of plausibly non-contradictory position in the 2NR and are feeding me a "testing the aff from multiple perspectives good" line. Performative contradiction arguments or clever cross applications between flows are attractive to me for similar reasons.

Presentation matters. A good presentation in a policy round often isn't the same thing as good presentation in other forms of oral advocacy. But you fundamentally want to make me like your debate persona, and if I do I will be looking for reasons to pick you up. If you come off as cruel or a bully, I'll be looking for reasons to drop you.

PF

I think evidence violations of various kinds are, unfortunately, pervasive in PF, as a consequence of bad disclosure and evidence exchange practices combined with the use of paraphrasing. In part as a response to this concerning state of affairs, I hold students to a high standard on evidence ethics and have a comparatively low threshold for voting on this stuff or signing a ballot on an evidence violation. I will ask for evidence I think sounds fake or misrepresented. I will take an evidence ethics issue to tab on my own initiative even if not raised by your opponents.

I try to evaluate PF according to its own standards rather than just being a transplanted policy hack (which is admittedly what I am). To my mind a good PF round should look not dissimilar from talking heads on a cable news show discussing current events. It should be intelligible and engaging to an educated and informed lay audience. And that means this is not an event that should privilege a fast, technical, evidence-driven style of debating. I'm perfectly capable of flowing and judging fast, technical rounds, but I am flatly not going to hold debaters to the same kind of standards on this stuff that I would in a policy round and will afford significantly more leeway to less technical presentations than I might in CX.

For related reasons, I have a very high threshold for voting on theory in PF. If you do not have a credible in-round abuse story or it looks like you are cynically using highly technical theory arguments to bully a less technical team I will be spending the entirety of the debate looking for any halfway justifiable excuse to drop you.

Courtesy and promptness in satisfying requests for cards are something that I will take into account in speaker points. As far as I am concerned (and per NSDA rules), your opponents are well within their rights to ask for every piece of evidence you read or paraphrase, which you must then promptly provide to them in a manner which clearly shows, through e.g. highlighting or underlining, what portions of the evidence you read or paraphrased.

Congress

If you are giving a speech that is not an authorship speech and it contains no clash, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech. If you are giving a speech that is not an authorship speech and you appear to be reading the speech in its entirety, with no extemporaneous elements at all, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech. If your speech is substantially repetitive of prior speeches, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech.

I will generally rank a PO who effectively manages the chamber at #3. Other than the PO, I rank largely based on my scoring of speeches.

LD

I never did this event, don't coach this event, and have judged it only a handful of times. I do have a background in philosophy; it's what I got my undergraduate degree in. You'll probably find some helpful things under my CX section. I'll do my best.

Who are you?

I debated CX at Scituate High School in the conventional stock issues focused style of the Southeastern Massachusetts Debate League, then at UMASS where I turned into a K debater while learning everything I actually know about debate from Jillian Marty. Following a hiatus from debate I was an assistant coach for policy debate at James Madison High School in Virginia from 2018 to 2022. I have been the debate coach for Sidwell Friends School since fall 2022.

In terms of my non-debate life, I am among other things a Christian, a socialist, and a practicing class action plaintiff's lawyer.

Former debater in the JV/Open Policy Division for James Madison University, 2nd place finish at JV/Novice Nationals, 2-time VHSL State Qualifier, and former varsity PF captain for Harrisonburg High School.

Hell yes include me in the email chain:

phillipduong51@gmail.com

If you guys have any questions after your round concerning the debate, please email me/ask me I’d be more than happy to answer anything debate-related and give you my view of the round (either why you won or lost).

Basics:

I currently view debate as a game we play to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. If one side has successfully developed the debate with a clear argument and direction while refuting the other side and providing offense against the opposing team's args, they will win my ballot. If you’re putting in hard work debating, I’ll work hard in evaluating correctly with little intervention providing feedback for both sides on how you guys can be the best debaters with the experience I’ve had in your shoes. The relationship between debaters and judges is a two-way street, if you don’t give any effort/don’t care, I won’t care either.

Conduct- Don’t be a douchebag, I encourage aggressiveness in rounds and during cross-ex but you know when you’re being a douchebag, I will stop the debate and tell you if you are but you’ll already know it and you will be docked points. Any explicit language and disrespect, I’ll vote you down.

Time- You should keep track of your own prep time and opponent's speech times, prep ends when the document is saved. don’t go over your time.

Debate Preferences:

Clarity vs. Speed

I’m fine with speed if you’re good at spreading. AKA if I can’t understand you while you spread, you‘re not doing a good job. If you can spread while having clear and concise diction then feel free to but if you’re not a good enough speaker yet, don’t do it. Slow down on analytics, don’t speed through them because they will get lost.

CX

For policy, I prefer one on one cross-ex’s if you want good speeks unless your partner is really struggling, like badly. Don’t be an a-hole and don’t talk over your opponents or even your partner, you’ll be docked points.

Policy

I’ve been a policy debater for most of my JMU debate career, so if you debate policy I have high expectations. Do warranted line-by-line analysis and have solid args starting with the basics. I really value top-level impact calc, and like love it, if you don’t address impact calc at all you will lose the round.

DA’s

If you have a DA you need a rock-solid link and good uniqueness args. If you lose any of these it will be really hard for you to win any risk of the DA happening. Do impact calc and turns case args, I love offense for both sides.

CP’s

Have a good perm other than that, I’m fine with generics but if you’re running an advantage cp then explain it thoroughly because I don’t run these often as a debater.

K’s

This is the side of the debate that I’m slowly getting into so don’t assume that I know everything but I do know a decent amount. I’m still catching up on lit but give short explanations and actually have an understanding of your literature but slow down on those analytics because I will admit I can get lost in the sauce. Love a good alt debate, I prefer alts that actually do something but if you flesh it out it’ll make it easier for me to analyze the round. Have a rock-solid link, and try and make them specific to the AFF, if you don’t talk about the AFF at all and conceptualize the link to the AFF, you haven’t done an excellent job. Do something, some analysis. The NEG still needs to win why the AFF/links create uniqueness for the impact.

T

Not a big T expert, so the explanation is key. Honestly, provide a coherent view of what the topic would look like without the limit that you set on it versus what the AFF justifies when you are impacting the T debate. That could include a case list that they justify that explodes research burdens or specific ground loss. You do not have to win in round abuse, I’ll judge that for myself. Impact it out well and you should be good. Again, analyze the other team's evidence and make smart args against it.

Theory

Dropped theory arguments are so easy to vote on, it's lazy but I can’t resist so don’t drop them. Provide a reason why the abuse outweighs any other possible impact and make it a big deal. Just don’t blaze through it and expect to win even if it was dropped.

I am a technical judge over traditional. However, be persuasive. Do not assume I know what you know. Make definition, provide a framework, and no jargons pls.

Evidence needs to be clearly reliable. Clear impact are important. Overall, I am looking for logical reasoning with a cohesive flow. Organize and internalize your speech. Do not repeat exactly what was mentioned. That will not earn you extra points. Build upon your contentions, and forge strength on your arguments.

Debate is a team sport. So work and win together as a team!

Summary and Final Focus: Don't list everything. Intensify your defense, summarize your arguments, and finally, weighing is a must but make it clear!

I really dislike speaking more than your allocated time. No spreading pls.

Be respectful of one another.

If it is virtual, your cameras need to be on at all time unless otherwise instructed.

Best of luck!

PUBLIC FORUM: Tabula Rasa ; Policy Maker ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; plans are okay ; Ks are okay, if ran and explained well

POLICY DEBATE: Policy Maker ; Stock Judge ; Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; I'm okay with running Ks, as long as they are well explained and topical

LINCOLN DOUGLAS: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TFA STATE:

PUBLIC FORM: I'm a Tabula Rasa judge on the surface and a classic debate judge in my core. Progressive debate is okay with me. No spreading. I like debate rounds that have plenty of clash , weighed arguments , excellent speeches , and good sportsmanship. I expect each round to be educational. My ballot will reflect the round's voting issues , and my own expertise / knowledge.

I value quality over quantity of evidence -- relevancy (topical) , source , unique , legit

I expect teams to adhere to the resolution. Meaning, arguments MUST be balanced -- you choose how to balance them -- these balanced arguments will be your VOTERS

My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

WATCH OUT FOR DROPS! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own.

Carry all arguments throughout the round.

Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

STYLE & DELIVERY:

ALL SPEECHES MUST BE CLEAR AND WELL ARTICULATED. Bonus points for tapping into annunciation and pathos.

PRIORITZE TAGLINES—this makes flowing easier. It also keeps your arguments, cards, and evidence organized on my flow—you’ll get a better ballot from me.

NO SPREADING

USE YOUR PREP TIME efficiently

UTILIZE SPEAKING TIME WISELY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UIL CX STATE:

I am a policy maker judge who cherishes stock issues and will enter the round willing to flow anything. No spreading. I like debate rounds that have plenty of clash , weighed arguments , excellent speeches , and good sportsmanship. Frameworks and observations are key to the lens of the debate. I expect each round to be educational. SHOW me how / why you’re winning. My ballot will reflect the round's voting issues and my own expertise / knowledge.

PHILSOPHY:

SNAPSHOT: Firstly, I am a Policy Maker ; Secondly, a Stock Judge ; Lastly, a Tabula Rasa mindset

I need Voters and an Impact Calculus

K’s must be explained well, topical, educational, and link

My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

AFF: I will pay close attention to how you frame your plan text, especially stock issues. If I do not completely understand your PLAN by the end of the 1AC, it will be hard for me to flow you. PROTECT AND ADVOCATE FOR YOUR SOLVENCY! USE FIAT WISELY.

NEG: I will flow any argument you run against the AFF. Have an even balance of OFF and ON CASE arguments. ALL ARGUMENTS MUST LINK TO THE AFF’s PLAN. Split the NEG block. Be advised: I’m a policy maker who heavily considers stock issues. T’s & K’s must show EVIDENT violations and be educational. I will assume there is nothing wrong with AFF’s SOLVENCY if there aren’t any DAs. I prefer UNIQUE CPs that cannot be PERMED.

BOTH: WATCH OUT FOR DROPS! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own. Carry all arguments throughout the round. Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

STYLE & DELIVERY:

ALL SPEECHES MUST BE CLEAR AND WELL ARTICULATED. Bonus points for tapping into annunciation and pathos.

PRIORITZE TAGLINES—this makes flowing easier. It also keeps your arguments, cards, and evidence organized on my flow—you’ll get a better ballot from me.

NO SPREADING

USE YOUR PREP TIME efficiently

UTILIZE SPEAKING TIME WISELY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

READ EVERYTHING:

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

I was a High School speech and debate competitor and debated policy at Dartmouth. I have judged pf before, but I would consider myself a lay judge in pf terms. I am a practicing lawyer and can follow all the arguments even if I am not taking notes on everything you say.

IMPORTANT: Truth>Tech!!! I believe that Public Forum is not a policy debate, and ANY attempt to turn what should be a conversation-based style into a policy round (any prog, spreading, etc) will result in VERY low speaks and an automatic loss.

Refer to this NCFL PF description: "Good debaters should display logic and analysis. They should use evidence when needed. They should win their case and refute that of their opponents. They should communicate effectively, using the fundamentals of good speaking. There are no burdens on either side."

Specific speech guidelines:

All CX: I want a fast-paced but coherent cx. Under no circumstances do I want debaters to be talking over each other or speechifying their responses. While I don't judge cx on the flow, it is by far the most interesting part of the round, and I will consider your composure when making my rfd and assigning speaker points. With that being said, extending any poor responses into Summary, Rebuttal, or Final Focus is definitely something I will be looking for...

AC and NC: Talk slowly and make a convincing argument. I don't want debaters to read their case like a robot — I will put just as much into a round as you will.

AR and NR: Same thing as constructive, but make sure you respond to all points. Note for 2 AR/NR: Frontline your case first. I will have trouble voting for you if you leave all frontlining to summary.

AS and NS: Tell me why you win the rounds. My ballot is usually decided by the end of the summary speeches, and I weigh this speech much more heavily than the other speeches. I want to see clear weighing and strategic decisions on what you are collapsing on — I don't need or want you to cram everything into the speech.

AFF and NFF: Same thing as summary. I want to see clear teamwork in this speech, meaning no bringing up new arguments, evidence, or anything that is not an extension of the AS or NS.

Speaker Points: I find the speaker point inflation in Public Forum pretty absurd. I will not judge you all as policy debaters, but I believe that speaker points are earned and not given. The speaks I give are typically on the lower side (26-27), but I will give 28-29 if the debater really impresses me with their composure and speaking style.

Thank you for reading and good luck!

I have judged public forum for four years. I appreciate clear and concise arguments that logically follow the contentions. While I can keep up with fast-speaking, spreading is strongly discouraged. To the extent permitted, I tolerate off-time road maps. I also highly recommend signposting your arguments so I can flow the debate the best I can. I appreciate respectful and cordial communications with your opponents, especially during crossfires. Crossfires should be about the debate itself and clash of evidence, and not centered on questions like "What was your first contention?" and "Can you repeat..." Please monitor the amount of prep time you have in rounds, I will try my best to keep track of that as well. I also have the rules of the debate on hand (the timing of speeches, who has the first question in crossfire, etc.) but please feel free to correct me if I make mistakes.

I am a relatively new judge (have only done one tournament). For opening constructives, I am looking for points clearly made and well-developed. For subsequent rounds, in addition to looking for well-developed points, I am evaluating whether you are responding to/addressing the points the other side made.

One final note: if you are speaking too quickly for me to understand what you are saying, I can't evaluate your arguments. So it is in your interest to slow down and make sure your points are clear.

I have been a judge for LD debates for about a year but high school debates in the Midwest a few more years. Forensics has been where I have spent the most time judging for 15 years.

I like to give constructive advice no matter what subject matter. Research, presentation and respect for those presenting opposing views and the judge is what I look for which includes the questions. I count off for being derogatory toward the opponent and myself. Being respectful of your opponent even though you may not understand why they are asking certain questions is important. That allows for good discussions and presentations.

coaching on the debatedrills club team - please click here to access incident reporting forms, roster, and info regarding mjp’s and conflicts.

use https://speechdrop.net/

tldr -

• disclosure is good.
• don't be offensive and arguments must have warrants to meet a threshold for evaluation. saying "no neg analytics, cuz of the 7-4, 6-3 time skew isn't sufficient" you need to justify why no neg analytics compensates for the time skew. won't vote on conceded claims.
• time yourselves.
• do impact calculus.
• be clear please

I generally judge tabla rasa, and will prefer whatever weighing mechanism you give me. If I have to intervene (i.e. you give me no weighing mechanism), I usually make normative assumptions about value of human life, suffering, and money (in that order). I don't prefer arguments about "ethics" with no clear ethical framework, and generally believe ethics include pragmatics unless otherwise warranted.

I look for quality arguments; clear sign-posting; consistent impacting through the round; and good, direct clash. I especially appreciate when debaters demonstrate the ability to break issues down into their component parts and explain why they win on each point, rather than making general claims. I'm happy to entertain language such as "topicality" but please don't use jargon such as "T". I don't pay much attention to speaking style, and I think generally focusing on style perpetuates judges' unconscious biases; just speak clearly. That said, please don't try to spread in PF.

I will reject any evidence you try to hand me in PF, and any evidence sharing you do during the round is a part of your prep time.

I keep time for all speeches and prep time, I'll raise my hands to indicate I'm not taking notes if you're over time. I'm happy to provide time signals upon request.

(I did PF in high school and parley in college.)

• Don't spread! This is PF, not policy or LD, and therefore designed to be comprehensible to the lay judge. In other words, there is no room here for incomprehensibly spitting out words.
• I expect debaters to provide clear warrants and rebuttals. Complete the thought, finish your own arguments, and don't assume that I'll fill in the blanks for you. I also expect debaters to live in the world of reality re impacts - if you are claiming impacts in the billions, you should think carefully about that.
• All reasoning and no evidence is not a winning approach.
• I don't think you should bother with framework unless it is actually woven into your argument in a meaningful way.
• I expect you to use the crossfires to provide clash, not gather merely information. You are not obligated to trade questions back and forth nor should you necessarily accept an opponent's answer without follow-up.
• I'm looking for structure and strongly encourage sign posting.
• I've been coaching and judging for nearly a decade; don't worry - I know the rules.

Competitors:

Thank you for taking the time to read this paradigm, I trust that it will provide the necessary information to your success in this round.

What I value most in PF/LD debate:

1) Logically sound arguments. It does not matter how eloquent your speech sounds if your contentions are not logical and thorough. However, this does not mean that a good delivery is unnecessary; a solid delivery helps one properly convey the points of their argument. This is just to say that I don't want you to waste time on flowery language and irrelevant words that make one sound intelligent, if it is at the expense of your argument. Just speak plainly and strategically. Spreading is okay; but, if you are slurring your words it will be increasingly difficult for me to follow your arguments.

2) Good Cross-Ex. This back-and-forth is vital, and often where the winning team separates themselves

3) Be competitive, but always show respect to your opponent. This is a debate, so the conversation should be intense. However, this does not come at the expense of disrespecting your opponent or acting in an unprofessional manner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a parent judge but did Lincoln Douglas debate and extemp in high school so have some relevant experience. For me, debate is about persuasion — that means the arguments are centrally important of course, but so is presentation. I understand the need to speak quickly, but if you are so fast as to not be understandable, then you can’t persuade. Likewise, it’s important to be firm and stand your ground, but not to be rude or obnoxious. I prefer that you debate the merits of the topic rather than kritik, but that is your choice to make. Average speaker points will be high 28s or low 29s.

Hello, I am a new judge, I vote on the flow. I debated for 4 years in LD in high school on the local and nat circuit, I only evaluate the flow and I value clash and lbl, otherwise you wont get my vote

I like arguments to be clear and structured, thanks

I primarily ran Util when I was on the traditional circuit, which is what I presume most of NCFLs will be, I value strategic use of time and crossex. Speaks are determined by strategic moves such as collapsing.

Email me at: davidjia39@gmail.com

I've been a debate judge voluntarily since middle school; I'm familiar with public forum but would like to be considered a lay judge as I judge infrequently. Spreading is allowed but not preferred as it may prevent me from being able to give you proper speaker points and understanding your argument in a holistic manner.

I am a current JMU debater I mainly go for policy but enjoy a good K round so don't change how you do a round because of me.

I prefer 1-2 really good arguments over 10 bad ones, try to condense throughout the debate.

Overall just be respectful (some sass is fun tho) to your opponents and have fun with it.

My email is kardosgiavanna05@gmail.com

just some overall thoughts-

DAs-have good impact analysis and weigh it against the aff in a clear way

Ks-fine with them just be able to successfully convey and explain it

I look for a clear argument with real, meaningful evidence. More evidence is not better evidence. Talking fast means does not give debaters a victory. If I can't understand what you said because you are talking too fast, then essentially, you didn't say it.

My judging experience is primarily in PF. In that event:

Substance: I am a flow judge, whose ballot is won by winning the clash in the room. Keys to winning that clash are (1) a well-constructed and supported case, (2) good signposting with rebuttal and frontlining, and (3) weighing impacts down to clear voting issues. When cases and rebuttals offer factual conflicts/competing cards, I want to know why your card is more reliable/should be used.

Style: I can handle any speed I have seen, so long as enunciation and sign-posting are clear. Effective gestures, eye-contact, and tonal variation are appreciated. Respect is crucial, and lack of it will impact my balloting. In all other respects, rhetoric is a flourish, but the flow will determine my ballot.

Mechanics: Im fine with offtime roadmaps and most other things that a debater requests. I do not do set amounts of prep (e.g., "can I have 30 seconds"), but rather run time. I will provide announcements of expired time every 30 seconds, or as a debater otherwise requests.

In General

Please be courteous and respectful. I have zero tolerance for ad hominem attacks or unnecessarily aggressive styles of debating. You should win a debate through the strength of your arguments, not the force of your emotions.

I tend to be tech over truth, i.e. I judge you based on what you argue and how effectively you defend it rather than judging you based on my own knowledge and assumptions about how the world works. But like most people, I will be annoyed if you say things that I know to be factually wrong (even if I end up voting for you).

I was an LD debater in high school and did various forms of legislative debate in both high school and college; I am now a high school English teacher.

Public Forum

This is a debate event designed for a general audience. I am judging you not only on the flow of the debate, the coherence of your arguments, and the strength of your warrants and impacts, but also on how well you speak, how convincing you are as a speaker. I prefer that debaters not spread in PF, but if you have to spread to get through your speeches, please make sure you're slowing down and being clear when making key points. (I am okay at flowing debates but definitely not the best.)

That being said, I very much enjoy seeing a technically sound round of PF and I will almost always vote for the team that wins the flow.

Speech Events

I did OO and Extemp in high school. I have a good sense of what makes a strong DI, HI, Duo, OPP, Expos, OA, and Impromptu, events that were part of my local and state circuits back in the day. I am a lot less familiar with other events.

Policy Debate

I'm still relatively new to judging Policy. I have judged about a dozen rounds of CX at this point, but mostly JV/Novice and local league.

Progressive Debate: I'm open to whatever - K's, framework, theory, etc. You can argue anything. Just don't expect me to be an expert. Be sure to link, explain significance, convince me of your approach. Usually progressive debate involves some sort of paradigm shift in how we think about debate or the warrants and impacts of a debate.

Cards and Evidence: Please share your cards with me and your opponents at the beginning of the round and as necessary throughout the round. However, I do not tend to look closely at cards unless I am instructed to. The burden is on you as the debater to draw my attention to any weaknesses in or misreadings of your opponents' cards. You also need to explain the significance of a card (or series of cards) in the flow of the debate. Do not expect me to do this for you. In general, Policy is an event that allows debaters to get into the weeds of specific plans and policies, and I welcome this. Just be sure to clearly and consistently frame the significance of your warrants, cards, and impacts in the overall flow of the debate–how do they respond to your opponents' arguments, how does it defend your own, how does it win you the debate. I should never be left to wonder why you are making a particular argument or introducing a particular card.

Speed: I am okay with spreading in Policy because I know it is part of the event, but I also assume I don't need to fully understand something whenever you are speaking too fast for me to follow. I expect debaters to slow down and speak clearly whenever making a major point that significantly affects the flow of the debate. I'll do my best to flow the debate and I make my decision based on what I was able to flow and understand.

Dropped Arguments: If your opponents drop an argument, you have to point it out and explain why this argument is significant. You do not automatically win the debate because they dropped an argument, all you automatically win is the dropped argument. You have to convince me why the argument wins you the debate.

Congress

In my view, a good Congress round combines some aspects of speech events and other debate events but is also uniquely its own thing–a form of legislative debate. Top-level competitors should demonstrate that they are well-researched and well-prepared but should never simply read a pre-prepared speech. If you have a pre-prepared speech you should perform it. But the best competitors adapt themselves to the flow of the debate in their chamber, incorporating and addressing the arguments of their peers, just like any other form of debate, which requires more extemporaneous speaking skills. A winning competitor in Congress is always competing for the top position even when they are not speaking: through their motions, questions, knowledge of parliamentary procedure, amendments, even the number of times your placard is raised, etc. A winning speech is one that significantly influences the overall flow of the debate in the chamber through clash and new arguments. Lastly, a truly competitive chamber requires you to find a way to stand out in a large crowd of equally excellent debaters and, just like any other speech or debate event, that means knowing what style of debate suits you best–some light humor, wit, oratorical flare, social intelligence (because, yes, a great Congress chamber is also a social body with its own particular dynamics). Whatever brings out your strengths and makes you unforgettable in a round.

My name is Kalyani Maguluri and I am a debate mom with a few tournaments experience. Please speak slowly and concisely and I would prefer you off-time road map to give me a better picture of your case. I will take notes on your case and judge you based on speaking and how you get your points across. I will keep time as well so make sure not to go over time, as this will lose you speaker points. In addition, crossfires should only be used for questions and answers not an addition to your case. Lastly, your summary and final focus is your last chance to convince me of your case so please give importance to these as well. Thank you for participating!

Maggie Matzen (she/they)

maggiematzen@gmail.com

I competed in LD for four years mainly trad until my junior year at Clover Hill High School, currently I compete in policy debate at James Madison University. Interested in competing in policy at JMU, email me!

Tech>Truth

Time yourself, I don't do hand signals unless you ask me to do them. You don't have to show me your wifi is off if the tournament wants it, if you're googling at that point you'll probably lose anyway.

Please, do not call me judge. I’m just Maggie. If there’s an argument you really want me to hear call me Magnolia and my ears will definitely perk up.

Clarity: If I can't understand you and you don't send the speech doc I will not be able to vote for you - in the end I might ask for a card doc, doesn't mean you did bad, I just want to not jump between fifty different docs. Debate is inherently performative so treat the round accordingly, I did forensics in high school too so I live for the performance.

LD

Read anything you want insofar as it isn't offensive. Be courteous of the arguments you read in lieu of your opponent's abilities. K and theory are good, high theory is more beyond my judging abilities if you make it unclear. Queerpess or disability is my favorite K. Don't expect me to know the nuances of all of your Ks even though I'm familiar, make it clear what you want from me as the judge and the ROB. Oh and yes it is your Baudrillard and yes they are ableist AND bad for women. Performance is good. I think that and identity politics absolutely need a platform in the debate space and I’d be more than happy to adjudicate that round. Be warned, I will vote on poetry or music bad, I don’t think that’s always capital T true just read a slayer frontline and you’ll be fine. If you read tricks I think a sufficient response is "silly rabbit trix are for kids," and that is enough for me. For theory—it’s pretty easy for me. Reasons to reject the team: Perf Con, Vague Alts, conditions and agent CP, condo IF more then 4 conditional advocacies, no solvency advocate, politics. Reasons to reject the arg/justify some arg or something: everything else. Don’t read it with me in the back: Identity Ks bad - you’ll be an L 20 or 40. Author indicts are always great, just read a card or send me the screenshots. On disclosure…new affs are good. I will vote on disclosure if it’s about preround disclosure or some fairness or DEI arg, I will not vote on wiki disclosure. I also just don't think RVI's are a thing LOL.

For more traditional LD debate I love phil heavy rounds in LD. Kant frameworks are my favorite. Morality is a silly value, LD is inherently moral. Yes, I know the topic. Yes, I know the jargon.

For CX do whatever you want, if I think something is significant I will flow it so don't bother wasting your rebuttal time. Yeah you can run prep to ask questions, makes my life for entertaining, it just has to be immediately after the cross time.

Policy
Policy--------------x-------------------------------K

Theory is a voter x-------------------------------- Not a voter

New affs good--x---------------------------------New affs bad

Speed-------------x-------------------------------Clarity

Judge kick is just not for me.

Look to my LD paradigm for most things or just email me.

PF

I didn't compete in public forum but I coach it. I don't really have any preferences. I do super ask that everyone be very courteous during grand cross. I do feel very strongly that policy and pf are different types of debate (ie yes I'm fine with speed but it doesn't have a place in pf so don't spread) UNLESS both parties have explicitly agreed to engage in prog debate don't do it or you'll get an L 20 or 40.

Any more questions? Shoot me an email.

I am a former trial lawyer and current high school teacher and mock trial coach. I value argument and style equally. My decision will be in favor of, and I will award the most speaker points to, the debater who (1) best provides analytically sound arguments that tie directly to the resolution, effectively rebuts their opponent's arguments, establishes points in a logical, cogent manner, (2) speaks clearly and confidently, holds my attention, particularly through (appropriate) humor and/or interesting but not convoluted or overly technical language, and (3) maintains standards for decorum. Specifically regarding style, I value the 5 Ps of voice control: pitch, pace, pause, projection, and personality.

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 go with few simple rules:

1. Please respect your opponents and do not speak over them
2. Don't speak too quickly, it makes it difficult for me to understand what you are trying to convey
3. Clear framework is very important, it makes it easy for me and I think for the opportunity as well

Hey

I competed in PF in the DC area and on the circuit. I am now studying at UVA.

Preferences

To preface: If I am judging you in a round with multiple judges, consider me flexible. I understand that other judges may have different preferences and I know it can be frustrating when your judges don't all want the same kind of round. You can't make everyone happy, so focus on making the other judge(s) happy. I will adapt.

Add me to the chain/Google shareable/carrier pigeon please:
aidan@theomaras.net

If you contextualize arguments for me, I will be able to better evaluate them.

I will vote off of the flow, but I recommend that you provide a narrative on why I should vote for you that outlines the voters and gives me a clear path to a decision.

Again, I will flow, but note that I prefer rounds to be accessible to people that have not gone to a camp. This means that, while some jargon is acceptable, making an effort to communicate in plain English will win some speaks. If you disregard this, it will not affect my decision but it will probably affect your points.

Respect is essential, so I am unlikely to vote for you if you are rude, disruptive, -ist, etc.

Please don't spread. High-speed, well-enunciated speech is fine, but try to stick to fewer than 240 words per minute.

Don't go over time. When the time on your timer is greater than time allocated for your speech, close it out.

If you run an alternative argument (ex: theory, kritiks), do so knowing that I probably will not evaluate it "correctly" and that I am heavily biased toward substance.

If there is an egregious violation, and you clearly articulate it, I will consider the arguments. Again, I am unlikely to do so in the way that a coach, camp, or captain told you a judge ought to; if you make unorthodox arguments about the debate space, I may evaluate them in an unorthodox way.

Roadmaps are fine as long as you give them quickly. Roadmapping is not a tool for your understanding, it is a tool for your judges' and opponents' understanding. If I feel that you are turning your roadmap into prep, I will disallow future roadmaps.

I will use the tournament standard to assess speaks. See the relevant docs for details.

Please ask if you have any questions. Good luck!

Hello. I debated in PF for 3 years from 2017-2020 for Westlake High School, Texas. I competed on the national circuit during my last year.

Tech > Truth. I think debate is a game.

If anything is confusing on here or if you have any questions, just ask me before round.

*For online rounds: Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards/having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest, time your prep.

1. Argumentation. I was mostly a substance debater so this is what I am most comfortable with. That being said, I do not care what you run as long as it is explained to me (although I would definitely prefer substance arguments). Again, I am tech > truth so you can say extinction good and I will buy if it is explained well. I have experience running extinction framing if that is something that interests you. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I'll have some trouble if you are going fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.

2. Speed. I enjoyed going fast while debating and I can handle some speed, but I never was the fastest flow-er so try not to go too fast. I should be fine with most PF speed. Going fast is your choice and I'll try my best to keep up, but there is always a chance that I miss the nuance or specific warranting when you're speaking fast.

3. Extensions/weigh. Please make sure you are extending all parts of your argument (links, warrants, impacts, and anything in between). If you extend your link but no impact, it will be very hard to evaluate. Also, extensions or any argument has to be in both summary and final focus for me to evaluate it. However, don't spend all your time extending, just extend and continue. If something is dropped and the other team extends it, I will consider it as conceded. Also, frontline your case in 2nd rebuttal, otherwise the defense will be conceded. Defense is not sticky. Don't bring up new arguments in summary and final focus and expect me to count it as extensions. Weighing is also VERY good and will win you rounds. I know weighing can sometimes be hard and messy, but try your best. Conceded weighing stands true.

4. Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however, evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.

5. Presumption. I will try to make a decision to the best of my ability. If there is nothing I can possibly vote on and I have to presume, then I will presume neg because it is the least interventionist (the aff's burden is to disprove the neg). However, if you want me to presume any other way (1st or aff or whatever), just warrant why in a speech.

6. Disclosing. I will always disclose unless I am not supposed to. I will try and give oral feedback and I will write less on the ballot, so write down what I am saying if you don't want to forget. If you want to ask questions or anything, go for it, just try to be chill. I won't be mad or hold it against you, I think questions are good and will help everyone learn more.

7. Speaks. I would say that I generally give higher speaks, and I will give 30s to great speakers. Some tournaments are trying to standardize speaks, so I try my best to adjust to what the tournament speaks call for.

8. Other notes. Please, please signpost otherwise I might miss something trying to figure out where you are on the flow. Try to be nice during round to make it more fun, but I understand if things get heated and won't dock speaks unless you are being blatantly rude. Don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, or anything of the sort. I sometimes make motions such as nodding my head or giving a questioning look, but I try not to be distracting. Use this to your advantage to see if I'm vibing with what you are saying or not. I never vote on cross, but I may occasionally listen if I am interested. Time yourselves and your opponents so there is no confusion. I would prefer that you flip when I am present just so if there is any disagreement I can help resolve it. If both teams want to flip before, I don't really care. Also, I am not coaching or prepping topics, so I won't have the topic knowledge as other judges might have, so take that as you will (I will usually catch on pretty quick).

Hi this is Adit Panjwani. I am a Parent debate Judge.

As a debate judge, my role is to facilitate a fair and engaging environment to debate based on merit, logic and evidence.

I am committed to ensuring that all debaters have an equal opportunity to express their arguments and perspectives. I will listen carefully and assess fairly. My main criteria will be the merit of the argument, logic and evidence provided. I will remain unbiased of any personal opinions on the subject. Debaters must think critically and engage logically with well reasoned rebuttals and counter arguments. Debaters should be well researched in there topics and pose a persuasive argument with conviction. I value persuasive communication skills, including effective use of rhetoric and persuasion techniques. I will provide constructive feedback to help the debater grow.

"Raise your words, not your voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder." - Rumi

I judged in Public Forum for the 2022 Harvard tournament, 2022 NCFL nationals, 2023 metro finals, and several local tournaments before and since then. I am a semi-retired (after 40 years) lawyer specializing in litigation.

I am a Debate coach for the past two years. I will manage the flow but I caution you, be clear, concise, and connect those points. You are influencing my decision with how much I see you connect your research to your constructs and how your information is used in your responses to your competitors. Running through your flow or blocking without care or awareness that your judge will write slower than you speak, your argument might be lost to on me or any judge for that fact.

Preferences:

Clearly state first construct etc and when you respond in summaries, point out your opponent's construct using the same labeling system.

Crossfires are used heavily when there is a near tie so make those questions count but show me you sportsmanship by not over talking each other to see who is louder.

I find arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive.

About me: I did PF in high school so I have some exposure to the event. I've been judging for the past couple years, so I'll probably be able to make a good decision if you read this and follow along.

Publlic Forum

1. Tech > Truth but if you're rude you're probably getting low speaks
2. Respect is important
3. The team that wins the more impactful argument gets the win
4. Final focus should be voting issues and weighing
5. In terms of speed, 200 wpm is probably my max but I'll flow off a doc if provided
6. I won't evaluate theory or Ks

Debate the way you think will win, and I'll follow along.

I go with few simple rules:

1. Respect your opponent
2. Don't speed up too much, that makes it difficult for me to understand what you are trying to convey
3. I give more importance to rebuttal than the prepared speech, primarily because that brings out your true understanding of the topic
4. Clear framework is very important, it makes it easy for me and I think for the opportunity as well

Hi! My name is Raj Shah, and I did four years of policy debate in high school.

I prefer to allow you to debate, and I try to flow very carefully and not interfere. My email is rajivshah00@gmail.com.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a new parent judge. Please use moderate speed to deliver your arguments and speak clearly. I am not familiar with debate jargons. Be cordial to each other.

Introduction:
I have two years of judging experience. My background lies in engineering and information technology, specifically focusing on data and analytics. I am committed to fostering a constructive and educational debate environment.

Philosophy:
I value clear communication, effective argumentation, and strategic thinking. While competition is inherent in debate, I encourage respectful discourse and aim to contribute to the educational experience for all participants.

Given my background, I appreciate applications of logical reasoning, data-driven arguments, and analytical thinking. Consider incorporating these elements into your case to strengthen your position.

Flowing:
I will be actively flowing the debate, taking detailed notes on well-organized and signposted speeches. Please ensure you extend and weigh arguments throughout the round.

Clash:
Effective clash is crucial. Engage with your opponent's arguments, refute and build a narrative that supports your side. Skillful crossfire is key in demonstrating understanding of your opponent's case.

Speaker Points:
I will consider clarity, argumentation, crossfire performance, and overall presentation in assigning speaker points. Professionalism and respectful communication are valued.

Conclusion:
The primary goal is to engage in a thoughtful exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams, and I look forward to an insightful and challenging debate.

My definition of a good debate is where logic plays a central role. The facts , figures and evidences are all supporting the main actor the logic of the argument.

A good debate also is not how forceful you put your point across with style , but how well you frame your argument with content.

Better use of time for cross checking the opponents cards is to keep it quick within prep time, debate cannot be held hostage in the process of cross checking cards.

Offline road map are also okay if its quick , but not necessary.

Please be educated about anything that is included as part of the debate. If you are talking about non profit orgs , i assume you know the basics of non profits, if you lack understanding it shows in the argument.

Hello everyone! I am Samaya Talluru (she/her) and currently am a first year student at the University of Maryland. I am a Business major and have done PF for four years. I was captain of my PF team for 2 years.

What I would like to see in you round:

• Strong impact weighing
• Be articulate and project (sounding confident really helps)
• Keep time yourself
• Be professional and kind
• I also rely my decision mainly on the points stated in constructive and the rebuttal. I will also determine my decision on the flow of the grand cross.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Have fun!!!

IT Professional serving as the Senior Director of Enterprise Software Development at a Government Agency. Economics Enthusiast with an MBA. truth > tech

Please be sure to have fleshed out warranting and contextualize all of your arguments, make sure you do lots of weighing to explain why your impact matters within the scope of the round.

Tell me what I am voting for and why I am not voting for your opponents in the latter half of your speeches if you want an easier path to the ballot.

Do not spread and don’t run progressive arguments which aren’t intuitive to follow unless you are trying not to win.

2024 Paradigm

Experience: I debated and coached policy ranging from the middle school to collegiate levels from approximately 2003 to 2017. I've judged on and off since then. I also have some experience judging PF, Congress, LD, and some Speech events. I served as the Tidewater Debate League President from 2014-2015 and created the Virginia Debate and Speech Judging Facebook group. I have been out of the scene for a few years now at this point. Schools I was directly affiliated with/debated for/coached: Kemps Landing Middle School, Princess Anne High School, Harrisonburg High School, James Madison University.

Preferences: I probably can't flow or comprehend varsity policy collegiate-level spreading as well as I used to, but hope to re-build this tolerance. The same probably goes for technical terminology, especially if it's newer (within the past 5 years).

Note-Taking: Due to my training, my default setting is "flow everything." I could be convinced otherwise.

Argument/Style: Like note-taking, I have preconceived notions of what's important; however, I am amenable to being told what should be important.

Conduct: As I refamiliarize myself with the scene, I will be open and observant to how customs and practices have evolved in my absence.

TL;DR I have experience judging/competing/coaching and am open to many different arguments and styles; however, I've been out of the scene for a few years.

For Public Forum Debaters: Please give me impacts to weigh, even if only in your Final Focuses. I find myself having to make value judgments about how things should weigh against each other after most pofo rounds and you don't want me having to do that.

Email is mgveland@gmail.com

Make sure your audio setting are properly setup. I prefer debaters speak at a conversational rate and that a fast rate of delivery has made it difficult for me to understand arguments in the past. Speak clearly taking into account that we are all remote.

This is my second year. Last year I did in person for two public forum debate tournaments. I prefer to take notes so I might take few minutes after a debater speaks so that I can prepare my notes. I don't like debater talking over each other at the same time I don't like if a debater don't give chance for the opponent to talk during the crossfire rounds. My previous debate rounds: when you allow others to finish their thoughts. Don't like it to be screaming contest. I find arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive.

I am a former collegiate debater who has 3 years of experience in high school public forum debate and 4 years of experience in collegiate parliamentary debate.

I flow each of the rounds and for that reason I discourage spreading and encourage you to speak at a reasonable pace. I also encourage roadmapping at the top of speeches and explicitly stating contention taglines (ie. "contention #1 [tagline], contention #2 [tagline], contention #3 [tagline]").

Be as concise as possible. Do not leave me to do the mental gymnastics of making your points.

Empirical evidence is preferred, but you will not win on a piece of evidence alone. I like to see evidence woven into the overall story being created by the pro/con. A statements full of numbers without analysis will not win. (PF)

Do not overuse jargon. These debates are meant for lay people to understand and overuse of jargon or any trickery may cost you the round.

Be civil and have fun!

I have been judging debate for over a year now. In high school, I participated in the speech team. Although, I wasn't a debater as a high schooler, I have a background in policy and research/presenting research. I believe in coming into tournaments with a objective perspective. I mostly have experience with public forum/policy debate/ Lincoln Douglas Debate/ and the various categories of speech (mainly Dramatic Interpretation). Please keep your delivery at a pace that can be understood. I'm fine with off-time roadmaps for categories that use roadmaps. I also don't mind giving time signals :) In general, I'm relatively flexible and just believe in judging rounds fairly and according to the NSDA rulebook. But please keep in mind, like you, I also have much to learn.

I have mostly judged in Northern Virginia and Chicago!