I am a former Public Forum debater from Vestavia Hills High School in Birmingham, AL, where I competed for four years. My biggest requirement for a round is that all debaters are civil and that you use your time to not only address your opponents but also to appropriately incorporate your judge into the round (e.g. make good eye contact, tell me why I should vote for you, etc).

Be mindful of your time limits for each part of the round - time yourselves but not your opponents. If you ask to see someone else's evidence, then you can do that using your prep time following a speech or crossfire. Crossfires are also a time to ask and answer questions, not just make statements or present new evidence. Make sure that you're also asking appropriate questions, not loaded questions or any that begin with "Do you agree...".

When you speak, I'm fine with speed but not spreading, so please make sure to watch just how fast you speak. I also expect for all debaters to provide internal links for their contentions and subsequent evidence; I shouldn't have to consider how to connect your arguments and evidence, it should be provided to me. And make sure that you're using your speech time appropriately; for example, a summary speech should not be a second rebuttal but should actually summarize the main points of the round.

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.

LD:
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Both:
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

Debate is an intellectual expression of the arts of reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

A strong debater presents well organized, intellectual content that rises to the level of artful, expressive and receptive communication.

The flow of the debate should be simple for me, or any other judge, to record if the debater's content is smoothly and succinctly presented. The debater(s) with the strongest content will earn the ballot. The artistic use of speaking, reading, writing, and listening add tremendous strength to any public speaking opportunity. The refined use of these tools advance the debate from weak assertions or argumentation to the classical expression of competing viewpoints found in all forms of debate.

If you are speaking faster than I can write, I'll put my pencil down so I can listen intently. At this point it would be wise for a debater to speak slower. Then I could return to flowing the debate so I have this documentation to review when completing the ballot and to help me make the right decision.

I would like to be included in the email chains (hope.lana22@gmail.com). Feel free to email me with any questions post round as well.

I am a graduate student at Indiana University studying environmental management. I debated at Samford Univerisity during my undergrad.

Aff:

I am ok with critical affs but prefer that they are germane to the resolution. Frame my ballot as why I should prefer critical impacts over policy impacts or framework impacts that the neg is making.

Policy affs: If you’re not topical make sure you’re really good at debating topicality.

Neg:

Das:

Totally down with DAs just make sure you explain your link. Impact calculus is your best friend.

CP:

I prefer CPs that are functionally competitive with the affirmative. I think theory should always be a response but I’m unlikely to vote on it unless it’s been dropped or you’re going all in on it. I will not kick the CP for you unless you tell me to.

Ks:

Again, fine with them just explain them well. Explain what your alt does and why I should prefer your impacts over policy impacts. Don't assume that I know/have read all the lit on your K, I probably haven't. Therefore, make sure you're explaining the warrants of the args well. I need good articulation of what the alternative actually does either within the debate or spillover claims and why is mutually exclusive with the aff.

T:

Make sure you’re engaging in the actual line by line and not just reading blocks. I need competitive arguments between the t interpretation and the affs counter interpretation. Listing what affs their interpretation excludes/allows and what ground is lost in round is good.

FW:

Make sure you’re doing good impact work and why I should prefer that in the realm of the debate space.

General:

1. Don’t be rude.

2. I’m fine with speed just make sure you’re clear. If I can’t understand you I can’t flow.

3. Respect people’s preferred pronouns.

4. I don't have time to sit through and read ever card you tell me is awesome. If a card is important to a round I'll read it after but clear articulation of the warrants of the card are important and how it functions as an argument in the debate.

I mainly debated LD through high school though I have had a year of experience respectively in CX and PF. Spreading in LD and CX is fine as long as you are clear; in PF, it's fine to talk quickly, but please avoid policy-style spreading. 

I like the traditional style of debate, but am definitely receptive to other arguments as well! K affs, etc are fine with me in policy and LD-if you have questions about a particular argument type please ask! However, please don't run theory unless you believe there is a legitimate argument that abuse is occurring. I'll still listen to it otherwise, but I will not be happy about it!

Arguments I find most persuasive are impact calc and weighing against opponent's specific claims. Don't just tell me what your cards say when you extend-explain why they are important in answering the resolution and why they influence my ballot. 

*I find off-time roadmaps and signposting really helpful! Please, please, please do this. 

Affilliation: Vestavia Hills

I've judged for PF. I use to be be a PF and CX debater. 

Most important thing I'm looking for is the content of the arguments and impact arguments. Not a huge fan of Kritik arguments. I'm fine with people going faster than normal talking/PF speed but please don't use policy debate speed/spread- just be clear.   

I debated LD for Vestavia for 3 years and PF for 1 year. I did debate on the national circuit, so I can handle speed, theories, and other off-cases. I do not like K's so I will not vote on them. I'll let you know if you need to slow down by saying clear. I love a good framework and standards debate, so I'd generally prefer that it be the focal point. Clear extensions and turns are of course preferred. I also dislike "squirrelly" arguments, so that's another topic that I largely will not vote on. Other than that, I've had 4 years of judging experience and I have judged at Nationals. 

Flow/spread. Extend and impact your arguments if you want me to vote on them. 

Traditional, not too quick on speed, new to judging