I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and now at Waring School since 2005. I have coached national champions in both policy debate and public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

I was a high school policy debater back when Ronald Reagan was president. Since 2013, in my "spare time," I have coached public forum. (My day job is working as a law professor.)

Speed doesn't bother me one way or another, but you do need to be clear. I want you to explain to me not just why you win an argument but why the argument wins the round. I'm open to basically any sort of argument, so long as it's not racist, sexist, etc. I try to listen hard to what your evidence actually says; smart analysis of evidence counts for a lot to me, and conclusory evidence doesn't count for much; paraphrased evidence typically counts for even less. Establishing the analytic links in your arguments also matters a lot to me. And weighing is super-important, as early as possible.

I prefer for the second rebuttal to spend some time responding to the first rebuttal and not merely responding to the opponent's case. In particular, if the first rebuttal reads any turns on your case, I will expect the speaker giving the second rebuttal to respond to those turns. If the second rebuttal speaker does not respond to turns, I will consider them dropped. And I don't need the summary speech to extend defense that has not been responded to. I will count defensive arguments for whatever they are worth if they are dropped.

Likes: Depth of analysis, engagement with the other side's strongest arguments.

Dislikes: Cases that are just strings of blippy half-cards, numbers thrown around without context. Don't hammer on particular numbers without telling me what precisely those numbers mean and how they specifically link to your or your opponents' advocacy. (Please don't read impact cards that say things like a two standard-deviation decrease in democracy leads to a three percent rise in infant mortality. What does that even mean?)

I've noticed that a couple of my preferences differ from those of many other judges I've encountered on the national circuit, and you should probably know that. First, and probably of greatest significance, I am far more skeptical of quantitative impacts than are many national-circuit judges. You should expect me to discount any large number that appears in an impact card unless you present evidence of each link that is logically necessary to the occurrence of that impact. That doesn't mean I won't vote on quantitative impacts -- I vote on them all the time -- but when weighing them I am unlikely to take large numbers in impact cards at face value. Correlatively, I am far more open to voting on qualitative arguments than are many national-circuit judges. But do actually make an argument; don't just give me some conclusory tag. Second, I am more open to theory arguments than are many national-circuit PF judges. But you have to actually make the argument. Don't just tell me your opponents are doing something unfair; explain why it violates something that should be a norm of debate and why the proper remedy is to drop them, disregard an argument they're making, or whatever.

I did PF for Walt Whitman and graduated in 2013. I coached at Whitman for threee years, and Riverdale Country School for one year

Speed and technical debate are both fine with me, but you need to be clear. This means signposting, warranting your arguments, and weighing explicitly. I am not going to do work for you, so if you don’t literally tell me why I should vote on something I will not vote on it. I am not going to do any analysis that you do not do for me in your speeches.

I am open to any type of argument. That being said, I can be easily persuaded by opponents’ claims that particular interpretations are unfair ways to view resolutions. If you do anything risky, you need to be able to A) defend why what you’re doing is fair and B) obviously win it if you want me to vote on it. The one caveat to this is if you run anything that is discriminatory in any way (racist, sexist, classist, etc.) I will get really, really angry. Please do not do this, I don’t want to hear your genocide is good contention even if you are down four and not breaking.

Summaries:

If you are first summary, I do not need you to extend defense on arguments that your opponents’ have not gotten to go back to in their rebuttal. If your opponents do not answer that defense in their summary, I am fine as having that as a reason not to vote for them on that argument as long as you extend/explain that they didn’t answer that response in your ff. Any offense you want to go for in final focus need to be in first summary though, including turns on their case (if you don’t extend the turn in your first summary, but extend it in final focus I can evaluate it as defense on their argument but I won’t vote on it).

If you are second summary, you know what your opponents are going for so my standard is a little higher. Any defense you want to extend in final focus need to be in your summary. Only exception to this is if your opponents switch what they are going for in their first final focus (don’t do this please), and you need to remind me that they never answered the defense you had put on that argument.

Weighing:

Weighing needs to be comparative or superlative in some way. The structure should generally be phrased as x is more important than y because or x is the mot important issue in the round because not just x is important because.

Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.

I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.

I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.

My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.

I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.

I am the father of a Lexington policy debater. I have been trained as a judge and have been judging PF debates for four years, perhaps ten tournaments so far.

I am very careful to ignore my own opinions, and I try hard to listen to your arguments and make a fair decision. I take lots of notes, so it helps me a great deal if you don't speak too quickly, and if you speak loudly enough for me to hear easily.

I think debate is a great activity, and I respect you enormously for the good thought and hard work you invest in preparing your arguments. Because of that, I always try to give some feedback at the end of a debate, even when the tournament schedule is rushed.

I am the Coach at Carrollton High School, Carrollton, GA. I have been coaching for a number of years. I have coached policy, LD, and PF debate.

I expect debaters to weigh arguments, if you don’t then I'm going to weigh them and you probably won't like that. I like warrants in case. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I'm likely to give them some ground on it. Tell me why your response matters and delinks their case. Speed is okay as long as you speak clearly. Arguments that you want me to vote “off of” should be extended through summary and final focus. I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech. I think that debate should be about integrity and truth, meaning be aware of the language you use and the validity of your evidence. There is no place in debate for misconstruing and/or using fake evidence. The flow is important for me in making a decision. If an argument is to be evaluated it should be cleanly extended through the debate. I hate voting on arguments that were not well developed. The debate should not be about blindly reading cards without understanding them. I'm unlikely to vote on theory unless there's an actual violation in the round. Contextual analysis is always good.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

Parent judge.  Please speak clearly.  Don't spread.  

Like well-developed arguments with good logical reasoning.  Cross fire must be civil. Respect each other and enjoy the debate.

Summary and final focus are key.  Arguments need to be extended effectively.  Prioritize, weight and crystalize.  No need to add a new argument in the final focus. 

Have fun!

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

Overall Paradigm:

Tabula Rasa judge:

• If the presented Plan is in a Stock Issues format, then I will vote as a stock-issues judge once Kritiks and Topicality are won.
• If a Comparative Advantage Plan is run, then I will shift to a policymaker framework and weigh Advantages against DAs (see the note on DAs below), once Kritiks and Topicality are won.
• If a Kritikal Aff is run, then all bets are off. Run framework and tell me why I should be voting for you.

Kritiks are a priori to Topicality, which in turn is a priori to the Plan.

Speed:

I enjoy spreading, but I dislike fast mumbling. If you’re not a proficient spreader, slow down. Reducing speed for tags, cites, and underviews helps your case immensely.

Theory:

Theory won’t win a debate on its own. Claiming in-round abuse or that your argument is better for education requires justification and strong links.

Kritiks:

I love Kritiks, but they must be strongly linked to the Plan. Otherwise, Kritiks are non-unique DAs.

Tell me the story of the Kritik. I want to hear persuasion and thought behind these arguments. A well-done K will make my weekend.

DAs:

It can be tough to weigh DAs against a Stock Issues case. If a Stock Issues case is given by AFF, I would appreciate NEG providing only DAs that diminish/turn the stock issues of the Plan.

Please, no politics DAs unless you can prove that the loss of political capital extends past enactment of the plan. I am a strong believer in Fiat.

Things that make my heart go pitter-pat:

• Confident, assured underviews
• Focusing on the claims above the evidence
• Teams that stay on the offense and show clear strategy
• TOPICALITY (as long as it is a well-structured T debate that is strongly linked to the Plan)

Things that make me cringe in my seat:

• Evidence battles
• Any kind of murky ethics (mis-claiming dropped contentions, falsely stating rules, overusing flash time for prep, etc.)
• Having to vote on a weakly supported, but crucial, argument that wasn't answered.

Hello Debaters,

Although I am new to judging debate, I am an experienced trial attorney.  I have judged many moot court competitions and so am at home listening to both sides of an argument and making rational decisions.  I wish you the best of luck, and will appreciate if you speak slowly enough for me to understand what you are saying.  Thank you.

I have been judging for 3 years.

Background

I am currently one of the debate coaches for Milton High School in Massachusetts. I have been coaching/advising the team since 2014 and have judged most tournaments that we attend. These typically include local tournaments but include at least one national tournament a year. I have no personal experience as a debater.

General:

Please speak slow and clear. If you speak extremely fast I won't get all of your information/main points and at that point its out the window as I won't ask you to repeat or clarify.

Be nice. Being out right rude will cause you to lose points.

Be clear and specific during rebuttal. Let me know why your opponents contentions are weak. Using rebuttal to go over your case a second time will not help you.

Keep track of your own prep time

Use summary and final focus to let me know why you won the round

1. Don't spread

2. Be respectful

3. Weigh arguments

4. Clear votes

5. Address points in cross-fire in speeches

6. New arguments should not be raised in final focus

I'm an appellate criminal defense lawyer (once a prosecutor), and a part-time teacher, who has done some teaching within philosophy.  So, regardless of your debate event, I'll be impressed with a communicative, clear, and respectful style of debate, with attention to highlighting main points, and attention to the relative strength of all of your points, as well as how they fit together (i.e. which are subordinate).  I will not be impressed with the use of obscure, unexplained terms merely for the purpose of confounding your opponent, or merely suggesting to the judge that you have read a lot.  Debate should enlighten, not obscure, and there is nothing more ironic (or ineffective) than someone arguing against their opponent's position as unhealthy elitism while deliberately clothing their argument in language inaccessible to the average citizen.

I frankly don't think that the different debate events are all that different, in the final analysis.  All debates involve a claim that the resolution either should or should not be adopted, and reasons for doing so (or not).  A reason is simply an explanation of why someone should do something despite arguably countervailing interests/arguments.  A reason, therefore, must always appeal to someone's logic and common sense about how to acheive what is most important to them, necessarily making some argument, too, about what should be most important to them.  If you want to call that a "warrant" within a "framework" which consists of a "value" evaluated by a specific "criterion" -  to show me that I should "drop" your opponents argument even if I were to adopt the "value" proposed by the other side - so be it.  But, in sum, it's just all about convincing me that I should want to adopt (or not adopt) the resolution, despite what the other guy/gal is saying,  giving me good reasons for doing so.  Please keep that your focus, and avoid getting distracted (or distracting me) with debating terms which obfuscate more than they clarify.  For example, I'm afraid it is not helpful to argue about a "cap K," even though I know what that is. The theory, I guess, is that such shorthand lets you fit more argument in the round.  But I think it instead distorts, obscures, or mistakes the real arguments, which can be made just as succinctly in standard English if they are truly worth making at all.  *If* such terms help *you* understand your argument/strategy when you are prepping with fellow debaters, that's fine.  But please be prepared to tell *me* straightforwardly why you want me to vote for your position.  If you have to call something a "cap K," you haven't worked hard enough to explain what you're actually arguing, and why it is worth arguing.

Clear outlines/sign-posts which help lead me through your argument are very much appreciated; I may not be as smart as you are, but your smarts won't do you any good if you don't bring me along, at the end of the day.  You should be able to state your central position(s) in one clear sentence, then elaborate with attention to that (those) central theme(s).   Time-limitation does not require rushing, and rushing detracts from the persuasive value of your speech.  Time-limitation should instead lead to you to make your argument as tightly/efficiently as possible, without sacrificing needed empirical support.  And one or two persuasive arguments arguments beat 15 unconvincing arguments any day of the week, even if all 15 weak points are conceeded.

It would help me if you would try to understand the focus of your opponent's argument as well, helping me to understand what *you* understand it to be, and for you to respond to it at its core - that is, at its strongest - first and foremost.  

Please also use truly authoritative, and usefully-identified empirical support, wherever that's appropriate, making it clear what proposition you are trying to support, with attention truly to identifying the authority of the person/source you are quoting (a mere name, or the fact that something has been published without my knowing where, won't convince me that the source you're citing has any weight, unless its something like "President Lincoln").   Again, one or two truly authoritative sources beat 15 weak ones.   My understanding of my role is to vote for the argument most persuasive to the uninitiated, truly testing your ability to bring me all the way from the ground up to your view.  

So I like substance, not maneuvering and jargon and spreading -- as well as attention to the merits of the resolution which you have actually come to debate, with serious attention to how the world outside the room would receive what you have to say and how you are saying it.  That doesn't mean you cannot be creative with argument, making use of theory, but I would prefer you to think very carefully about how and whether your most creative arguments truly serve the ultimate goal of convincing me to vote for your position.  To be truly creative - that is, to truly explicate a reason which was not clear/considered before - an argument must be not only new, but also convincing.

The issues you are debating are truly important social issues usually having to do with fundamental rights on both sides, or at least the potential of a particular policy to create a better society, and even if you are not personally convinced of the merits of both sides, by doing the best job you can of articulating the position you do not like, you are insisting upon the development of the best arguments on the side you ultimately support.  Please remember that you have a very real opportunity truly to influence someone's perspective (mine), thereby shaping a little piece of the future, and though that may be done by speaking with conviction, it is rarely accomplished by merely shouting someone into submission, and often requires some concessions.  

Perhaps the most important thing you can do is to reassure me that deliberative debate is a worthwhile pursuit, designed to help reasonable people arrive at what's most reasonable.  By your thoughtful and respectful participation in this activity, you can spread the habit of thoughtful debate, demonstrating the worth (and joy) of deliberation as the essential glue holding together our fragile democracy.  Please do not waste the opportunity you have here.  Anything which might otherwise seem trivial, tangential, gimmicky, or distracting, should be very carefully and articulately tied to the merits of the resolution itself, so that it no longer seems tangential to me, or its tangential nature may cost you my vote.

3L at NYU Law. Competed in PF all throughout high school and have worked in tournament administration + occasional VPF judging since then.

A few ground rules:

• This is a safe space -- I absolutely will NOT tolerate any disrespect towards me, your opponents, or anyone else. This includes, but is not limited to, racism, sexism, homophobia, other discrimination, general bullying and/or rudeness, and so on. Be nice and be a decent person. It is disappointing that this actually has to be said.
• I will not intervene in the round unless specifically asked to (or there is something I need to address re: above rule, evidence, etc).
• HAVE FUN!! or at least do your best? Make this fun for YOU and ME. This isn't supposed to be a chore; passion, humor, and general enjoyment will be appreciated and will reflect in your speaks.

Your arguments:

• I look for you to honor the purpose of the event -- your arguments should be clear, organized, and understandable by "laypeople." Treat me as if I am a generally informed citizen in a "public forum" and you are trying to persuade me as such.
• Corollary to the above: I dislike theory and meta-debate. I REALLY dislike spreading. I feel that these take away from the spirit of the event.This means: I will NOT consider Ks.
• SIGNPOST: this is VERY important for me. If I can't tell which responses go to which points, you will not be happy. I need an organized flow to adequately judge the round.
• COMMON SENSE: Your impacts, and your arguments in general, also need to have common sense, and I will not consider your argument or your impact if it is ridiculous (e.g. some impacts that I found to be ridiculous: student loan forgiveness will cause "80 million people to die imminently" or will lead "North Korea and Russia to invade the US")
• LOGIC AND WARRANTS: a critical piece of this exercise is the art of logic and argumentation. Mere existence of a card isn't enough. This means: 1) don't just read me 30 cards -- add on some logic and a decent explanation of how the card fits in with your argument, 2) tell me why things happen, not just that they do.
• WEIGHING: You NEED to weigh, tell me what's important and what I should be focusing on in the round.

More specific preferences:

• SUMMARY + FINAL FOCUS: PLEASE give me voters. Make this easy for me.
• EVIDENCE: do not make up, misrepresent, or mess around at all with this. The sanctity of evidence is important, and this is non-negotiable for me. This means you need to have CONTEXT and the FULL SOURCE available. I reserve the right to ask to see a card. If I see a card that does not actually say what you say it does, I'm crossing out that card -- if your argument is resting on that, *shrug* too bad
• CONSISTENCY: extend your arguments through ALL speeches (not necessary in rebuttal) if you want me to consider them.
• CX: I won't flow cross. Make sure to bring up something that was said in a speech if you want me to consider it.

I prefer logically link arguements to prove a point over pure evidence to prove a point.

If you can show me A and B are true and A+B = C, therefore C is true, I will hold that with higher esteem than just having evidence that says C is true and using that purely on the basis of evidence proving it. Of course the most effective way to convince me is to use logically link arguements alongside with evidence. 

I am a current APDA debater and former national circuit PFer. I evaluate off the flow, but will not credit arguments if critical links are missing. I am more sympathetic to analytical claims than most judges. You do not have to extend defense past rebuttal, but if you want me to vote on an offensive claim, please extend it into final focus.

I debated in PF in high school for four years.

Please stick to the spirit of PF by not speaking excessively fast.

I find arguments that are realistic to be more compelling than long link chains that hang together by virtue of obscure evidence quotations.

I went to the TOC 3x, have worked at CBI and Capitol, and have coached Bronx Science and Scarsdale. Please believe me when I say I can understand fast and technical debate but I absolutely abhor it and my decision will reflect that. I want you to treat me as if I am a small child, or maybe a Labrador, and make things excruciatingly, brain-deaddeningly simple for me.

Alison Manaker

Strath Haven

I am a parent judge who pays close attention to the quality of arguments and responses. No spreading, no tricks, no Ks, no theory, nothing circuit. Please speak at a conversational pace (be clear -- I'll call clear once before dropping your speaks). I want to hear logically constructed arguments with good quality evidence. No contrived extinction scenarios. I take detailed notes of arguments and responses, but I do not flow. No jargon. Truth>tech

Please have evidence! Please have good evidence. Please do explicit evidence comparison --- I, and you, will be much happier if you point out powertagged evidence, unqualified authors, and clearly explain why your studies and warrants are better than your opponents'.

First off, don't be mean.  Makes you look bad and everybody feel bad.  Feel free to be assertive, but don't be mean.  There's a pretty clear line.  I need basic logic for pretty much everything, and would like to know why stuff makes sense.  Be very organized.  I debated through HS, so you can speak quickly, but make it intelligible.

I am a lay judge and I am a teacher. I understand the flow to some extent. Please make sure you present well constructed arguments and explain your evidence and refutations clearly. If you use data, explain its significance. Thank you.

Public Forum

Overview- I'm really open to just about anything. In terms of background I did two years of Policy before switching to Public Forum for two years in high school. This year, I'm a freshman at Bowdoin College studying economics and math, if that gives you an idea of how I think. I'm in college, so I'll admit I'm not going to have an in-depth knowledge of the topic, so I'm going to need you to break any fancy acronyms or jargon down for me, but I'm more than willing to vote on any techy arguments you might make. 

On importance of evidence- Key point: "Do you have anything to support that besides, y'know, logic" is not an argument, it's a concession. My absolute favorite rounds to watch are the ones where both teams engage with the arguments and use their opponents' evidence and warrants against them, even if they don't have any additional evidence of their own. 

Numbers debates- Small thing: If you start comparing numbers, and the numbers are within a factor of 10 of each other, I'm probably going to zone out. Numbers debates are the least interesting and least constructive form of debate, because they are almost always a wash- and this is coming from a mathematics major. 

Policy

Overview- I'll be very honest with you- as you can probably guess by the structure of my paradigm, I'm mostly a Public Forum judge. I did a couple years of Policy in high school, and attended the Georgetown Debate Seminar one summer (Go Hoyas!) but I'll admit I'm no expert. Due to my relative inactivity in policy recently, I'm not particularly aware of the meta- even core of the topic arguments are going to be new to me, so take nothing for granted. 

Policy vs. Kritik- I do try to be open to anything, but to be perfectly honest, arguing the K in front of me is likely going to be an uphill battle simply due to my background. The majority of my debate experience was in the heavily utilitarian world of Public Forum, so that's the kind of argument I'm most experienced with. If you do a very good job on a K, that's great, and you'll get the win; but know it's going to be more like explaining the argument to your parent or non-debate friends than to your coach.

Speed- As mentioned above, I do most of my work in PF. Because of this, my ears aren't as sharp as they may have been in my policy years. I'm not going to say don't spread, because this is policy and I play by the rules of the game, but to be perfectly frank I likely won't catch everything you're saying if you're going 100% all the time, so it would likely be best for both of us if we met in the middle at a solid 70%. 

Lincoln Douglas

See policy, but add the fact that I have near-zero experience in the format. 

Background:
I competed in LD debate, Extemp, and Congress from fall 1998 - spring 2002 (plus some other speech events). I then competed in Parliamentary debate for all 4 years of college. I find speech and debate to be highly valuable to the participants and wish to give back to the community. That is why I started coaching in 2014 when I returned to the US after my army service.
Current Affiliation: Needham High School Assistant Coach (speech and debate)
Last Update: February, 2023

LD Paradigm:

QUICK: I am old school / traditional. I expect LD to be like it was when I did the activity. If someone has a value and criterion, links their arguments back to their criterion and impacts how those arguments achieve their value, I am extremely happy and give high speaker points. I also really like it when people have strong crystallizations (voters). Clearly weighing and explaining why I should value your arguments more than your opponents make my job easier, which give you more speaker points.
I dislike theory / policy debates in LD. Policy debate exists, do whatever you want in a policy round. Don't do it in a LD round.

Additional Details: I love LD debate because of the standard debate inherent to the activity. The ability to explain why I should use a certain moral standard and then explain how your arguments lead to the achievement of your standard are critical in my mind. That is the only thing I want to vote on. I expect the debate to be centered around the resolution provided.
Any other argument, ie, policy debate, theory, fairness, etc, no matter how well done, or how much time is devoted to it, misses the point of the activity in my mind, so it will be treated as such in my RFD.

Also, as a speech and debate coach, I value both the delivery and the analysis. Both are part of the speaker scale. For speech aspects, speed, clarity, sign posting, eye contact are things I look at. For analysis, the more in depth, the better. I want to hear the student, not the card. Telling me to extend a card without telling me why the card is important in the round in not analysis.

In addition, since I do believe in the educational merit of this activity, I will gladly talk with anyone after the round. I usually don't disclose, but am fully willing to explain how I saw the round, what can be improved, and what was done well.

DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

Policy Paradigm:

Everything I hate in LD is kosher in Policy, so knock yourself out. That being said, I enjoy rounds on substance and the speaker points I give reflect that. I will repeat from before: DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

PF Paradigm:

I enjoy judging PF. Due to my LD background, having some sort of framework / framing the round helps me as a judge and helps you win the round and get higher speaker points. Due to the short speech times, I really want you to explain why one or two arguments that you are winning are more important than the one or two arguments your opponents are winning. Weighing is really important!

Something a bit more specific - being the second team to speak in a round means your rebuttal can deal with the first 3 speeches, and while I don't require you to do so, it really helps your side when you deal with both the pro and con cases. Use that advantage!

I will repeat from before: DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

Cheers,
Adam Nir

I describe myself as a "flay" judge. I flow a round but I rarely base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighing. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.

I ABSOLUTELY DEMAND CIVILITY IN CROSSFIRES! Ask your question then allow the other side to answer COMPLETELY before you respond further. Hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. Outright snarkiness or rudeness could result in a 0 for speaker points. Purposely misconstruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. Though I award very few 30s on speaker points, I very much appreciate clear, eloquent speech, which will make your case more persuasive.

I have seen a trend to turn summaries into second rebuttals. I HATE THIS. A summary should extend key offense from case and key defense from rebuttal then weigh impacts. You cannot do this in only two minutes if you burn up more than a minute trying to frontline. If I don't hear something from case in summary you will lose most definitely. Contrary to growing belief, the point of this event is NOT TO WIN ON THE FLOW. The point is to research and put forth the best warrants and evidence possible that stand up to rebuttal.

When calling cards, avoid distracting "dumps" aimed at preoccupying the other side and preventing them from prepping. In recent tournaments I have seen a rise in the inability of a team to produce a requested card QUICKLY. I will give you a couple of minutes at most then we will move on and your evidence likely will be dropped from the flow. The point is to have your key cards at the ready, preferably in PDF form. I have also seen a recent increase in badly misconstrued data or horrifically out of date data. The rules say full citation plus the date must be given. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.

The bottom line is: Use your well-organized data and logic to win the debate, not cynical tactics aimed at distraction or clock dominance.

Yes, I am a parent judge, yet travelled with my son's team for three years and judged at every tournament. I want you to convince me with your arguments, not with a bunch of PF lingo.  I do not like speed for speeds sake, as I can't flow. If I can't understand what is coming out of your mouth, I can't follow you. If I can't follow you,  I can't vote for you. I originally came from a speech background, I care about speaking technique. Quality of argument over quantity. 

Be clear:

Public Forum's roots are based in "one" going before the general public, persons of diverse education, intellect and knowledge.  I expect the presentation of your arguments to reflect that. Please don't dumb down because I am a "parent" judge.

Be clean: Please do not play dirty, the world is dirty enough. Be clean.

Be respectful: In crossfire, don't get muddled in stupid arguments, use them intelligently to undue the other side. Please do not be rude or condescending.  There is no room for that.

Use:

Your constructives to set me up for your arguments - build your case, tell me the story.

Your rebuttals to give me reason to disagree with your opponent. Don't just attack, you need to defend.

Your summaries to clean up anything vague or muddled. 

Your final focus to make me vote for you. 

Thank you!

Updated for 2018 TOC

Public Forum Paradigm for 2018 TOC

First thing to know about me, I am a lay public forum judge. I have judged around the circuit, but I emphasize to you, I am a lay PF judge. I am judging for Bronx Science.

I like delivery that is slow, tasteful, and artful. I prefer big picture analysis over a highly technical line-by-line approach. The role of the final focus should be to tell me who is winning the round clearly and concisely--narrative speeches are preferred. Extension is very important to me, and I will not take well to teams that extend through ink.

With that being said, ink will be limited. During speeches, I like to sit back and listen. Persuasion is very important to me, and for that reason, I value understanding your arguments over following them on the flow, and will take limited notes. I am not aware of arguments regarding topicality or kritiks, and plans are illegal in Public Forum, so I will not vote for them.

I tend to value style and argument equally, as both are very important. I will always vote for the team with the clearest arguments and delivery at the end of the round. I do not care much for how you structure your speeches, but all arguments that you expect to win on have to be in both summary and final focus--not grand crossfire. A second speaking team is not expected to cover their own case in rebuttal.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:


To preface my paradigm, I have very limited LD judging experience. That said, you may want to strike me. If you are a brave soul and have decided not to strike me, or are considering preffing me more highly in the pool, here are what I expect to be my judging preferences as a new LD judge:

• NO SPREADING. I don’t have problems with it on principle. I just won’t understand you. If you are going too fast (spreading or not), I will simply stop flowing.
• If you are debating in front of me, I might not understand the nuances of the more complex frameworks. If you decide you don’t care and read a complicated framework in front of me, you should be using cross-x and your later speeches to make it as clear as possible for me. If I can’t understand it, I won’t vote on it.
• As someone who has more public forum and congressional debate judging experience, I appreciate good public speaking skills and a strong sense of ethos in round. I will reward these qualities with higher speaker points.
• Please be respectful. There is a big difference between being funny in round, and being rude/hostile. Debate is an educational activity, which requires a level of respect between competitors.
• Finally, to reiterate- I AM AN INEXPERIENCED LD JUDGE. Do not run your Ks, Plans, Counterplans, Disads, T-interps, or run theory arguments in front of me. I will not know how to evaluate these types of arguments. I will probably just be confused.

I guess in general I’ll say the following: You can think of me as an extremely ‘lay” judge. If I cannot understand an argument, I will not vote on it.

Meredith Flynn-Ripley is  CEO and Co-Founder of HeyWire, the leading conversational texting company that's transforming how businesses connect with their customers for higher engagement, sales and support.  HeyWire is powering major Fortune1000 brands on the Salesforce platform, adding text to existing business phone numbers and enabling intelligent mobile messasging for smarter business.  

Meredith is an accomplished mobile and broadband executive, bringing over 20 years of experience launching ground-breaking technologies and growing successful businesses.

Previously, Meredith was CEO of Stargus (acquired by ARRIS), and Into Networks (acquired by Softricity then Microsoft). Before joining the entrepreneurial world, she was a founding member of the RoadRunner joint venture between Time Warner, MediaOne and Microsoft. Meredith started her career at Ogilvy & Mather Interactive, rising to VP Account Director for the Interactive division.

Meredith is the parent of a Novice Debater and a Lay Judge. 

Flow Judge - If it is not on my flow it does not exist in the round.

Speed is fine. Enjoy technically proficient debaters. Poor time allocation is a pet peeve of mine.

Will doc speakers for uncivil/ungracious opponents.

Coach (LD/PF)

Former LD/Policy/PF Debater

My paradigm is pretty simple; answer these three questions:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh.

In addition, I strongly favor teams that provide a clear narrative, one that is usually anchored in a clear framework that defined key terms and concepts fairly.

I’ll get right to the point.

Don’t spread.

I have six years of experience judging in Public Forum Debate as a parent.  I do keep track of contentions and their responses, though my ability is limited by the speed at which you speak.  I want you to take special care about being crystal clear when saying the first sentence of each contention.  I am a fan of signposting.  If I am keeping time, don’t ask me for X seconds.  Tell me when to start or stop.

There are only three ways you can lose a round with me judging.

1: Believe it or not you can be out debated. J

2: You speak too fast for me to flow.

3: You are extremely rude to your opponents. 

My judging style is as follows:

I don’t judge just off lives impacts or random pieces of evidence. I want you to tell me a story and be compelling with your arguments. That’s the whole point of Public Forum. 

Note on rudeness: If you are somewhat rude to your opponents, I will most definitely dock speaker points, but will still listen to your arguments. If I believe you cross the line, I will immediately drop you.

I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.

MAIN STUFF

I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice.

Here's how I make decisions

1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.)

2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW

3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches

I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.

SPEAKING PREFS

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants )

Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time, I only need to know where you're starting.

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh.

I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.

Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

Reading tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.

Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure.

Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. Track each other’s prep.

Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable.

PROG STUFF

Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership

I'm the coach at Boston Latin School, and I've been coaching at the high school and college level for about the last 15 years. I've done most forms of debate at one time or another, including Policy, Parli, LD, and even Congress and Worlds. I'm generally fairly well versed in the topic area, but it doesn't hurt to define unusual acronyms the first time you use them. Also, just because I can follow technical debate it doesn't mean that you need to be a spewtron with a million cards to impress me. Especially in PF I tend to appreciate a slower, more well reasoned case over a ton of carded claims any day.

Specific things to know for me as a judge:

1. Be honest about the flow and extend arguments by tag, not by citation. I like to think I can generally flow decently well. Repeatedly telling me your opponents dropped something that they actually had multiple responses to it tends to annoy me and degrade your credibility (and speaker points) pretty quickly. That said - don't assume I've snagged every card citation you blitzed in your constructive. When you extend carded arguments, extend via the tag - not via the citation. Even if I do have the cite for that specific card it's going to take me longer to find it that way and while I'm doing that I'm paying less attention to what you're saying.

2. Don't be a [jerk]. I don't generally flow CX, though I do listen and may jot down relevant things. DON'T BE A JERK IN CX (or elsewhere). Like many people, I tend to have a bit of a subconscious bias to see kinder and more respectful people as more reasonable and more likely to be correct. So even if you're not interested in kindness for its own sake (which I hope you would be), consider it a competitively useful trait to develop if you're stuck with me as a judge : )

3. Warrants really matter. I generally care much more about warrants than I do about citations. That means that putting a citation behind a claim without actually explaining why it makes logical sense won't do you a ton of good. There are a fair number of teams that cut cards for claims rather than the warranting behind them, and that practice won't go very far against any opponent who can explain the logical problems behind your assertion.

4. Extend Offense in Summary, Defense extensions are optional there. What it says. Any offense that isn't in the Summary generally doesn't exist for me in the Final Focus. Extending your offense though ink also doesn't do much - make sure to answer the rebuttal args against whatever offense you want to carry though. On the flip-side, If you have a really important defensive argument from Rebuttal that you want to hi-light, it certainly doesn't hurt to flag that in the Summary, though I will assume those arguments are still live unless they're responded to by your opponents

5. Explicitly weigh impacts. Every judge always tells you to weigh stuff, and I'll do the same, but what I mean specifically is: "tell me why the arguments you win are more important than the arguments you might lose." At the end of the vast majority of rounds each side is winning some stuff. If you don't directly compare the issues that are still alive at the end of the round, you force me to do it, and that means you lose a lot of control over the outcome. As a follow up (especially as the first speaker) make sure to compare your impacts against the best impacts they could reasonably claim, not the weakest.

6. Collapse down. I respect strategic concession - make choices and focus on where you're most likely to win. By the Summary you should have an idea where you're likely to win and where you're likely to lose. If you try to go for everything in the last two speeches you are unlikely to have enough explanation on anything to be persuasive.

If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to ask.

Good luck, have fun, and learn things.