I have judged a few PF tournaments in last 4 years. I prefer traditional styled debates at an average speed. The debate should involve polished presentation skills, good contrast in the arguments, and an emphasis on evidence. I value a good balance between presentation and content. Also, be respectful to your opponents and your partner!

PF: I did PF for the last year and a half in high school. I am okay with any argument as long as you warrant it. I won't do any work for you so be clean with your extensions and weigh for me. 

LD: I did LD for the first 2 and a half years in high school. I am okay with any argument as long as you sufficiently warrant it. I won't down you for running any argument, I try to be as Tab as I can. If it comes down to it I evaluate framework over contention level debate. That being said just because you win framework doesn't mean you automatically win the round. 

Speed: Don't spread. 

I debated PF my senior year and competed at numerous local and national tournaments, and I've judged in the past. I'm only gonna vote on things that are extened through both summary and FF. Also, make sure you weigh things for me in order to make it clear why I should vote you up.

• I debated Policy in high school, have a degree in economics, a JD and post-graduate studies in Public Policy.   My son has debated Public Forum for the past 7 years.  I have judged PF for the past several years (and judged LD once at the NJFLs).  

• I flow, can handle moderate speed -- if you spread, you will lose me.  

• I try hard to come into the round tabula rasa -- I make no assumptions and carry no preconceieved notions about the resolution into how I view and judge the round.  Even if it is the last tournament on a resoution, and even if I have judged multiple rounds on the topic, I will try to judge your round as though I know no more about the topic than the typical well-informed, reasonably engaged citizen.

• If you are organized (signposts, etc.) I will absorb more of what you are saying. 

• Debates that center on framework are not my favorite -- if you rely on a lot of framework arguments, explain why those matter more than the contentions and impacts in the round.

• I don't flow cross-fire.  If you gain something useful in cx, bring it into your summary/final focus -- raise arguments/responses in final focus without mentioning them in summary at your peril.  

• Evidence is always good -- better even better when paired with sound logic. Explain why the evidence supports your argument, why your evidence is better than your opponent's evidence, and why your evidence supports your impacts.  

• Clash encouraged, logical explanations expected, respect of your opponents demanded.  

Public Forum paradigm

I now coach speech, but I have also coached Congress and have judged PF and LD for the past 15 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t (or don't).

I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.

Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.

Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.

I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.

And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.

Lincoln Douglas paradigm

Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?

I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.

Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.

Congress paradigm

Congress rankings are based on content (structure, evidence, clarity, analysis, clash) and delivery (articulation, fluency, vocal and physical expression, confidence/poise). Most importantly who advanced the debate and contributed the most through the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of his/her/their speeches and questions?

Civility, courtesy, and respect apply here as well.

I competed on the American Parliamentary Debate circuit for Amherst College from 2011-2015. I currently am a full-time coach for SpeakFirst in Birmingham, AL, where I teach Public Forum debate.

My main preference is for a very respectful debate. I do not appreciate rudeness or hostility during crossfire, and not allowing the other team sufficient time to ask questions will negatively impact speaking scores. I will not accept racist/sexist/homophobic/classist arguments, including arguments with racist/sexist/homophobic/classist undertones or implications (ex. “racial profiling is ultimately effective”). 

With these exceptions, I am receptive to most arguments, as long as the significance of the argument is explained in the round. When weighing arguments, I prefer arguments that have been effectively impacted and linked to both the resolution and other aspects of the case. I will also give more weight to effectively warranted arguments, whether the warrant be evidence based or philosophical. 

Please also avoid narrating the round to me. By this I mean— do not tell me that I can “cross that off the flow” or that a certain argument flows to your side of the round. If you absolutely feel compelled to do this, give me an explanation as to why the argument is irrelevant or should flow to you. I often feel like statements like this are an excuse for poor argumentation and a lack of clash, so either avoid them all together or avoid arguing them poorly. 

I don’t mind spreading, provided I can still understand what you are saying. 

Background: I debated policy, PF, and extemp at the Woodlands, TX on Houston local circuit. also picked up a few things following my best friend Abbey Chapman around on LD nat circuit for three years. Graduated from The Woodlands in 2015 and attended Loyola and University of Houston. I will be at Tulane in the spring. If you have any questions I didn't address below, please ask me before the round or at cchris3@tulane.edu

LD

Ks/skep/theory/fw/plans/cp/da etc-
theory, k's, fw, plans etc are fine as long as they aren't super dense, but please keep in mind that running super technical and convoluted positions in front of me would not be strategic. if you're going to read theory, i default to a question of competing interps.

PF/LD

speed

-speed is fine

-fine with speed in PF only if your opponents are ok with it

-try your best to be articulate; I will yell "clear" 2x before I dock speaks

-if you see me not flowing and just staring at you then I don't know what you're saying and you should probably slow down

-slow down on author names, tag lines, and technical positions. 

misc

-be very clear and tell me where to vote

-weigh your impacts well 

-please keep your own time

-debate however is most comfortable for you

- don't tell me extinction, oppression etc is good i wont vote on it 

-if you read a position that is potentially triggering please give trigger warnings. if you're not completely sure what you're reading necessitates a trigger warning just give one anyway. if someone in the room has an objection to your position the expectation is that the debater won't read that position and adjust accordingly. if you read a triggering position and don't give trigger warnings, I will dock speaker points and we both won't be happy 

-i will drop u immediately if you're racist/sexist/homophobic/ in round

-i will tank ur speaks if you're clearly a more experienced debater mercilessly destroying a novice in round. no one likes to watch that. do not be that person who is spreading and reading 5 theory shells against a novice debater. im also probably not the judge u should be reading a lot of theory in front of anyways. If your opponent seems utterly lost in cx please try to continue to engage as much as possible. The worst rounds for me to sit in front of are rounds with no clash

I'm an international teacher and former debate coach.

6 years judging at local, regional, and national tournaments

General: I'm a traditional judge. I like to evaluate stock level issues of the topic. Just make very clear weighing arguments and argument interaction. Please do not read any off position cases that are adapted from policy debate.

Speed: Please don’t spread. Moderate speed is okay, but I will not tell you clear. If I miss an argument, that is on you. So be conscious about your speed.

Specifics:

PF: I prefer to judge this style of debate. What was said above basically applies here. I will vote on offense with the best impact weighing.

LD: I will vote on the offense to the winning framework. Generic frameworks i will understand (ex: Util/Structural Violence. Remember, STOCK. So no progressive arguments like K’s. Plans/CP and DA i am ok with. General above applies here as well

Speaking:

Clarity and Speed are my two biggest concerns. Speak clearly and definitely do not spread.

Argument:

Basic style - Claim, Warrant, Impact. Make sure to evaluate impacts on both sides of the debate. A comparative debate with clash between arguments makes it easy for me to determine who won the round.

Etiquette:

Respect your opponent.

Katelyn Dodd, Vanderbilt University, Class of 2015

I coordinate a middle school debate league, but am relatively new to judging high school PF debate. Please no spreading. I appreciate well-organized and warranted arguments.

Procedurals:

 T-I have no artificial threshold on topicality. I will vote on abuse. Typically, cross x checks back on T.

 Ks-framwork is paramount and the alternative. Please do not run "Vote Neg" as the sole alternative. There

      should be more thought on the alt.

 Speed. I have a high school and college policy background. I coached CEDA from 93-00 and coach NPDA, parli style

  from 01-present

  Counterplans--PICS are fine. Agent CPS are fine. In the end, I am tabula rasa and will default to impact calc to resolve plan debate

  Das--uniqueness is key. Internal links are important. Please watch double turning yourself in the 2AC. I do not like performative contradictions and will vote against them

 Performance/Project-I am progressive and liberal here. Run it and defend it. If you are on the other side, debate it straight up. A counter-performance is a legit strategy.

Have fun. I dislike rude debaters. I will vote on language abuse if a team calls it (ex: sexist, racist, etc lang)

I did PF throughout high school and judged throughout college. I was also on the coaching side for a couple of years.

I’m open to most arguments as long as they are warranted, but it’s up to you to weigh and extend. I will not accept racist/sexist/homophobic/classist arguments, including arguments with racist/sexist/homophobic/classist undertones or implications, no matter how much evidence you think you have.

I don’t mind spreading, but keep it to a minimum. It doesn’t matter how fast you speak if I can’t understand what you’re saying. I’ll let you know if you’re going too fast. Line-by-line analysis isn’t required, but do signpost and road-map. You will need to extend your arguments throughout the round, I won’t do the work for you.

In your final focus and summary you should focus on warrant analysis and argument resolution.

Worlds- One of the original members of the Class of 2014 (the first generation) of USA Debate. I have judged and taught worlds before so I am fairly experienced in the format. What I mainly look for is clarity and engagement. The clear explanations of arguments are key in any form of persuasive argumentation. As for engagement, I want to see debaters engage with all ideas and arg presented in a debate, not simply repeat their analysis in hopes that I magically forget about the opposing side.

PF- 3yr PF debater and 9-year instructor at HDCSW. I look for impact calculus. Tell me the impact of your arg and what it means in the real world. Then tell me why that matters more than your opponents. While that may sound simple many debaters think that simply saying " ours is more important" is a convincing weighing mechanism. I'm fine with speed but a warning: You should be gauging your clarity when speaking fast, if I don't understand you then it will be hard for me to flow. This is all up to your discernment.

I did LD debate for three years, served as an assistant LD coach for 5 years, and have coached LD and PF debate as a head coach for 6 years. I have coached and judged on the national LD and PF circuits, including coaching numerous TOC qualified debaters in both LD and PF and judging at both TOC and NSDA Nationals multiple times.

GENERALLY

I will look for the easiest way to evaluate the round. In general, I will determine the round based upon the standard in LD or any framework in PF. You should link explicitly and clearly back to the standard/framework for me to weigh your offense. I will typically vote on whatever argument is clearest and allows me to do the least amount of work. If you use a different type of framework, please make sure to explain the decision calculus you prefer me to use. Weighing analysis is crucial.

SPECIFICALLY

PF PARADIGM:

Arguments you want me to vote for must be consistently extended and present in both summary and final focus. Dropped arguments are dropped. Please focus on clear weighing and argument interaction to allow for a cleaner decision.

LD PARADIGM:

It’s probably best not to run Ks or other alternative forms of argumentation in front of me. I’m not theoretically opposed to voting for such arguments (and have voted for debaters running such arguments), but I will not do any work for you and you will need to clearly win at every step of the link chain.

I will not flow new arguments in the 2AR. I will not vote on warrants fabricated later in round for in case assertions.

It has been some time since I have judged consistently on the national circuit. I am fine with some speed, but likely can no longer handle elite circuit speed. If I cannot understand you, I will say “slow,” “clear,” or “louder” as necessary.

THEORY

I have decided to use the power of the ballot to curb certain theory trends in debate or, at the least, to avoid having to listen to certain types of arguments.

I will not vote on theory which alleges abuse that I do not consider unfair or uneducational. If you run theory in front of me you must run it to rectify real abuse in the round, not for strategic purposes. If you run theory for strategic purposes and ask me to drop an argument or a debater for practices which I do not consider unfair or uneducational, I will vote you down. Even if you are winning on the flow, I will vote against you for running theory needlessly.

What constitutes real abuse in a round is my decision as it concerns my ballot. Practices which constitute real abuse in my opinion include (but are not limited to): abusive remarks (racism, sexism, sexual harassment, etc.), positions which exclude the other side from accessing ground under the resolution, positions which severely and unfairly limit ground, unethical practices (lying, purposely miscutting cards, other intentional misrepresentation, etc.), and other unfair or uneducational practices. Practices which do not constitute real abuse in my opinion include (but are not limited to): having to adapt to an unprepared strategy, having to kick one’s own arguments to win on your opponent’s side of the flow, arguments which appeal to structural issues in the activity (side skews, time skews, etc.), and any other practices which I consider to be consistent with the educational goals and fair parameters of debate.

Note: I have already been asked how this paradigm interacts with so-called AFC/parametricization etc. I originally thought I would permit such arguments to be made so long as they were not extended and used in the round. However, to be more consistent with the aims of this new approach, I believe it is better to discourage the reading of these and similar arguments altogether. Therefore, I will vote down debaters who run these arguments in case.

It is still possible to win on theory in front of me. However, you must meet the above guidelines. Your theory must be in response to something that I believe is truly abusive in the round. If the issue is borderline and you think you can convince me that the practice is abusive, I will hear you out and will not vote you down for attempting to go for theory. In such a case I would evaluate the debate normally, determining who wins on theory and other arguments in the round. If an abusive practice does occur in round and you decide to run theory, please note that I don’t think theory is an inherent voting issue in the round, so you will need to clearly explain to me why theory is a voter if you want me to vote on it. You will need to explain thoroughly and clearly how the violation constitutes abuse in the round and I will not make inherent links for you.

Please take this theory paradigm seriously. I will not tolerate the running of theory for strategic, trivial, or other reasons, except to combat what I consider to be real abuse. I will drop you and drop you immediately. You will receive the lowest speaker points I can convince myself to give you.

If both debaters violate my preferences regarding theory, I will drop the debater who violates the paradigm more egregiously. I will make that determination and will not listen to arguments made by debaters in round that one has violated my paradigm worse than the other. Both debaters will receive low speaker points as well. If this situation occurs at a tournament which somehow allows double losses, both debaters will receive a loss.

If I drop you on theory for the above reasons, it is not because I dislike you or because you are a bad debater or any other reason except that you ran theory in a manner that I explicitly do not wish to see in rounds any more. I have changed my paradigm to respond to the prevalence of theory arguments of this type, which I consider to be bad for debate for a variety of reasons.

If you have any questions, please ask me before the round.

History: I did PF debate during highschool, debated in the GA circuit and went to many National Circuit tournaments. I have been judging PF for a while now. I have been off the circuit for a little while though, and may not be knowledgeable about recent developments within the last year in regards to PF.

How I evaluate the round: I expect you to extend your arguments throughout the whole round. This means offense from the rebuttal needs to be extended through the Summary and Final Focus for it to be weighed in the round. I also do not like it when teams bring up something from rebuttal in the final focus without extending it through summary (called extending through ink), doing this will likely result in the argument being dropped off my flow.

Argumentation: I expect all arguments to be properly warranted and impacted with supportive evidence to go with it. However, don't just speak off cards.

If you want the argument to be important, then make sure I know that it is important.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM

Please do not spread. PF came into existence because the NSDA wanted to introduce an event that tackled policy issues WITHOUT the spreading, heavy jargon, and theory of Policy or LD; I do expect that you abide by that standard. (Obviously, you don't have to debate like a 2002 PFer, but be mindful of this.) We have policy for a reason; if you want to build excessively long link chains and speak about five times faster than I can type my flow, that's your prerogative, but you won't get my ballot.

Be mindful as well of judge preferences. I typically judge/coach Congress, and competed in Congress throughout high school (I also competed in LD and Extemp, but Congress was what I spent my most time on). You may be in a round with a flow judge panel - adapt to them, but if you're in a round with parent judges, adapt to them too. I won't penalize you for this, but make our ballot easy to write - if you don't, it's your fault.

Some important things to note:

• Please weigh arguments for me. The best single thing you can do to win my ballot would be to give me a really clear final focus that basically writes my RFD for me.  Make the judge's job easy.
• If your evidence looks sketchy and the tournament permits, I will call for evidence if it sounds sketchy. Please don't cite a think-piece from Vox or WaPo as empirics; opinions ≠ facts.
• Let me repeat: WEIGH ARGUMENTS. If you have evidence that shows a benefit in one way, and your opponents have evidence that contradicts it, BE CLEAR about why your evidence is better. Don't just expect me to flow it through.
• When referencing a card you've previously mentioned in the debate, try to give me more than just the author name.
• Be clear about your framework, and why it's better than your opponents'. 
• If a speech goes by without responding to your opponents' rebuttal of your argument, I will consider your argument dropped.
• Avoid abusive frameworks that put an unreasonable burden on your opponents.

Good luck.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE PARADIGM

Based on the paradigm of Joe Bruner, which was in turn based on the paradigm of Reilly Hartigan...

Firstly, you are always welcome to come up to me after the round to ask how you did. I can't write as fast as I want to, and tournaments don't let me type critiques, so my comments on the ballot will always be more succinct than I'd like. I like helping people do well.

Here are some of the things I look for in round (you should optimally include all of them in your speech):

Clash: Don't just give me your argument - INTERACT with the round. Explain why your argument refutes another argument. Pre-empt other arguments if you're the first constructive. This isn't a speech event, it's a debate event, so debate. That means responding to people. 

There are three key ways to clash:

1. Pre-empting. In early speeches, you don't have much to refute, since the debate hasn't really fully happened yet - so bring up possible stock arguments from the other side and refute them if you can. You don't have to do this, but it gets debate going, and it actually helps you; as everyone else refutes you again and again throughout the rest of the round, you get tons of name ID and I remember you when I'm ranking my ballot. 
2. Refutation. This is simple - I expect refutation from the first negative speech onward (if you do not refute anything and have abundant opportunities to, your speech is pointless to me). When refuting, identify the original claim and the speaker(s) who said it; make a counter-claim that contradicts them; explain why your counter-claim is true using evidence or strong logic; then, and this is the important part, impact it to the round, explaining why your refutation MATTERS. 
3. Synthesis/Crystallization. Sometimes you get horrible precedence and all your arguments get taken (I've been there, I know the feeling); however, that doesn't mean you can't contribute to debate. Giving me a good crystallization speech is 1) impressive, because being able to summarize the whole debate and break it into voting issues isn't easy, and it is 2) helpful, because I'm trying to rank people and probably didn't flow the round - if you help me write my ballot, I might just put you on the shortlist for a high rank. Try to include at least one constructive argument, though, or at least some new information. If you don't, it won't hurt you much, but it doesn't help.

Evidence: At absolute minimum, I expect to hear two rock-solid pieces of evidence per speech. That's probably too low. Six sources in a speech? Probably too high. Don't just rattle off a bunch of data points - spend time explaining them, and paraphrase them. Remember, I'm judging a round for hours and hours at a time, and I'm really tired - if you give me a ton of complex data, it's going in one ear and out the other and you might not get the best rank. If you take your evidence, break it down, and explain it clearly to me, then you'll keep my attention (and a high rank). Also, cite good sources - I want to hear a Harvard study, or a GAO report, not a blog entry from the Huffington Post or TheBlaze. Lastly, be mindful of the bias that certain think tanks have - I'm not going to rank you down because you cite the Heritage Foundation (conservative) or the Center for American Progress (liberal), but if you just give me evidence that says "the Heritage foundation said X" and don't convince me of the logic of the point, I will not buy your evidence by default. So if the debate's on the impact of minimum wage increases, and you cite a Heritage study or a CAP study that says minimum wage hikes suppress/increase jobs, that is not enough; explain to me WHY that will happen, and then give me the study.

Analysis: This is key. Always convince me WHY your argument is correct. Show me you've investigated the issue thoroughly and know a lot about it. Keep your analysis succinct and to the point; keep it simple, stupid. I will rank up a debater who has better analysis over a debater who has better evidence.

Organization: I have a few pet peeves... avoid three-contention speeches, they leave you with too little time to elaborate on each point; don't formally roadmap your speech, it just wastes time; have clear logical transitions between points; have an overall THEME to your speech, it'll help me remember who you are as a debater when I'm ranking you. Remember that your introduction, impacts and conclusion are opportunities to grab my attention and tell me who you are; for example, as an Ohioan debater, I'd frequently use intros lampooning my Midwestern roots or go on diatribes about how "this Congress needs to do its job, the job the people sent us here to do" or how "my district knows the value of a dollar." It was corny, yeah, but it set me apart. Set yourself apart.

Delivery: Delivery is VERY important to me. I value solid, clear, engaging delivery as a prerequisite for evaluating the content of your arguments. If your speech is just all one-liners and fluff, no, I'm not ranking you, but if you're missing good delivery, I'm probably not ranking you highly. You don't have to be funny (though if you can, please do - think about it, I've been judging this for hours, help); you can bring anger, sadness, joy, all sorts of emotions into your delivery. KEEP ME HOOKED, AND KEEP ME GUESSING. Make it so when you end your speech, I'm mentally thinking "Wow! Oh my... where do I put you on my ballot?" instead of "ok... next." One tip about this is to look at your fellow competitors - has it been a really angry round? Try humor! Has it been a really boring, soft round? Try loudness! Has it been a really fast-paced flow debate? Slow down and give me persuasive impacts. Find the thing everyone else hasn't been doing, and set yourself apart by doing that. Showing me that you are capable of multiple emotional speech types (funny/solemn/angry) might just lead to a higher rank.

And, now, a section copied verbatim from the paradigm of Joe Bruner from Ardrey Kell HS:

"A SPECIAL AND IMPORTANT NOTE: I know many Congressional debaters who are women and/or minorities are sometimes held to a frustrating double standard on many delivery and presentation issues. If you are afraid of being highly aggressive due to being perceived as *y, catty, or intimidating in comparison to white male debaters doing the same thing, you do not need to worry about that in front of me. You also do not need to worry about your use of humor causing you to be perceived as not taking the event seriously. And honestly, I really don't give a shit if you wear dark/reserved colors, pantyhose, or a pearl necklace. Wear whatever you like yourself in."

Could not agree more.

Attitude: Please be respectful to your fellow competitors. You can be angry as hell in a speech, or even somewhat mocking, that's fine... but when the round ends, it ends. It's over. That's it. Done. No arguments, please. And it goes without saying that making sexist/racist/homophobic/etc etc comments about another debater, even out of the round, is out of bounds. 

A quick note on internet use... Kinda oxymoronic, because unless the tournament permits it, you cannot use internet in round. When I competed, I knew a few people who used the internet during a round to get notes from their coach, or check a fact. I hated that when I competed, and I don't want to see it in any round I judge. If you have a webpage open on your web browser but have wifi turned off, I may ask to check your laptop after the session concludes, but just save your articles as PDFs to avoid the trouble. 

Extemporaneous Speaking: Show me that you've adapted to the round. If you walk in with a speech and just read it verbatim, that's not very impressive. (And if you're going to read off your paper, don't make it obvious that you're doing so. Make it seem natural and extemporaneous.) I definitely give higher ranks to people who I see adapting in round; for example, if you get screwed on recency and you prep a speech on the other side in five minutes because it's all you can give, and the speech is decent, I'm going to think "wow! This person was prepared! I should rank him/her up!".

Questions: I'm not going to give you too many tips on this; questioning is your time to build your narrative as a debater, poke holes in opponents' arguments, and remind me that you exist in a chamber of 20 people (I normally rank towards the end of the session, so if you gave early speeches, concentrating your questions towards the end is always a plus). If you screw up answering questions as a speaker, I will hold that against you when I rank. If you nail answering questions as a speaker, I might not rank you up because of that alone, but that does make a difference.

When direct questioning (30 sec back-and-forth) is in effect, questioning becomes a big factor in my rankings. You should demonstrate that you have knowledge of the subject and aim to poke a serious hole in your opponent's argument; if you pull off a really awesome line of questioning that forces the speaker to concede a point, you bet I'm marking that down as a reason to rank up your ballot.

Amendments: This is one place where I'm different than some judges - I love amendments, and if you make good strategic ones, I will consider that in whether or not I improve your rank. Amendments don't need to be linked to your speech specifically, as they can just show that you're the "best legislator" - if there's an argument that just keeps coming up on neg about the semantics of the bill, for example, proposing an amendment to correct the line of the bill with the semantic issue is a great use of an amendment. And, if the chamber shoots your amendment down, all the better - you can then shame them for it in your speech/questions.

And finally, Presiding: Unless you decided to preside 'for the good of the chamber', I expect quite a lot from presiding officers.

You must be QUICK, ACCURATE, COMMANDING, KNOWLEDGEABLE, and FAIR. Know your parliamentary procedure and the tournament rules; have a gavel ready; have printouts of both parli procedure and the tournament rules to refer to if necessary. You can absolutely defer to the parli on things, but make sure I can see that you have it all under control. If you make a mistake on precedence/recency, I will consider giving you a low rank. If you make two mistakes on precedence/recency, I will strongly consider giving you a low rank. If you make a serious error (calling up the wrong speaker and not catching it immediately, taking a very long pause to correct an error, calling the wrong questioners, disputing a valid point of order), I will rank you low. Some people think they can 'coast' through prelims by presiding; I think presiding is both an honor and a significant responsibility, and it should be treated as such.

Experience/Background: I coached at Columbus HS from 2013-2021, primarily Public Forum, and now coach at Carrollton HS (2021-present). I did not debate in high school or college, but I have been coaching and judging PF, a little LD, and IEs since 2013, both locally (Georgia) and on the national circuit, including TOC and NSDA Nationals. I spent several years (2017-2022) as a senior staff member with Summit Debate and previously led labs at Emory (2016-2019).

Judging Preferences:

If you have specific questions about me as a judge that are not answered below (or need clarification), please feel free to ask them. Some general guidelines and answers to frequently asked questions are below:

1. Speed: I can flow a reasonably fast speed when I'm at the top of my game, but I am human. If it's late in the day/tournament, I am likely tired, and my capacity for speed drops accordingly. I will not be offended if you ask me about this before the round. For online rounds, I prefer that you speak at a more moderate speed. I will tell you "clear" if I need you to slow down. If I am flowing on paper, you should err on the slower side of speed than if I am flowing on my laptop.

2. Signposting and Roadmaps: Signposting is good. Please do it. It makes my job easier. Off-time roadmaps aren't really needed if you're just going "their case, our case", but do give a roadmap if there's a more complex structure to your speech.

3. Consistency of Arguments/Making Decisions: Anything you expect me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Defense is not "sticky" -- meaning you cannot extend it from rebuttal to final focus. Please weigh. I love voters in summary, but I am fine if you do a line-by-line summary.

4. Prep (in-round and pre-round): Please pre-flow before you enter the round. Monitor your own prep time. If you and your opponents want to time each other to keep yourselves honest, go for it. Do not steal prep time - if you have called for a card and your opponents are looking for it, you should not be writing/prepping unless you are also running your prep time. (If a tournament has specific rules that state otherwise, I will defer to tournament policy.) On that note, have your evidence ready. It should not take you longer than 20-30 seconds to pull up a piece of evidence when asked. If you delay the round by taking forever to find a card, your speaker points will probably reflect it.

5. Overviews in second rebuttal: In general, I think a short observation or weighing mechanism is probably more okay than a full-fledged contention that you're trying to sneak in as an "overview". Tread lightly.

6. Frontlines: Second speaking team should answer turns and frontline in rebuttal. I don't need a 2-2 split, but I do think you need to address the speech that preceded yours.

7. Theory, Kritiks, and Progressive Arguments: I prefer not judging theory debates. Strongly prefer not judging theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument. If you are using theory/Ks/etc. in a way intended to overwhelm/intimidate an opponent who has no idea what's going on, I am not going to respond well to that.

8. Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If it comes up in cross and you expect it to serve a role in my decision-making process, I expect you to bring it up in a later speech.

9. Speaker points: I basically never give 30s, so you should not expect them from me. My range is usually from 28-29.7.

For my general paradigm, I consider myself tab. There are no arguments I do and don’t like. I will judge the arguments presented in the round and I don’t want to impose my own beliefs or arguments into the round. You have to tell my why the arguments made in the round matter. If you fail to give me a way in which to evaluate the round, I will default to a policy maker. Being a policy maker, I am looking for the negative team to run disadvantages, counter plans, kritiks, and anything else. As a policy maker, I am looking for you to terminalize your impacts. Why specifically is nuclear war bad? Does it kill millions of people? Just saying dehumanization or nuclear war is bad isn’t an impact. I will gladly listen to counter plans, theory arguments and Kritiks. My only advice on the k is to tell me what the role of the ballot is. Why is my ballot key to your alt?

Topicality/Theory

I will vote on T when there is proven abuse. I need to see in-round abuse for me to pull the trigger. I think T is a legitimate tool for a negative team, but I strongly urge the team that goes all in for T to make sure they can prove in-round abuse. If the aff is just failing to make arguments on the T, I will vote for it, but my preference is for in-round abuse to be occurring.

Spikes
I am not a fan of LD 1AC spikes. I honestly don't think that the Aff gets to remove ground from the negative. I don't think these arguments are legitimate. Let the neg make claims and then argue against them. I will tell you now, that I WILL NOT vote on them. I see them as a waste of time for you to run and they are highly abusive. I also rarely vote on RVIs. If you plan on trying to run spikes in the 1AC, I am not the judge for you. I will give the Neg a lot of access to simple arguments to knock down your spikes.

Ethos

I think it is important that you are an ethical and nice person in the debate. It is ok for the round to get heated, but I don't see the need to be rude to your opponent. This will result in a hit to your speaker points.

Speed
I don't have a problem with speed, but make sure that you are clearly telling me your tags. Slow down on the tag if you can. Be clear in your transitions. I like next or and to let me know you are moving from the end of a card to another tagline. The same thing applies to your plan text or alt. Slow down for the plan text/alt or repeat it for me.

T

Do NOT run any sort of Topicality argument just to kick out of it in the block. I will not vote you up if you run T for the purpose of a time suck. But other than that, I will evaluate it if you do end up going for it in the end.   

Procedurals  

Speed: Spreading IS okay, I will want to be on your email chain or if you flash put me in it. 

Card clipping: If you get called out on card clipping I will ask for the evidence and your proof.

Time keeping: Please keep your own time. I will not keep track of your prep time for you.

Prep time: Again, keep your own time. I do not count flashing as prep unless it takes more than a few minutes.

K's 

neg

I am okay with kritiks. If you run high theory you better be able to explain it in the round. If you read one off and K, make the block neat. I will only vote on the K if you can give me an in depth alt debate and be able to explain your link analysis.

aff

If you decide to not read a plan text that is also okay. I will be able to follow you. 

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

I debated in Lincoln-Douglas debate in high school but not extensively. I have judged debate for 14 years. For the last 8 years I have taught AP and US History. I have actively coached speech and debate for the last 5 years and have coached on and off for a total of 10 years. I enjoy, coach, and judge all 3 styles of debate on the circuit.

As far as my preferences go I am extremely laid back and open to any argument. I will entertain a k or any progressive argument--but don't forget the art and skill of communication!I enjoy and appreciate creativity and passion. Please extend every argument in every speech, this is very important to me. I will vote on a T but it doesn't mean I love them. If avoidable please do not let the T dominate the round. I want to see clash so I do not appreciate a "fairness" or "framework" debate if it is avoidable. I appreciate clear voters. Decorum is very important to me and will reflect in speaker points. The reason I do this is because I love it-so show me that you love it too! I want the round to be fun, creative, and educational.

Judging 10 years. Debated Lincoln Douglas style in high school for around three years.

Preferences for a round:

Slower debate based on good arguments with emphasis on clash and solid evidence.

Andrea Sisti

I have teams that participate in Lincoln Douglas, Policy Debate, Public Forum Debate and Congressional Debate.

Public Forum Paradigm:

I enjoy a clearly organized debate. Organization is key to maintain clash throughout the round.

SPEED: From my experience, debaters that card-dump and speed through speeches sacrifice a great deal of clarity and persuasiveness that is the fundamental in nature of Public Forum debate. Typically, the amount of evidence added to the case when spreading through speeches is not worth the sacrifice. I would rather hear fewer contentions and quality arguments over quantity.

Read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution. Also, be sure to provide clear warrants for your impacts. I appreciate big impacts, but it is critical that you flesh out your impacts with strong internal links. Explain and extend and make sure that you emphasize what is most important in the round. Provide clear voters in those final speeches.

Don't be abusive with time. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing. Plan your speeches accordingly. Keep track of your own time as well as your opponent's. You and your opponent are responsible for keeping track of times, including prep.

Make sure that your cards tell the same story as what you are saying. If cards come into question and it's fundamentally important in my decision, I will call for them at the end of the debate. I do value the quality of evidence highly in the round. 1 quality card outweighs 5 poor pieces of evidence.

If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in anyway. Be respectful to your opponent and judge.

Overall, this is your debate so have fun with it and get creative. Best of luck.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

As a Congressional Debate coach, I enjoy rounds with a lot of clash, creative speech structures, fiery speaking, and thoughtful questions. In terms of delivery and argumentation breakdown, I value speeches as a 50/50 split in importance. Delivery and content are equally important in my mind.

I understand you may be hesitant to give speeches early on in the session for lack of clash, but I won't take that into account when ranking. However, as the session progresses, there should always be direct refutation.

Please be passionate in your speeches, but remember decorum and professionalism. Respect your opponents.

Bellaire High School '16

Northwestern University '20

TL/DR: Research and informed comparison/analysis win debates. Attend to details and clash with your opponent.

In General:

I will try to read as little evidence after the round as possible and default to explanations/instructions given by debaters on how to weigh arguments.

I will attempt to be vigilant about rejecting new arguments made in Final Focus or arguments made in Final Focus that were not extended in summary

The final focus and summary should focus on warrant analysis and argument resolution (why your evidence should be preferred, why your impacts outweigh, etc.)

Narrow debates are best - the final focus should usually contain 1-3 arguments against the opponents' case and one clear impact story from case.

Specific Things/Biases:

I am probably more willing to assign zero risk to an impact than most judges, especially if the evidence and analysis supporting such a claim is good. In most cases, however, there is usually at least some risk of both team's impacts (which is why weighing/framework analysis is important.)

In absence of any framework or other meta-level analysis, I default to utilitarian impact calculus.

For theory - For issues other than conditionality, I default to reject the argument, not the team (but can easily be persuaded otherwise.) I default to neither the pro nor con can fiat specific subsets of the resolution (in these instances, you should have evidence saying your interpretation of the resolution is how it would most likely be adopted.) I can be persuaded otherwise.

Arguments/points brought up in crossfire need to be made in the speeches for me to evaluate them.

 If you have any questions, feel free to email sunealvemuri2020@u.northwestern.edu

I debated PF all through high school, coached all through college, and am now coaching at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. My role in the round is to interpret the world you aim to create, and to that end you should tell me explicitly what it is you are trying to do. I stick to the flow as well as I can.

common question answers:

1. Anything that needs to be on the ballot, needs to be in Final Focus, and anything in final needs to be in summary.

2. The first speaking team should be predicting the offense in first summary that needs to be responded to, and putting defense on it then. This ALSO means that the second speaking team has to frontline in the rebuttal. Any arguments/defense that are not in the First Summary are dropped, and any arguments that are not frontlined in the second rebuttal are dropped.

3. Summary to Final Focus consistency is key, especially in terms of the relevance of arguments, if something is going to be a huge deal, it should be so in both speeches. You're better off using your new 3 minute summary to make your link and impact extensions cleaner than you are packing it full of args.

4. I will call for cards that I think are important, and I will throw them out if they are bad or misrepresented, regardless of if they are challenged in the round. sometimes when two arguments are clashing with little to no analysis, this is the only way to settle it.

As a note, I am pretty hard on evidence, especially as sharing docs is becoming more popular. If you are making an argument, and the evidence is explicitly making a different argument, I won't be able to flow your arg.

Speed is fine, but spreading isn't. I'll evaluate critical arguments if they have a solid link, but they have to link to the topic y'all, so they basically have to be a critical disad.

I evaluate theory if it's needed, but I'm really skeptical of how often that is.

Feel free to ask for anything else you need to know.

You should pre-flow before the start time of the round, that will help your speaks!