Former PF debater 2005-2006

Former PF coach 2008-2018

I judge on the flow and strive to intervene as little as possible. In summary and final focus, tell me how your impacts compare to those of your opponent.

Try not to get bogged down in minutiae. I very rarely find myself deciding a round on specific pieces of evidence or framework debates.

Treat your opponents with respect. The fastest way to lose my ballot is to be rude or sexist.

Don't spread. A little speed is fine, but remember that this is a public speaking activity. A member of the public should be able to comprehend your speech.

I will flow and consider non-topical arguments, but I should mention that I do not often find them persuasive.

JUDGING PARADIGM

Franklin Billerbeck

Public Forum

Public Forum is exactly that: a public forum. As a forum conducted in front of the public, the judge’s role is to be that public. The public consists of people of all walks of life, all ages, and all political and religious beliefs. The judge should suspend his or her preconceived notions on the issue and listen to what is presented – while retaining knowledge common to the general public and the knowledge a judge needs to have e.g., the rules governing the debate tournament. The debater ought to assume the public has limited knowledge of the debate topic and little to no knowledge of debate terminology or rules. Speed MUST be that which would be clearly understood by the general public – which would include those who may be slightly hard of hearing. Signposting must be clear (the general public would likely not be taking notes, leave it to be a flow). A clear introduction and conclusion is needed for each speech (and they are timed). Roadmaps (otherwise known as preview statements) are part of a speech introduction and are timed. Overall presentation (both oral and non-verbal) is part of judging just as it is part of public debate – it impacts the speaker’s credibility (ethos). Sources need to be qualified e.g., Smith 2019 gives me no reason to believe the evidence because as far as I know Smith could be your garbage collector who has no technical subject matter expertise. All rounds need to be conducted in a “gentlepersonally” (to be non-sexist) manner. I want to know what the assumptions are, and I listen carefully for clear reasoning devoid of fallacies. Evidence should meet the tag (should does not mean will), and I must consider the likelihood of something happening – yes, the ceiling in the room may fall down and kill us but how likely is that to happen.

Lincoln-Douglas

Delivery should be understood by the average person e.g., the voters (remember the context of the original debates). Your audience is the average voter in the United States. Non-verbal elements of delivery count. Evidence should be qualified and tags must match the evidence. I need to know your assumptions and why I should favor your position over that of your opponent. Rounds should be “gentlepersonally.”

Former Debate Coach at Whitefish Bay High School. I keep a rigorous flow and I will vote for all types of arguments.

I'm listening, but I usually don't add cross examination or crossfire to the flow, so make sure you bring it up in a subsequent speech. Flex prep is fine.

Experience: In high school I competed in PF for 4 years. This is my third year as a judge.

Preferences: I'm a typical PF flow judge. I shouldn't have to think for myself when making a decision. I don't flow cross ex, so make sure to repeat key points in your next speech. I don't find framework to be a necessity for the purposes of PF debate. If you don't state a framework, I'll assume it's a simple cost-benefit analysis. Please time yourselves.

Common Questions: Speed? OK. Off-time road maps? OK. Seating preferences? Nope. Standing preferences? Nope. Wrapping up sentence after times's up? OK.

BACKGROUND

I’ve coached Public Forum debate for 5 years. I debated policy in high school and college, as well as coaching policy at the high school level for a couple of years.

PARADIGM

I’m mostly a tabula rasa judge, therefore the following are only preferences.

ARGUMENT

I flow. Speed isn’t an issue, but you must be clear. I’m suspicious of long link chains. I enjoy theory in debate, but please develop your arguments.

Please don’t make me weigh the argument for you. Telling me that your contention outweighs because you say it does or that you save 30 million lives (when the one card you use says a larger process than your proposal may affect 30 million people) forces me to enter the debate. I don’t want to do that. Thus, I am sensitive to probability arguments.

I like topicality arguments, but few public forum debaters know how to make them because they rarely do. Be careful here.

Over the years, debaters who go line by line as opposed to big argument dumps tend to win more with me.

Extend defense in summary

EVIDENCE

Evidence quality really matters to me. Please don’t overclaim it. I’m sympathetic to evidence indicts and suspicious of evidence summaries.

Do not use ellipses to delete large amounts of evidence. If I think you’ve misinterpreted a card, I will call for it, even if your opponents don’t.

I want to hear the source first, before the evidence. Please be clear as to when the card ends and when you begin.

CROSSFIRE

I don’t flow crossfire and don’t vote on it unless it is accurately presented and developed in speech. As such, I do listen carefully to crossfire.

If you have any additional questions about my judging style or experience I'm open to answering them before rounds start. This paradigm will be cleaned up later, but I hope this is enough information to use for prefs and strikes. If you're like me and wait until the last minute to finish strikes, feel free to jump to the bottom, I tried to summarize my entire paradigm in a couple sentences. For those of you that have time before round or strikes, I recommend reading the entire thing, It'll help you in round.

I have a Public Forum background. I debated PF for 4 years at Brookfield East High School in Wisconsin, and am currently a student at Northwestern University. In high school, I debated on the nat circuit between 3-4 times each year, so I have a decent understanding of how nat circuit tournaments and rounds work. In addition to the nat circuit and local WI circuit, I broke to late elims at NSDA multiple years. Essentially, treat me like any other college student ex-PFer.

My judging style is pretty standard for the nat circuit.

First, make extensions in summary, and those extensions should form the basis of the final focus (don't make new args in FF)

Second, this may just be a personal thing, but for rebuttal, I like to hear the second team come back and defend their own case. If nothing else, I expect the second rebuttal to respond to turns on their case. That's just something I did as a debater, and something I think makes a second rebuttal stronger.

Third, I can handle speed in PF. You can read semi-fast and I'll be able to follow, but obviously, don't spread or you'll lose me. If you ever get too fast for me, I'll look up at you and slow down my writing, and that should be your cue to slow down (I won't ever drop my pen and cross my arms though because I got really annoyed when judges did that to me). This sounds harsh, but it's your loss if I can't flow everything in your case and have trouble connecting the extensions, so keep that in mind when you speak fast. We all miss warrants and impacts occasionally, and I'll try my best to minimize that, but this is just something to consider.

Fourth, keep your speeches organized. I want to flow as much as I can so I have what I need to make an informed decision, but if your summary/rebuttal/FF is randomly jumping back and forth between arguments, it's hard for me to follow.

Fifth, during FF, please please give me voters, and usually just between 1-2. The worst final focuses are ones that turn into a 3rd rebuttal. I tend to vote on 1-2 issues in the round max so crystallize, consolidate, and PLEASE weigh the round in the last two speeches. It makes my job so much easier if you can execute a clean impact calculus for important args. Summaries and FF are meant to have arguments dropped; part of a good summary is knowing which arguments to drop and which to weigh, I won't hold it against you for dropping an arg in the round that neither team is going for. I can explain more about my FF philosophy before the round if you need more info.

Sixth, I don't really care what happens in cross-fire. I only feel the need to say that because I know horror stories of being dropped based on something that happens in cross. Unless your opponent literally concedes their entire position, I won't base my decision on that. Just don't personally attack your opponents during that time and we'll be good. I understand that cross can get heated, I got annoyed as a debater too, so your speaks won't take a big hit if I can tell you're frustrated. Just maintain some professionalism and you'll be fine.

On the topic of speaks, I'm pretty lenient. If you do a good job in the round you don't have to worry, you probably got decent speaks (I'm talking 28.5-29). The most frustrating moment in PF out rounds is to find out you didn't break because one shitty judge gave you awful speaks. I'll try not to be that person. I give 30s to debaters I think killed it and are probably going to do well.

Off-time roadmaps: A lot of judges hate these, but I'm totally cool with them as long as they are <10 secs. Just give me a quick summary of where you'll be going in the speech (i.e aff case then neg case, framework and then down the opponent's case, etc.). It helps me follow along on my flow.

Arguments: I will pretty much buy anything you explain well, extend well, and impact well. Don't make arguments that are logically flawed or impact to the zombie apocalypse (there's a reason you aren't in policy). Basically, don't unreasonably stretch the scope of the resolution and you'll be good.

Evidence: Use a good balance of evidence and logic in your arguments and I will buy it, don't rely too much on one or the other. I'll call for a card under any of these circumstances (if there aren't tournament rules regarding evidence)

1. I think you purposefully miscut a card or it sounds super sketchy.

2. The interpretation of the card changes as the round progresses. If I'm confused as to what the card actually says by the end, I will call for it.

3. The card gets muddled during the round and becomes important towards the end. If the two teams have different interpretations of the same card and it's important to either narrative, I'll call it.

4. There is an evidence challenge.

RFDs: I wasn't a fan of rounds where judges didn't disclose, so I'll at least let both teams know who won and lost. If we have some time, I'll go a bit more in-depth about why I voted the way I did, and answer any questions you may have.

SUMMARY: Ok, if you are reading this part it's probably because you need to make a quick decision on who to strike. Basically, I'm an ex-PFer and college student from Wisconsin, I debated on the nat circuit all 4 years of high school, so I know what nat circuit PF looks like. Make good extensions in summary, use those in FF. I can handle PF speed, but obviously, don't abuse that. Stay organized and give me voters in FF. Treat me as you would pretty much any other ex-PFer.

At the end of the day, just have fun with rounds. This is an activity you chose to do, and you should enjoy the time you have with it.

Background:

Im a judge for West Bend (WI), but have judged for Brookfield East (WI). I was a PF'r in high school @West Bend West (13'-17'). I've judged LD and PF since graduating 2017-2019, 2021- .

General Judging Style:

I care the most about how courteous you are as a debater.

You could be "winning" the round, but if you are rude to your opponent(s) you will not earn my ballot. Debate is meant to mould you into an effective speaker and thinker, not a bully. I am a simple judge, I like a round with meaningful clash, get into the meat of your arguments. I prefer debates that are more substantive than structural, don't dwell on how your opponent debates but rather the what and why of their position.

I LIKE VOTERS, FRAMEWORK, and clear IMPACT calculus. (for both LD and PF, the language changes for each style, but the principle is the same)

LD: Your value (V) should be clear and consistent throughout the round, this is the framework I use to judge the round. Your value criterion(VC) ought to give significant context to your V and should help me measure the significance of your argument. LD should be a social theory based debate paired with real examples and evidence. I like clash, especially withV/VC. Outline why your value achieves the more desirable "world". Weigh opposing evidence and arguments through your VC and tell me the impacts of each side. End the round with voters. AFF(R2) should have no new arguments.

No (counter)plans or kitricks.

PF: Give me a framework to judge the round. I like clash, especially with framework. Outline why you achieve the more desirable "world". Weigh opposing evidence and arguments through your framework and contentions, tell me the impacts of each side. End the round with voters. Summary should collapse the round and close in on the main themes of the debate. Final Focus should be voters.

No (counter)plans.

CROSSFIRE I do not flow cx, but I am listening. If something important happens during cx that you want on my flow, bring it up in your next speech.

FEEDBACK I try my best to give constructive feedback on the ballots. I don't give verbal feedback if the tournament is running behind schedule, but if there is time, please feel free to ask!

Speaking:

SPEED: I only flow what I can hear, diction and emphasis are important. I stop flowing after the timer, unless it's finishing a sentence, or something reasonable. Clear and concise > speed.

SIGN POSTING/ROADMAPPING: Roadmapping is an outline or thesis statement for your next speech. Off-time roadmaps will be allowed if they are quick and helpful.

DO: "Hey judge in this next speech I am going to have 3 attacks against their C1, I am going to weigh out this debate on X vs. X, and I will finish with 4 main points from my case"

DON'T: "I am going to attack their case, and if time allows, defend my own"

In-speech SIGN POSTING is directing me to specific parts of the flow or giving me taglines for arguments/voters.

DEBATE LINGO: Please define slang/abbreviations at the top of your case so I can follow/and am on the same page as you.

EVIDENCE: Please give tag-lines each time you bring up a card, "Miller 2020" loses its meaning over the debate amid all the other evidence if you don't give little reminders in speech. Ex. "Miller 2020, which tells us that X is true".

SPEAKER POINTS: I deduct heavily if debaters are rude to one another; such as arguing outside of the debate, being condescending/aggressive/ or belittling. Just be courteous!

REMEMBER TO HAVE FUN AND BREATHE :)

Nelson, Toni

Clean to the Wisconsin circuit, participated in Drama Debate and Forensics in Anchorage Alaska for all four years of high school (we meld it all together instead of separate seasons). Four years of extemporaneous speaking on domestic, foreign and comm topics. In drama categories I participated in Humurous Interp, Readers theater (1st Place @ state) solo and duo acting. Public Forum debate was introduced my Freshman year and I jumped at the opportunity for the fast pace style debate. I ended up moving the next year to policy debate for a more rigorous and challenging circuit, took 3rd at state with a freshman partner.

Because of my forensics background I place heavy consideration on speaking, clarity, flow, and enunciation, speak as fast as you want, I can keep up, but if you start to slur your words you will lose speaker points and of course lose some of your argument in the process. It bothers me greatly to see teams read fast only to have time in the constructive left. If this is the case, continue to use your time by bullet pointing your case/arguments you just sped read.

Public Forum

Maintain a respectable decorum at all times; not a voting issue but will affect speaker points. Do your best to be clear and courteous to opposing team and team mates, particularly during the grand crossfire.

Good lines of questioning will be given high speaker points. i.e. a cross examination filled with “can you read your card again” or “clarify that line” sort of basic info questions that were already given to you in the constructive will not gain you high speaker points.

Arguments made with supporting evidence are great, but logical arguments will also be heavily considered. Watch for logical fallacies, if the other team doesn't call them out I can't vote against them. No new arguments in the closing speeches, use your 2 minutes to wrap up your key points. Points made during crossfire will be considered for voting, so make sure you are as clear as possible.

I retain the right to ask for any evidence that is presented during the debate from either team. Failure to produce evidence that is used to support an argument will result in a loss for the round. For example, if you quote an article or make a claim from a publication and cite the publication be sure you have it with you. Yes, this really did happen once, a team read a tag line from the "New York Times" to support their argument but was unable to produce the article they had just read for the judge. Do not do this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Policy Debate:

Cross Examination with me is always closed, if you want open CX go to PF.

Teams: Use the CX time to listen to the questions and answers and be prepared to fill any knowledge gaps/questions left by your partner in your next speech. I do not vote on issues raised in CX, so if something important was pulled out during CX you must point it out/ create an argument based on it, in your next speech for me to take it into consideration.

Good lines of questioning will be given high speaker points. i.e. a cross examination filled with “can you read your card again” or “clarify that line” sort of basic info questions that were already given to you in the constructive will not gain you high speaker points.

I am open to logical arguments, but know that evidence always holds the upper hand. I am strong proponent of the spaghetti method, throw everything you can and see what sticks, keep that aff team busy trying to answer all your arguments. Arguments or attacks not answered or touched by the opposing team need to be pointed out (extended) in rebuttal speeches or I consider it left on the table by both teams. There is a lot of information being thrown at you in what ends up being a relatively short amount of time, I need to know both teams are paying attention to the whole debate.

The Affirmative team Reserves the Right to Legislative FIAT, or “Let it be done”, for the most part teams do this out of common curtesy but no one use this line of language in their plans anymore. DO not make your arguments about whether congress or the president will pass this plan, for the sake of the debate we debate on the merits of the policy or plan not whether congress can pull its head out of the sand. If these arguments are made, make sure you point them out during the debate.

Topicality is a stock issue, but you need to show why a plan does not fit the resolution. An argument of "our definition of "substantial” is better than yours because it’s from blacks law dictionary" is probably not going to get you a win on topicality but feel free to try anyway (spaghetti). If your arguments boil down to DA or Harms, a topicality attack left unanswered on top of the Dis Ads may put you on the winning side. Some topicality attacks are confused with what really is an attack on inherency, so a perfectly valid inherency attack (which is a stock issue) may not be voted on because your team is arguing it as topicality which shows a lack of knowledge of the debate process, I see this more in novice.

Counterplans are fine, a negative team may also decide to kick their counterplan in favor of stronger arguments this is fine and does not constitute an automatic win for the affirmative.

I would say that I am a "flay" judge. I flow a round but I also listen closely during cross and listen for your ability to defend not only your evidence but also the quality of your sources and the logic of how your evidence supports your argument, and so I will not base my decision solely on flow. I will not be looking at you as you speak so as to not distract myself with visual biases and base my decision entirely on the verbal arguments and your ability to engage in an evidence-based and logically consistent debate.

When you are providing evidence I do not like to hear a gish gallop. I will not penalize a team for dropping a contention that ends up being a minor point or not weighted. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and to logically consistent impacts. I prefer hard facts over opinion, actual examples over speculation, and weigh scientific, peer-reviewed evidence from top quality journals over any other kind of evidence.

I find crossfires a key part of my decision as it allows the opposing team to discuss potential logical flaws and your ability to defend and explain your evidence. Be courteous and do not interrupt when the other team is speaking. Do not filibuster in cross. Be concise and do not try to run out the clock in cross. Please have all your cards that you've presented at the ready and when being asked for a card, at MOST, within a few minutes present it. If you are unable to present it then I will most likely drop that evidence from the flow.

I know you are learning to debate in a public forum and will try at the end of the round to point out visual or auditory things that might influence how a person from the general public might react negatively to your presentation style but I will not base my decision on these distractions.

Clearly articulated, evidence-based, logically-consistent arguments that are well defended in cross are the keys to my decision.

Peter Rehani

UPDATED 11/15/19: Clarified evidence policy and paradigm comprehension reward.

UPDATED 5/25/19 for NCFL NATIONALS SPECIFICALLY: Regarding prep time, I will allow 10 seconds for teams to find cards under the requester’s prep time; after that, I will consider it an abuse of prep time and therefore it will not count.

PF TLDR: Heavily flow based judge. My biggest voters rely on extensions and clash in the round. Weigh and define the voters in the final focus. If you have a framework, I expect you to explain why you win under that framework (similarly, if your opponent's provide a framework, weigh under that too). Signpost. Signpost. Signpost.

Congress TLDR: I try to weigh speaking style equally for debate--for debate, I look for clash, extension, and clear reference back to previous speakers. Avoid rehash at all costs, else you will end up on the bottom of my ballot. Speak clearly and ensure that your speeches are clear and well structured.

I strongly encourage you to read this thoroughly. PLEASE ASK ME BEFORE THE ROUND IF SOMETHING IS UNCLEAR TO YOU. I will gladly answer any questions before the round (or after the round). I will try my absolute best to justify my decisions to you (debaters!) during PF disclosure, and if I'm not communicating in a way that you understand, it is YOUR responsibility speak up and let me know.

PF Paradigm:

• If the tournament doesn't explicitly disallow plans and both teams agree before the round to allow plans, feel free to run a plan-based debate if the topic calls for it. I find it more educational.
• In the case of an evidence question being called, I default to tournament rules; barring specific guidelines from the tournament (if tournaments require prep to be run), my policy is to begin prep as soon as the opposing team provides the exact location of the reference. All citations should include dates. Paraphrasing is a realistic way to get more evidence on the flow, but you shouldn't be using evidence as your argument -- they are there to supplement and support your arguments. Otherwise I default to not running prep for evidence exchange.
• If it's not in the final focus, it's not a voter.
• I appreciate effective crossfire, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down, like a specific concession (hint: you should do this, explicitly say "write that down").
• I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments.
• Outside of the fact that the 2nd overall speech is allowed to just read case, I expect FULL case/off-case coverage in EVERY speech starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech) -- i.e. extend everything that you want weighed. The 1st rebuttal (3rd overall speech) doesn't need to extend case -- they just need to refute the opposing case.
• Exception to the above: Framework. If you're speaking second, don't wait until 15 minutes into the round to tell me your framework. You're obligated to make those arguments in case. I vastly prefer to see framework at the top of all speeches, as it provides structure and a lens to understand your arguments--if you wait 1:30 into summary to discuss framework, it's likely that I'll lose it on the flow.
• For rebuttal, my general preference for the sake of sanity in organization is concise, top down, line by line responses. I feel that this is often the best way to ensure that you get through everything in the case. Rebuttal does not have to repeat everything, but should provide organized responses. Please signpost.
• I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical strategy, like a "kritik". I am an engineer and I have a fairly rigid policymaker paradigm.
• I don't flow anything called an "overview". Overviews are heuristic explanations to help me make sense of the round. Please don't expect to generate offense off of an overview.
• I'm fine if you'd like to time yourselves with an alarm; however, for the sake of common courtesy, please turn this off if you plan to time your opponents.
• I am inclined to give bonus speaker points if I see an effort to "read me" as a judge, even if you read me wrong. Cite my paradigm if you need to. Learning to figure out your audience is a crucial life skill. On a related note: if you use the secret word 'lobster' in your speech, I will give you and your partner a metaphorical 0.5 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly. This applies to LD too.
• I generally prefer debates I'd be able to show to a school administrator and have them be impressed by the activity rather than offended or scared.
• Please give me voter issues in the final focus. Weigh if at all possible. When I weigh for you, hell breaks loose. I cannot stress this enough.

Congress Paradigm:

• I try to judge congressional debate through as balanced a lens as possible--this means I tend to value speaking quality equally to the quality of your debate abilities.
• Typically, the biggest reason that I knock speakers down comes from non-original arguments/causing rehash in the debate. I feel that this decreases the quality of the debate and fundamentally mitigates the educational benefits of congressional debate.
• Regarding roleplay of a true Congress, I think it adds a bit of humor to the debate and leads to more engaged speakers.
• On the note of questioning, I prefer when students keep questions as concise as possible to avoid burying the speaker in a mountain of jargon.
• Clash and extension (similar to my PF paradigm) are my biggest factors on the debate side--please please please introduce clash and cite the speaker that you are extending or clashing. It helps to follow the flow of the argument as you speak, and it demonstrates you're actually paying attention.
• The later you speak in cycle, the more clash I expect to see and I judge on that metric. Similarly, I strongly dislike having 2 speeches on the same side, as it often leads to rehash. If you are speaking for the second time on the same bill, I look more closely for unique arguments and extended clash, and tend to judge these speeches slightly more harshly.
• Extension of questioning time often leads to less speeches getting in, and ultimately means that less people get a chance to speak. For this reason, I'm typically opposed to having students extend their questioning periods.
• For later cycle, I don't mind crystallization speeches but I do expect to see weighing and clear reference back to previous speakers.
• As stated above, your evidence is not your argument--It serves to support your argument.
• Speaking: gestures and clear movements add to structure and to the quality of your speech. Gesturing for the sake of gesturing, and non directed movements do not. I tend to prefer when speakers keep it simple with the style instead of over-complicating everything.
• For authorships, sponsorships, and first negs, I tend to look at fluency breaks and time more critically, as these are speeches that should be well rehearsed ahead of time.
• I view a logical argument that flows well to be on par with literal evidence from a perspective of supporting your arguments. This means that 1-you shouldn't be afraid to use logic in your speeches and 2-evidence debates will not hold up for me.

I am a middle school teacher, and have been casually involved in speech (primarily) and debate (somewhat) for almost 20 years. However, expect me to be a lay judge in PF. I take notes, but don't necessarily keep a structured flow. Referring to arguments is preferred to referring to cards.

It is important that partners are on the same page. If you want me to vote for something at the end of the round, I will generally expect to see it talked about in the summary. Ideally work to persuade me to your side, a believable story is more effective than one that is technically flowed through.

Don't make crossfire into an argument. If that happens you will probably lose speaker points.

Very Important: If you are rude, condescending, or otherwise make me not want to listen to you, I have made that my RFD in the past, regardless of what arguments are being made. I cannot be persuaded by someone who doesn't use persuasion to get me on their side. That type of behavior destroys the educational value of the debate and discourages both new debaters and judges from participating in the activity.

I have judged policy debate since 2004, so I tend to judge public forum by policy debate standards.  I like clash and want all arguments to be supported with evidence.  I believe that framework is important in public forum to help judges reach decisions.

Background:

I did not debate while I was in high school. However, I have been judging LD and PF for the past 5 years.

Speed:

Speed really only belongs on a race track. I find it unnecessary and unproductive. I feel it really takes away from one's ability to a persuasive speaker. If I cannot understand you, then I will not flow it. If it is not on my flow, it is as if it was never said.

Definitions:
I am not a big fan of the definitions debate. The definitions presented by both sides are generally very similar and have the same meaning. This is not a good way to spend your time. Speak on things that actually matter and could affect the outcome of the debate.

Analysis:

I like analysis; don't just read to me. Show me that you understand how that evidence supports your argument. Explain why I should care about the evidence you present. Your evidence should also be cited and from a reputable source.

Cross-examination (and Crossfires):

This is a time for getting clarification on your opponent's case and points, not to criticize them, and try to prove your superiority. (This is the purpose for your allotted speech times.) I expect cross-ex to be civil.

Voters and weighing the round:

I like having voters and the round weighed. Tell me what you think is important in the round and why I should vote on them.

Disclosure/ Ending Comments:

I do not give oral comments after the round. All my comments that I have for you (or your team) will be given on the ballot.

I am a parent judge. This is my first tournament. Please speak slowly and clearly. Please don't run theory arguments. Be courteous to your opponents.

Background:

I debated PF for four years, went to NCFL three times in PF. I debated LD for a month and have primarily judged LD the previous years.

I've been judging pretty consistently since Fall 2017.

I'm currently a Political Science PhD candidate, so I have an extensive background in a lot of theories and the current events in the world. If you want to run some political theory- beautiful.

LD:

I am a mostly traditional judge. I am not a huge fan of Ks and Theory, but I will pick it up if it is run really, really well.

And by really, really well, I mean God-Tier. There is nothing worse than underdeveloped theory. Ks can be fun and interesting, but only if run right.

Honestly, I kinda hate T Shells. Debate about the topic at hand, don't debate about debate.

FOR NCFLS: LD is NOT ALLOWED to use a plan or counter-plan. I WILL be following this, as per NCFL rules.

PF:

I like weighing and cost-benefit analysis. Body count is something that I weigh heavily in rounds. Make sure you have evidence to back up your points!

Also, I'm rather strict on the rule of not being allowed to bring up new evidence or points in final focus.

Time:

I will keep track of time. Please use your time wisely. If you go over, you can finish your sentence/thought, but anything more than that I will stop flowing.

Speed:

I can handle speed, but not a fan of spreading. It doesn't belong in LD/PF. "How do you know you are spreading?" you ask. Are you hyperventilating or foaming at the mouth? Yes? That is spreading. Calm down, please. No need to die mid-debate.

How I calculate Speaks:

Organization in speeches (Line by lines or clear signposting are beautiful)

Good, thought-provoking questions in cross

Speed and annunciation are balanced (don't talk so fast that you cannot get words out properly)

Being civil (this is debate, you don't need to be your opponent's friend. But please do not yell, scream, insult, threaten, etc. Also don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.)

I don't exactly care if you swear (some judges are sticklers on that), but don't drop f-bombs every other second.

Oral Critiques/Disclosing:

I will usually give oral critiques if both teams want me to. If you ask me to give you feedback, feel free to ask a question, but please don't yell at me if you disagree. Thanks.

I'll disclose if both teams want me to, unless I need more time to re-look over my flow and organize thoughts or if the tournament does not allow disclosing. If any person does not want me to disclose, I will not, unless required by the tournament directors.

FOR NCFLS: Oral critiques and disclosing are not permitted at NCFLS.

Debate Experience: Graduated 2017; 4 years of PF debate(mainly circuit) for James Madison Memorial High School - Did ok

1) Clean extensions - This means responding to every response on your relevant offense in summary. Extend your warrants and impacts fully eg: If you say the tagline or a card name - I will not flow it for you; you must explain the argument behind the tagline or card name.

2) Weighing- Weighing is the first thing I evaluate at the end of the round. Tell me where I should vote

3) Summaries and Final Focus - You can extend defense directly from first rebuttal to first final focus unless the second speaking team goes back to case in second rebuttal. All offense must be in summary and final focus.

Those three things are the most important and applicable to every debate round.

4) Speed. I'm fine with speed. I will tell you to slow down if you go fast enough for me to not be able to flow.

5) Theory/K's. I'm good with Theory and K's. You should probably not be fast with Theory arguments in front of me because it gives me less time to understand the argument.

6) Plans/CP's. I can accept plans/cp's if either your opponents don't call you out on the plan/cp or you give me a convincing reason why your particular plan/cp should be allowed in the realm of PF. For people responding to plan/cp's, saying its a plan/cp works but it would be appreciated if you implicated out why plan/cp's are bad in PF past the "its against the rules".

6) Second Rebuttal. Second Rebuttal doesn't have to go back to case. I think its strategic for you to do so. As a former first speaker whose partner didn't go back to case, summaries were often unnecessarily hard. I wish he made better choices in debate and life.

7) Dropped Arguments: Arguments are dropped after you ignore it in summary. Please collapse strategically. If you don't respond to turns on a dropped argument, your opponents can extend them. Kicking contentions/subpoints are okay as long as you do it correctly.

8) Evidence. All evidence must have author and source. eg: "Vovata of Harvard University" rather than "Vovata" or "Harvard University". I will call for evidence if either your opponent wants me to or if its extended in two different ways.

9) Dates: I think if you have time you can put dates in your case/rebuttal. If you don't, you can open up yourself to date theory. For people running date theory - tell me why it puts you in a structural disadvantage in context to the topic. Don't just cite "NSDA Rules"

10) Speaker Points: I hate the speaker point system so I give >29's to almost everyone. I also generally try to give first speakers more speaker points. Don't be rude/make up new stuff in second final focus and you should be fine.

11) Off-time road maps. I like off-time road maps. You can get pretty specific with them before your speeches.

For LD (updated 11/8/2018)

The general gist of my LD paradigm is similar to my PF paradigm. However, I will not try to impose my activity(PF) on yours. That means that any aspect of my paradigm is always up for negotiation and I'll try to keep an open mind on any argument that you guys bring to the table. Please ask if you have any specific questions about an argument or an argument type.