I debated PF at Syosset High School for 4 years and am a member of the Columbia Debate Team.

Speed is ok but do not spread. Extending terminal defense in summary is good but not necessary, please weigh and signpost. 

I prefer clear, persuasive argumentation that goes beyond reading off cards and stating evidence. In a world where everyone has presumably equal access to a large network of philosophers, economists, and political specialists, comparative analysis is crucial to adjudicating a round. Please weigh things and tell me why they are important. 

I did league parli in high-school and did american parliamentary debate while at Columbia. I have experience judging both. I flow and I understand fast talking. However, I do not have experience judging spreading, nor am I a fan of it. I appreciate signposting like everyone else but it's not an end-all be-all. I expect every team to take at least one POI. If there's a VERY blatant POO I'll protect the flow but you should err on the side of calling it out yourself because I try to actively limit my own bias or interventionism as much as possible. Fine with tag-teaming.

I'm open to theory but I have not judged anything non-APDA in a long time so keep that in mind. Keep that in mind for kritiks as well -- open to them but if I think they're too tenuous or poorly explained I won't value them very highly. I approach topicality from the reasonableness standard.

Obviously, any abusive language - especially if it's discriminatory - is unacceptable. Teams should introduce their pronouns (or refrain from doing so) according to their comfort. I go by she/her.

I try to be pretty tabula rasa as a judge. Please weigh your arguments so that I can in good faith ignore my own biases as to what arguments seem most important without having to make a stupid decision. In the same vein, please also dedicate time to framing the round. Please explicitly link all of your impacts - if the link is subpar I won't be very impressed by the impact even if it's extinction.

I studied philosophy in college and I like hearing it in round when it's applicable. I also like when it's explained well and meaningfully contributes to the round rather than when a few buzzwords are thrown out. I'm doing immunology research now so would love to hear some science arguments. Obviously no pressure to include either kind, but no need to shy away if you're studying similar things, I will follow them. In general I encourage complex arguments over blippiness.

Good luck to everyone competing :)

i didn't do pf in high school

weigh and warrant your arguments

i want to see all of your cards

I debated for 4 years for Scarsdale High School. I qualified to TOC twice, reaching octofinals my senior year (2015).

Debate is your activity not mine so I’ll try to avoid injecting my personal biases into my evaluation of arguments. If you’re ahead, even by just a little bit, on the side if an issue I’m not inclined towards, I’ll vote for you. This means that I’m not committed to a particular set of "noninterventionist" norms; I’ll attempt to use the paradigmatic preferences that debaters assume in the round.

The preferences below are for situations in which debaters' assumptions are unclear or there are no arguments resolving a clear disagreement. They are (unless specifically noted) entirely up for debate. In general, I hope to evaluate rounds similarly to Tom Evnen or Mark Gorthey. Here are some basics:

• I default to truth testing.
• Theory and topicality are questions of competing interps, but by that I only mean that defense isn't sufficient to win a theory debate. If you have a different understanding, explain how your warrants for the paradigm justify the conclusion you want them to, preferably in the first speech you read it.
• Theory is drop the argument, topicality is drop the debater.
• I have an extremely low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments, but I would like some mention of the argument in every speech. The exception is conceded paradigm issues (drop the debater, competing interps, aff gets perms in method debates, etc).
• No new 2AR RVIs. This is a hard requirement. I don’t see a way to evaluate these debates in a wholly noninterventionist way, so I’d prefer to minimize the direct ballot implications of new 2AR arguments.

I assign speaks mainly based on strategy and argument quality.

• I'll say slow, clear, or loud as much as necessary – if you're making an effort to adapt, I won't lower speaks, and I will be especially conscious about not penalizing debaters with speech impediments. However, if I don't hear an argument because of a lack of clarity, I won't vote on it.
• I won’t hesitate to lower speaks for rude post-round behavior like exaggerated expressions of confusion or loudly dropping objects. I believe that post-round discussion is valuable so this deliberately doesn’t apply to questions from the debaters or others who watched the round.

"Assuming a pill exists that compels the user to tell the truth, THW destroy it." — Recent fun motion

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

Read the following sections: Overview, General Paradigm, Miscellany and Weird Aside on Evidence -- all else is Parli specific.

Relevant information for PF: I have a strong distaste for theory but as per modern paradigmatic standards, I'm happy to evaluate it as warranted in the round. The bar to convince me to pick up or drop a team on a theory call is likely pretty high. I will tank you if the theory is strategic and not based on something reasonable.

Regarding evidence in PF. I actually debated PF some in High School, I'm not unfamiliar with evidence and carded debate. The maxim that evidence doesn't replace warranting is still true, though, and I will reward better warranted arguments over better carded arguments assuming the belivability of the claim is constant.

Ask me questions before the round if you have questions -- I'd love to get to know you as well -- debate is a game, but we are all members of the community of debate and I'd love to foster that as much as possible. Ask me questions about college debate if you're a senior (or not) -- I'll connect you with the debate team of your institution if you know where you're going etc. I love verbal RFDs so will probably give one. I don't understand PF speaker points so take those with a grain of salt.

I don't claim to be an expert in PF or anything close. I do understand argumentation, warranting, impacting, weighing, etc, and want to see all of that in a round at the highest quality possible.

Parliamentary Debate

If you read nothing else, read this: don't spread; don't tag team; keep stuff in your time; be wary of theory; impact; weigh; warrant.

Overview

I debated for four years as a student at Stuyvesant High School and currently debate APDA for Columbia University. I have experience teaching debate to middle school and high school students, I tab way too often, and have lead more judge orientations than I care remember. If you care, I'm the president of APDA, the oldest and best college debate league.

People tend to care a lot about these paradigms — I really don't — if you have specific questions, ask me before rounds, in GA, whatever. Please do ask if something is unclear!

I run whacky cases, I debate whacky cases, I choose whacky motions — I really don't mind a lot if it's done well and respectful and conducive to a good round of debate.

General Paradigm

So everyone likes to claim they're a tabula rasa judge. I think this is nonsensical. Obviously personal views will not influence the round, but as arguments leave the sphere of the normal and easily bought, the burden of warranting well increases.

It's reasonably straightforward for me to buy, for example, that individuals do things that make them happy, and since eating ice cream makes people happy, people eat ice cream; but is comparatively hard for me to buy that actually, instead of eating the ice cream in my refrigerator, I'm going to make a 2 day trek across tundra to obtain some of the same ice cream.

I don't mean to discourage complex, strange, or whacky argumentation; rather, I aim to encourage elegant, simple, but robust warranting.

Theory

Theory has its place (LD / Policy / new PF circuit / your dinner table maybe ?) — and it's almost never in a parliamentary debate round.

Please limit any kritiks, theory calls, whatever else theory masquerades as nowadays, to instances where the use therein is warranted. Unless something is tightly or abusively defined / modeled or one team is engaging in reprehensible behavior, there is no need for theory — debate the resolution. This is an instance where I am certainly not tabula rasa, I will almost always, except in these previous instances, assume that the theory is being used in an effort to actively exclude the other team simply because the assumption is that I, as a seasoned debater, can follow it (which I can). Except in the caveated cases, the burden is on the team using a kritik or some other theory to prove to me they are not doing this.

If you want to argue about mutual exclusivity of a counterplan, or whatever else you want to do, please be sure to not forget to warrant, and explain things in reasonable terms. Just as you're not going to go off using advanced economic terms in rounds, and instead going to explain how a bubble works (hopefully), don't just use a pick, actually explain and warrant it. And on that, a counterplan had better be mutually exclusive, or at least functionally so, given certain tradeoffs.

Expect lower speaker points and to lose in cases of over eagerly applied theory.

Miscellany

I don't want to warrant for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to impact for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to weigh for you. Don't make me.

I am not going to get into what makes a warrant 'good' or an impact effective or weighing necessary, please as your coach, varsity, mentor, or email me if none of the previous options are available to you (johnrod.john@gmail.com).

The final two speeches of a round (the rebuttal or crystallization speeches) are NOT to restate every point in the round, but instead are meant to synthesize, weigh, and flesh out impacts. Please do that. The most effective rebuttal speeches focus on two to three levels of conditional weighing. I won't vote on some random unimpacted and unweighed pull through.

Don't spread — think about a speed a non debater would be able to reasonably follow. This usually means something fast, but not double breathing. Side note: someone who enjoys spreading please explain to me how this doesn't destroy the educational value in learning how to be a rhetorical and persuasive speaker please!

Instead of focusing on a breadth of argumentation, please focus on a depth of argumentation that is complex, and includes a high level of weighing structures and effective warranting.

Tag teaming — never seen this in parli outside of the west coast. Don't do it, you'll have your own chance to speak.

POIs — take them, use them, respect them. Don't go back and forth — if I wanted crossfire I'd be at a PF tournament. Seriously. Also, these are supposed to be fun and humorous — if you don't believe me, watch the House of Commons — however, you are HS debaters and probably take everything way too seriously, therefore I'll settle for not rude.

Offtime Stuff — No. You don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it.

Weird Aside on Evidence

Please don't confuse providing evidence with providing warrants. Simply because you were able to effectively use Google and find someone who said something doesn't mean that it's a) true b) important c) relevant d) it will happen again e) isn't without opposing evidence. Please always default to explaining why something happened, not simply that it did, or that someone believes it will happen again.

I have never once picked a team up for the quality of a card, and no round should ever come down to a piece of evidence in any way, shape, or form.

I debated for three years on the circuit at San Marino HS and acquired a measly three bids. I am now judging as a member of Columbia Debate Society.

This is my third year out of the activity so I am pretty rusty with speed and unfamiliar with whatever the current LD topic is, so clarity and articulation are always helpful.

I will evaluate debates on an offense/defense paradigm and will submit the ballot that is most persuasive to me. Building a compelling ballot story with a correct depiction of what actually happened in the debate and thoughtful weighing is deeply appreciated.

Disads

Make sure the impact is explicitly relevant to a framework.

Kritiks

"I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions." - Scott Wheeler

Theory

Definitely prefer a fleshed-out and structured shell.

Wikispaces no longer exists for some reason so I'm gonna try and summarize here.

I went to Scarsdale and did Public forum debate there. I am now on the Columbia Parliamentary Debate Team.

I will disclose at the end of the round. Debate is stressful enough without guessing for hours as to who won. The one exception is if its unbelievably close, and for me to tell you without thinking about it past the normal time at the end of the round, would be almost akin to guessing. This has happened a total of once I believe.

If you read a card in the first two speeches, you have to at least tell me its a card in the second two. You don't have to read a tag, but I have to know you said it earlier, so I know I can go back and find it on the earlier parts of the flow after the round. If you don't do this, I won't vote off of it.

I don't care if you go fast, as long as I can flow. I'm faster on computer than paper, but I'm not bad overall. If I ' cant get it the first time, I won't vote off of it.

I don't care if you're a jerk in crossfire, as long as someone doesn't appear visibly uncomfortable. If they do, ease up. No one should leave a debate round upset because they felt bullied. With that said, so much of crossfire is useless because people are trying to yell about who has a right to speak. Focus on getting one really solid point across. You're more likely to sway the needle.

If you want to be card-centric, do that. I'm game.

You don't have to rebuild in the 2nd rebuttal. If you do it well, however, it can be really effective.

Weigh in the summary, weigh in the final focus. Weigh in the rebuttal if you can. If you do those things, I will give you high speaks. I have no issue giving a lot of high speaks. A lot of you are high-quality speakers.

I am currently a student at Stanford Law School. I have seven years of competitive debate experience, and three years of experience judging parliamentary debate. I am a former competitive debater at Columbia, where I competed on the APDA and BP circuits. While at Columbia, I was top varsity speaker in tournaments at Princeton and Georgetown, and broke to out-rounds at APDA Nationals. As a BP debater, I broke to out-rounds at the 2015 WUDC in Kuala Lumpur, and finished as part of the 18th overall pair.

I flow rounds closely, and as a result I prefer clear signposting throughout a speech. I don't protect the flow, so make sure to raise a point of order if you think a rebuttal includes a new argument.

I passionately dislike spreading. Take your time and speak at a conversational speed. Two arguments that I can understand are better than five that I cannot.

I strongly prefer resolutional debate, and I don't respond well to theoretical arguments or kritiks. The one exception is that I am open to topicality arguments if the government's interpretation of the resolution is manifestly unreasonable. I don't want to force the opposition to debate something silly or squirrelly. But as long as the government's interpretation is reasonable, the round should move to case debate. If a topicality issue does emerge, I don't view it as a reverse voting issue.

I think it is good practice to take at least one POI during a speech (unless, of course, you're in rebuttal or protected time). POIs should be questions, not just argumentative statements that you could have made in your own speech. I don't like "tag-teaming" answers to a POI. The person on their feet should know their case well enough to answer the question.

I vote for the side that is most likely to persuade a reasonable, educated person. I don't particularly care if a side drops a few arguments, as long as their overall case is stronger. I especially value debaters that crystallize the key voting issues and weigh the arguments on each side, and that save me from dissecting the flow after the round is over.

Max F. Neuman (he or they pronouns). If both teams want to use an email chain, please add maxfneuman [at] gmail.com

Competitive and Coaching Experience:

4 years of PF, almost entirely on the New York City Urban Debate League, at Bard High School Early College Manhattan.

1 year of APDA at CUNY, 3 years at Columbia.

Former PF coach at High School for Dual Language and Asian Studies, Midwood High School, and Bard High School Early College Manhattan. Current APDA coach at Temple.

Listened to that NPR podcast about college policy and thought it was cool.

Paradigm:

When I'm judging a round, I really want to avoid intervening ie; involving my own thoughts or doing your work in achieving the ballot. It leads to unpredictable decisions that are unfair to everybody. To prevent judge intervention, speak high, and win, here are a few tips:

• Enjoy yourself! Debate should be fun.

• Be inclusive! Respect your competitors. If speaking about an event or group, especially one that you are not part of, only make arguments you would make if the room were full of members of that group.

• If you need to make a potentially triggering argument, please give a content warning.

• I will not deviate from tab policy, speech times, or the speaker scale. Everything else is up for debate.

Everything below this point is stuff I am flexible on, but will default to absent other argumentation.

• I am a lazy judge. I do not want to intervene or do the work to prove why arguments are true or why they matter. Please be explicit about what the voting issues should be.

• Before anyone says a word, I assume that my job as the judge is to determine if the resolution is a true or false statement, and I assume that neg has won on presumption. As soon as a debater says anything, these starting positions go out the window and the role/destination of the ballot is up for debate.

• I've been consistently involved in debate since 2013, but you definitely know the current topic and the format's evolving norms better than I do. Author names don't mean much to me, so explain what cards say. If you want to make an abuse or theory call, or even do something non-traditional like a K, I'm amenable to it if it's adequately warranted and weighed in a way that's accessible to a broad audience that isn't steeped in debate pedagogy. If something is warranted well and not responded to at all, I'll consider it true, no matter how outlandish.

• Weigh and condense. Going for the whole flow at any point after second crossfire reduces the round to a whirlwind of blips, often with very little analysis about what should sway the ballot. Impact calculus is hard to master, but entirely worth it.

• I don't care about or even know how to consciously evaluate presentation things like what you wear, the sound of your voice, rhetoric, whether you sit or stand, or that sort of thing.

• Speed is fine when coupled with clarity. If you're especially fast (like 300 words per minute or more), start slow so I can get up to speed. If I can't flow you at all, I'll say "clear" up to three times

• Explaining how something works or happens is so much better than citing a source or quantifying a conclusion. Maybe it's because I've seen so many bad debaters win rounds on evidence challenges or because I'm a parliamentary debater, but I value explanation on par with evidence.

• If some offense is in first constructive or rebuttal and then never gets brought up during the round, I'm fine with a final focus/PMR/LOR/2AR/2NR weighing it to win, although the weighing needs to be stronger than "they dropped it so it's true." I will pick up a team that says "they dropped it so it's true, and we weigh it so it matters" if the weighing actually happens.

• You don't have to extend all defense in a summary/rebuttal if you've already touched an argument; you do have to respond if the other side is going for it and engaging with your refutation. If something was in the round before, regardless of whether it was in summary or second constructive, it can be in final focus and on the ballot if you mention it explicitly. I will enforce the prohibition on totally new argumentation (in all cases except the first-speaking team answering totally new content in the second team's summary) in final focus.

• I probably won't flow crossfire because I don't think I can do so with nearly as much accuracy as the speeches. If something important happened in crossfire, mention it in a speech to be sure it's in the round.

• I am begrudgingly okay with calling cards. It would be better if everyone could avoid this by not lying about evidence (your own or your opponents'). If there has been a question of validity or a direct and unresolved clash of cards during the round, I'll probably want to see the original source after the round. If you have a citation and a card, it's okay with me if you have to pull an original source off the internet when asked. Any other internet use is super duper prohibited. If the entire round comes down to a fact claim that nobody can resolve like "Russia has 15 nuclear submarines" when the brightline for impact access is 15, I'm amenable to arguments that I should google the number, and I'll default to just resolving the next most important issue in the round if it's deadlocked around an unresolvable fact claim.

If you want my flow, it's all yours! Send me an email at maxfneuman [at] gmail.com to ask for the flow or if you have any questions, preferably on the same weekend as your round in front of me. I'll probably delete flows/forget details about rounds after that. Please add me to the email chain at the same email address.

Hello! My name is Grace Panetta and I did public forum debate all 4 years of high school on the Massachusetts and national circuit. I'm not an especially strict or picky judge, but if you stick the following guidelines you should do well:

1. Please.weigh.your.arguments! I know how easy it is in summary and final focus to get bogged down in specific points or cards, especially if there are little things you feel are inaccurate. But if you take a step back, weigh the 2-3 most important arguments in the round, and explain to me why you're winning, my job is going to be a lot more easier and you'll probably have a higher chance of winning. I will not do the weighing for you.

2. I consider myself to be a relatively non-interventionist judge. If you or your opponents say something I know to be factually incorrect, I won't factor it into my decision unless someone calls it out as such.

3. Please don't waste a ton of time calling cards. If something sounds too good to be true, it very well might be, and you should ask to see a card if you have serious concerns about its validity, but please try to keep it to a minimum. I was once a debater too, and can easily tell when teams call cards for the sole purpose of biding time/making their opponents nervous. As a judge, I'll only call a card if it's disputed during the round. I want to waste as little time looking at cards so our round doesn't go way over time and tab doesn't get mad at me :)

4. I know the rules of PF technically allow it, but I probably won't weigh new evidence brought up in final focus very heavily. You shouldn't even need to bring up new evidence in FF to win.

Good luck to everyone competing!

Background: I debated traditional PF/LD in Ohio, graduated high school in 2017, and did a little bit of college parli.

I decide who wins the round based on who is winning the key arguments (I like clear, quantifiable impacts). I prefer evidence over logic, in the case where only one is provided - but ideally this is not the case. I am fairly open to out-of-the-box arguments or claims, but if you are doing something weird and your opponent clearly has no idea what is going on, do not be rude or condescending (this will result in me lowering speaks). I keep detailed notes, am fine with a quick conversational pace (not spreading). I don't care about style at all as long as I can tell what words you are saying. Feel free to ask before the round if you have any specific questions!

I did PF for four years at Shikellamy High School, where I placed 8th at NSDA nationals, and am currently a senior on the Columbia Debate Society.

I flow and am willing to follow *some* speed. I will listen and flow to all arguments so long as they are reasonably warranted and are not offensive/violent.

Like other judges, I expect teams that I judge to warrant, impact, and weigh. To be more precise, and to touch on my personal preferences, teams should develop and prove their arguments with evidence and logical explanation. Thus, if a team offers cards to impact their case and assert that their contention is true, but fails to provide robust reasoning, I consider that argument to be deficient. For example, "Scholar A says that Y happens" is deficient, but "Scholar A says that Y happens *because* of ..." is not deficient. Beyond offering explanations of why their case is true, the best teams will develop and extend their arguments throughout the entire round (all, or almost all, speeches). Finally, teams should make a habit of weighing arguments in the round. While attacking the veracity of opponents' claims is persuasive, it is also worthwhile to weigh arguments as if they are true to show why your arguments are more important (ex: Even if my opponents' second contention is true, our first contention still outweighs because ...). Doing so will make me happy (yay!) and also increase your chances of winning.

I hope the aforementioned preferences make sense, and I look forward to watching everyone debate :)

Hi everyone! My name is Matthew and I’m a sophomore in Columbia College majoring in economics-mathematics. My debate experience primarily consists of undergraduate parliamentary debate, but I did a brief stint at the VBI debate camp and competed off and on in lay debate. Some general rules:

• High school debate has a lot of bells and whistles but I value core debate skills: round vision, weighing, warranting, logic, etc. If you’re going to run a super dense case, be prepared to actually engage with the warranting / arguments.
• I don’t read evidence in round because I’ll probably lose track of the round if I try. That being said, make your taglines and author names clear, and make your rebuttals clear as well. Don’t assume I have read your evidence when you make arguments.
• I have some familiarity with nat-circuit cases, like Ks and theory, but only so much, so if you run those make sure you clearly warrant and weigh points.
• The fastest speaking speed I can parse through is 2X speed on the Economist’s online magazine, so try not to go faster than that. I’ll still flow but you take substantial risk that I miss points.
• I’m partial to some cases more than others aka ECON. If you mention credit derivatives I will be very happy. I also really value creative cases, because that makes the round more fun and engaging.

Debate is meant to be a fun activity so don’t let competition get in the way of that! That being said, some find it more accessible than others, so always be respectful and trigger warn cases.

I debated for Harrison High School in NY for 4 years and went to the TOC my senior year.

I am fine with anything but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE weigh and impact your arguments.