I am a law student at Emory. I coached PF at Delbarton, CBI, and ISD. I competed in PF Bronx Science.

1. Please don't give line by line final two speeches.

2. Limit what you're going for in your final two speeches (prioritize good substantive warrants rather than more blippy responses). Group responses when you can in summary, and explicitly weigh in both speeches but especially in final focus.

3. If you would like me to vote on certain offense bring it up in both summary and final focus.

4. Use the summary to respond to responses made in the rebuttal and give me voters (alternatively you can devote time in the second rebuttal to front-lining). I am uncomfortable voting for an argument that hasn't developed at all since your case (unless of course you show me it's been dropped and bring it up in summary and final focus).

5. Please have your evidence available promptly. I will get fed up and start running prep time or docking speaker points if you can't find it quickly enough. In extreme cases, or if I feel like you are intentionally being unethical, I will drop you.

6. That being said, don't call for every card. Only ask to see evidence if you are legitimately concerned about understanding the content or context.

7. If you aren't using prep time (as in, they are searching for a card to show you), then don't prep.

8. When in doubt I will vote for the most consistently brought up, and convincingly warranted arguments.

9. Only give me an off time roadmap if you're doing something atypical.

10. You should have your preflows ready on both sides before you enter the room.

11. If you card dump, there is no way for me or your opponents to fairly ascertain credibility. I will not flow it as evidence.

12. I give speaker points based on persuasiveness and good rhetoric not technicalities. If you win every argument but sound like a robot, or just read off your computer, you will get low speaker points.

I am a lay judge with a couple years experience. I appreciate structure (rebuttal should be used to rebut your opponent’s case; focus should be used to tell me why your argument wins), and I will try to follow your flow. If you get me early in the tournament, you should explain acronyms and detailed points before assuming that I know what you’re taking about. You’re the expert, you need to make sure I understand your points. Please refrain from jargon and technical debate terms. I know what a block is, but I get lost when a team refers to terms they may have heard a coach use. I understand better when you use plain english to explain your structure and the effectiveness and meaning of your arguments. Unless you are amazingly talented, speaking ridiculously fast will be lost on me. You will be polite and respectful to your opponents.

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

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

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

Summaries:

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

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

Weighing:

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

2017-2018: WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH;

2020: I am a junior undergrad International Relations & Diplomacy and Modern Language double major with an Economics minor at Seton Hall University. As a competitor, I debated four years of Public Forum Debate and Congress and one year of Policy Debate and LD on the New Jersey and National circuit for Freehold Township High School and qualed to the TOC in PuFo my senior year. I also debated two years of Middle School Parli where I placed 3rd in NJ.

After graduating I privately coached 1 year of PuFo at Freehold Township, where my teams achieved a 100% break-rate in the National Circuit. Said teams all cleared at the 2018 TOCs as well.

I currently debate on the college APDA circuit (1 year), and I have experience participating and Judging highly-technical debate rounds, so feel free to run whatever arguments you like. Please note that I have been out of the HS debate scene for almost two years so I still need to get used to the new rules changes and get adjusted to the greater Progressive nature of PuFo. Before getting into my paradigm, if you have any questions, feel free to email me at oandre1028@gmail.com before the round or just ask me before we start. Regardless, a few general things:

1) Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as it's understandable (enunciation is key) and preferably not spreading, I spoke generally fast for a debater and wouldn't even consider it remotely close to spreading. However, if you're going to spread just know there is a tradeoff between what you are spreading and what is written on my flow. If you are going too fast, I will clear you however if I see myself having to clear you more than once then I expect you to SLOW down or stop spreading altogether, if you don't I will just put my pen down until I am able to understand you.

2) Accessibility: I will accept speech docs if you believe it will help me follow you in round, however in PuFo even if it is on the doc but I wasn't able to understand it or hear it when you read it the first time it won't be on my flow. I will use the speech doc to help me analyze your arguments and evidence. This just goes back to my personal belief that debate should be accessible to all, especially coming from a small and unfunded program. So adding in another level of intricacy such as spreading, card dumping, theory, etc. might not make the round accessible to your opponents. It also makes it so the round becomes a game of who has more cards or blippy arguments rather than proferring your own/author's analyses and explaining to me why you win the argument/round. As a second speaker, I rarely read straight off a speech doc/pc and usually only brought up my flows for my speech. PuFo was created as the lay person's debate, and while Judging although I will looking at my flow to adjudicate I always try to keep the integrity of PuFo alive. Keep in mind winning in debate is fun, trophies are great, and we all strive for the top, however participating in a highly contested and educational round makes the experience better for the debaters, audience, and Judge.

3) Weighing: Please make it easy for me to know what to evaluate. Weigh as much as you want; I recommend doing it as early as rebuttal if you need to in order to make my decision clear. If you don't weigh, then I will do it myself based on whatever arguments I thought clashed with each other during the round. I hate intervening in rounds but will do so if both teams fail to weigh sufficiently. You will not like interventionist Oscar, my brain is wacky and is best when forced to be Tabula Rasa or as much as a human can be while judging. If you force me to implement my own thoughts, opinions, or ideas and make the experience unenjoyable to me then I will most likely vote Neg on neutrality or whichever team I liked more if neither team was clear. That is because tab usually doesn't allow me to drop both teams xD. Simply said, the earlier and more effectively you weigh, the better chance my decision will be based off the arguments and mechanisms that both teams presented in the round.

3) Summary/FF: If you're going for something it 100% has to be in summary and FF. If something is terminal defense just say that it is in your first rebuttal and you don't really need to extend it in summary, but everything else in summary should be in FF if you want me to evaluate it. If you are the first speaking team, the only defense you really have to extend is on the arguments they frontline in second rebuttal. Obviously, you need to extend turns and all, so this means you should take advantage of this time by spending the entire time in first summary front lining, extending, and weighing your case. If you extend defense that the other team hasn't addressed yet, you are literally wasting time and I will simply stare at you. I also believe that 2nd summary should extend critical pieces of defense, since they know what the first summary has gone for. **However, I have yet to decide if I will have heightened expectations for either speaking team's coverage and voters as now summaries will be one minute longer. What I will say is that strategies will most likely change, however if you are going to end up going for your entire case in Summary on both speaking positions it probably won't be clear and will lack proper weighing and clash as the FF is still only 2 minutes long.**

4) Second Speaking Team: Your rebuttal should have some type of frontlining done in it. If you do not frontline, you are making your partner's job much harder. Some debaters and judges believe this places an unfair burden on the first speaking team since they do not know what you're going for until second summary which I might tend to agree, however the concept of flipping position or side makes it so you still have some sort of advantage against your adversaries be it speaking position or debating on the side you are more comfortable with. What I will say is if you don't do any frontlining in second rebuttal, on the flow it will be more difficult to win my ballot as my standard is to cover their offense which includes Turns on your case, and if you do, your speaks and chances of winning will increase. **How the second speaking "advantage" changes with an added minute to the summary time, I don't know. I have yet to judge a round with the new format so we will see what the tradeoff ends up being and if I will extend less D based on speaking position.**

5) Evidence: My favorite thing to see in a round besides you knowing how to warrant your arguments well is a team that really understands methodology. When I debated, I know teams would often get bogged down in reading absurd evidence with enormous impacts to win them the round. However, almost all of these studies are flawed in some way. Therefore if you can call evidence and understand the issues with the evidence by reading the study's methodology and then contextualize this in a speech to me, it will not only kill the impact of your opponent's argument, but I will probably up your speaks if you do a good job of explaining why the methodology of the study does not actually prove that X causes Y or whatever the argument may be. Also, if your opponent’s evidence is sketchy, let me know and I’ll read it, but I typically will call for evidence if it may decide the round or you tell me to call it.

6) Theory: If you want to run these types of arguments, make sure there is some type of abuse that is going on in the round. Don't just run theory because you think your opponents won't know how to respond to it, goes back to my thoughts on accessibility. Nevertheless and ironically, that's an exact reason why theory should be run on you. If you were to run things like paraphrase or dates theory, it has to be run pretty well for me to consider it heavily and vote off of it. Also don't troll with it either if both teams aren't on the same boat. A good example of not being on the same boat would be the Millburn CZ vs Nueva CS round at Berkley semis. On the other hand a good example of the teams being on the same boat would be the Robert Chen round at SCU 2 look it up on /r/debate xD. With that in mind if both teams want to run theory and make the round more progressive I'm fine with that however keep in mind, although I have experiences debating and judging same I might get the decision wrong more often in comparison to a vanilla PuFo round, that is because theory was rarely run in my circuit when I was debating.

7) Kritiks: If you run a K, I will be able to follow, but I most likely will not vote off it. Pre-Fiat K's on opponents' behavior or case sexism, racism, etc would most likely be moot as there should be content-warnings prior to case reading and if not and I felt a debater might be upset/targetted then I would interven. There is a time and place for everything and K's in PuFo ain't it. I also subscribe to the idea that many times you are running the K in PuFo because you want to get a competitive advantage i.e. deter opponents' accessibility in the round. If that is the case I won't auto drop you but you will get very low speaks. However, if you do run a K in PuFo and it happens to be ran so exceptionally well that the caliber is synonymous to the level performed at late elims at Nats in CX or LD debate I will probably buy it. However, this is unlikely to happen as if that was the case you probably would be competing in LD or CX rather than PuFo, and if that isn't the case then I apologize and give kudos to you.

Things I like:

· Warranted arguments: “Everything happens for a reason” is not just a cliched quote when it comes to debate! If you are not warranting arguments thoroughly, I will not vote on it. I will not vote on blippy arguments where you just assert things. Just because some dude found that conflict decreases by 2000% under X condition literally means nothing to me. If you can’t explain the methodology or the warranting of the study, a simple response of “There is no warranting here” will take out the impact.

· Cool arguments: Stock arguments are fun and all and actually can be the most effective arguments if run correctly and warranted, but if you have a cool argument you want to break out, feel free. I’d love to hear some cool stuff. I’ll typically vote tech over truth.

· Signposting: If you don’t signpost, I will be lost and it probably will mean if you say some good stuff it won’t be on my flow. Signposting makes my life and yours much easier.

· Overviews & Roadmaps: Roadmaps help me know where you're going on the flow. Overviews can be very effective if done correctly. I'm ok with second position overviews as long as you are not changing your entire advocacy and are not too abusive. With that being said go for them, however understand the trade-off of using time for your overview as a well-established overview is not a one-liner and will not be only a few seconds long. This all goes to round strategy and if you and your partner's speeches all go back to this overview and weigh it enough+correctly I will vote off it and use it as the mechanism while adjudicating. Nobody likes a framework debate, but a good overview can win the round for you while a bad one can be turned on you and cause a clear ballot to the other side. From personal experience, I utilized overviews almost every round and it became part of my typical speech as it helped me clearly frame the round or point out misconceptions/abuse/knifing in the first half of the debate which made it more likely for the judge to buy my advocacy and helped my first speaker. With that in mind, I can smell abusive ones especially when it comes to resolution framing from a mile away because sometimes I was that guy, and I did it to make the round less accessible for my adversaries. So please don't be THAT person.

How to get good speaks:

· Weighing: pretty self-explanatory. I like math a lot so if you do some impact calculus for me I’ll be happy. Tell me why stuff matters.

· Jokes: Debate is a stressful activity. You guys could probably use a laugh as could I. Be funny and I’ll up your speaks if I laugh

· If you guys quote the GOAT of soccer or give me a crazy analogy during the round, I’ll probably bump up your speaks.

Overall, let's have a good round, and good luck y'all!

About Me:

did pf while i was in high school (class of '17). i'm pretty tech for my time, but progressive argumentation is not my thing, so don't read it.

The Basics:

- i can handle speed, but i am rusty so don't go crazy
- intelligent warranting/impacting/weighing > card dumping for extensions and voters
- signpost wherever you can, just makes my life easier

update (3/10): for evidence sharing, use a google doc to save us all some time. my email: rajang456@gmail.com

UPDATE FOR HARVARD 2023.

For email chains: clj9264@nyu.edu

I have been both the head coach and assistant coach for Timothy Christian School for 5 years. Currently, I am not coaching because I am in grad school, but still keep up with PF resolutions. I was a local/regional/national circuit debater in both LD and PF for 3 years for Timothy Christian School. I then spent five years coaching and judging on all these levels. For the past two years, I have judged LD more than anything else but have mostly done case work in PF.

As one my old debate friends/partners has said (thnx Michael):

If you paraphrase a piece of evidence and your opponent calls the card and all you have is a link to an article and you have to control F your way through the page to find what you are referencing I WILL NOT EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE. CUT YOUR CARDS

Now back to my paradigm,

LD SPECIFIC:

A fair warning that I spent the majority of my high school debate career debating PF, but I have 50/50 judged VLD and VPF since 2017.

I have always been a judge that viewed spreading as okay, but I’ll be realistic with you saying that I haven’t judged LD in a year so I’m a little rusty. Run anything you want and run what will best help you win, but make sure to add me to any email chains and slow down for taglines. If you run a K, make sure that it is CLEARLY explained because I am not well-read on most K lit. Although, run whatever is best for you, and I should be able to adapt. I will truly flow anything you run and evaluate them in the round. However, this is also a warning that if you run anything offensive to either me or your opponent, I will not hesitate to drop you, or at the very least significantly drop your speaker points.

I will say clear a few times, but then it is up to you to remember.

While I will read anything presented to me in email chains, I still find it your responsibility to effectively communicate your speeches to both your opponent and me.

PF SPECIFIC:

Keep in mind, however, that PF has changed drastically since I graduated in 2017, although I did also debate VLD for a period of time so I have that experience to draw upon, and I have been coaching/judging PF since I graduated.

Run whatever you want but be sure to be able to engage with those who may not debate the same way as you (i.e., if you have adapted to be more of a tech debater but your opponents are not, be sure that you can still engage in traditional debate.)

As for basic debate preferences, continue reading:

Some things that are necessary for you to win any PF round, whether it be tech or traditional:

1. Extensions. If you want me to look at an argument in your final focus, it is essential that you extend it during your summary.

2. Outweigh. Give me a reason as to why your 25% is more important than your opponent's $200,000. Tell me how the people you are affecting are more important than your opponent's. Essentially, do not make me assume anything and do not make me pick which is more important. *This does not mean I automatically vote util. I love a good framework debate (it’s the LDer in me), just let me knowwhy I ought to look to your evidence as opposed to your opponents.

3. Write the ballot for me. Give me clear voters during the round. Literally, tell me what to write on my ballot. Again, do not make me pick which is more important. Forcing me to make a decision will only result in a messy RFD and critiques. Tell me why your side is more important.

I will vote off of the flow, so make sure to signpost. Don't bother with an in-depth off-time roadmap, instead, just tell me where you are starting. I will only intervene on the account that there are no voting issues during the round, no weighing mechanisms, and no real arguments standing, that being said be clear and very selective. Do not feel the need to argue every single point. I understand that not everything can be covered in a three-minute summary speech. Instead, make smart decisions about what is necessary to win the round.

FINALLY, FOR EVERYONE:

Regarding speaks, make sure you are respectful, or I will not hesitate to lower your speaker points. Low speaks never equates a loss in my book, but speaks are important as I am sure you all know (esp during bubble rounds). As a debater who got into one to many heated discussions, I saw how that could affect my speaks. I love when debaters show that they are passionate, but that does not have to translate as being disrespectful.

Essentially, debate is about having fun and gaining knowledge. It is meant to be a space where we are able to respectfully argue positions and learn from others, so make sure that every round is focused on this. Also, if you took the time to read this all and incorporate a musical theater reference into the round, this may benefit your speaks :)

I have been a coach for about 12 years, working with students in all forms of speech and debate. As an educator, I see my role as a judge in helping you grow.

I usually inform competitors that I can handle just about anything that they wish to try in a round. I have an open mind and have seen just about everything as a coach and a judge. I don't have strong opinions on what debate should be, other than the guidelines provided by the rules for each event. I want you to explain why you should win the round based on the approach to arguing your position that you have chosen.

That being said, I do prefer certain stylistic techniques. Maintain a moderate speed when speaking. If I can't process your argument, it likely won't have much of an impact in my decision. This is especially important in this virtual world, when certain computer microphones struggle to keep up with you. Demonstrate camaraderie with your partner in PF and Parli and politeness toward your opponents, especially during cross. Emphasize the connections within your argument and show how your framework links to your contentions. Provide abundant examples and evidence. As you are wrapping up the round, show clear reasons to vote for your side. Please focus more on the arguments than on why your opponent violated some fundamental rule of debate.

I will not punish you through speaker points. Extremely low scores are only reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior.

Good luck in your round!

Hi, I was a PF debater for the Montville, NJ team back in high school. Since I graduated, I’ve been judging LD a lot. However, I have no experience actually debating LD. Keep that in mind if I’m judging you in LD. Some of the more advanced topics and lingo such as theory shells, RVIs, and spikes still escape my understanding because nobody has properly explained them to me and I haven’t gone out of my way to figure them out myself. If you’re going to use advanced LD techniques, make sure you explain them to me well enough so I can understand them. If I don’t, I just won’t consider them in my decision. However, I’ve done a large amount of amateur philosophy reading, so I can definitely understand most philosophical arguments and schools of thought well. Most of all, please actually attack your opponent’s arguments while explaining to me why your argument is better. There’s nothing I dislike judging more than a debate where both debaters are just repeating their own arguments with no actual conflict.

In summary, if a 0 is a parent judge who has never even sat in a debate round before (PF or LD), and a 10 is a TOC LD Champion judge, think of me as a 7.

I am a lawyer and Executive Director of the NYCUDL.

I have judged PF for the last 6+ years, over 100 rounds and run many judge trianings.

I will judge based on a combination of the flow, general logic and common sense.

Speed-don't do it. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for it.

If you want me to vote on an issue please include it in both summary and final focus.

Write my RFD for me in final focus.

Only call for evidence if there is a real need (context, integrity).

In general, be nice. I believe in debate access for all so I will cut your speaks if you create an environment where other people don't want to participate in the activity.

Good luck and have fun!

UPDATED FOR NCFL 2019

Ryan Monagle Ridge High School PF coach

In general the clearest ballot story tends to win the round.

Speed: I'm fine with most speed, easiest way for me to comprehend your speaking style is by starting off at conversational pace through the first card so I can familiarize myself with your cadence. After that feel free to take off. Just a note on speed and spreading, I'm 100% 0kay with speed and enjoy it in really competitive rounds, however the speed needs to be justified by a greater depth in your argumentation and not just the need to card dump 100 blippy cards. If there is ever an issue of clarity I will say clear once, afterwards I will awkwardly stare at you if there is no change and then I will stop flowing.

Rebuttal: MAKE SURE YOU SIGNPOST, If I lose you on the flow and miss responses that is on you. I'm fine with line by line responses though most of the time they tend to be absolutely unnecessary. I would rather you group responses. Card dumping will lead me to deducting speaker points. Trust me you don't need 6-7 cards to respond to a single warrant.

Summary: Don't try to go for literally everything in the round. By the time Summary comes around the debate should have narrowed down to a few pieces of offense. Any offense you want to go for in final focus has to be in summary. Whether or not you go for defense in 1st summary is up to those debating in round, sometimes it isn't 100% necessary for you to go for it, sometimes you need to so it to survive the round. You should make that evaluation as the round moves along.

Final Focus: Weigh in final, if neither teams weighs in round then I have to do it at the end of the round and you may not like how that turns out. Weighing should be comparative and should tell me why your offense should be valued over your opponents.

Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, typically I spend time writing the ballot and reviewing the flow. However, I still pay attention to most occurrences in crossfire. If you go for a concession be explicit and I'll consider it, but you need to extend it in later speeches. Also if you happen to concede something and then immediately go back on it in the next speech I am going to deduct speaks.

Speaker Points: My evaluation for speaker points revolves around presentation and strategy/tactics in the round that I'm judging. Feel free to try to make me laugh if you can I'll give you big props and you'll get a bump up in speaker points.

Please, I beg debaters to take advantage of the mechanisms that exist to challenge evidence ethics in round, I would gladly evaluate a protest in round and drop debaters for evidence violations. I think the practice of lying about/misrepresenting evidence is something a lot coaches and competitors want to see change, but no one takes advantage of the system that currently exists to combat these behaviors in round.

For NCFL: Judges can read evidence if the validity of the source is in question you have to explicitly tell the judge to call for the card in question.

I am a former PF debater for four years. I value solid logical reasoning to back up any arguments, you should be able to logically explain overall arguments on top of evidence. I love creative arguments and will buy anything someone tells me if it goes unopposed. Do not rely on me to "buy" arguments: if the opponent does not put up a solid argument against, I will pull it through the round. Weighing is key. Turns are appreciated in rebuttal. Signpost and layout the responses to arguments clearly; give me overviews if an argument applies to an entire position or case.