This is my sixth year as a parent debate judge. Two students in high school who have debated every year. My son is now a college debater.

I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important --- eg, it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded.

I was a professional historian and academic for 20 years, and I value evidence and sources as well as argument. (I now do strategic communications.)

I find that there is plenty of time during the round for teams to present arguments cogently and marshall evidence. Usually the debate gets repetitive towards the end. So don't rush. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

I am a parent of a Lexington debater. I have been trained as a judge and this is my third tournament. I try very hard to keep my personal opinions out of the debate, and score the debate entirely on the relative merits of the arguments made by you and your opponents. That will be easier for me if you weigh and evaluate your arguments and if you compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I will take notes, but I do not want you to speak quickly because if you do I will not be able to write down what you say. I encourage you to ask for feedback after the debate and I will endeavor to be encouraging and constructive.

Pretty standard flow judge.

General Stuff:

Don't speak too fast.

Please weigh.

Be organized+signpost.

Don't mislabel turns.

I value humor.

Rebuttal:

-I like overviews/terminal defense.

-I prefer good logic over just dumping a bunch of cards on me. If you read evidence, contextualize it. If you just have a massive card dump without explanations, I won't flow the responses if they are not immediately understandable to me.

Summary:

-Structure summaries around voters.

-You are much better off collapsing arguments into one/two voters, rather than blippy extensions

-Don't extend through ink

-Summary overviews are also nice

-Please weigh in summary and provide actual justifications for your weighing.

Final Focus:

-I will not really consider any offense in Final Focus that was not in Summary

-Provide specific voters that carry from Summary.

Crossfire:

-I don't really flow Crossfire, but I will pay attention/write anything down that is important. If you want me to consider it, it needs to be brought up in speech.

Fiat:

• I grant Neg pretty much 0 fiat. I think this is the intention of the vague "no counterplans in pf" rule that people bring up all the time.
• This means that if you're negating a normative resolution, I think you are restricted to defending the status quo.
• if you're running some sort of alternative solvency on neg, you need to prove to me that this alternative will occur in the status quo, but that the affirmative advocacy is preventing the alternative from happening or trading off with it in some other way.
• I grant the aff the weakest fiat possible. You can fiat that the resolution will happen, but beyond that, you're pretty much restricted to defending what would most likely happen in the real world given the conditions set by resolution. This means you can't fiat out of political conditions like backlash, political capital, cutgo, etc.
• Also, this means that your advocacy should be a likely implementation of the resolution in the real world. If the resolution says we should send ground troops to Iraq, you can't fiat that this means we should send troops to only one specific village in Iraq because realistically, this isn't how a ground intervention in Iraq would go.

Peter P Cancro's Judge Philosophy:

Some quick background; I've been judging debates, albeit at the HS level, for over a decade (and averaging over 100 rounds a year for the last 5 years or so). Fall 2013 will be my first semester working with KSU, and thus judging on the college level.

That said, I don't really have much of a paradigm anymore.  I'm willing to vote on anything for any reason.  The only rules that are non-negotiable are the speech times and some degree of civility/professionalism, and adherence to all legal constraints applicable to the jurisdiction(s) in which the debate occurs. 

I prefer not to call for or read evidence; it should be the debaters' job to articulate what the evidence actually says and contest its meaning. 

Any other preference I could list here would be a "weak default", subject to change based on the content of the debate round and relevant argumentation within it.  For example, in general, I will consider evidence more credible than a debater's assertions.  As a weak preference, that could be overcome by a debater's arguments and warrants contending that thier particular assertion is more credible or true than a particular card in that debate (especially if this argument is made, a warrant is given, and the other team drops it).

Other than the above, and the classical advice "don't drop things", the best way to win debates in front of me is to "get underneath" whatever level of analysis of the debate your opponent is engaging in.  For example, if no one is dropping anything, but are only clashing based on the tags of the cards, you could easily win by making claims about the warrants of the relevant cards.  If the warrants are being contested, then you could either give empirical examples that demonstrate why your card's warrants are superior (more true or more applicable to the circumstances being debated).

I hope that gives you some sense of who I am as a judge, and wish you luck competing or coaching someone to compete in front of me!

add me on the email chain! lexcynthiayc@gmail.com

I competed in LD for Lexington High School from 2014 to 2018, and have been away from debate until late 2023. So, if I don't remember certain types of arguments (IVIs, etc.), it's because I'm old and rusty. I've been told that my facial expressions give away what I'm thinking, so you should probably use that to your advantage. Speed is fine, but I will ask you to slow down on T/theory/UV/tricks. I flow by ear, and I'll say "clear" twice. If I still can't understand you, I'll stop flowing. I'm most comfortable with K's (I love a good non-topical K aff), T/theory, LARP, phil is ok. My defaults: condo good (unless you're going for >3 offs), no RVIs, drop debater, CIs, theory highest layer.

For Preferences:

K - 1

LARP - 1 (LARP v LARP tends to get very messy and hard to evaluate, please collapse appropriately and not go for every single argument in your last speech, extinction impacts are boring, LARP v K is fun)

Theory/T - 1

Phil - 2/3 (I don't understand high theory stuff like Baudy/Deleuze, read at your own risk)

Traditional - 2 (how i feel about trad is how i feel about a plain bagel - lukewarm but I'll still eat it)

Tricks - 4 (only evaluated indexicals, if you go for tricks, please only collapse to one and explain it very well)

----------------------------------

on speaks:

how to get a 30: give me an overview, collapse appropriately, don't read > 3 offs (my favorite roadmap is "1 off case"), and sign post clearly

how to boost speaks: being funny, being nice to your opponent, email chain already set up, conceding prep/speech time (tell me how much), smart CX

how to get <25 speaks: going on your phone (beyond setting a timer), telling someone that "they don't look black so therefore they can't read afropess" (yes, this did happen), aggro^2 (i love sassy cx/rebuttals, but do not be problematic)

K

I have a soft spot for non-topical K affs, performance is fun, give me warrants as to why it's good for debate. You should have some solvency, clear ROB, and framing. Don't read a K in front of me because I like them, I have heard some problematic extensions and I will not be afraid to dock speaks. Buzzwords need to make sense and you should absolutely know your lit if you read it in front of me. Feel free to impact turn on T/theory.

From Sai Karavadi's paradigm:

"Update-- you know -- I am slowly getting the ick regarding how people are instrumentalizing literature of specific groups for ballots -- if you are not part of a community and decide to read the literature anyways, but you clearly have a surface level understanding of it, I will be unhappy -- I am tired of cishets using queer pessimism, able-bodied people reading disability pessimism, and white people reading afro-pessimismwithout any real engagement with the literature -- and I don't think non-indigenous people reading settler colonialism is somehow distinct, nor do I think that non-black people reading other structural criticisms about antiblackness is distinct enough for it to mean that you are somehow using images of suffering more ethically. I am vexed with the inauthentic way that y'all are reading this literature, so I am watching with a very close eye regarding CX answers, the way you structure the K, the authors you read, and the 2N explanations. I won't auto-drop you or anything, but I do reserve the right to drop you on the ick if it's obvious you are not taking the literature seriously. I have had conversations with other judges and coaches who feel similarly, so read things at your own risk from now on. I still think you can read them, but I need you to do it at a level where it is clear you care and know what you're talking about."

LARP

This is fine. Plans/CPs/DAs/PIC/Ks cool. My issue with judging LARP is that oftentimes the impact is extinction with the most generic cards (Avery/Pummer with util framing). Make sure you have a clear link story and that UQ is there (like within the last year, ideally the last few months). I think consult/communication CPs are lazy and don't make for good debate.

Theory/T

I really,really don't like frivolous theory (think spreading/condo bad). Disclosing is chill (aff should disclose 30 min prior to round, don't need to disclose if new - like actually new new, not just one card being changed). I'm not fully convinced you need full doc to be able to engage, tags + author + cite + first and last 3 words of card is good enough for me. If it's blatantly obvious that you are the more experienced debater in the round and you choose the lazy path like disclosure theory, I will be very unhappy (ceiling for speaks is probably a 26).

Also from Sai Karavadi's paradigm:

"Side note -- if you impact spreading bad or other shells to ableism, maybe think about that -- debate is of course extremely ableist, but I find it paternalistic to generally claim that disabled debaters are unable to debate able-bodied debaters who spread or speak fast. That's not to say I won't vote on it or that I don't think there is some truth to the claim, but I do think you should watch how you phrase the argument at least -- i.e., "disabled debaters cannot debate unless you disclose early cause they have to think on their feet" -- this sounds problematic and like you're saying that disabled people can't critically think in the moment, but "it is better to not spread to encourage access for people with certain disabilities" -- this sounds more agreeable. Be very careful when you talk about ableism because I have heard very problematic collapses that I am not happy with."

Phil

Most rounds have util as framing, which is fine, though I'm not convinced it's a great ethical theory. Comfortable with eval kant v util, all that good stuff.

Updated January, 2018

TL;DR Former PFer, flow judge. Consistency through summary and FF, don't misconstrue evidence, time yourselves, and weigh please.

Background

Four years of PF at Nueva (graduated 2017). As with any human being, I have ideological biases, but in round I will try my best to be tabula rasa and to evaluate the round fairly.

Evidence/Cards

I’m fine if you ask for some cards, flash cards, or whatever. However, there are four things I really don’t like when people do. First, do not prep when people are finding cards. This is rude. Second, find cards in a timely manner. You should be able to provide cards with proper citations and bolded/highlighted parts in a manner that does not hold up the debate. This makes the round run smoother and is a debater's responsibility. Third, use proper citations with author and date at least (I tag cards by the author's last name; not a rule in any way, just something you might find helpful). These first three things will not influence my decision but will have an effect on speaks (although I'm open to theory on improper citations). Fourth, DO NOT MISCONSTRUE EVIDENCE. In prelims I will not ask for cards after the round unless you ask me to call for cards, in which case I will call for all card you ask me to call for, or unless I strongly suspect a card is misconstrued. In outrounds, I will call for cards that are heavily contested or any cards that you ask me to call for or any cards I strongly suspect are misconstrued. If your evidence is misconstrued, it disappears from my flow. If it is misconstrued such that a reasonable person would believe it was intentionally manipulated to give a strategic advantage, I will drop you (although I've never had to do this before and hope I never will).

The implication of my prelim evidence policy is that when two teams throw contradictory stats at each other with no way to resolve the conflict, I don't know what to do (since I'm not going to call for prelim cards); this means that I won't feel comfortable enough to vote on the argument with unresolved evidence conflicts (unless the round is so messy that there is nowhere else to vote). Thus, if you want me to vote on such an argument, tell me to call for the cards.

I think paraphrasing is fine (I paraphrased when I debated), as long as you are not changing the meaning of the card.

Topicality and Framework

These are fine but most of the time in PF just winning that an argument is not topical does not mean that you win the round, it just takes out one (or multiple pieces) of their offense. Don't forget to extend offense too. Also, if you are going to run a framework, you have to tell me why your opponents arguments don't fit under that framework and why you do (in addition to why I should pref the framework over util, which is what I will default to).

Definitions

Honestly most definitions read in PF are unnecessary. I would advise only reading definitions if they're actually important. Also, I hate adjudicating definitional debates (you'll lose speaks if you make me do this).

Theory and Ks

I am open to these and will vote on them (if you use a shell, make sure you extend properly). However, I do think that PFers often read theory when the interp is invalid/the violation didn't really happen because they want to run "cool progressive" arguments. Also, running theory just because you know your opponents won't understand it technically and you can get an easy win is a really terrible thing to do (if you really think there's something unfair going on in the round, but your opponents don't understand how a shell works--just ask them in crossfire--then you can just run paragraph theory). If it is clear you are just running the theory for an easy win, you will get 0 speaks (but still the win as long as you actually win the round). That said, I love interesting rounds and progressive argumentation so as long as your not forcing it to pick up an easy ballot, go ahead!

Weighing

Please do this. The only way you can guarantee a win in round is to write my ballot for me in late speeches; tell me why you are winning the most important argument and argue why that argument is the most important and you will win. Weigh your impacts. If you don’t, I will just have to pick one and one team will probably disagree with my decision.

I think there's a tendency in the debate community to say things like "weigh lives over everything else"--this is unjustified and is not sufficient weighing. If there's no weighing in the round, I default to the weirdest impact in the round--you won't be happy with this so just weigh.

Speed

I’ve never heard a PF debate that I can’t follow, but I definitely cannot follow fast policy speed. Just do what you normally do and I’ll drop my pen if you’re going too fast. Do be clear on tags and signpost though.

Offtime Roadmap

Do this if you want, but is your rebuttal really so extraordinarily difficult to follow that it desperately needs a roadmap? Unless you're doing something really crazy, it's probably not necessary in PF, but I won't dock you points for doing it unnecessarily.

Cross

I pay very little attention to crossfire--if you find this to be a big issue, please let me know before the round, and we can discuss. Otherwise, this means that anything that you want in the round has to be in speech. Be polite, and do not yell. Also, if you're confused about something please just ask in crossfire.

Also, time your own cross.

Extensions

Extending through ink is bad. If you try to extend through ink, I will consider the defense cold dropped. The other team only need bring up in later speeches that the response was dropped. Extending through ink in the 2nd FF is not cool at all. It will come out of your speaks and will NOT be evaluated.

Also, an extension consists of link, warrant, and impact. When you extend, tag and summarize your cards.

FF and Summary

Anything that is in the FF has to be in summary (the only exception to this is that 1st summary does not have to extend defense). Do not try to sneak in arguments during grand cross and extend them in FF; I will not evaluate them. This is especially true if you are the second speaking FF. If you are 2nd speaking FF teams that makes up new arguments or misconstrues evidence in the FF I will disregard everything new and trash your speaker points.

Note: If you are the first speaking team, you may extend a turn from rebuttal to FF as long as you phrase it as a competitive link that exactly cancels out your opponent's link. It will be evaluated accordingly as defense.

Collapse

Please please pick arguments to go for. Unless you are so far ahead that you have time to go for everything, going for everything in a half-decent way is far worse than collapsing on a couple of key arguments.

Prep

Don't steal prep. It will come out of your speaks. I really don't think it should take more than 15 seconds to get your stuff together and speak--if this seems unfair or there is a reason you can't do this, then let me know before the round, and we can discuss.

Speaker Points

I'm pretty generous with speaks. For me speaking ability is completely separate from the arguments in the debate. You can make good points and be a terrible speaker and I’ll pick you up but probably give you terrible speaks. If you want good speaks be polite, don't misconstrue evidence, and speak pretty. Speaker points are also where I will penalize you for things like going new in the 2.

Kicking Out

Kicking out of an argument requires that you read a piece of defense on it. This must be in summary and final focus (even if it is first summary).

Clarity

I will nod my head when something makes sense to me, and I'll also make a weird face if I don't understand what you are talking about. Hopefully this is helpful for making sure I understand your arguments.

Miscellaneous/Semantics

I don't appreciate it when 1st speaking teams don't flow their opponent's FF. I think one of the main reasons we debate is because it helps us learn, and having a full flow of the round is certainly more conducive to learning. I realize this part of my paradigm may not actually achieve its end (b/c you may just flow the speech so I don't deck your speaks and then throw it away afterwards), but it's probably better than you not flowing at all. I will doc half a speaker point if you don't do this.

I think it makes the round interesting when people ask weird crossfire questions like "what are you going for in summary?" (more like LD).

Yes you can time yourselves--I would prefer that.

Please come with your cases preflowed--that saves everyone time.

Know what your impact cards mean. If your card says "a one standard deviation in x increases the gini coefficient by 0.02," you better be able to explain what that means. Also, I don't understand what that means so you should explain that to me and compare it to other impacts.

I love humor. If I laugh you can have a 30.

I'm certainly open to discussing the reasons for my paradigm and even changing them if the discussion convinces me.

I default to util. I will buy any framework, but give me a reason to prefer.

I really enjoy discussion of methodology/study flaws. Bonus speaks for cool, mathematically insightful evidence indicts.

Questions

Ask any questions you have. If something is unclear I would rather you ask a question than do something that I said not to do in my paradigm. This policy on questions also holds after the round. If you disagree or don't understand my decision, please ask me questions. I'm happy to explain or discuss!

Im a junior at umass amherst studying political science and journalism. I did 1 year of LD and 3 years of PF at lexington hs. I'm a fairly straightforward, classic pf judge so just do what you know you're supposed to.

Prefs:

- ***The easier you make it for me to vote for you, the more likely I am to do so! Don't just respond to arguments - actually tell me why you're winning (so weigh, do voters, compare framework, etc). I don't like having to do extra work on the flow, it makes my job as a judge a lot harder.

- I love arguments that are legitimately warranted and clearly explained. Obviously, evidence is important too, but I'd rather have an argument that logically makes sense over a random card that doesn't link well or has no warrants as to why I should believe it.

- It needs to be in summary to be in final focus so EXTEND. The exception to this rule is if you're speaking first and your opponent brings up some new arguments in their summary. In this case, it's fine for you to make a new response in final focus. But outside of that, you really shouldn't argue something new in FF if it wasn't in summary.

- Collapse your arguments in summary and ff. Don't leave me with a ton different arguments to weigh after the round. It's annoying and basically an evidence dump. I recommend using voters in your summary and/or final focus. It's not mandatory but heavily recommended.

-and going off of that: CLASH. actually respond to/weight arguments please.

- I won't flow your cross-fires. So if you think you won something during cross you better tell me during your speech.

- If you want me to call for evidence, tell me and I will. I may call for evidence at the end of the round anyway if things have become muddied.

- Don't spread; you can talk fast, but don't spread. It makes me more confused and you don't really want me to confused. Also, I'm a strong believer that if you're debating well you shouldn't need to spread anyway.

-This should go without saying but don't be rude or offensive. I do dock speaker points if you are overly rude or aggressive or say anything that is harmful. Debate should be an overall positive experience!

ask in round if you have any questions! good luck!

I am a parent judge for Acton-Boxborough and I have judged on the local/national circuit for two years.

English is my second language, so please please don't spread. Keep the word count at 180 will be great.

General Preferences

I like arguments that are logical and explained clearly. If you do this, then you will be successful.

I do not flow cross, but I do pay attention. Be civil and respond logically. Don't be over-aggressive.

Rebuttal

I like arguments that are logical and are supported by cut evidence. Rebuttal is your time to point out flaws in your opponent's arguments with clear logic from your side. Please don't read a bunch of general prepared blocks - I want to hear relevant, targeted responses.

However I do think extent on your own contention is important. The case can't be solely won just on rebuttal.

Note that the below was written in a parliamentary debate context, where I spend the vast majority of my time judging. I've judged LD, PF, CX, WS in the past, but not for several years, so I may not be as familiar with the conventions as I used to be. All the below should still apply.

ABOUT ME:

I competed for Ridge in extemp for four years, and for Rutgers on APDA for four years. I've coached (lay) policy, PF, extemp, Congress, and parli for Ridge (on and off) since 2016, and I coached North Star Academy in policy for one academic year. I served as NPDL Reporting Director in the 2022-2023 season. I have degrees in political science and accounting. I work in analytics for an insurance carrier in Connecticut. I use he/him pronouns. I really love debate.

GENERAL/OVERVIEW:

Debate is collaborative, adversarial truth seeking. I like all kinds of arguments (but I like good arguments best). Be kind to each other! Rounds should be safe spaces, I will drop you for bigotry.

SPEED:

I don’t have any issue with speed in principle. Personally, I’m not great at understanding circuit-level speed, but I’m happy to say clear as often as needed. If your opponent makes a good-faith request that you slow down, you should slow down. If you don’t do so, I’ll almost certainly drop you.

STRUCTURE:

Framework debate is very important. I think that everything said in a round, including framework, is an argument, and arguments shouldn’t simply be asserted. Why should I prefer your weighing mechanism? Why is your actor the correct one?

Please signpost very cleanly. I never want to wonder what argument/subpoint/section of your speech you are on.

I very, very strongly prefer rebuttals that are almost entirely off-flow. PMR and LOR are opportunities for you to write my ballot for me. These speeches should weigh impacts, crystallize, and show me why you won the round.

Unless directed otherwise by tab policy, I will consider all new arguments in rebuttal speeches if they are not called out in points of order. Even if tab policy directs me to protect the flow, if I'm unsure if a point is new or not, I will likely default to assuming the argument is not new. All of this is to say: if you think a point is new, call a point of order!

If you go over time, I will stop flowing at the end of grace (for formats with a grace period). I will cut you off if it gets to be particularly egregious.

For virtual tournaments, if you're running a plan or counterplan, I would appreciate it if you paste the plan text in the chat function.

COUNTERPLANS:

I don’t have any issue with CPs, but I dislike plan inclusive counterplans and counterplans that are very minor modifications to the plan (eg, do the plan but do it two weeks later). I don’t dislike them enough to intervene against them, and I have voted for them in the past, but I think they’re probably bad for debate and will be amenable to arguments to that effect. In any case please put your CP text in the chat for virtual tournaments.

THEORY/K/TOPICALITY:
I like all three! I like K affs! I like well done theory in response to Ks! But see above: I like all arguments. You should run these if you think they are appropriate for the situation. I was not a K debater, and I am not especially familiar with any of the kritikal literature, but I am happy to listen to whatever you read. In any case, with any of these arguments, please make sure the critical components (eg alt, ROB, interp, violations, etc) are highlighted and easy to flow.

Post 2023 NPDL TOC note: I find myself voting for K teams relatively often because they often give me really clear roles of the ballot, while teams responding to a K are often a little less clear about the ROB. My aim is to intervene as little as possible, and where one team tells me what my ballot is for and the other team doesn't, I'm very often voting for the former. So, if you're responding to a K: don't just tell me why the K is bad, tell me what my ballot is for, and why I should vote for you. It's perfectly fine if your answer to that is the ROB is to vote for the team that proves the resolution true/false! I really can't stress enough how important this is.

You should not read my paradigm to mean that I am not amenable to Ks bad arguments: I am perfectly willing to vote for Ks bad, and am open to RVIs deployed to that effect. That said if your standard response to Ks is disclosure theory it's probably best to ask the team if they're planning on running one.

I do not especially like frivolous theory (tropicality, note the r, makes me sad) and will do my best not to vote for it.

TECH vs. TRUTH:

I guess I’m slightly on the tech side of things? I don’t think I have ever judged a round where I thought “since I’m a tech judge, I will vote x, but if I were a truth judge, I would have voted y.” I think arguments need to be warranted to have any weight in my decision, though.

I will always adhere to tab/tournament policy re: evidence.

POIs:

I think you should take one, I don’t care if you take more than that (I would actually encourage you not to take more than that).

ENDNOTES:
I’m always happy to answer any questions before the round, or about my RFD/feedback after the round. I love judging and I’m very excited to be judging your round.

I am a senior at Waring School in Beverly, MA. I have been competing public forum 5 years. In terms of the round, be respectful to your opponents, and your voters, and evidence, with reasoning. Good luck!

I am a Debate Team Advisor, that does not mean I am the Coach. I have never participated in a Debate. I organize our team and I have judged a few times. I expect that students speak slow enough for me to understand you. Sometimes the urgency in students' voices is not necessary, spoken calmly will end in the same result and it will be easier to understand.

I am looking for you to address the opponent's contentions and prove to me, your impact is more important than the opponents.

Background:

* Live-long engineer dealing with logic and deduction on a daily basis.

Amateur PF judge striving to take good notes and follow the flow. A few notes:

* Prefers acronyms explained when they first appear. As you apparently have done more research on the topic than I do. Both sides knowing the term doesn't necessarily mean I know the term as well.

* Be respectful and act professional. Use reasoning and logic to win the "public" in your public forum debate.

I am a lay judge (sorry), so here are my preferences. I apology that most of these are going to be very irritating to have to adapt to:

speech content

• reexplain your link chain in two minute speeches

• explain how your responses affect your opponents’ arguments (especially if you’re completely delinking or non-uniquing them) not only in rebuttal, but also in two minute speeches

• in rebuttal, I would prefer for you to read fewer responses and really flesh out what they mean instead of dumping as many responses as possible

speaking

• speak at an understandable pace (but don’t be condescendingly slow)

• SIGNPOST! tell me which side’s argument you’re talking about and what contention it is. I don’t totally know what links and impacts are so please briefly explain the part of the argument you’re talking about

• avoid debate jargon (even stuff that you’re probably used to saying like “non-unique” and “turn”) and replace those words with what they actually mean (replace “non-unique” with “this happens whether you vote pro or con” and “turn” with “this actually helps our side,” etc.)

Note: My son helped me write this based on my experiences with past tournaments.

Hello!

I'm a sophomore at Tufts University studying political science and economics and I did pf for 4 years at Newton South High School.

I have a couple of preferences when it comes to debate rounds that I think are pretty standard. I can deal with some speed, but no spreading please! I like good weighing. Essentially, don't just shout magnitude and scope at me, but actually explain why your impact is more important than your opponents. Good warranting and explanation of your arguments is very important to me because if I don’t understand your link chain I can’t justify voting off of it. Try to keep things as clear as possible because that’s probably who I’ll vote for. I may have debated in high school, but that does not mean that I know anything about the topic so please explain things relevant to the topic as if I've never heard them before because I probably haven't. I’m also not a big fan of theory unless it's absolutely necessary. First speaking teams can extend defense not said in first summary into final focus. Signposting is always a nice plus. I also enjoy if you are human and tell a story while debating if you can. Finally, in your 2 minute speeches please collapse your arguments and focus on 1-2 points.

This should be a given, but just generally be nice to each other! Feel free to make jokes and have fun as well because debate is supposed to be enjoyable.

Feel free to ask me any questions and I look forward to watching some good debates :)

Hello, I am a parent judge.

1. Keep debate words like “nonunique” and “turn” to a minimum.

2. Speak slowly.

3. Be polite but assertive.

4. Make the round very clear for me.

Good luck, have fun.

I'm a lay judge and english is my second language so please go slow, preferably around 180wpm max.

When you extend warrants/impacts please explain them clearly, don't just extend a tagline.

please weigh

logical warrants are stronger than empirics, so please have a warrant for your stats

have fun

I debated for 4 years at Shrewsbury High School in MA.

The way I judge:

• I can flow speed, but if you’re going too fast I won’t be a fan
• Please signpost for me (be organized in your speeches)
• I don't flow crossfire, but I do listen (somewhat) and will hold teams to concessions made during CX
• Unless an argument takes up the entire span of GCX, I don’t like to flow things in final focus that are not argued during summary. The exception would be if first summary doesn't extend defense from rebuttal.
• Please, like please, do not try any “my opponents failed to respond to…” if they responded to it. I know it’s a lie, you know it’s a lie. Just be cool.
• Branching off of that, don't extend through ink (i.e. don't keep saying an argument if your opponents have already responded to it, unless you counter-respond). I won't flow it until you address the defense.
• If there is a lot of dispute over evidence, or it looks like there's some shady stuff going on, I don't have any qualms calling for cards.
• I'm honestly pretty generous when it comes to speaker points. Especially if you do the things below.

Some things I like personally:

• I am very game for interesting arguments and will flow pretty much anything unless it's racist/sexist/homophobic.
• The one caveat to the above is that I'm not really a fan of K's, theory, or anything that's not really part of PF, just because I don't have that kind of background and probably won't appreciate the value of that kind of debate.
• Unless you're doing something out-of-the-ordinary you don't need to give me a road map - I know the drill.
• Being polite is a real plus. It will make me like you way more.
• I really like jokes - please make them.

And, above all else, I beg of you weigh your arguments. It makes my life 100000x easier.

About Me

i debated for four years in high school public forum and one year in college parliamentary. i was on the national circuit for all four years.

Judging Philosophy

i flow.

i do not intervene- you could literally say that the sky is bright red and i won't correct you.

something i see a lot among current debaters debating in front of former debaters who don't coach or didn't work at a camp is that they assume that we know everything about the topic. this is a grave error. i have little to no understanding of the topic or the current debate meta, especially in the first few rounds of a tournament. i can understand the debate on a technical level perfectly fine, but don't expect me to make logical leaps for you based on information that is common knowledge on the topic.

i want an easy ballot. i will vote on arguments that are clear and portrayed as important in the second half of the debate. furthermore, i would prefer that you use the second half of the debate, especially the final focus, to analyze the clash in the round and explain why you come out on top. this should come naturally if you are weighing effectively.       

Preferences

weigh.

you do not need defense in first summary.

don't ask for evidence unless you suspect that they are misrepresenting a card. confusion about a card can be cleared up in crossfire.

don't ask before the round, "what can I do to get a 30?". i have never seen that work. 

Speakers Points

i default 28. argumentative skill, clever strategy, and conciseness are what will get you a 30. rudeness, disrespect, or general foolishness will get you a 26 or less. 

i appreciate humor.

i find the cx is key to getting high speaker points, especially among lay judges. in my opinion, to be the best debater in cx you want to be dominate without coming off as rude. 

if you flip the meta i will give you a 30.  

if you happen to be debating a team that you think is much better than you and I happen to be the judge (or even if i'm not and you just happen to be reading my paradigm), I want to let you in on a secret. anyone can beat any team. it doesn't matter how many bids they have, how many tournaments they have won, or how well known they are around the circuit- if you out debate them, you will win. the most important skill in debate is by far self-confidence. i've seen well-known teams win with shitty arguments because lesser known teams walked into the debate thinking they were gonna lose. you have to believe in yourself if you want a judge to believe your arguments. i want to make it clear that i don't want to discourage you from debating if you don't have that self-confidence as of right now- it's a much a learned skill as flowing, weighing, or arguing. in high school, i would get extremely nervous in round, especially if we were hitting a team that we thought was better than us. i would convince myself that we were going to lose before i even read our case. but after debating every weekend, cutting many cards, and writing many cases I slowly realized that I had improved substantially and the only thing holding me back was myself. even though i wasn't the best debater when I realized this, having confidence in myself allowed me to improve substantially more by taking risks i never would have dared take before. and slowly but surely, our results started to improve until people were scared to debate us. in some respects, to be good at debate you have to fake it till you make it. so to the teams who will go 2-4 this weekend, take it from someone who was in your shoes- you can win this round.  

Srinivas Mantha

I cant say myself as a seasoned judge but I do have the logical thinking and the practical approach for judging in a PF debates. I believe debating is another beautiful way of gaining and presenting knowledge holistically through discussion on a given topic or subject area.

The major areas I would like to see as a judge among the debaters are:

a) Clarity and Fact/Evidence based debate points.

b) Courteousness and Professionalism in the presentation.

c) Respecting the opponents and their analysis/input.

d) Negating or disagreeing with fact based pointers rather than insulting fictional information.

Hi, I'm Casey! Did both speech + debate events as a youngin'. I now work in special education and disability care.

"Strike me and I'll give you 30 speaks" -a judge much funnier than me.

I'm a big believer that debate is a place where anybody from anywhere can come, view the debate, and understand a decent chunk of what is being said. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but have outlined circumstances in this paradigm where that goes to the wayside.

If you give me something to judge, and don't tell me why and/or how to judge it, chances are I'm gonna put that point/contention/whatever way at the bottom of my 'things to care about in this debate' list.

♥ A TL;DR of this Paradigm ♥

Don't spread. Quality of arguments over quantity- this goes for any day, any round, any tournament. Run whatever argument you want as long as you link it to your case (yes, this means be topical (on the resolution)). I'm not the best judge by any stretch of the word- SO, please don't use super dense lingo and expect me to understand it.

I don't care about email chains/documents... unless you're running an extremely """progressive""" case. No harm in asking, though.

Tricks debate bad. Unique points good. Being a jerk bad. Positive vibes good. Being condescending big bad. Weighing points good. Roadmaps fine. Extending points good. Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. Have fun + drink water.

♥ ALL BELOW POINTS MOSTLY CONCERN LD/POLICY ♥

Don't spread- it's straight up unnecessary + cheapens debate to quantity > quality. (Woohoo, strike me!)

That being said, I'm fine with people speaking faster than 'normal'. You know what the difference is. If I have to call for clarity/speed more than 3 times in a round then I'm going to really be harsh on your speaker points.

♥ That's that ish I don't like ♥

You're gonna find it very hard to run some form of Disability Pessimism with me and win- this is one of the only biases that I can't ever seen to get past- I am biased towards cases that do work to make a "positive" outcome the most attainable scenario. This doesn't mean don't run arguments that say the world isn't gonna end- if you can prove the world is gonna end, then seriously, do it.

Nihilistic/depressing for the sake of being depressing arguments make me fall asleep and fall into the ever expanding void of Lovecraftian horrors that no doubt live in the Hudson Bay (or so I've been told).

♥ Uhh idk what to call this section, maybe like 'stuff you probably should and shouldn't do' ♥

I don't care how you access your criterion, I just care that you actually access your criterion. Run any K, plan, CP, or what have you and I'll happily flow it as long as you've linked to the resolution and framework (dead serious- that's it!). If you're running a K, make sure it's topical (like, seriously, I'm a big stickler with this) and assume I don't know what you're talking about in the slightest and go from there- I'll go out of the way to say that traditional K's are an easier way to win. If you're using a K, I need to understand the link and the terms you use! It is not my burden as a judge to flow a point in LD that doesn't link back to your criterion/value/philosophy.

If you're running a plan or counterplan, the more unique the better IMO. Obscure ≠ Unique (Policy debaters are quivering at me saying that- I know, I'm scary- fear me).

I'm not the biggest big fan of how LARP-y LD has become in the past few years. I'm not opposed to it, per se, but strongly believe moral/ framework arguments should always come first in LD. If you're going to run a LARP-y case, have at, but show me why we shouldn't look to a moral system (or whatever way you want to conceptualize it as) to achieve the end result of the round.

Role of the Ballot arguments usually make me cringe. "Education" based arguments also make my brain explode- running these with me unless heavily contextualized will usually go nowhere.

'Debate Space' arguments are bad.

Disclosure (or even time skew, for that matter) theory is usually not good to run with me, unless you really, really feel like the case is abusive and whacky.

I usually see right through trick debate and hate it with a passion. This stuff cheapens debate. Sophistry and my bias against it won't be overcome by you running heavy theory for it, trust me. Same thing with frivolous theory.

Weigh your points (give me them sweet sweet voters), especially in your final speech. I won't vote a point down because you don't extend it, but I'll be a lot more skeptical that you just gave up on the point somewhere along the way.

Truth > Tech, but Tech isn't a bad thing. If there's no base for you to ground your argument in truth, you can't access technical arguments. Extend tech off of truth.

♥ In Closing ♥

I don't like it when people are haughty, pretentious, or talk over others. Don't simply assume your argument is the best because your coach said so. If you sound like a jerk who's simply trying to destroy or demoralize your opponent, I'm a lot more likely to give you less speaker points. That being said, you should still try to destroy your opponent... but like, ~metaphorically, my dude~. This is high school debate. Save the attitude for real-life stuff, like people who think that water isn't wet, people who think Chipotle is better than Moe's (you're literally just lying to yourself, stop smh smh), and people who don't think pineapple belongs on pizza.

Finally, have fun. Bring a sense of humor. Bring some sarcasm. Bring some water. Water is good. Always.

Have a fantastic day, and keep growing and thriving in your Speech and Debate adventure!

I am a parent judge from Lincoln-Sudbury and have judged PF for just over a year.

In order for me to comprehend your arguments, you must speak slowly and clearly. Please be slow, and understandable for the average person.

I won't have extensive topic knowledge like debaters will, so please explain any information that you deem important extremely well. I will judge the round with a clean slate, not bringing my opinions into the round.

I will flow and take notes as much as possible. Keep your arguments in Final Focus consistent with those in summary. I will make my decision based off the content of your argumentation.

If allowed, I plan to disclose the result at the end of the round.

Martin Page

Assistant Director--Debate

Ridge High School

Updated for TOC 2016

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm (Scroll Down for PF)

General Update 4/2016: I much prefer rounds where specific interactions happen rather than rounds where the strategy is to extend dropped arguments and blow them up without really addressing the other debater's position(s).  This is particularly true on the negative side--I FIRMLY believe the 1NC should spend time SPECIFICALLY addressing the AC on the AC side of the flow.  This is not to say that I won't vote for you if you don't do this, but debaters who do this will get higher speaks.  Also, please stop assuming I understand dense, uncommon positions--you need to be clear in your explanation.

Overview: I've been judging circuit LD for a while now and actively coach it, so I am familiar with many different types of arguments.  Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round/how you are interacting with the other side.   I can't think of any arguments I won't evaluate (except the offensive "rape good, racism good, etc." arguments which I will drop you for running)--my goal is to not intervene. Please make sure it is clear to me how all arguments are functioning in the round.  Slow down on tags.  Overviews are much appreciated.

Some important notes:
1--I find myself incredibly uncomfortable with frameworks that explicitly use religion as a justification (evidently called the "God" case). I will attempt to evaluate them as I would any other argument, but if you're attempting to argue that God exists in front of me and that's a reason to vote one way or another, I'm not going to be very receptive to the argument. I respect every person's freedom of religion, but I struggle to understand the place of religion in the debate space.
2--I really struggle to evaluate rounds where there is no weighing, a lack of crystallization, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. Crystallize in the 2NR/2AR. Weigh or explain why your arguments are a prerequisite or pre-empt to those made by the other side. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped--implicate the drop and tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round, and the lower the chance that I accidentally intervene/have to play "argument roulette" and pluck something off the flow to vote off of because no one told me how to evaluate the round.
3--I am not very receptive to arguments saying that your opponent does not have the right to speak on a certain issue. This does not apply to theory arguments that say "debaters must not X" or "speaking for others" kritiks, which argue that NO debaters should do a certain thing (they don't leave one debater allowed to speak on an issue and another not allowed to speak on the issue). But I am not very receptive to "My opponent comes from X background, so she shouldn't speak on this issue, but I can because I come from Y background." If this argument has no carded evidence attached to it, I will not evaluate it. If it does have carded evidence attached to it, I will evaluate it, but I consider it an ad hominem attack and will have an extremely low threshold for responses to it. However, I am fine with (and even like) arguments that say authors of evidence are less qualified to speak on issues because of their background; this type of argument discusses how out-of-round discourse is shaped, so I'm fine with it. 
4--You really need to slow down on the tags and implications of evidence in less common, phil-heavy frameworks, especially if they come from the analytic tradition or are not very common in LD. I am not as familiar with these frameworks, so make sure you are especially clear in explaining how they function.

5--I'm really bad at keeping track of blippy cross applications when you're on your side of the flow; for example, if you're extending out of the AC on the AC side of the flow and also say "cross-apply this to X card on the NC flow" the chances are I miss that or something else right after it. So I prefer these cross-applications be made when you are making arguments on the side of the flow you are applying them to. 

Speed: I'm basically fine with speed--though the very, very fastest LD rounds might be slightly out of my comfort zone. I’ll say "slow" if you’re going too fast, "enunciate" if the words are garbled, and "louder" if you're too soft. If you're going fast on the evidence, please make sure the tags and analysis are slightly slower and are clear.  My issue is most often with enunciation and lack of vocal emphasis on important points in the case, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. 

Kritiks: I really like them, including narratives/performance arguments. I enjoy role of the ballot arguments and micropolitical positions, both pre- and post-fiat.  I do not care if you are topical as long as you JUSTIFY why you are not going to be topical.  This doesn't mean you are immune from losing a T debate; it simply means I will evaluate non-topical positions.  Please make the link story clear on the negative side.  I'm better at evaluating ks and other policy arguments than I am at dealing with heavy and uncommon philosophical positions, but I will vote off the flow. 

T/Theory: I would rather hear a substantive debate, but I don’t have a bias against evaluating theory, and I am growing more comfortable and familiar with it. Please be sure to give me a clear sense of how the shells and theory strategy function in the round and interact with the other side. I prefer theory be read at a slower pace than other positions, and PLEASE slow down on interps and implications.  I understand that theory has strategic value beyond just checking abuse, but PLEASE note the following:

--I prefer (and sometimes even like) T debate to theory debate because I find it more interesting and relevant.

--I default reasonability and drop the argument.

--When a shell is missing links or poorly explained, or if I find the theory more abusive than the abuse itself (more than 4 shells in the NR, for example) I'm going to have a lower threshold for responses.

--If the neg position is actually abusive, unlike many judges, I am receptive to theory initiated in the 1 AR, but only against an actual abuse.

--I find AFC and theory that is run against an out-of-round abuse (i.e. disclosure theory) or an abuse that is not related to content (apparently "wifi theory" is a thing?) annoying, abusive, and bad for education, so I have a lower threshold for responses on these as well, and speaks will be low.  Running these things won't get you more than a 26.9.

--If there is no voter extended in the 2AR/2NR I will not vote on it unless it is the only offense in the round.  I default to voting on substance if the theory debate is muddled and lacks a voter in the final rebuttal.

Tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments:

I am not a fan of "tricks" and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for extensions of blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses, and speaks will be low.  However, I am somewhat more receptive to skep (though I certainly don't love it) and tricky philosophical arguments that are extremely well-developed--if you are running these arguments, you need to slow down.  Running skep or well-developed analytically philosophical tricks that I understand when they are argued in the AC will not negatively affect you're speaks.

When I say "lower threshold for responses" it means I think these are weak arguments or abusive strategies, so while I will always vote off the flow, I don't like these arguments to begin with, so I'm very open to logical responses to them.

Extensions: I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend a full argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient.  Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way.  Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round.  

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all fine.  If you're running a DA, make sure the link is clear and you're weighing, but in general, I like policy arguments and am probably better at evaluating them than I am at evaluating heavy and uncommon philosophical positions.

Speaker Points: I start at a 28 and go up/down from there. Please note that in addition to what is listed below, I also give some consideration to clarity of spreading (enunciation especially) and word economy. If your words are incredibly garbled, I'm not going to be particularly happy--this usually makes a difference of .1-.2 speaker points. 

26-26.9--You have a lot of work to do OR you ran AFC or disclosure theory.

27-27.9--You did a decent job, but I do not think you have a chance of breaking.

28-28.9--You will probably break, but you aren't interacting arguments enough and are not making strategic enough decisions.

29-29.9--You are one of the better debaters I've judged at the tournament.  You're clearly signposting, weighing and/or explaining how arguments function in the round.  Your strategy might have a misstep or two, but on the whole, you've executed extremely well.

30--You executed your strategy in such a way that I wouldn't reasonably expect better from a high school student.

 Some Notes on Public Forum

I've judged more LD this year than anything else, and I struggle to find out what that means for those off you who have me as a PF judge.  I will say the following: I vote strictly off the flow, I aim not to intervene, and I will call cards in PF only if there is dispute over evidence in the round or if something seemed off to me when you read the card (i.e. if you cite the Washington Post saying 90% of Americans are Democrats or something).  Some specifics:

1--I do not care how fast you speak.

2--Turns are offense.  Implicate and use them as such.

3--The summary should respond to your opponent's rebuttal against your case and generally focus on your side of the flow (i.e. focus on your offense, not defense on their case--but remember, turns are offense).  Since it's usually impossible to respond to everything that was said in their rebuttal, be strategic about which arguments you go for and please weigh. 

4--Please crystallize the round in the final focus.  If you don't weigh arguments in the summary and final focus, it will be very hard for me not to intervene, which makes everyone sad.

5--Frameworks and observations are important and should provide me a way to weigh the round. 

6--In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense (things that were dropped and clearly extended) rather than doing weighing for you.

Feel free to email me at martin.d.k.page@gmail.com if you have questions.

I am a parent judge from Acton MA. I am the stereotypical "lay judge." This means that:

1. I know the topics to a degree, but I am not very familiar with the topics, so as a debater, it is your job to educate me.

2. If you give me good logic, I will believe it over unrealistic evidence.

3. I trust you to not only time urself, but to also have integrity and not add new arguments in second final focus.

4. SPEAK SLOWLY! If I can't understand you, then I can't judge you.

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

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

Will doc speakers for uncivil/ungracious opponents.

Coach (LD/PF)

Former LD/Policy/PF Debater

- will flow super detailed (well, depends how much coffee I've had and how clear your speaking is)

- debated in hs in policy and pf and have judged all 3 divisions since

- will vote on anything u articulate in a way that makes sense

- attack your opposing arguments not your opponents: be assertive but be kind

- learn something and enjoy yourself!! You’re voluntarily here in ridiculous dress shoes on a long weekend in a new English winter!!!

Lexington High School '19

I debated for Lexington High School in LD for 3 years and in PF for 1.

I prefer a bit more traditional LD debate with logical arguments and clear delivery, presentation, and defense within your framework and contentions. I do not enjoy blippy theory and tricks and have not flowed progressive debates or spreading for a couple of years. So, if you decide to read off cases, please explain your arguments clearly.

I am somewhat familiar with and have run CPs, Ks, and DAs during my career so if you decide to read them, make sure you explain and have good evidence to support your arguments.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask! :)

Hello!

I'm a sohpomore in college, who debated three years of PF for Lexington. I also did one year of policy, but also I was a young high school freshman at the time so please just stick to the PF stuff. Refer to my friend Anika's paradigm because I'm lazy and a leech :) If you still have questions, ask!

I used to dabble in Varsity Public Forum, I am by no means a normal man.

If the debate is happening over video call and you see my cat feel free to say hello

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

Specific things to know for me as a judge:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck, have fun, and learn things.

Hi I am a parent, and I do not have much experience. Here’s some advice from my daughter.

1. She’s your generic parent/lay judge, so keep the speed low and don’t use debate jargon.

2. My mom is a very logical person, so explain all claims and numbers because otherwise they’re just random statements that she has no reason to believe.

3. Be polite to each other (including your partner) even if you think they’re outrageously wrong. Yelling at them will not get you anywhere and it makes her dislike you more.

Please just be respectful and appreciative in general, she really tries her best to fairly judge the round!

*seating: Pro on her left side, Con on the right and please have the first speaker of each team seated closer to her, this will help in organization and to ensure you get the correct comments.