Hi debaters,

I have three years of judging experience and have been very active in the speech and debate circuit this year. If I am judging you in public forum, please don't speak very quickly- I won't get everything you say if you spread. I am a flow judge and use it when making decisions in PF. Please don't speak over your opponents in crossfire in a rude or unreasonable way. When asking a question, please give your opponent an opportunity to answer.

During the debate, you should make your main arguments clear, and make it clear what you want me to vote off of. Weigh in summary and final focus, and if you want something to be a voting issue, put it in both summary and final focus. I am a fan of clear and smart frameworks.

Thank you and good luck! Enjoy the tournament.

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.

Hi everyone,

Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions before the round, in case I am not clear. I am a former Public Forum debater, and debated PF for four years. I also now coach Public Forum for three schools around the US. I went to invitationals and the state and national championships while I was a debater, and was very involved in debate. I would consider myself a flow judge, with 2 notable deviations from that category:

1. I will flow crossfire. Many flow judges don't do this, but crossfire is part of the debate, so I'll flow it.

2. In general, I'm less concerned with you extending cards through summary/final focus and more concerned with you extending points, responses, and ideas. While I won't necessarily disregard anything that is dropped in summary, if it is very important, it should be extended.

I hope that this paradigm gives you a sense of how I will be as a judge. Please note that, while I am a flow judge, I do like teams that are able to speak clearly and convey ideas well. I DO NOT LIKE OFFTIME ROADMAPS. IF IT IS WORTH SAYING, USE TIME TO SAY IT. If you are a lay team, don't worry, I won't hold it against you. Debate to your talents, and may the best team win!

Hi there! My name is Andrew, and I'm a current college senior. While in high school, I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for Regis, but I haven't continued with debate since then (besides judging to help out my school when needed).

When I debated, my partner and I were considered staunchly "traditional": We argued the resolution as it was written, spoke slowly, and engaged with our opponents' arguments directly. That's definitely the style of debate I prefer — that said, I understand that that's not necessarily the trajectory of the activity these days, and my experience in LD means I'll probably understand whatever you throw my direction. If you have any more specific questions, just ask me before the round!

*cma85@case.edu for speech doc*

About Me

I debated for 4 years at Poly Prep and was relatively successful on the national circuit.

I now coach PF for Edgemont Jr/Sr HS in New York.

TL;DR

You know how you debate in front of a classic PF flow judge? Do that. (Weighing, Summary and final focus extensions, signposting, warrants etc.)

That said there are a few weird things about me.

0. I mostly decide debates on the link level. Links generate offense without impacts, impacts generate no offense without links. Teams that tell a compelling link story and clearly access their impact are incredibly likely to win my ballot. Extend an impact without a sufficient link at your own peril.

1. Don't run plans or advocacies unless you prove a large enough probability of the plan occuring to not make it not a plan but an advantage. (Read the Advocacies/Plans/Fiat section below).

2. Theory is important and cool, but only run it if it is justified.

3. Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not.

4. I am not tab. My threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. This can include incredibly dumb totally ridiculous impacts, link chains that make my head spin, or arguments that are straight up offensive.

5. I HATE THE TERM OFF TIME-ROADMAP. Saying that term lowers your speaks by .5 for every time you say it, just give the roadmap.

6. You should probably read dates. I don't think it justifies drop the debater but I think it justifies drop the arg/card.

7. I don't like independent offense in rebuttal, especially 2nd rebuttal. Case Turns/Prereqs/Weighing/Terminal Defense are fine, but new contention style offense is some real cheese. Speak faster and read it as a new contention in case as opposed to waiting until rebuttal to dump it on an unsuspecting opponent.

Long Version

• Don’t extend through ink. If a team has made responses whether offensive or defensive they must be addressed if you want to go for the argument. NB: you should respond to ALL offensive responses put on your case regardless if you want to go for the argument.
• Collapse. Evaluating a hundred different arguments at the end of the round is frustrating and annoying, please boil it down to 1-4 points.
• Speech cohesion. All your speeches should resemble the others. I should be able to reasonably expect what is coming in the next speech from the previous speech. This is incredibly important especially in summary and final focus. It is so important in fact that I will not evaluate things that are not said in both the summary and final focus.
• Weighing. This is the key to my ballot. Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. If one team does this and the other team doesn’t 99/100 times I will vote for the team that did. The best teams will give me an overarching weighing mechanism and will tell me why their weighing mechanism is better than their opponents. NB: The earlier in the round this appears the better off you will be.
• Warrants. An argument without a warrant will not be evaluated. Even if a professor from MIT conducts the best study ever, you need to be able to explain logically why that study is true, without just reverting to “Because Dr. Blah Blah Blah said so.”
• Analysis vs. Evidence. Your speeches should have a reasonable balance of both evidence and analysis. Great logic is just as important as great evidence. Don’t just spew evidence or weak analysis at me and expect me to buy it. Tell me why the evidence applies and why your logic takes out an argument.
• Framework. I will default to a utilitarian calculus unless told to do otherwise. Please be prepared to warrant why the other framework should be used within the round.
• Turns. If you want me to vote off of a turn, I should hear about it in both the summary and final focus. I will not extend a turn as a reason to vote for you. (Unextended turns still count as ink, just not offense)
• Speed. Any speed you speak at should be fine as long as you are clear. Don't speak faster than this rebuttal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg83oD0s3NU&feature=youtu.be&t=1253
• Advocacies/Plans/Fiat. I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine. The aff is allowed to say that the action done in the resolution is passed through congress or whatever governing body we are discussing. That is it. This means that you cannot fiat out of political conditions (i.e. CUTGO, elite influence, etc.) or say that the resolution means we will increase infrastructure spending by building 20th century community learning facilities in the middle of Utah. If you want to access plans and still win my ballot, you must prove a rock solid probability of the advocacy occurring in the real world.. (Note the following is just a guideline, other forms of proving the following are ok as long as they actually successfully prove what they say will occur.) In an ideal world that means 3 things. First, you prove that there is a growing need for such action (i.e. If you want to run that we should build infrastructure in the form of low-income housing, you need to prove that we actually need more houses.). Second, you prove that the plan is politically likely (Bipartisan support doesn't mean anything, I want a bill on the house floor). Finally, you need to prove some sort of historical precedent for your action. If you are missing the first burden and it's pointed out, I will not by the argument on face. A lack in either of the latter 2 can be made up by strengthening the other. Of course, you can get around ALL of this by not reading any advocacies and just talking about things that are fundamentally inherent to the resolution.
• Squirrley Arguments. To a point being squirrely is ok, often times very good. I will never drop an argument on face but as an argument gets more extravagant my threshold for responses goes down. i.e. if on reparations you read an argument that reparations commodify the suffering of African Americans, you are a-ok. If you read an argument that says that The USFG should not take any action regarding African Americans because the people in the USFG are all secretly lizard people, the other team needs to do very little work for me to not evaluate it. A simple "WTF is this contention?" might suffice in rebuttal. NB: You will be able to tell if I think an argument is stupid.
• Defense Extensions. Some defense needs to be extended in both summary and final focus, such as a rebuttal overview that takes out an entire case. Pieces of defense such as uniqueness responses that are never responded to in summary may be extended from rebuttal to final focus to take out an argument that your opponents are collapsing on. NB: I am less likely to buy a terminally defensive extension from rebuttal to final focus if you are speaking second because I believe that it is the first speaker's job to do that in second summary and your opponent does not have an extra speech to address it.
• Signposting/Roadmaps. Signposting is necessary, roadmaps are nice. Just tell me what issues you are going to go over and when.
• Theory. Theory is the best way to check abuse in debate and is necessary to make sure unfair strategies are not tolerated. As a result of this I am a huge fan of theory in PF rounds but am not a fan of in using it as a way to just garner a cheap win off of a less experienced opponent. To avoid this, make sure there is a crystal clear violation that is explicitly checked for. It does not need to be presented as the classic "A is the interpretation, B is the violation, etc." but it does need to be clearly labeled as a shell. If theory is read in a round and there is a clear violation, it is where I will vote.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points on both how fluid and convincing you are and how well you do on the flow. I will only give 30s to debaters that do both effectively. If you get below a 26 you probably did something unethical or offensive.

Evidence

I may call for evidence in a few situations.

• One team tells me to.
• I can not make a decision within the round without evaluating a piece of evidence.
• I notice there is an inconsistency in how the evidence is used throughout the course of the debate and it is relevant to my decision. i.e. A piece of evidence changes from a card that identifies a problem to a magical catch-all solvency card.
• I have good reason to believe you miscut a card.

RFDs

I encourage teams to ask questions about my RFD after the round and for teams to come and find me after the round is over for extra feedback. As long as you are courteous and respectful I will be happy to discuss the round with you.

My name is Jodi Arozarena and I am from Newsome High School in Lithia Florida.

I am what most debaters would call a “flay” judge. I have judged a considerable amount of Public Forum Rounds over the past 4 years, most of which occurred at the national level. I can follow your arguments and I will do my best to keep track of them on my flow. It is your responsibility as the debater to speak at a moderate and clear pace so that I can effectively get your argument down, if I don’t flow it, I won’t be evaluating it with my decision at the end of the round.

Please be civil with your opponent and clear in your speaking so that I can most effectively evaluate the round.

Thanks, and Good Luck!!

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 used to have a joke paradigm

For reference see chris conrad's paradigm, mine is practically identical.

Defense must be in second summary

Everything in FF must be in summary

I debate for 4 years for the Nueva school in very fast PF debate and can handle and vote on any argument however fast you say it. 

I take evidence extremely seriously so don't lie about it.

Extensions require a card name and a warrant. This is extremely reasonable and easy to do.

Please weigh your impacts against your opponents it makes the round substantially easier.

 

TLDR: I flow, I vote off the flow, I will pick you up if you win the debate.

 

Experience: I did 1 year of LD followed by 2 years of PF at Walt Whitman. I was reasonably successful, and currently do some coaching.

How I will vote: I will vote for whichever team links into the most well-weighed impact through the clearest warrants. If you do not weigh your impacts, or argue why your links are the cleanest into the biggest issue, it will be hard for me to vote for you. If neither team weighs, I will decide on my own which impact matters the most.

Speaks: I will award speaks on these three categories:

1. Strategy- did you make intelligent decisions every time you were speaking?

2. Delivery- did you speak persuasively and smoothly?

3. Crossfire- were you courteous? Did you create meaningful dialogue in cross?

On Crossfire: crossfire is not a speech. You can go for concessions, but don't talk over your opponent, or grandstand and waste the clock. I, like almost every judge who will judge you, prefer a calm dialogue to a meaningless shouting match.

Two General Notes:

1. Don't be sketchy. Too many debaters do things that are annoying/rude/unethical to try to gain an edge. Trying to be as good as you can be and leveraging whatever advantages you can get is fine, being sketch is not.

2. I do not care how you organize your speeches, what you go for, how fast you go, if you have defense in 1st summary, etc. These are all choices you have to make depending on how you think the round is going and what is or is not strategic. All of these come down to personal style/decision-making. I will vote the way my paradigm says I will vote, I will not vote because I disagree with your strategic choices, or because I did not like how you chose to organize things. That being said, these things will affect your speaks, so make smart choices.

Overview

I'm looking for debaters to "keep it real." If you were trying to persuade someone of your side, someone who's not necessarily highly familiar with the topic and not necessarily a debater, what would you do?

I did Public Forum for four years and have a background in economics, political science, and technology. I'm not a layman, but I like when a debate can be understood by a layman.

Logic and Argumentation

Explain things to me. Just like the real world, I want to see how well you break down nuanced and complex subjects into something understandable. Backing your claims with evidence is important, but don't use them as your argument. I see a lot of "Professor X says the pro will increase GDP by $5 billion." The con may come up with an equivalent study, or even multiple (trying to pull the old "we have more studies than them so we should win" trick). It's not persuasive. I want to hear the mechanism by which GDP will grow and a little bit about how Professor X came to that conclusion. Quantification is a powerful debate tool, but I will dismiss it if there's no explanation.

Speech

Pacing your speech is highly important. The vast majority of debaters speak too quickly, which causes me to lose track of their arguments. I greatly dislike anything approaching spreading. If you're speaking at an unnaturally fast pace understandable only to the nerdiest of debate nerds, why not just submit memos to each other instead of talking?

A speaker with the confidence to deliver well-timed pauses will get kudos from me.

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

I am the parent of a (former) Hunter College High School debater and a current Horace Mann debater. I am also a litigator. Most of my experience is with public forum debate. My preferences are: No "theory" and no excessive spreading. Thanks!

I debated PF for 4 years at NSU University School in South Florida. I vote off the flow and am fine with speed (as long as you’re clear). Here are some more specific considerations.

1. Extend both warrants and impacts, and weigh anything you want me to vote off of. I vote for the team that has given me the easiest route to the ballot without intervention on my behalf.

2. For first speaking teams, I'm fine with terminal defense being extended from rebuttal to final focus.

3. Offense must be extended in both summary and final focus for me to vote for it.

4. I'll call cards if you ask me to call them, or if I have doubts about them.

5. Please signpost throughout the round!! This especially applies to the summary/final focus speeches — if I don't know where you are on the flow, it is much less likely I flow everything you say.

6. I determine speaker points based on (1) clarity (2) civility (3) strategy.

(humor is also appreciated)

Feel free to ask any other specific questions before the round starts.

General Paradigm

If you have questions about my decision/want feedback or want to complain about what a terrible judge I am

email me: benlbrazelton@gmail.com

(If there are any issues I need to know before the round regarding physical/non-physical accessibility, shoot me an email.)

Experience

Competed for Madison West High School. Public Forum, Extemp, and limited Congress experience in High School. I coach a few schools privately now, and teach at camps.

Personal Info

I study Education with an emphasis on critical race/queer theories. I'm further left than liberal, so I especially respond to well-constructed Critical Race, Gender or Queer Theory arguments. Equity is the name of the game, but I'll accept any criteria that is well-warranted.

As a Judge, I am...

- Pretty Flow. I will be flowing on excel or paper or whatever else.

- A little lay. Teams that speak clearly and persuasively have an innate advantage over those that don't.

- Very lazy. Do the work for me, because I hate the mental gymnastics for teams that don't weigh, signpost, etc.

- Kind of Tabula Rasa. I'll drop my individual opinions, and technical knowledge, etc. and be as close to a blank slate as I feel comfortable being. That said, I'm not going to pretend like people aren't incorrect or lying. Also, see the next section for when I stop being tabs.

What you MUST DO when I am judge:

- If you choose to make arguments that concern sexual assault, racialized/gendered violence, stuff like that, and either a. do not offer some sort of warning ahead of time or b. do it without the delicacy it deserves, I will almost categorically drop the argument. These arguments are almost always personal to someone (whether they be in the room or at the tournament), so that needs to be respected.

- Don't be blatantly (or subtly) racist, sexist, classist, etc. It's obvious to put in a paradigm, not so obvious in round. I will call you out, and (based on the magnitude of what you said/did) drop you. Tabs come off.

- Don't be a jerk. Gendered and racialized dynamics are everywhere, and if I get a whiff of exploitation therein, tabs are off.

What you CAN do:

I'm a big fan of including theory and Kritikal debate-- if we are talking about debate, any kinds of arguments (no matter how 'accessible' they may be) should be fair game. If you want to run K's or theory, whatever, that's fine by me, so long as you give me clear reasons to vote for them.

What I look for in argumentation:

- Be smart. This seems obvious, but you aren't going to win the round by obfuscating arguments, or trying to convince me that basic facts aren't true. This is one of the most cliche things to put in a paradigm, but smart analytics beat a lot of cards. Having an appreciation for what the world is like when the debate round is over helps everything. Teams that can find contradictions in opponents' cases can cross out contentions without every dropping a carded response.

- Claims, Warrants, and Impacts. Please extend the later two into summary, and absolutely in Final Focus. If it isn't in both I won't vote for them. Please refrain from extending through ink, or resurrecting dead arguments.

- WEIGHING. Please weigh for me, because I get really frustrated having to weigh myself. If you don't weigh the round for me, I will, and I will use criteria that will definitely frustrate at least 50% of competitors in the room.

- Teams that tell a consistent story will do much better than teams that stretch themselves out. Paint me a picture of what the world will look like, aff or neg, and stick to that. Framework and overviews help.

What I look for in Cross-X:

- I don't flow CX, but I will sit patiently and wait for it to end.

- If you get any strong concessions, they should be in your speeches too. If they aren't, they didn't happen.

- Don't be a jerk. I don't just consider it rude, I think the predatory, aggressive debater really exploits a lot to get there. Assertion should not trespass into aggression, and if it does, I will wreak havoc on your speaker points.

Speaking Points:

Points are evaluated based on the tournament (TOC will be tougher to get 30s than a local).

- 30s = you are a flawless debater. J. Scott Wunn himself would fall to his knees and praise you.

- 29.5s = you are a very, very good debater. J. Scott Wunn would likely shake your hand after the round.

- 29s = Very good debater. Maybe you make a few mistakes, but overall gave a very high-quality performance. J. Scott Wunn would likely call you "buddy."

- 28s = Exactly average. J. Scott Wunn probably would not remember you.

- 27s = Quite a bit of room for improvement. J. Scott Wunn would be concerned.

- 26s = you either have a lot to work on, or you messed up big.

26> = Uh oh. You must've said something very offensive.

Evidence Ethics

It is the responsibility of the other team to call for evidence, unless I absolutely know it to be miscut, or there is so little weighing in the round that I need to evaluate the strength of link/impact myself.

If someone miscut/misinterpreted evidence, call for it and let me know in your speeches. If you are accused of miscutting, offer something more substantive than "no it's not"-- either apologize and drop it from the round, or defend your interpretation.

My vengeful judging fury:

- I'm a very spiteful judge, so if you are acting like jerks, or making stupid arguments, I will earnestly want to drop you. I've picked up teams very begrudgingly, and that is typically reflected in speaker points. Consider yourselves warned.

"Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime."

- My Coach in High School

Policy Paradigm

K's and Performance

If they run T and don't engage with the warrants, they've conceded them. Please extend warrants and don't just make it a Framework debate.

I'm a big fan of K's if they have something important to say. That said, if y'all just wanna win spreading Baudrillard and try and trick people out, I'm less convinced. I see K's as a kind of necessary resistance to the oppressive structures of debate––if you're going to reject the resolution, make sure it's for a good reason and not just to be tricky.

I'm a big fan of intellectual clarity in your K's, so don't run sources that don't agree with each other (i.e. Afropessimism and Marxism shouldn't be in the same speech without clarifying those ideological differences).

Spreading

After however many years of debate, I'm pretty good at flwoing. That said, I shouldn't have to read the round to understand it. If you are speaking in a way that I don't understand and can't follow the round, I won't flow. That means heavy tech debaters who do double-breaths will probably be disappointed. Speak clearly––if your card is read so fast you don't care if I catch it, it's probably not valuable enough to be in your speech.

Policy-making

I'm far more convinced by a strong link (high probability/timeframe) than a big impact (magnitude and scope). I tend to weigh based on how real the arguments sound and if it sounds like you're making a stretch I'm less interested. That is to say, I'm far more likely to vote for a well-warranted regional impact than global nuclear extinction. I'll almost never vote for global nuclear extinction if I'm presented with a clear alternative impact.

Please feel free to run evidence indicts in justifying the strength of the link––if somebody is justifying nuclear war impacts with a Krauthammer card, just indict.

Public Forum Paradigm

See general paradigm

As of Harvard 2018: no off-time roadmaps; evidence indicts should be a part of strategy.

Weighing, collapsing on issues, cross fire - that's usually where I see great debaters separate themselves from good debaters. I haven't debated in a while so signposting will help me out a lot with staying on top of the flow.

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

My name is Michael Buck and I have been a speech and debate coach for the last six years. Currently, I coach Lincoln-Douglas and Congressional Debate at Munster High School in Indiana. I have coached Congressional Debate for the last four years and Lincoln-Douglas for the last three. I began my coaching career as a speech coach, working mainly with students in public address events. I have had experience judging Public Forum for the last six years. I am currently employed as a high school English teacher.

I prefer slow and clear presentation in debate rounds. I do not like spreading and find it difficult to interpret arguments when delivery is too fast. In Public Forum debate, I believe Summary and Final Focus speeches should clarify argumentation and be persuasive. The Final Focus should not introduce new arguments, but solidify key points from constructive speeches. I am a more traditional judge in that the presentation should follow the rules of the event. I do not like plans or Kritiks in Public Forum. I tend to take notes throughout the round, focusing on key arguments made in constructive speeches. I believe that argument and style are equally important in the round. Competitors should offer strong arguments in a logically persuasive manner.

Second speaking teams should rebut the first speakers and tell me why their case is superior.

I am a parent of an Anderson High School PF debater. I want you to convince me with your arguments, not with PF lingo. I do not like speed for speeds sake, as I can't flow. If I can't understand what is coming out of your mouth, I can't follow you. If I can't follow you, I can't vote for you. I originally came from a speech background, I care about speaking technique. Quality of argument over quantity.

Be clear: Public Forum's roots are based in "one" going before the general public, persons of diverse education, intellect and knowledge. I expect the presentation of your arguments to reflect that. Please don't dumb down because I am a "parent" judge.

Be clean: Please do not play dirty, the world is dirty enough. Be clean.

Be respectful: In crossfire, don't get muddled in stupid arguments, use them intelligently to undue the other side. Please do not be rude or condescending. There is no room for that.

Use:

Your constructives to set me up for your arguments - build your case, tell me the story.

Your rebuttals to give me reason to disagree with your opponent. Don't just attack, you need to defend.

Your summaries to clean up anything vague or muddled.

Your final focus to make me vote for you.

A bit about me -- I am a history, philosophy, and gender studies teacher. Keep this in mind when you are making historical or philosophical arguments. Try to be historically accurate!

I have been coaching since 2017.

Debate should not be a competition of essays or research papers. I will not flow a case that is sent to me. Instead, I only flow what I hear.

I firmly believe that Speech & Debate should be an inclusive, accepting, and kind place. Treating your opponent(s) with kindness and compassion should always and forever be the goal, and we should encourage rather than discourage people from continuing in this activity. Treat others how you wish to be treated, and leave the debate space better than you found it.

World Schools Debate:

I have been coaching Team NJ for the last two years. Make sure you explain, explain, explain. Because we are not using cards here, or using less cards, you need to tell me the logical conclusions you are reaching when you reach them. Tell me the "why" and the "how" behind the resolution or behind your model. Just saying "this will happen" or "this is obvious" may not be so clear to the judge. The "why" and the "how" behind your thinking is often much more important and will develop the round more clearly.

Be global in nature! This is World Schools Debate. While the United States is part of the world, it is not the only example out there - be creative! I would even add - the United Kingdom is part of the world but not the ONLY part of the World worth debating. Try to take a global mindset and worldview when you can, and it will make the round more fun.

Creating models or counter-models are totally fine with me. But, be clear! If things are wishy-washy, it leaves room for interpretation and could be easily attacked by your opponents. I also like details! Just stating "change will happen" or "we support innovation" (for example) is not enough. What kind of change? What kind of innovation? I love a debate that really creates a clear picture of your vision for the judge.

Ask POIs! Make them topical and respectful! Be creative with your hooks! These are some of the most fun parts of World Schools Debate and they will certainly help you with style/strategy.

Public Forum:

Above all, I want you to debate based on your style. Don't try to "read me" and change your case mid-round. The best debaters have been people who have been themselves and done what they do best - within reason.

However, I have judged PF more than anything else, and I am a firm believer that PF is designed for the public. Trying to run theory on me/your opponent to intentionally confuse me/them/us is NOT PF. In addition, this isn't LD. Using LD tactics that are not friendly to the public is not good debate.

As I said before, I am a history teacher. Be accurate. Don't make things up. It's usually pretty obvious.

Calling cards - In terms of evidence/intervening.... I don't like to intervene in a round. I would much rather prefer you to be able to make things clear. However, I may call for cards if I have to at the end of a round. I generally don't want to do this. To me, having to call cards means that the round was messy and not really productive.

Speed - I do not like spreading. I understand that you may have to speak quickly in order to fit your case within the time limits, but I will not pick you up if I cannot understand or flow all of your arguments. If you are going too quickly, I will stop typing/flowing. With a slower round, I think that it allows for an overall better style of speaking and debating.

Arguments - Please signpost and be clear with your cases. If I have to keep jumping up and down the flow to "find" the turns or arguments that you're speaking about, it will be difficult for me to keep up with the round, and then difficult for me to pick you up. Weigh your arguments. I don't want to hear the classic "lives v. money" weighing -- be specific! Go deeper with your analysis. Make sure that you use both offense and defense, and interact with your opponent's case. It's always upsetting to sit through an entire round where the cases were argued simultaneously but did not clash.

Crossfire - I really like cross. BUT, make it productive. Arguing for arguments sake, being rude, interrupting, talking over your opponent, not answering questions, or turning CX into another speech will lead to lower speaker points.

The biggest thing... do not be rude. Being rude discourages people from joining this activity.

Lincoln Douglas:

Most things from PF also apply here in LD. I definitely judge PF more than LD, but love the philosophical aspect of a good Lincoln-Douglas round. I definitely prefer traditional debate compared to progressive. Please make sure you understand the philosophy you base your case on - I am a philosophy teacher.

Speed - I do not like spreading. I understand that you may have to speak quickly in order to fit your case within the time limits, but I will not pick you up if I cannot understand or flow all of your arguments. If you are going too quickly, I will stop typing/flowing. With a slower round, I think that it allows for an overall better style of speaking and debating.

Arguments - I am fine with K's in a Lincoln-Douglas round as long as it is topical to the resolution. Running one to be abusive to a younger opponent or purposefully confuse either the opponent/the judge is not good, and you should not do this. If you are running one, be respectful of both my time and the work that your opponent has put in. K's that are not topical are extremely hard to judge and that will be reflected in your speaker points. Besides that, in terms of arguments, I want to see good debate. Make sure you are historically accurate, nonoffensive, etc. I'm a pretty traditional judge, but can be convinced to see some progressive debate. However, again, if I'm missing a crucial point on the flow because you were not clear or you spoke too quickly, you did not do your job as a debater. Weigh arguments, make sure you are actually debating each other (rather than running simultaneously cases that do not clash/interact), etc. Don't just tell me that "X dropped the card" and leave it at that. Tell me how and why they dropped the card, and/or it turns to your case. Above all, be clear in the round.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Excellent debaters and excellent debate rounds are characterized by the competitors' ability to speak clearly and understandably, identify the major underlying arguments at the heart of evidence and examples, and succinctly present a case for their own side as the round evolves. I value your ability to explain why something matters (more than just XYZ person said so in this article) within the larger context of an overarching argument. As the debate progresses, you should be telling me what the major reasons are to vote for you, as opposed to travelling infinitely down the rabbit hole on the details of a specific argument.

Treat each other with respect. This is most noticeable in cross fire. Ask your question and grant your opponent a reasonable amount of time to respond. Though in the moment you may feel the urge to interrupt, it is never helpful.

Qualify your sources, don't just say a name. Tell me who said it, where they said it, and the reason it is valuable.

Enjoy yourselves and relax, the round will always turn out better if you are having fun and learning.

Rcarragher19@gmail.com

My son does debate, so I have judged on and off for a few years on the local and national level.

Please respect everyone in the room. I'll try my best to take notes and keep up with you and your opponents' arguments. That being said, there is no need to speak too fast because I find that it detracts from your arguments and your persuasion. If you have any specific questions, please don't be afraid to ask me and have fun!

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

Bio/History: I am a junior at Bard Queens HS. This is my first year of judging, however I have been debating for the past six years. I currently mainly do PF but I have parli experience as well (World Schools and AP).

How I will evaluate your round: Aff needs to prove that their side is better than the status quo and they need to provide solvency. Neg has to prove that there are serious disadvantages to voting aff. Please please please extend your arguments through. If you are going to bring it up in final focus, set it up in summary (no extending through ink). Don't just repeat your arguments in final focus, that's a waste of time.

Arguments: I am going into a round with a blank slate. Tell me why your impacts matter. Explain your links. I will follow an argument if it is explained well but you should do the heavy lifting for me.

This should go without saying but please be respectful. No racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or generally hateful language. This will automatically lose you the round.

- State your framework clearly

- Substantiate your contention with impact

- Cross-fire  and rebuttals is where I watch very closely. I want to hear the teams trying to challenge and effectively defend.

- Final Focus should be relevant to what happened during the debate

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

--

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

---

Speech is cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines. I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me.

--

If both teams agree, i am willing to turn prep into 4 extra minutes of GCX.

Jay Garg has a really good paradigm (esp the part about Jackie's paradigm). Can we just pretend I copy and pasted it here? Jeremy Lee also has a good paradigm. If you are confused / unsure about how I evaluate anything or just want to shoot the breeze, please ask before the round to clarify.

I look for good flow in a debate and am open to all types of arguments whether they be traditionalist or progressive. A debater should have clarity in their arguments. The clarity of the argument should be reflected in the framework and also should be extended throughout the debate. During the debate, clash and crossfire should be respectful. The winning argument should be well supported by evidence. My vote goes to the debaters with the best arguments, good flow of speech, and impactful evidence.

My judging paradigm for Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to an idealistic, just world. The criterion is the standard by which to measure the opposing values and to ultimately define the value that should be upheld. The contentions are used to uphold the value.

Value, criterion and contentions must be clearly stated by both sides.

Therefore, the debater that upholds their value and criteria with the strongest contentions will receive the higher points, thus (generally) the win.

Points that I look for:

· Slow down on the Tags!

· Must be clear with your value and criteria

· Contention and it's value MUST BE crystal clear

· I do not allow flex time

· Speak at a reasonable pace

· Time yourself-I will also keep time

· Argue on logic not emotions

· Quotations have no meanings without explanations

· Make logical and sensible arguments AND explain your arguments.

· There’s a difference between a passionate and an abrasive or condescending debater

· Stay organized

· Be respectful to your opponent

· Construct a well impacted argument/s

· The debater that most clearly present a logical argument AND effectively refute the opponent will be the victor

· MOST OF ALL, ENJOY YOURSELVES WHILE PERFECTING YOUR CRAFT

I debated 4 years for Davis High School and have been coaching for the Boston Debate League since 2017. My experience was mostly with traditional, yet flow, LD and Parli.

I'll vote anything but you have to explain it well and (almost certainly) not at your top speed. I will give you three chances to be intelligible: I'll say "clear" once and "slow" once, at which point I will no longer say anything and flow only what I am able to decipher.

My objective is to be as tabula rasa as possible, so I establish the truth of the round entirely on what is presented in the debate. In my view this has two practical implications for you (above and beyond telling you that I'm flow): 1. assertions made in constructive speeches will be evaluated as true if uncontested. 2. ideally you would warrant and debate everything related to the debate from first principles, including what impacts matter, because I will not assume anything about whats good/bad/true/etc. This second point may seem to contradict the first (why am I telling you to warrant everything if I'll grant you claims without warrants?) but the logic is simply that while warranted arguments are infinitely superior to unwarranted claims, I prefer to accept unwarranted claims that teams make (or tacitly accent to by not responding) rather than intervene and perform analysis of the truth that isnt made in round.

I expect framework debate and weighing. It's imperative that you impact to the framework chosen (so, for example, if the round is util, societal welfare, net benefits, or anything like that ALL I care about is welfare analysis).

I like creative positions, not a fan of just doing "the meta". I also dont really know the trends so dont expect me to know the debate world terms for stuff. These things tend to make me less favorable to techy or tricks debaters but it's not because I have an issue with the arguments themselves.

I view speaks as a way to noncompetitively assess debaters, so I dont assign them based on how well you speak or anything. Instead it will reflect how I feel about your case, strategy, etc.

Handle time, evidence, prep, etc amongst yourselves. But taking a bunch of time to sort through evidence is boring and bad for the tournament, so be quick about it.

I call for cards to determine if theres misrepresented evidence or to figure out exactly what the argument made in the round was. I do NOT call for evidence to do my own analysis of what's true--you should debate the validity of your definitions, facts, whatever in the round and I will evaluate it on that basis alone.

For Parli:

Tag teaming is fine. Dont abuse the grace periods. Give me the resolution before the round. In the absence of presumption arguments, I presume neg.

For LD:

I won't vote on anything not present in the 1AR for aff or the 1NC/R for neg. Defense you intend to use should be present in these speeches too unless it only makes sense in response to a later speech.

I'm pretty committed to evaluating Framework and then Substance under the winning framework. This doesn't necessary imply traditional debate if you want to run some non-traditional frameworks or substance arguments, just that I will still resolve the round in that order.

In the absence of presumption arguments, I presume for the affirmative.

For PF:

I won't vote on anything not present in summary. Uncontested defense can be used in final focus even if not extended in summary. In the absence of presumption arguments, I presume for the first speaking team.

I have been a parent judge for 5 years. I can flow a round pretty well but am not a technical "flow" judge.

Speaking:

1. SPEAK SLOWLY

2. Don't be rude or offensive in the round

3. Speak with clarity and elucidation

4. ALWAYS signpost and roadmap: it makes it much clearer for me as a judge if I know what you're talking about

Argumentation:

1. I am NOT familiar with counterplans, theory, or kritiks so please don't run them or I won't be able to judge you appropriately.

2. Summary and FF consistency is important when evaluating arguments

3. Have impacts and WEIGH. Too many times have I seen debaters just say we win because of X argument while never explaining why that argument is the most important to evaluate in the round.

4. Please don't run crazy and difficult to understand arguments. If your opponents can't understand the argument, I probably can't too. If you do have a less common argument, please warrant it and provide ample evidence, and I might be able to understand it.

Evidence:

1. I appreciate citations (Author's last name, month and year, and source if you can).

2. Please don't lie about your evidence; if you are, I most certainly won't vote for that argument.

3. I will call for evidence if it becomes an important point of dispute in the debate.

4. I am a strong believer in quality > quanitity. Meaning, don't tell me you win because you have more evidence, tell me you win because your evidence is more reliable, or just don't focus so much on evidence accuracy.

5. I usually flow arguments, not evidence, so telling me to refer back to some random person isn't sufficient.

How to win:

If you do these five things better than the opponents, you will win:

1. CLEARLY identify the arguments in the round and which ones are important

2. WEIGH and preferably give me a weighing mechanism to warrant me voting off of a specific argument

3. EXTEND arguments and enunciate their importance throughout the round

4. ADDRESS all the arguments in the round, and highlight dropped arguments

5. TELL me a story/narrative that uses persuasion not just evidence

I follow the NSDA guidelines for speaker points. I will give 30s if I think you are one of the best I've seen.

Let's Get it Started - Black Eyed Peas

Let's get it started in here...

And the bass keeps runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin',
And runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and...

In this context, there's no disrespect, so, when I bust my rhyme, you break your necks.
We got five minutes for us to disconnect, from all intellect collect the rhythm effect.
So lose an inhibition, follow your intuition, free your inner soul and break away from tradition.
Cause when we beat out, girl it's pulling without.
You wouldn't believe how we wow shit out.
Burn it till it's burned out.
Turn it till it's turned out.
Act up from north, west, east, south.

Everybody (yeah), everybody (yeah), let's get into it (yeah), get stupid (c'mon)
Get it started (c'mon), get it started (yeah), get it started!
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Yeah.

Lose control, of body and soul.
Don't move too fast, people, just take it slow.
Don't get ahead, just jump into it.
You all hear about it, the Peas'll do it.
Get started, get stupid.
You'll want me body people will walk you through it.
Step by step, like an infant new kid.
Inch by inch with the new solution.
Transmit hits, with no delusion.
The feeling's irresistible and that's how we movin'.
(Yo)

Everybody (yeah), everybody (yeah), let's get into it (yeah), get stupid (c'mon)
Get it started (c'mon), get it started (yeah), get it started!
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Yeah.

The bass keeps runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and running runnin' and...

C'mon y'all, let's get woohoo!
Let's get woohoo! (in here)
Let's get woohoo!
Let's get woohoo! (in here)
Let's get woohoo!
Let's get woohoo! (in here) Ow, ow, ow!
Ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya...

Let's get ill, that's the deal.
At the gate, we'll bring the bud top drill.
(Just) lose your mind this is the time,
Ya'll can't stand still, Just and bang your spine.
(Just) bob your head like me APL de, up inside your club or in your Bentley.
Get messy, loud and sick.
You all mount past slow mo in another head trip.
(So) come down now do, not correct it, let's get ignant let's get hectic.

Everybody (yeah), everybody (yeah), let's get into it (yeah), get stupid (c'mon)
Get it started (c'mon), get it started, get it started!
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started
(whoa, whoa, whoa) in here.
Yeah.

Let's get woohoo!
Let's get woohoo! (in here)
Let's get woohoo!
Let's get woohoo! (in here)
Let's get woohoo!
Let's get woohoo! (in here) Ow, ow, ow!
Ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya...

Runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin'
[Fade]

weigh

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

If you do not have an off case position, I will forget your off-time roadmap. Please tell me in your speech what argument you are addressing.

Read whatever (non-offensive/egregiously untrue) argument you want; I try to be flexible.

I will not evaluate theory arguments presented in the ABCD interp violation blah blah format. If you want to explain your theory argument in the (relatively) conversational language that you present all your other arguments in, then I will listen. https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

I reserve the right to be more persuaded by a team.

I am a lay judge, a parent of a student at Newton South High School, Massachusetts.

I have been judging public forum debate since 2016. Here are some things to consider.

Slow down and speak clearly so that you don’t stumble over your words. Don’t spread. If I don’t hear your contentions and your responses they don’t count

I like organized well structured arguments. I encourage starting with your framework so I understand the basis for your arguments and the use of sign posting in your responses. Tell your story, paint your picture and re-enforce it in the summary. In your final focus explain why your team won the debate.

When stating your evidence, explain why it is important and why I should believe it. Don’t quote individual source names or publications and expect me to know who and what they are. Explain why I should be convinced by what they say.

If you use debate jargon, explain what it means, otherwise I may waste precious seconds trying to remember what it means and may not hear your next response.

Be respectful to your opponents and your judges.

Hello, I have not judged this semester. Please be kind to each other.

I am old and cannot flow speed particularly well but will do my best to keep up.

Theory is okay if it checks abuse, but I don't like it if it's frivolous. I will always caution that I may not follow Ks as well as you do, so read them at your own risk.

I will call for evidence if it sounds too good to be true and reserve the right to disregard entire arguments if the evidence is particularly miscut.

Have fun!

Argumentation/debate teacher and Assistant Speech Coach at Cornell University. I previously ran Public Forum and taught full-time at Delbarton School in New Jersey. I have six years of coaching experience, four years of competitive high school experience in PF on the Missouri circuit, and three years of competitive limited prep/public address experience with Seton Hall University on the AFA individual events circuit. This "clashing of worlds" lends itself to a demanding paradigm: wins come from winning arguments, speaker points from SPEAKING WELL. Forensics is an activity rooted in the communication arts; thus, I have a few deep-seated preferences:

• Spreading is punishable by death. A saliva-filled gasp for breath is unlikely to persuade a jury during closing arguments.
• Debate jargon should be limited.
• Crossfire is annoying. I would rather swim in lava than listen to Grand Crossfire.
• I am not opposed to low point wins.

The route to my ballot is winning the flow as per the winning framework. The route to a speaker award is arguing like a PFer while speaking like an extemper. Plain and simple. I am a somewhat traditional PF judge, but I appreciate a (VERY) well-linked critical argument. Complaints about a legitimate pre-fiat issue will be dismissed quickly if you simply don't understand its nuances. Similarly, fiat can only exist when the resolution involves a policy or a political pivot.

FLOW

• My sympathies to the first rebuttal speaker. Your life sucks. I do not expect you to make every correct extension from your case, partly because you speak before your opponent responds to the case. I will accept a first-speaking team extending evidence case to summary. Do not abuse this privilege. Extensions can just be author name/what author said.
• I don't flow CX. Mention any occurance of note in another speech.
• If you don't signpost well enough, I will be looking for where you are on the flow. I will miss things you say. Those things might decide the round.
• I'm an open book. If I grimace rudely at you, it means I think your argument is non-responsive and wrote N/R on my flow. Adapt to me both before and during the round, or go for the other two judges on a panel.
• As your lowly judge, I require strict instructions. I won't do ink-work for you. "Extend ____". "Turn _____". "Stop playing ________ during our crossfire".
• I won't weigh for you. If you don't specifically tell me why your argument is more important than your opponent's, I will play argument roulette.
• My mind is usually made up by final focus. Do not wait until then to say important things.

CROSS

I hate it. It's the part of the round where two and sometimes (gulp) four competitors shout about things like warrants and net benefit without accomplishing anything. More often than not, everyone in the room is rude. It's when I check my text messages and the score of the Knicks game. You can convince me not to ignore crossfire simply by being calm and respectful to one another.

SPEAKS

• Below 25 ----- You did something that offended me.
• 25-25.5 ------- You were an ineffective speaker with vocal fillers all over the place. You struggled to get through your speeches. The speech performance was a distraction to your content.
• 26-26.5 --------You showed developing speaking skills, but still lacked the tools employed by an effective speaker. The speech performance was sometimes a distraction to your content.
• 27-27.5 --------You were an average speaker.
• 28 -------------- You were a good speaker who shows developing mastery of speaking skills. The speech performance sometimes supplemented your content.
• 28.5 ------------ You were the same as a 28, but did something else to make me want you to break even more.
• 29 --------------- You were a great speaker who has mostly mastered speaking skills. The speech performance unquestionably added to your content.
• 29.5 ------------ You were the same as a 29, but did something else to make me want you to break even more.
• 30 -------------- I believe you are one of the best speakers on the national circuit.

PET PEEVES

• Harvard didn't write the study. Someone affiliated with Harvard did. Use the author name.
• Metaphors which turn into solliloquies and equally absurd responses to them. Analogies should take no more than 20 words to explain. Do not ask someone in crossfire if it's okay to kill a baby.
• Talking during your opponent's speeches. You have notepads. Write each other notes like you do in class.
• Asking me how much prep time you have. If you're not prepped for prep time, it won't do you any good.

That's about it. Ask me pre-round if I didn't cover something here.

Blippy arguments make the debate nearly impossible to judge:

Cards should have warrants and you should be able to access the warrant and reasoning behind the card a quote without context is not an argument. You should be using warrants not just reading a quote. If you are extending evidence you should be reading the warrant, not just a blip.

THE DEBATER WHO HAS BETTER ARGUMENTATION WILL WIN OVER THE DEBATER WHO JUST READS A CARD THAT SAYS WELL ACTUALLY WSJ SAYS XYZ.

there should in general, be more engagement on the framing aspect of the debate. Tell me:

How you link into framing
Why that is good
Why your opponent doesn't
why that is bad

pick one main argument that you are winning and link to framing.

pick what offense the other team has and outweigh it

he/him

I have been a coach at Evanston for 5 years, and have been judging for them for 7+

please be clear if spreading, very important that you pause and sign post during argumentation. I will defer to what I hear in speeches and use the speech doc sparingly. It is importance to change cadence when spreading in order to emphasize warrants and impacts in order to differentiate. I don’t want to have to read the cards to figure out what you are saying in your speeches, you should be clear enough so I can flow

Tricks are pretty annoying and don't really help people learn how to debate, It is on a case to case basis on how I will weigh tricks (long story short, id recommend NOT reading them in front of me)

The most important thing in the round is that your arguments are accessible, and inclusive to everyone. That being said, be inclusive to your opponent inside the round. If your opponent doesn't understand speed, slow down. If an argument is not clear and is hard to understand, explain it. If you don't do these things, I will have a hard time voting for these arguments. That being said, I am pretty much open to any argument (regardless of event) as long as it is warranted, and impacted (as long as it is not exclusionary or violent). This includes critical arguments in public forum. Don't lie about evidence. This is a very good way to automatically lose the round with me, and more often than not almost any other judge, or judge panel.

Decision-Making:

Framing:

If you tell me to look at a certain framework and it is fair and reasonable, then I will do so. If I don't think it is fair I probably wont evaluate under it, but I will tell you why I think it's unfair, and how to make it fair. For LD, it is more about warranted framing. I don’t like/understand phil framing when it’s spread, and I literally have no idea how to evaluate it when it’s read at 200+ wpm

K's are cool.

Decorum: You should do what makes you comfortable in round, if you want to sit down for cx cool, stand up, cool. Sit down for speech, yeee, stand on your head. Let people know if there is anything you need to make the round more accessible or more comfortable for you.

Speaker points: Being kind in round is the best way to get 30's with me. Also, if I learn something new or interesting, you will probably get good speaks

winners get probably 28-30, then the losing team .5 less

30: you were cool in round

I don't always remember to time, so please be honest and hold yourselves accountable.

LD:

I cannot flow spreading, so please don't do it.

In making arguments you cannot skip any steps. I know how to evaluate debates, but I am new to LD, so there are lots of arguments that most LD judges know all about that I am unfamiliar with. That does not mean you can't run them in front of me - you just have to be able to fully explain everything part of the argument, avoid jargon where possible, and be crystal clear about why you winning it matters for the round.

PF

- Please time yourselves

- I appreciate concision, but I think evidence too often gets misconstrued when it's paraphrased. I understand paraphrasing is common now, so I reserve the right to check evidence at the end of the round even if the evidence is not challenged by the debaters (I won't look for holes in the evidence - I just want to make sure what was said matches the original writing).

- I accept logical defensive responses made in crossfire as part of the flow. Cross is still not for reading cards.

- I don't think defense needs to be extended in late round speeches unless it is answered. The alternative to this would be to allow extensions through ink, which is wrong.

- I try my best to flow. I won't vote for things I don't understand. I don't want to keep you in the dark about whether or not I understand something, so my face should give away when I am confused.

- If multiple arguments flow through to the end of the round and there isn't good, explicit weighing, I will vote for the argument that was best constructed/most persuasive to me. Since how I feel about arguments is pretty nebulous, you should weigh early and often. Do not leave it for the last moment. If you can't think of anything productive to do in crossfire, set up weighing mechanisms.

I am a parent from Newton South, where both my kids have been active PF debaters. I have judged 50+ rounds across 12+ tournaments. I will take notes on your arguments but am not a "flow" judge. Please speak clearly, give warranting and weigh your arguments/impact relative to your opponents. I do not look favorably on teams that are rude to their opponents, or misconstrue or misrepresent evidence. I look forward to meeting you, and hope you have fun!

I did PF for three years in high school, and have a couple years of judging experience as well.

Things I like: 1) Framework debate; 2) Linking to your impacts. Don't just throw out numbers/conclusions without explaining how you can access them; 3) Signposting; 4) Numbered responses in rebuttal; 5) Turns; 6) Weighing and big picture analysis in Summary and FF. I like when teams can clearly explain why their impacts should outweigh their opponents' impacts, especially when those impacts are quantified differently (ex: lives vs. economics).

Things I don't like: 1) Sketchy or misconstrued evidence; 2) Tenuous links to impacts; 3) When teams bring up arguments in FF that they didn't push in Summary.

I'm proud to say this marks my 10th year of judging Public Forum. Even though I've been doing this a long time, I still consider myself a "Mom judge," but don't despair. I will do my level best to flow the round competently.

Please give me your case in a simple, logical format and give me the reasons why I should vote for you. Please don't speak super fast, since that just makes my head spin, and I won't be able to follow your brilliant arguments as easily.

I always say, I'm okay with a little speed, but if you're talking so fast I can't make out what you're saying, that's not going to be good for you. I want to comprehend what you're telling me. If you feel like you're spoon-feeding me your case, I won't be insulted. You have plenty of flow judges to impress this tournament with fancy twists and turns.

One thing I will say is, If you don't extend an argument in summary, I can't weigh it at the end.

Lastly, please be professional and courteous to each other. No eye-rolling, tongues hanging out, general snottiness. Even if you think your opponent is on the ropes, I don't want to see it on your faces. Win with grace and class.

In high school I debated Policy for one year and Public Forum for three. I will flow, but I haven't been very involved in debate since HS so treat me as somewhere between a flow and a lay judge. Signpost and be as clear as possible.

I like it when debaters introduce framework early in the round and weigh using their framework late in the round. That being said, don't waste your time with framework that isn't helping you. Just make sure you're weighing in the later speeches and giving me easy ways I can vote for your team.

If you think your opponent in lying about their evidence, say so and I'll look at it.

I am a current APDA debater and former national circuit PFer. I evaluate off the flow, but will not credit arguments if critical links are missing. I am more sympathetic to analytical claims than most judges. You do not have to extend defense past rebuttal, but if you want me to vote on an offensive claim, please extend it into final focus.

https://gph.is/2HThgly

I am an assistant coach at The Potomac School, and previously was the Director of Forensics at Des Moines Roosevelt. If you have any questions about Public Forum, Extemp, Congress, or Interp events, come chat! Otherwise you can feel free to email me at: quentinmaxwellh@gmail.com for any questions about events, the activity, or rounds I've judged.

I'm a flow judge that wants to be told how to feel. Ultimately, Public Forum is supposed to be persuasive--a 'winning' flow is not inherently persuasive. My speaker points are generally reflective of how easy I think you make my decisions.

Things to Remember…

0. The Debate Space: R E L A X. Have some fun. Breathe a little. Sit where you want, talk in the direction you want, live your BEST lives in my rounds. I'm not here to tell you what that looks like!

1. Framework: Cost/benefit unless otherwise determined.

2. Extensions: Links and impacts NEED to be in summary to be evaluated in final focus. Please don't just extend through ink--make an attempt to tell me why your arguments are comparatively more important than whatever they're saying.

3. Evidence: If you're bad at paraphrasing and do it anyway, that's a reasonable voter. See section on theory. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. I also prefer authors AND dates. I will not call for evidence unless suggested to in round.

4. Cross: If it's not in a speech it's not on my flow. HOWEVER: I want to pay attention to cross. Give me something to pay attention to. Just because I'm not flowing cross doesn't make it irrelevant--it's up to you to do something with the time.

5. Narrative: Narrow the 2nd half of the round down with how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. I like comparative analysis.

6. Theory: If an abuse happens, theory shells are an effective check. I think my role as an educator is to listen to the arguments as presented and make an evaluation based on what is argued.

Disclosure is good for debate. I think paraphrasing is good for public forum, but my opinion doesn't determine how I evaluate the paraphrasing shell. This is just to suggest that no one should feel intimidated by a paraphrasing shell in a round I am judging--make substantive responses in the line-by-line and it's ultimately just another argument I evaluate tabula rasa.

7. Critical positions: I'll evaluate Ks, but if you are speaking for someone else I need a good reason not to cap your speaks at 28.5.

8. Tech >< Truth: Make the arguments you want to make. If they aren't supported with SOME evidence my threshold for evaluating answers to them is, however, low.

9. Sign Post/Road Maps: Please.

**Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don’t know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that with some humor and panache.**

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

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

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

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

Overview: A lot of times individuals will post their philosophies without giving an indication as to their debate background. I believe giving a background allows the debaters to gain a better understanding of who the judge actually is. So, the following is my background in terms of debate experience. I competed on the Dallas UIL and TFA circuit throughout high school. As well as a national TOC tournaments, (Harvard, UT, etc.)   (2016-Current) Due to the time burden of going to school, that is why I have not coached this year. (2012-2016) Crandall High School: Policy Debate & Informative/Domestic Extemp, PFD, and Congress. Who cares about me though, this round is about you. Forget about me, think of me as a warm body judging you.
Argument Section/Personal preferences 

  First, I flow all contentions on a separate sheet of paper. Whether I am in CX, LD, or PFD I will flow everything the same. So, if you're in LD, for example, and you flow the 1AC on one sheet and you see that I have about 4 or 5 different flows, I promise you there's no need to be alarmed. The reason why I do it this way is because A.) It's a better organizational way for me to keep track of what is happening in the round as well as B.) I have been trained to do things like this because of the people in policy debate. They're great people, I promise for you non CX'ers ;)   Second, Impact extension is very important to me. For example, if the 1AC reads 8 minutes of offense and there's no discussion of it (such as in the 1AR), until the 2AR is says ohhhhh looky here we have a surprise...THE 1AC! Well I don't think there was a terminal impact extended in the 1AR. As a result I will not give the 2AR credit. I don't think teams are doing this properly anymore, which is causing me to discuss this at the end of the debate. If you do this, well, thank you. If the negative points this out to me, well, I will award them with speaker points.   Third, do not say any sexist, homophobic, racist, or otherwise derogatory comments in round. You will get the lowest possible speaker point ratting possible. If it continues I will bring it up to tab.   Fourth, do not cheat. See the section on clipping cards. If you contest clipping cards, and you loose the contestation, then you will loose the debate. If I cannot prove or disprove, that would be the only way that no one in the room will loose.   Fifth, this is me answering the "what is your ideal strategy Michael?" I like a policy oriented strategy, but that does not mean I don't prefer a engaging critical one. You do whatever feels right to you. I have done both.   Sixth, going for everything is probably a poor strategy.   Seventh, I am not a very non-verbal person. What I mean by that is I am not very expressive with my gestures in the round with how I feel.
Eight, if you do not have a warrant to a claim then it is not an argument. This impact, for myself, to this is the following: I do not know A.) Why it is true and that B.) how it operates if there is no reason to it. 

*Policy Debate*   Short Version   I like the Aff, but I would prefer that it would be tangental to the resolution in some way.   I like arguments, but I prefer warranted arguments.   I think reading 2320930129301238901283091283 off is interesting, but I would prefer a strategy that allows for depth on both sides. (That huge number is me being sarcastic).       Long Version Overview: I think that the debate should come down to some type of comparison in offense/defense. I feel as if this is the best way to mechanize the debate in terms of my ballot. Going for straight defensive arguments, like the "STOCK" issues, is probably not going to be a justification to vote for you. However, if you're winning defensive arguments in conjunction with offensive arguments as listed below you'll probably warrant my ballot to vote for you. With that you need to be doing some type of impact calculus. I think this is really crucial because it sets up the comparison of the scenarios as to why I should vote for you. I flow the round on paper, but don't think that I am not listening.   What is an Argument?Claim, Warrant, Impact. Pretty simple.   Speaker Points:I start everyone off at a 28.5. This means that you were making arguments in the debate that were sufficient and indicate that you're a debater. 28 means that you still have some work to do. 27-27.9, you were a bit too rude in the debate. Anything below that means you said something terribly wrong, by means of making fun of someone, indicating something that is merit of needing to be talked to your coach about. 29 means that you were very good. 29.1-29.5 means you were very good and that I hope you're going far in the tournament. 30 means you're just demolishing the round or perfect: that's relative though. These speaker points will be adjusted depending on what kind of tournament I am at though: UIL, TFA, TOC qualifiers, ect.   Argument specific Topicality: From a 1 to a 10 I am probably about a 5, or as I would indicate middle line. I think that competing interpretations is where I lie though, but that's not to say reasonability claims aren't going to be listened to. I think that reasonability is in fact strategic. The impact level of T is very underutilized. What I mean by that is teams won't engage in the fairness and education debate. Ultimately I think that one side has a better internal link to fairness, and reciprocally the other has a better internal link to education. If one side is going for an education based impact while the other is going for a fairness based impact, I think outweighing here is crucial. When you are making claims that things like conditionality or some other type of theory/pre-fiat argument comes before Topicality, I think that's also strategic if you're loosing the T debate. My only inclination to the previous statements would be to warrant your arguments. If you don't tell me how to default I am going to default competing interpretations. If you're going for some type of potential abuse story, that's great; there needs to be good warrants to why potential abuse should be evaluated, and or specifically in the context of the round.   Framework: I think ultimately I really do enjoy a good framework debate. I don't understand the functionality of reasonability in this debate, but if you make those claims then so be it; who am I to say otherwise. I'm not really sure what else to say here...   Theory: Competing interpretations is pretty much where I lie on all other theory arguments. I think that the affirmative has to make a really good in round abuse story claim for me to vote on theory. I usually err on the side of the negative for CP theory for reasons implied as above. The only thing that I can really think that would be an exception would be condo.   Condo: Do I think that the negative should be able to get the status quo and a policy option? Yes. Do I think that the negative should be able to get two different advocacy statements? Maybe. The thing I am getting to is contradicting conditional/dispositional worlds. I think that's not reciprocal, although I think that the negative getting a dispositional and conditional advocacy solves all of condos offense as well. If there is some other type of theory argument you want me to vote on, again by all means. Having a GOOD interpretation is key! Having a blanket statement interpretation that condo is just bad is probably a poor one, but that's for the debaters to decide.   Disads: Yeah. Not a lot to say. I love politics. I like the "disad turns case" debate. If you ONLY go for a disad I think you need to be winning two of the four following arguments below; number one being one of the two obviously. 1. Disad outweighs the case 2. Disad turns the case 3. Disad has a better way of solving the 1AC advantages 4. Disad has a better internal link to the 1AC's residual solvency mechanism.   Counterplans: Once again for sure; I think they're highly strategic. Functional competition is cool, but textual competition can also be sweet. PIC's are sweet. Delay counterplans are ehh, but that's up for you guys to decide. Agent counter plans are cool, consult counterplans are meeh; although I do see the strategic importance of consult on specific topics. Do NOT let my phrasing of particular counterplans deter you from running them; do what YOU do best and I will flow. I think for you to win the counterplan debate you need to be winning either the CP is just inherently mutually exclusive for the aff, or some type of net benefit the affirmative doesn't have access to. I think going for a internal net benefit for the counterplans will also warrant my ballot for you.   Kritiks: For sure. I read a particular author all the time my senior year of high school, and understand the strategic nature. I think that for you to win the K you either need to be winning a K outweighs the case, the aff doesn't have access to fiat and is not real, an role of the ballot argument, and/or K turns the case. I think that I need some type of overview for the criticism in case I am not familiar with the author you are reading. I think that the alt debate is one that is soley under warranted in this debate. I don't care what type of alt you have, but make sure you explain the function of it post ballot signing. Also some type of explanation as to how you solve your own linear disad. Floating PIK's are usually pretty bad, but that's up for you guys to debate.   Link Turn/Straight Turn Debate:This requires you to go for a non-unique argument to the disad/counterplan, along with a Link turn. Too many teams are NOT doing this. If you're going for JUST a link turn, and nothing else, then I don't really know what to do with that. It's kind of like a lap dance: ehh. For you to make this "special", I need to go beyond the link turn and indicate the full functionality, which is to include a non-unique arg to the aff. Ex: A team is loosing the case, but winning one of the two disads on the straight turn debate. If in the 2AR you just spend five minutes on the link turn and no analysis as to the uniqueness portion of the debate, it's not offense in my eyes. You need to include all parts of the straight turn for it to be functional. This is becoming really messy, imho. Too many teams are going for the "punt advantage scenario", and for the straight turn. A. You need to include the uniqueness portion in the 2NR B. You probably need to include the impact calculus as to why this is a new advantage for the aff (i.e. Why this outweighs the neg) and or C. Why this turns the other disad and or solves the other dish (somehow).       Permutations: This is becoming very messy in a lot of different ways. Just saying "perm do both" doesn't do a whole lot for my ballot. What do those three words mean? What are you perming? What is it like in the world of the permutation? I think you need to win some type of net benefit for the permutation. Some judges require a perm text, some do not. I don't have a preference either way. What I will say is that if the permutation is constantly changing than I'm probably more inclined to not vote on it or evaluate it because of the changing nature of the permutation.   Performance: I don't have a lot of expertise dealing with this. Give me a role of the ballot and I'm good. You do you, and I'll flow and listen.     Case debate: 1st this debate is very underutilized. 2nd, impact turns are functionally underutilized. I REALLY love for these debates to happen. I'm game for voting soley on you impact turning the aff, as long as it is impacted out. 3rd, comparative analysis on evidence will get you super far. If you need me to call for evidence, I sure will. If I feel like I need to reciprocally, I will. 4th, if you're going for a disadvantage you need to probably win some type of defense to the aff. 5th spin and the actual text of the evidence are two different things. Please remember that, especially if I am going to call for the evidence at the end of the round.   Stylistic things New in the 2: I really don't like it. On a scale of 1 to 10, I am a 7: 1 being do it where as 10 being don't do it. I will give 1AR lenience to answers against new in the 2, and am even willing to vote on sandbagging. Sandbagging is all based on what is actually inside the 2. If it's just straight case, I most likely will. I think reading now new in the 2 is cool, whether it be in the 1AC, 2AC, or 1AR. I know I made Tiffani (my high school partner) do it. If there is no reason as given in the debate as to why new in the 2 is not going to be allowed, then I guess new in the 2 it is! As with everything else, this is up to you four bright individuals to indicate or not to indicate.   Clipping cards:This is defined as "intentionally skipping over the already underlined and or boded text you are reading from your card". If you DO NOT say "cut the card here" and just magically assume you read the whole card, I will vote you down and give you the lowest possible speaker points. This is cheating. You are making me assume you read the whole card. This is ESPECIALLY problematic when I call for the evidence, and I evaluate all of it, but you only read certain warrants. Preface: if none of your card(s) is highlighted/bolded/underlined and I call for it I'm voting in the opposite direction. I've stared indicating on a my flow where you have marked the card at, if you did. With that, if you GIVE ME A DOC WHERE THE CARD IS NOT PROPERLY MARKED, I WILL GIVE IT BACK. THAT IS ON YOU. I'm not going to vote you down for "clipping cards per say", I'm just going to reject that piece of evidence due to you failing to do your job. If that results in you loosing the debate, well, mark the cards properly. It becomes very simple and requires just a couple of seconds of time.   Email Chain:As this is my 3rd year judging, I'm becoming more inclined to want an email chain. If you ask, I'll say yes. I usually have a computer on myself at all times, if not two: there's no reason for me to say no unless I'm being irresponsible and not bringing my computer(s) to tournaments. Other than that, I may occasionally ask for a email chain if I feel like I want to stop teams from clipping cards. This usually happens latter on in the tournament, especially if at the beginning I am seeing teams clip cards.   Speed: do whatever style you want. If you are not clear though, I will say "clear". Unless you are going about GT-AM545 words per minute, I don't think you will be a problem.   My Favorite quote: "Those who dare to fail greatly are those who dare to achieve greatly". I believe this 100 percent. I was a terrible debater for years. I am, at best, mediocre. Loosing is good. Winning is good. Don't think because you lost this is bad. As long as you learn, that's what matters. I am just one person, so take what I have to say post-round with a grain of salt.   *LD* Framework: if you force me to vote in a framework debate, so be it. I think that for you to win this debate you need to be winning one of, or in terms of an even if claim, two arguments. 1-Why you're winning more offense in the debate by just looking at your framework. If going through your framework is just a better option, that's fine. I need be figuring our why your framework outweighs in some way your opponents framework. This requires you to filter through your sense of framework as a means of comparative analysis to your opponents framework. 2-Internal link turning your opponents framework. This requires analysis on gauging why your standard/criterion is the option by which better resolves or gets to your opponents value in a better way.   Value/Criterion (general): I don't have a predisposition as to what values are "pertinent" or "tangental" to the resolution, or think that some are worse or better over others. That reciprocally applies to the standard/criterion debate.   Observations: Not a lot to say here besides cool.   Theory: Cool, see above in the policy section. In LD specifically, I find that too many times people are putting in these large theory shells in the 1AC/1NC as a means to pre-empt some type offense that might be coming later. I think there needs to be an explanation for how this functions really.   Disads/Counterplans/Kritiks:Cool, see above in the policy section for details.   Contention Level: I frame these, inside of my mind, as analogous to advantages in policy debate. This is where I would like the debate to come down to. Granted, I understand that this cannot happen without a discussion of the framework debate. So, if you can tie this into the framework debate that would be awesome. If not, that's fair. If it's just an all out contention level debate, well, I can dig it.   Meta-Level Debate:** I feel as if this is where my greatest weakness lies in terms of judging this particular forum of debate. I find that too many individual's are going for these types of arguments and going so fast without a means to allow me a little "pen time" if you will to catch everything you heart wants me to catch (aaaahhhhhh, get it-pun----never mind). Also, I probably am not versed in the particular engaging strategy in which entails a deep meta-level analysis of the resolution in some way due it being, probably, pretty contextual to the resolution. Explanations here are key. If you go for this that's awesome, just allow me to have some pen time as well as some type of functional overview that really explains to me what you're indicating to myself.
PFD Look above to the LD debate as well as CX debate. Yes, I do know how to judge PFD. I don't think that it will be a problem.   

I have been coaching public forum at Shrewsbury High (MA) since 2014, and am now the head coach there. Please note that Shrewsbury PFers have been instructed not to send their cases to their opponents or their judges. They also will not partake in Theory or K debates since they have no place in Public Forum Debate. They will be debating the resolution as is the entire goal of PF debate.

I have a lot of experience judging, but have also been in the tabroom a lot recently. I believe in the values of public forum debate, meaning that the debate should be able to be adjudicated by a citizen judge. I will flow, but I'm looking for clear signposting and a clear structure to each speech. This is just good practice.

I love a good narrative, but not at the expense of solid evidence and impacts.

I want logically sound warrants, please don't just say that my card is from 2023 when theirs is from 2021...I want a real reason for why your evidence is better in relation to your contentions.

Please give me clash and weighable impacts. But please don't just say you outweigh on scope or magnitude without telling me why.

I really don't want to call for evidence, so please don't use false figures or try anything dodgy. This includes things like, "our opponents didn't respond..." when they clearly did respond.

I will not judge based on any plans, counterplans or critical theories. That is simply not in the spirit of public forum debate.

I don't like roadmaps. Your speech should be clear enough for me to follow without one and it's a problem if you need one, and although I'll probably let you give it, I won't be listening to it.

Don't be rude. This includes good etiquette in crossfire. Condescension will make me look for a way to give you the loss.

I do really like cases I haven't heard before. Just be careful though, the reason they're new is that there's usually an issue with them! That's the fun of all this right!?

Background:

4 years of national circuit public forum at Poly Prep.

Assistant PF Coach for Walt Whitman.

Speaking/Speed

I can flow decently high speeds but don't speak fast just to speak fast. I'd honestly prefer you give me "lay" speaking style with strong flow content. The thing I care about most is that I can understand what you're saying. If you speak fast but are clear and articulate, then I'll be fine. If it's early in the morning or late at night, please go easy me, as I will likely be tired. Strong rhetoric, humor, and civility to your opponents are good ways to get high speaks.

How I Vote

I vote for the team that I perceive has given me the easiest way to vote without any intervention on my behalf. The easiest place to vote, for me, is always an offensive argument [an argument that advances your position and not one that merely disproves your opponents’] that has been completely extended with all of its components into both summary and final focus, and weighed comparatively against your opponent’s impacts. That means you have not only shown why such an argument is important, but why it is more important than any the other team presents.

When neither team has completely done this for me (i.e., you have not weighed, or your full argument is not extended properly, etc.), then I am forced to intervene in order to determine who has won the round. I will try to do so in the way that seems to make the most sense to me and requires the least amount of thought; i.e., if one team’s impacts are much bigger than the other’s and nobody has weighed, I will vote off the bigger impact. However, my interpretation of what may constitute a “bigger impact” is entirely subjective; you do not want to rely on my internal weighing mechanism to decide the round for you. Sometimes when nobody has weighed, I've decided rounds on which team's arguments were extended more thoroughly or warranted better. If nobody has weighed, for example, but Team A didn't extend impacts in summary, that gives me a reason to prefer Team B.

I want you to force my ballot by explaining how one or two issues in the round are where I must vote; almost quite literally, I want you to write my ballot for me in final focus. Even if you think the round is obvious, treat me like an idiot and explain thoroughly how you win.

Offense and Defense Extensions in Summary and Final Focus

First of all, you should never try to cover every single argument made in the cases/rebuttals in the summary and final focus when I’m judging you, or just ever. The shorter speech times simply don’t allow for this. Instead, I expect the summary and final focus to collapse onto a few issues and explain why those issues are the most important and why I must vote for you on those issues.

I do not require the first speaking team to extend defensive responses to your opponents’ case into first summary unless they were frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. This means you should take advantage of this 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.

All offense you want me to vote off of, however, including turns to your opponents’ case, should be in both summaries. I also believe that 2nd summary should extend critical pieces of defense, since they know what the first summary has gone for.

Extensions need to be more than “extend this card.” A full extension includes the argument/response, and all of its components. That includes all the internal logic behind the argument/response and its impacts/implications for the round.

If you extend a response from your partner’s rebuttal without telling me how it matters or what its utility is, for example, then I see it as intervention on my behalf to implicate that response for you. That means I am less inclined to buy it or evaluate it, unless I am in a round where very little has been implicated for me. My paradigm favors a team that gives fewer responses but explains how all of those responses/arguments matter over a team that dumps lots of arguments/responses in their speeches but doesn’t tell me why any of them are important.

In a round where there I can find no offense to vote for by either team in final focus, I still have to make a decision. In this circumstance, I default to the Negative, because I believe that the Affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution to be true, while the Negative doesn’t really have such a burden. That being said, I am totally willing to accept reasons why I should default to the Affirmative in the case of no offense, if they’re given to me by the Aff team. However, this is a really bad/risky strategy to win my ballot. Instead of engaging in a defensive battle, please try to win offense. I am more inclined to vote off of any offense, even a risk of offense, than defense.

Theory

I am willing to accept theory in the case where there is an actual violation present in a round. However, if I perceive that a team is misapplying theory, especially as a cheap copout to win a round against a team that doesn’t understand theory, I will consider intervening and dropping the argument even if the other team doesn’t respond to it properly. While I normally try to intervene as minimally as possible, I believe that the circumstance of abuse of theory in public forum warrants my intervention because I think that misusing theory is really harmful for the activity. Theory can be necessary when there is a seriously abusive round, but when you’re just running some random theory argument to confuse the other team, that furthers the stigma against theory in PF, which means when teams actually need to use it, they might be penalized for it. Ultimately what this means is don’t run theory unless you actually believe the situation you’re in is abusive. If there’s a gray area, then I won’t just drop the theory argument myself and I’ll pay attention to who won it on the flow. But if, for example, one team runs a T shell about how NIBs are bad and the other team isn’t running any NIBs at all, I consider that a pretty blatant and obvious misapplication of theory, so I won’t evaluate the shell even if it’s dropped. In this case, I won’t automatically drop the team who ran the theory, but I won’t evaluate the theory in my decision.

Evidence

I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible. If you tell me to call for something, I most likely will unless it's really unimportant for my decision. I may also call for evidence if something sounds suspect/too good to be true or if a team changes the way that they cite a card (e.g. a 50% increase becomes 500%), though these are rare occasions. I will dock your speaks if it turns out you're misrepresenting evidence and drop the card/probably the argument from the round depending on the circumstance; I don't drop the debater unless there is a formal evidence challenge or the opposing team wins a theory argument telling me why miscut evidence means I should drop the debater.

Greetings everyone! My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director of forensics at The Bronx High School of Science in New York City. I am excited to judge your round! Considering you want to spend the majority of time prepping from when pairings are released and not reading my treatise on debate, I hope you find this paradigm "cheat sheet" helpful in your preparation.

2023 TOC Congress Update

Congratulations on qualifying to the 2023 TOC! It's a big accomplishment to be here in this room and all of you are to be commended on your dedication and success. My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director at Bronx Science. I have judged congress a lot in the past, including two TOC final rounds, but I have found myself judging more PF and Policy in recent years. To help you prepare, here's what I would like to see in the round:

Early Speeches -- If you are the sponsor or early speaker, make sure that I know the key points that should be considered for the round. If you can set the parameters of the discourse of the debate, you will probably have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Middle Speeches -- Refute, advance the debate, and avoid rehash, obviously. However, this doesn't mean you can't bring up a point another debater has already said, just extend it and warrant your point with new evidence or with a new perspective. I often find these speeches truly interesting and you can have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Late speeches -- I think a good crystallization speech can be the best opportunity to give an amazing speech during the round. To me, a good crystal speech is one of the hardest speeches to give. This means that a student who can crystal effectively can often rank 1st or 2nd on my ballot. This is not always the case, of course, but it really is an impressive speech.

Better to speak early or late for your ballot? It really doesn't matter for me. Wherever you are selected to speak by the PO, do it well, and you will have a great chance of ranking on my ballot. One thing -- I think a student who can show diversity in their speaking ability is impressive. If you speak early on one bill, show me you can speak later on the next bill and the skill that requires.

What if I only get one speech? Will I have any chance to rank on your ballot? Sometimes during the course of a congress round, some students are not able to get a second speech or speak on every bill. I try my very best to evaluate the quality of a speech versus quantity. To me, there is nothing inherently better about speaking more or less in a round. However, when you get the chance to speak, question, or engage in the round, make the most of it. I have often ranked students with one speech over students who spoke twice, so don't get down. Sometimes knowing when not to speak is as strategic as knowing when to speak.

Questioning matters to me. Period. I am a big fan of engaging in the round by questioning. Respond to questions strongly after you speak and ask questions that elicit concessions from your fellow competitors. A student who gives great speeches but does not engage fully in questioning throughout the round stands little chance of ranking high on my ballot.

The best legislator should rank first. Congress is an event where the best legislator should rank first. This means that you have to do more than just speak well, or refute well, or crystal well, or question well. You have to engage in the "whole debate." To me, what this means is that you need to speak and question well, but also demonstrate your knowledge of the rules of order and parliamentary procedure. This is vital for the PO, but competitors who can also demonstrate this are positioning themselves to rank highly on my ballot.

Have fun! Remember, this activity is a transformative and life changing activity, but it's also fun! Enjoy the moment because you are at THE TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS! It's awesome to be here and don't forget to show the joy of the moment. Good luck to everyone!

2023 - Policy Debate Update

I have judged many debates across all events except for policy debate. You should consider me a newer policy judge and debate accordingly. Here are some general thoughts to consider as you prepare for the round:

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Non-Topical Arguments: I am unlikely to understand Ks or non-topical arguments. I DO NOT have an issue with these arguments on principle, but I will not be able to evaluate the round to the level you would expect or prefer.

Topicality: I am not experienced with topicality policy debates. If you decide to run these arguments, I cannot promise that I will make a decision you will be satisfied with, but I will do my best.

Line-by-line: Please move methodically through the flow and tell me the order before begin your speech.

Judge Instruction: In each rebuttal speech, please tell me how to evaluate your arguments and why I should be voting for you. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.

Speed: Please slow down substantially on tags and analytics. You can probably spread the body of the card but you must slow down on the tags and analytics in order for me to understand your arguments. Do not clip cards. I will know if you do.

PF Paradigm - Please see the following for my Public Forum paradigm.

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Cheat sheet:

General overview FOR PUBLIC FORUM

Experience: I've judged PF TOC finals-X------------------------------------------------- I've never judged

Tech over truth: Tech -------x------------------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with PF speed: Fast, like policy fast ---------x--------------------------------------- lay judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory ------x------------------------------ not receptive to theory

Some general PF thoughts from Crawford Leavoy, director of Durham Academy in North Carolina. I agree with the following very strongly:

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should be very good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

Now, back to my thoughts. Here is the impact calculus that I try to use in the round:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing x----------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----------x------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact -------------------------x----------------------- Not a severe impact

(One word about magnitude: I have a very low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts. Probability weighing really matters for my ballot)

Quick F.A.Q:

Defense in first summary? Depends if second rebuttal frontlines, if so, then yes, I would expect defense in first summary.

Offense? Any offense you want me to vote on should be in either case or rebuttal, then both summary and final focus.

Flow on paper or computer? I flow on paper, every time, to a fault. Take that for what you will. I can handle speed, but clarity is always more important than moving fast.

What matters most to get your ballot? Easy: comparative weighing. Plain and simple.

I think you do this by first collapsing in your later speeches. Boil it down to 2-3 main points. This allows for better comparative weighing. Tell me why your argument matters more than your opponents. The team that does this best will 99/100 times get my ballot. The earlier this starts to happen in your speeches, the better.

Overviews: Do it! I really like them. I think they provide a framework for why I should prefer your world over your opponent's world. Doing this with carded evidence is even better.

Signpost: It's very easy to get lost when competitors go wild through the flow. You must be very clear and systematic when you are moving through the flow. I firmly believe that if I miss something that you deem important, it's your fault, not mine. To help with this, tell me where you are on the flow. Say things like...

"Look to their second warrant on their first contention, we turn..."

Clearly state things like links, turns, extensions, basically everything! Tell me where you are on the flow.

Also, do not just extend tags, extend the ideas along with the tags. For example:

"Extend Michaels from the NYTimes that stated that a 1% increase in off shore drilling leads to a..."

Evidence: I like rigorous academic sources: academic journals and preeminent news sources (NYT, WashPo, etc.). You can paraphrase, but you should always tell me the source and year.

Theory in PF: I'm growing very receptive to it, but it really should be used to check back against abuse in round.

Pronouns: I prefer he/him/his and I kindly ask that you respect your opponents preferred gender pronoun.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds. This portion on speed is credited to Chetan Hertzig, head coach of Harrison High School (NY). I share very similar thoughts regarding speed and spreading.

I'm a full-time nurse with a child on the debate team. I've been judging at tournaments for two years. I judge PF more regularly than other events, but my son is an LD debater, so I am familiar with the format and the nuanced differences from PF.

As a parent judge, I want to remind you to speak slowly, clearly, and enunciate. Make sure you signpost and clear tags. I prefer that teams show respect to opponents in cross-ex, and try not to talk over one another.

Truth over tech.

Give clear voters and weigh impacts.

I am a parent Judge. I have been judging PF for three years. First, speak clearly. Please make sure I understand what you are saying. Second, keep good eye contact. Third, be respectful to all and have fun!

Competed in PF primarily on the Texas circuit with a little bit of national circuit exposure at NSDA Nationals and the TOC.

I'm tab; I'm open to any (inoffensive) argument as long as it's well-warranted.

I can handle speed as long as you aren't spreading. Clarity is key and if I can't flow it I can't evaluate it.

I strongly prefer that the second speaking team address, at the very least, all offense on both sides of the flow (opponent's case and turns on their own case). Ideally, the second speaking team should also address some critical pieces of defense on their side, but it is definitely acceptable to frontline defense in second summary. If the first speaking team doesn't extend turns in first summary, the second speaking lucks out and I can't penalize them for not defending their case in second rebuttal. I do not require terminal defense to be extended in the first summary, so the first speaking team can extend that from rebuttal to final focus.

All offense that you want to collapse on needs to be in the summary speeches. That said, however, you don't need to go for everything. Just focus on what you need in order to win the ballot.

When making extensions, please try to extend both the link and the impact.

Make sure to have good weighing, organization, and collapsing. Please signpost! Tell me exactly where you on the flow you are addressing so I don't have to waste time looking for it. Otherwise, I'll wind up flowing less of your speech.

Weighing your arguments is incredibly important. I will do my best to avoid any intervention whatsoever, but if you aren't going to weigh properly, I may be forced to do the weighing myself. This is very risky for you.

Given the ubiquity of sketchy evidence in PF, I take evidence ethics very seriously. Feel free to paraphrase evidence, but do so with integrity. Egregious misrepresentations of evidence will disappoint me greatly, and will damage your speaker points and likely my decision to vote for your side.

I will call for contested evidence if debaters make it clear they want me to call for that evidence. I may also call pieces of evidence that I suspect may be misrepresented.

Witty, inoffensive humor will likely benefit your speaker points!

Feel free to ask any further questions prior to round.

Relax. Enjoy. Have fun. BREATHE!

I am usually able to set aside my personal bias to vote for the best argument. This is why you are here; to persuade. Being right in your own mind does not matter; convince me.

For the most part, I am a tech over truth judge, however, crappy link chains will not suffice even if dropped by your opponent. Further, I prefer traditional Lincoln Douglas framework debate over all else. This said, I am willing to listen to anything but cannot promise that I will understand dense phil or high theory. In essence, explain the argument and I will do my best to evaluate it.

If you spread, you should be very clear. I am not super comfortable with speed for I usually judge PF.

Use CX to your advantage. A strategic CX is key to pinning down your opponent and making the debate interesting.

Evidence is good but you have to impact it out. Don’t simply win arguments, give me reasons to vote for you. If you make a clear story, I will most likely vote for you. With this in mind I want to hear voters at the end of the round; explicitly tell me why you are winning.

Other than that have fun. If you make me laugh, your speaker points will go up.

I went to high school in Ann Arbor, MI and I did 3 years of PF. Just a few important things to know about me as a judge...

 

1. I'll vote on anything that is extended properly (both in summary and final focus, with the exception of terminal defense). I won't require the second speaking team's rebuttal to respond to turns/responses from the first rebuttal (although you can, of course, if you like), but they must be in the summary or I can't vote on them. 

2. You must do the work for me. By this I mean you have to tell me what you want me to vote for and do any/all weighing. I want my ballot to be the most objective representation of the round, which means I want to intervene as little as possible. If I have to intervene, it probably means you're not doing a great job of debating.

3. I care about ethical evidence use; this is the one thing I won't hesitate to intervene on. If, for whatever reason, I think you're intentionally manipulating, misusing, or fabricating evidence, I'll call the card in question after the round. Please don't cut corners, it ruins the debate for everyone involved.

4. I'll leave my email on the ballot in case you have any later questions/want to clarify something. Don't hesitate to send me an email or come find me after the round, I'm happy to talk!

 

 

I have been judging Public Forum debate for around 4 years now.

 

Some speed is okay with me, but do not make it obnoxious.  If you are speaking quickly make sure to make it clear when you are moving on to a different point so I can flow easily.

 

Make sure to extend clear voting issues into summaries.  I like to see you narrow your focus as you go, bringing the most important impacts into final speeches rather than trying to extend everything. Extending specific cards without any explanation is too hard to follow and likely won't make it on my flow.

I went to the TOC 3x, have worked at CBI and Capitol, and have coached Bronx Science and Scarsdale. Please believe me when I say I can understand fast and technical debate but I absolutely abhor it and my decision will reflect that. I want you to treat me as if I am a small child, or maybe a Labrador, and make things excruciatingly, brain-deaddeningly simple for me.

*If you make any morally reprehensible claims in the round, I reserve the right to drop you. If you are spreading hateful rhetoric, you should be removed from the tournament.*

I've been coaching speech, debate, and interp for seven years and I'm currently the head speech and debate coach at Southlake Carroll in North Texas.

Public Forum: Speed is fine, but don't spread. If you're unclear in PF because of speed, I probably won't tell you because you shouldn't reach that point in PF. Don't be overly aggressive, rude, or shout. Lack of clarity or respect will lead to a serious drop in your speaks.

You should provide me with a clear weighing mechanism and justification for using it. If I have to do this work for you, you don't get to complain about my decisions. Remember that public forum is meant to be understood by anyone off the street so don't expect me to be impressed by sloppy attempts at policy tactics.

Second speaking teams don't have to defend their case in rebuttal, though it doesn't hurt to. Just because something was said in cross doesn't mean that I'm going to flow it, though I will be paying attention to it. Please don't waste cross. This is my biggest pet peeve. Give clear voters in the final focus and do your best to go straight down the flow. If you jump around the flow and I miss something, that's on you.

Public Forum (See below for LD Specifics)

I debated for Mission San Jose High School from 2013-2017 and was relatively active on the Public Forum circuit in my junior and senior years.

I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered below, ask them before the round begins.

- I evaluate arguments on the flow.

- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

- I do not take notes during crossfire and will only be paying attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech.

- I will typically only vote on arguments if they are extended in both the summary and the final focus.

- No new evidence is permitted in the second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from an initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses and criticisms of evidence are fine.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly.

- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it is never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to steal your evidence.

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate.

- I will evaluate theory and Kritiks, as long as they are well warranted.

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm. This does not mean you can wave away your opponent's defensive responses by saying "a risk of offense always outweighs defense," because terminal and mitigatory defense are not the same thing. Terminal defense points out flaws in the logic of an argument while mitigatory defense accepts an argument as a logical possibility and attacks its probability or magnitude. I personally dislike 'risk of offense' type arguments because I think they encourage lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity. Some things are more important than winning a debate round.

- If you plan to discuss sensitive issues such as suicides, depression, sexual assault, etc., please issue trigger warnings at the top of your case.

- Please be nice.

P.S. It's true, I stole this from Max (my better half)

LD Stuff:

- I have not watched circuit LD in years, so please don't go faster than ~225 wpm while speaking extemporaneously. If you are reading off of a speech doc, I really don't care.

- I love a good K debate, but many K debates tend to not be good ones. If you cannot conversationally explain your K to someone you know outside of debate, then you probably don't understand it and aren't using it in a compelling way in the round.

- That being said, I am still a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. Don't shy away from running anything in front of me, but if you go for it, it must be clearly explained and implicated in your last rebuttal.

If you have concerns, you can reach me at keshavkundassery99@gmail.com

I am a senior at GW with a major in Environmental Studies and Sustainability. I have 5 years of experience in both PF and extemp. I appreciate big picture arguments, especially in the final focus. Weighing is extremely important to me in all speeches, but especially in the rebuttal and summary.

School Affiliation: Plano West Senior High School - Plano, TX (2013-2021)

Competitive Experience: Policy Debate (at a small school in Texas) and very limited Policy Debate at the New School University

Judging Experience: I have been judging at local and national tournaments since 2008. These days, I mostly judge PF, Extemp, and Interp. On rare occasions, I will judge Policy or LD.

I don’t have any overly specific preferences. Just tell me how to evaluate the round. A framework with proper extensions of arguments make it really easy for me to vote. If nobody provides me with those things, I will use a basic cost/benefit framework.

Speed of Delivery – I am comfortable with speed (as typically used in Public Forum). If I can’t understand you, I will tell you during your speech.

Flowing/note-taking – I will flow the round. If you are speaking faster than I can write, you run the risk of me missing something on my flow.

Pro Tip - I am not a lay judge, but I think we will all be happier if you act like I am.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

About me:

I did PF from 2013 to 2017 at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. I coached/ judged frequently as a first year out, although I've been semi-retired from high school debate since 2018. Currently, I'm a student at Brandeis University in Massachusetts, where I'm majoring in economics and history. I regularly compete in APDA and BP style parliamentary debate. I use he/ they pronouns.

Major preferences:

Unless you want me to intervene, you have to weigh competing impacts as well as links into the same impact. Weighing should be comparative (X outweighs Y because) or superlative (X comes before everything else because). Comparative weighing tends to be more persuasive than superlative because it actually accounts for the quality of your opponents' arguments instead of precluding them on face. That being said, I'll vote for any weighing as long as it's done correctly.

I touched at this in the last paragraph, but to reiterate: you must weigh your link(s) against your opponents' link(s) when you're both trying to access the same impact. In all the rounds I've judged, failure to weigh links is easily the most common mistake that costs debaters the round. (This is especially true for higher-level rounds.)

Don't wait until second final focus to weigh, doing so deliberately avoids clash and makes it nearly impossible for the first speaking team to win on weighing. I will reluctantly evaluate new weighing in second final focus if it's the only substantive weighing in the round, or if it's the only way to resolve clash over existing weighing.

As you may have noticed, the past three paragraphs have all been about weighing. That's because weighing is important. A lot of successful debaters have a habit of telling teams they judges to "weigh more" or "weigh better" without explaining how, and I despise this. If you want to improve your weighing but you're not sure how, find me after the round and we can talk.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to address defense, but they must cover offense and/or theory arguments introduced by the first rebuttal. Weighing from first rebuttal should probably be addressed, but I'm fine with you waiting until summary. Dropped defense must be present in final focus for me to evaluate it, but I don't need it in first summary (first summary still needs to extend/ rebuild defense if it was responded to in second rebuttal, otherwise I won't buy them in final focus.)

Offensive overviews, new "advantages" or "disads", and "turns" that are really just blippy new arguments with the same terminal impact as your opponents are fair game in first rebuttal, but not in second. Actual turns on their arguments are fine in second rebuttal.

As long as they're properly warranted, I usually don't care if arguments are carded. (Arguments predicated on empirical/ fact claims are the exception to this.) Evidence comparison is not as compelling as argument comparison, but I'll vote on it if you tell me to. In rounds where teams should have compared warrants but didn't, I often intervene on evidence. Your opponents get free prep time while you're searching for evidence; this is a good norm because it encourages teams to have evidence readily available

Theory is fine in the case of egregious abuse by your opponents. If you read theory and I think it's frivolous, I probably won't drop you but I will tank your speaks. I default to reasonability because this is PF and your opponents probably don't know what a counterinterp is. Theory must be introduced immediately after the violation has occurred if you want me to evaluate it. Cross (or questioning during prep) checks. Feel free to ask me how I feel about specific theory arguments before the round.

Plans and CPs are fine as long as the resolution actually proposes an action. You don't need to prove your advocacy is probable unless your opponents make an argument saying otherwise. If you read a specific plan/ CP that's very unpredictable and probably abusive, I'll heavily err towards your opponents if they contest it. (So don't be afraid to call your opponents out!)

Kritikal arguments are fine if you actually know how to make/ implicate them. I'm probably most conducive to cap, security, or orientalism (especially on the BRI topic). Read dense continental philosophy or postmodern arguments at your own risk.

Try not to speak above 215 words per minute. My upper limit is probably around 230 WPM, so go fast at your own risk.

Don't be mean. Stop making dramatic faces at your opponents' arguments, they're not going to persuade me. Avoid repeatedly cutting your opponents off in crossfire. Don't be blatantly dismissive or hostile towards your opponents' arguments when you respond to them (this is mostly directed at you, male debaters with non-male opponents).

Minor preferences (there aren't round-deciding, but please show some competency and do what I say):

Flip for sides and preflow as early as you can. (This especially goes for you, second flight.)

Please don't give me a full-on roadmap unless you're doing something really unusual. (I've judged enough rounds to know that you're going down their case and back to your own if time permits.)

Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

I don't care if you sit or stand, so please don't ask me.

I don't care if a coach, teammate, or family member observes the round, so please don't ask me.

About me:

I did PF from 2013 to 2017 at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. I coached/ judged frequently as a first year out, although I've been semi-retired from high school debate since 2018. Currently, I'm a student at Brandeis University in Massachusetts, where I'm majoring in economics and history. I regularly compete in APDA and BP style parliamentary debate. I use he/ they pronouns.

Major preferences:

Unless you want me to intervene, you have to weigh competing impacts as well as links into the same impact. Weighing should be comparative (X outweighs Y because) or superlative (X comes before everything else because). Comparative weighing tends to be more persuasive than superlative because it actually accounts for the quality of your opponents' arguments instead of precluding them on face. That being said, I'll vote for any weighing as long as it's done correctly.

I touched at this in the last paragraph, but to reiterate: you must weigh your link(s) against your opponents' link(s) when you're both trying to access the same impact. In all the rounds I've judged, failure to weigh links is easily the most common mistake that costs debaters the round. (This is especially true for higher-level rounds.)

Don't wait until second final focus to weigh, doing so deliberately avoids clash and makes it nearly impossible for the first speaking team to win on weighing. I will reluctantly evaluate new weighing in second final focus if it's the only substantive weighing in the round, or if it's the only way to resolve clash over existing weighing.

As you may have noticed, the past three paragraphs have all been about weighing. That's because weighing is important. A lot of successful debaters have a habit of telling teams they judges to "weigh more" or "weigh better" without explaining how, and I despise this. If you want to improve your weighing but you're not sure how, find me after the round and we can talk.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to address defense, but they must cover offense and/or theory arguments introduced by the first rebuttal. Weighing from first rebuttal should probably be addressed, but I'm fine with you waiting until summary. Dropped defense must be present in final focus for me to evaluate it, but I don't need it in first summary (first summary still needs to extend/ rebuild defense if it was responded to in second rebuttal, otherwise I won't buy them in final focus.)

Offensive overviews, new "advantages" or "disads", and "turns" that are really just blippy new arguments with the same terminal impact as your opponents are fair game in first rebuttal, but not in second. Actual turns on their arguments are fine in second rebuttal.

As long as they're properly warranted, I usually don't care if arguments are carded. (Arguments predicated on empirical/ fact claims are the exception to this.) Evidence comparison is not as compelling as argument comparison, but I'll vote on it if you tell me to. In rounds where teams should have compared warrants but didn't, I often intervene on evidence. Your opponents get free prep time while you're searching for evidence; this is a good norm because it encourages teams to have evidence readily available

Theory is fine in the case of egregious abuse by your opponents. If you read theory and I think it's frivolous, I probably won't drop you but I will tank your speaks. I default to reasonability because this is PF and your opponents probably don't know what a counterinterp is. Theory must be introduced immediately after the violation has occurred if you want me to evaluate it. Cross (or questioning during prep) checks. Feel free to ask me how I feel about specific theory arguments before the round.

Plans and CPs are fine as long as the resolution actually proposes an action. You don't need to prove your advocacy is probable unless your opponents make an argument saying otherwise. If you read a specific plan/ CP that's very unpredictable and probably abusive, I'll heavily err towards your opponents if they contest it. (So don't be afraid to call your opponents out!)

Kritikal arguments are fine if you actually know how to make/ implicate them. I'm probably most conducive to cap, security, or orientalism (especially on the BRI topic). Read dense continental philosophy or postmodern arguments at your own risk.

Try not to speak above 215 words per minute. My upper limit is probably around 230 WPM, so go fast at your own risk.

Don't be mean. Stop making dramatic faces at your opponents' arguments, they're not going to persuade me. Avoid repeatedly cutting your opponents off in crossfire. Don't be blatantly dismissive or hostile towards your opponents' arguments when you respond to them (this is mostly directed at you, male debaters with non-male opponents).

Minor preferences (there aren't round-deciding, but please show some competency and do what I say):

Flip for sides and preflow as early as you can. (This especially goes for you, second flight.)

Please don't give me a full-on roadmap unless you're doing something really unusual. (I've judged enough rounds to know that you're going down their case and back to your own if time permits.)

Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

I don't care if you sit or stand, so please don't ask me.

I don't care if a coach, teammate, or family member observes the round, so please don't ask me.

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.

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

Hi Debaters.

I am an English and public speaking teacher, as well as a speech coach at Fenwick High School. I also judge Public Forum debate. As a judge, I look for speech clarity, logic, and organization. I look for a quality argument, preferring evidence backed reasoning over hypothetical scenarios. Watch spreading so that it doesn't backfire. If mumbled with lack of articulation, I won't be able to critique an argument I can't understand. Be respectful at all times, and show your passion for debate.

I debated for Hunter College High School for seven years (3 years of parliamentary debate, 4 years of public forum) and I'm now an Assistant PF Coach for Walt Whitman High School.  

This is my first year out of the circuit, and already I've noticed that debaters understand their arguments a lot better than their judges do. Or I'm stupid. Either way, this means there are a few things you can do to win the round easily:

(1) Explain your arguments clearly (especially in later speeches! If you don't reexplain your link chain in summary/final focus, it's very hard for me to vote for you because I don't remember how you got to your impact)
(2) The slower you speak, the easier it is for me to process your argument. Go fast if you want, but more words ≠ more offense, especially if I can't understand it or arguments aren't fully explained

(3) Don't extend your cards by name, tell me what the card says

(4) I prefer warrants over evidence. You can find a card that says anything, so explain why your card finds what it finds

(5) WEIGH. Please! Weighing doesn't mean throwing out buzzwords like "magnitude" or "reversibility," it means actually explaining how your arguments interact with your opponents' offense

 

I have a few other preferences:

(1) Defense doesn't need to be extended in the first summary speech

(2) Don't give an off-time roadmap unless you're actually doing something outside of the norm (ie. not "framework, their case, our case")
(3) Don't run alternative arguments (theory, Ks, etc.) unless there is actually an egregious violation

(4) I consider it intervening to decide which pieces of evidence to call, so tell me if you want me to call any cards and I will

 

Besides that, do whatever you want. Just don't be rude. Here's a vine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX6kVfCPE8U

links are important. weighing is also important.

Elise Matton, Director of Speech & Debate at Albuquerque Academy (2022–present)
EMAIL CHAIN: enmatton@gmail.com

· B.A. History, Tulane University (Ancient & Early Modern Europe)
· M.A. History, University of New Mexico (U.S. & Latin America)

Competitive Experience:
· CX debate in NM local circuit, 2010 State Champion (2005-2010)
· IPDA/NPDA debate in college, 2012 LSU Mardi Gras Classic Champion (2011-2014)

Coaching Experience:
· Team Assistant, Isidore Newman (primarily judging/trip chaperoning — 2012-2016)
· Assistant Coach, Albuquerque Academy (LD & CX emphasis — 2017–2022)

Judging Experience:
· I judge a mix of local circuit and national circuit tournaments (traditional & progressive) primarily in CX and LD, but occasionally PF or other Speech events.

Note Pre-Jack Howe:

· Jack Howe is my 1st national circuit tournament in policy this season — I haven't seen or judged many rounds at all yet this year and definitely not too many fast/technical/progressive rounds on the topic. Do not assume I know Aff topic areas, core neg ground, abstract topic-specific acronyms, etc. Adjust accordingly!

General Notes (this is catered for policy and national circuit LD. PF notes are at the bottom).

· Speed is fine generally so long as it's not used to excessively prohibit interaction with your arguments. I do think there is a way to spread and still demonstrate strong speaking ability (varying volume, pacing, tone etc) and will probably reward you for it if you're doing both well. Go slower/clearer/or otherwise give vocal emphasis on taglines and key issues such as plan text or aff advocacy, CP texts, alts, ROB/ROJ, counter-interps, etc. Don't start at your max speed but build up to it instead. If you are one of the particularly fast teams in the circuit, I recommend you slow down SLIGHTLY in front of me. I haven't been judging many fast rounds lately, so I'm slightly rusty. I'm happy to call out "clear" and/or "slow" to help you find that my upper brightline so you can adjust accordingly as needed.

· Put me on the email chain (enmatton@gmail.com) but know I don't like rounds that REQUIRE me to read the doc while you're speaking (or ideally at all). I tend to have the speech doc up, but I am annoyed by rounds where debaters ASSUME that everyone is reading along with them. I flow off what I hear, not what I read, and I believe that your delivery and performance are important aspects of this activity and you have the burden of clearly articulating your points well enough that I theoretically shouldn't need to look at the docs at all for anything other than ev checking when it's requested. If someone who wasn't looking at your speech doc would not be able to tell the difference between the end of one card/warrant and the beginning of a new tagline, you need better vocal variety and clarity (louder, intonation change, inserting "and" or "next" between cards etc, etc.

· The most impressive debaters to me are ones who can handle intense high-level technical debates, but who can make it accessible to a wide variety of audiences. This means that I look for good use of tech and strategy, but ALSO for the ability to "boil it down" in clearly worded extensions, underviews, overviews, and explanations of your paths to the ballot. I strongly value debaters who can summarize the main thesis of each piece of offense in their own words. It shows you have a strong command of the material and that you are highly involved in your own debate prep.

· I believe that Tech>truth GENERALLY, BUT- Just because an argument is dropped doesn't necessarily mean I'll give you 100% weight on it if the warrants aren't there or it is absurdly blippy. I also have and will vote for teams that may be less technically proficient but still make valid warranted claims even if they aren't done formatted in a "Technical" manner. Ex: if you run some a theory argument against a less technical team who doesn't know how to line-by-line respond to it, but they make general arguments about why this strategy is harmful to debaters and the debate community and argue that you should lose for it, I would treat that like an RVI even if they don't call it an RVI. Etc.

· Use my occasional facial expression as cues. You’ll probably notice me either nodding occasionally or looking quizzically from time to time- if something sounds confusing or I’m not following you’ll be able to tell and can and should probably spend a few more seconds re-explaining that argument in another way (don't dwell on this if it happens — if it's an important enough point that you think you need to win, use the cue to help you and try explaining it again!) Note the nodding doesn't mean I necessarily agree with a point, just following it and think you're explaining it well. If you find this distracting please say so pre-round and I’ll make an effort not to do so.

· Use Content warnings if discussing anything that could make the space less safe for anyone within it and be willing to adapt for opponents or judges in the room.

Role as a Judge

Debate is incredible because it is student-driven, but I don't think that means I abandon my role as an educator or an adult in the space when I am in the back of the room making my decision. I believe that good debaters should be able to adapt to multiple audiences. Does this mean completely altering EVERYTHING you do to adapt to a certain judge (traditional judge, K judge, anti-spreading judge, lay judge, etc etc)? No, but it does mean thinking concretely about how you can filter your strategy/argument/approach through a specific lens for that person.

HOW I MAKE MY RFD: At the end of the last negative speech I usually mark the key areas I could see myself voting and then weigh that against what happens in the 2AR to make my decision. My favorite 2NR/2AR’s are ones that directly lay out and tell me the possible places in the round I could vote for them and how/why. 2NR/2AR’s that are essentially a list of possible RFDs/paths to the ballot for me are my favorite because not only do they make my work easier, but it clearly shows me how well you understood and interpreted the round.

Topicality/Theory

Part of me really loves the meta aspect of T and theory, and part of me loathes the semantics and lack of substance it can produce. I see T and Theory as a needing to exist to help set some limits and boundaries, but I also have a fairly high threshold. Teams can and do continue to convince me of appropriate broadenings of those boundaries. Reasonability tends to ring true to me for the Aff on T, but don’t be afraid to force them to prove or meet that interpretation, especially if it is a stretch, and I can be easily persuaded into competing interps. For theory, I don’t have a problem with conditional arguments but do when a neg strat is almost entirely dependent on running an absurd amount of offcase arguments as a time skew that prevents any substantive discussion of arguments. This kind of strat also assumes I’ll vote on something simply because it was “flowed through”, when really I still have to examine the weight of that argument, which in many cases is insubstantial. At the end of the day, don’t be afraid to use theory- it’s there as a strategy if you think it makes sense for the round context, but if you’re going to run it, please spend time in the standards and voters debate so I can weigh it effectively.

Disadvantages

I love a really good disad, especially with extensive impact comparisons. Specific disads with contextualized links to the aff are some of my all-time favorite arguments, simple as they may seem in construct. The cost/benefit aspect of the case/DA debate is particularly appealing to me. I don’t think generic disads are necessarily bad but good links and/or analytics are key. Be sure your impact scenario is fully developed with terminal impacts. Multiple impact scenarios are good when you can. I'm not anti nuke war scenarios (especially when there is a really specific and good internal link chain and it is contextually related to the topic) but there are tons more systemic level impacts too many debaters neglect.

Counterplans

I used to hate PICs but have seen a few really smart ones in the past few years that are making me challenge that notion. That being said I am not a fan of process CPs, but go for it if it’s key to your strat.

Kritiks

Love them, with some caveats. Overviews/underviews, or really clearly worded taglines are key here. I want to see *your* engagement with the literature. HIGH theory K's with absurdly complicated taglines that use methods of obfuscation are not really my jam. The literature might be complex, and that's fine, but your explanations and taglines to USE those arguments should be vastly more clear and communicable if you want to run it in round! I have a high threshold for teams being able to explain their positions well rather than just card-dump. I ran some kritiks in high school (mostly very traditional cap/biopower) but had a pretty low understanding of the best way to use them and how they engaged with other layers of offense in the round. They weren’t as common in my circuit so I didn’t have a ton of exposure to them. However, they’ve really grown on me and I’ve learned a lot while judging them- they’re probably some of my favorite kind of debate to watch these days. (hint: I truly believe in education as a voter, in part because of my own biases of how much this activity has taught me both in and out of round, but this can work in aff’s favor when terrible K debates happen that take away from topic education as well). Being willing to adapt your K to those unfamiliar with it, whether opponents or judge, not only helps you in terms of potential to win the ballot, but, depending on the kind of kritik you're running or pre-fiat claims, also vastly increases likelihood for real world solvency (that is if your K is one that posits real world solvency- I'm down for more discussion-based rounds as theoretical educational exercises as well). I say this because the direction in which I decided to take my graduate school coursework was directly because of good K debaters who have been willing to go the extra step in truly explaining these positions, regardless of the fact I wasn’t perceived as a “K judge”. I think that concept is bogus and demonstrates some of the elitism still sadly present in our activity. If you love the K, run it- however you will need to remember that I myself wasn’t a K debater and am probably not as well versed in the topic/background/author. As neg you will need to spend specific time really explaining to me the alt/role of the ballot/answers to any commodification type arguments. Despite my openness to critical argumentation, I’m also open to lots of general aff answers here as well including framework arguments focused on policymaking good, state inevitable, perms, etc. Like all arguments, it ultimately boils down to how you warrant and substantiate your claims.

MISCELLANEOUS
Flash time/emailing the doc out isn’t prep time (don’t take advantage of this though). Debaters should keep track of their own time, but I also tend to time as well in case of the rare timer failure. If we are evidence sharing, know that I still think you have the burden as debaters to clearly explain your arguments, (aka don’t assume that I'll constantly use the doc or default to it- what counts is still ultimately what comes out of you mouth).

I will yell “clear” if the spread is too incoherent for me to flow, or if I need you to slow down slightly but not if otherwise. If I have to say it more than twice you should probably slow down significantly. My preference while spreading is to go significantly slower/louder/clearer on the tagline and author. Don’t spread out teams that are clearly much slower than you- you don’t have to feel like you have to completely alter your presentation and style, but you should adapt somewhat to make the round educational for everyone. I think spreading is a debate skill you should employ at your discretion, bearing in mind what that means for your opponents and the judge in that round. Be smart about it, but also be inclusive for whoever else is in that round with you.

**PUBLIC FORUM**

I don't judge PF nearly as frequently as I do CX/LD, so I'm not as up to date on norms and trends.

Mostly when judging PF I default to util/cost-benefit analysis framing and then I evaluate clash and impacts, though the burden is on you to effectively weigh that clash and the impacts.

Final Focus should really focus on the ballot story and impact calc. Explain all the possible paths to the ballot and how you access them.

Compared to LD and CX, I find that clash gets developed much later in the round because the 2nd constructive doesn't (typically?) involve any refutations (which I find bizarre from a speech structure standpoint). For this reason, I appreciate utilizing frontlining as much as possible and extending defense into summary.

Impressive speaking style = extra brownie points for PFers given the nature of the event. Ultimately I'm still going to make a decision based on the flow, but this matters more to me when evaluating PF debaters. Utilize vocal intonation, eye contact, gestures, and variance in vocal pacing.

Grand Crossfire can be fun when done right but horribly chaotic when done wrong. Make an effort to not have both partners trying to answer/ask questions simultaneously or I'll have a really hard time making out what's going on. Tag-team it. If Grand Crossfire ends early, I will not convert the time remaining into additional prep. It simply moves us into Final Focus early.

I have a much lower threshold for spreading in PF than I do for CX/LD. I can certainly follow it given my focus on LD and CX, but my philosophy is that PF is stylistically meant to be more accessible and open. I don't mind a rapid delivery, but I will be much less tolerant of teams that spread out opponents, especially given email chains/evidence sharing before the round is not as much of a norm (as far as I've seen).

I am often confused by progressive PF as the structure of the event seems to limit certain things that are otherwise facilitated by CX/LD. Trying to make some of the same nuanced Theory and K debates are incredibly difficult in a debate event structured by 2-3 mins speeches. Please don't ask me to weigh in on or use my ballot to help set a precedent about things like theory, disclosure, or other CX/LD arguments that seem to be spilling into PF. I am not an involved enough member of the PF community to feel comfortable using my ballot to such ends. If any of these things appear in round, I'm happy to evaluate them, but I guess be cautious in this area.

Please feel free to ask any further questions or clarifications before/after the round!- my email is enmatton@gmail.com if you have any specific questions or need to run something by me. Competitors: if communicating with me by email, please CC your coach or adult chaperone. Thank you!

Hi! I did PF at Hunter College High School (NY) until 2017, and was an assistant coach for Saint Mary's Hall (TX) from 2017-2020. Honestly just make the round fun and entertaining please I beg of you.

A quick note: I’ve experienced a lot of debate rounds, and have probably had more bad than good experiences. Let’s make this a good one! Come into the round ready to learn and be supportive to everyone in the round, including your opponents. Have fun and be kind to everyone in the room. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round a more safe and fun experience for you (feel free to Slack me in advance of the round!). Please give a meaningful (i.e. people can actually opt-out if they are worried about being triggered) trigger warning if you’re reading arguments on sensitive topics (for me personally esp with regards to addiction, abuse, or sexual violence). Contact your opponents and me before the round or give people a chance at the beginning of the round to text you to ask that you not read certain arguments you warn us about, and actually read a different case if someone asks! Happy to walk people through best practices for trigger warning if there's confusion. Given the fact that I'm specifying this, I will 100% vote off trigger warning theory if the abuse is clear, and will auto-drop you if you don't trigger warn an argument I can't judge bc it is a trigger for me. I’m excited for the next hour we’ll spend together! :)

Otherwise:

· Weigh

· Warrant and extend warrants not just card names

· Frontline offense in second rebuttal, extend defense the speech after it's frontlined, offense needs to be in summary + ff for me to vote off it

· You can go fast, but don’t spread

· Read any kind of arguments except disclosure (not gonna lie though, my understanding of theory specifics is minimal so I won't evaluate it very technically, if that's gonna annoy you, don't read theory in front of me--otherwise, just explain stuff clearly and don't rely on things like them reading a counterinterp or not having drop the debater to win the argument)

· Believe in role of the ballot arguments if you read them

TLDR: I debated PF for four years at Whitman. So, I'm probably on the more tech-y side of things. Speed is ok, but no spreading please. If you think I might need a speech doc, it's probably too fast. More details about what I like/don't like in round below.

1. My email is annamcg23@gmail.com - please add me to the email chain :) Also, if you have any questions or if I can do anything to make the round more comfortable for you accommodations-wise, just shoot me an email before round.

2. Big fan of jokes and a sense of humor is much appreciated. That being said, being funny =/= being a jerk. Please don't be super mean/condescending (especially in CX), it won't make me very happy and probably won't make you very happy when you see your speaker points. It should go without saying, but this is especially true for any comments/arguments that are sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist etc.

3. I haven't debated since 2017 and haven't judged since 2018. So while I'm familiar with progressive arguments (Ks and theory), it isn't something that was super common in PF when I was debating. So, if you really want to try running it, go for it, but just know I'm really not familiar with these arguments so it may be to your own detriment. That being said, if you think your opponents are being abusive in round, you can just say that--no need to run a shell.

Now Flow/Speech Stuff:

1. If you want me to vote on something in Final Focus, it should be in summary.

2. I don't flow CX, if there's a big *gotcha* in CX, bring it up in a speech.

3. I normally don't call evidence on my own unless something seems particularly hinky. So if you want me to call a card, please mention it (preferably in final!)

4. Pet peeve - every time you say something has been 'conceded' or 'dropped' and it hasn't been, I dock 0.1 speaker points. Consider yourself warned.

I am a lay judge from Arizona with three years experience judging Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas debate.

I base my decisions on the cases, cross examinations and rebuttals presented by the competitors. I do not finish cases, refute evidence or drop points for you. I rarely ask for evidence unless I suspect shenanigans. Please make your own, complete, cohesive case and clash with your opponent. Keep in mind, the farther you stretch your links, the more likely you are to lose me. I prefer elegance over cleverness.

I enjoy LD as the best forum to engage value-based debate without a presumed burden or the need for detailed plans. As such, I feel many of the progressive strategies of Policy debate often become unnecessary tricks and gimmicks in LD. I'll accept theory and kritics, but I still expect topical clash. A debater using a K accepts the burden that comes with an a priori discussion, handicapped by the lack of speaking time allowed in Policy. It's a gamble.

I accept speed. However, I find it lacks elegance and it's unpleasant. Please don't speak faster, just speak less. Economize. Using speed won't hurt your case, (unless I miss something), but it will hurt your speaker points.

1. Weigh. Please.

2. Anything you really want me to vote on (warrants, impacts, turns, weighing) should be in both summary and final focus.

3. Don't be rude in cross!

4. I'm a big fan of song references, specifically from early 2010s pop songs.

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.

Background - I debated public forum in high school. I am a business and computer science university student.

Preferences - PF, as a contrast to the other high school debate formats, should be evaluated equally on ethos and logos with elements of pathos providing impact when the other two prove insufficient. This means that speaking style and strategy play an important role in the round.
I flow, but my flows for the constructive and rebuttal speeches are separate from summary and final focus. I will only refer to the original speeches when it is necessary to settle a dispute that isn't settled by the final speeches. For this reason, there is accountability for evidence, cross fire, argumentation and analysis, and strategy.

Structure - it is easier for me to flow your rebuttal if I know where and how to apply your arguments.
Summary should start to reframe the debate - I don't want to hear a recap of the first speeches, I want to hear you reorganize the debate and begin to demonstrate why you are winning given your case and in spite of your opponent's.
By the end of the final focus I should have a clear understanding of why I am voting for you.

TL;DR
My judging style is set up to reward strategy first, technical style second, and semantics only when absolutely necessary.

Signpost, focus on making clear links, stress impacts, try to construct a plausible and persuasive narrative. I'm fine with speed, but understand that there is a tradeoff between quality and quantity of flow coverage. Be civil please, it's just high school debate. Speaks are assigned by quality of arguments not by necessary fluidity of oral presentation - be aware of this. Also, fyi, I do reward teams for style points. Humor, wit, and interesting arguments are persuasive in real life, so I believe they should be rewarded in a debate context as well.

BACKGROUND:

I debated for four years (2013-2017) at La Canada High School in California. I have debate experience in PF and California Parliamentary Debate, and speech experience in Oratory, DI, Extemp, Impromptu, and Prose. I've been in out-rounds at both state and national tournaments.

I currently compete in APDA parliamentary and British parliamentary debate at Brown University. If you have any questions, whether regarding my paradigm or not, please feel free to email me at christopher_morillo@brown.edu.

tl;dr: I do parliamentary debate primarily, and accordingly I value logic and impacts far above cards being thrown at me. Most importantly, I care about weighing, and I won’t vote for random things on the flow that aren’t weighed in final focus.

PF:

Feel free to run a framework, but don't run one just to run one. I will not vote on a framework just because it is there and is not utilized with your case. Don't make the debate about the framework/definitions/whatever fluff you have at the beginning, this isn't what PF should be about. If the framework does come into play, however, I definitely will consider it. Finally, if both teams propose a framework, give me a good reason to prefer yours over your opponents'.

Speed doesn't really matter, so long as your opponents and I can both understand you. Signposting is very helpful no matter the speed.

Second rebuttal: at least try to defend some of your case. It is extremely unfair for the first summary speaker if the second rebuttal only attacks. I'm fine with a 3/1 split, even potentially a 3:30/0:30 split (but that might be pushing it.)

Please do some analysis and impact your cards, don't just throw cards/numbers/stats around. Impact calculus is important and is primarily what I vote off of.

Do some analysis in summary. Don't just extend cards without reasoning. See above. Essential in Final Focus.

Probability, Scope, Magnitude are fine go-tos. But in my book probability usually outweighs the latter two (aka something really bad but really unlikely is not important to the round!).

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, be nice. This activity is absolutely meaningless and reductive if it is exclusive to those who are privileged enough to handle its often toxic culture.

Speaker Point Scale:

Below 25 - Offensive

25-26 - Below Average

27 - Average

28 - Good

29 - Great

30 - Perfect/Almost Perfect

I am a parent but have judged at multiple tournaments.

My background: Bachelors in economics from Rice and Masters in public policy from Harvard.

I make my decisions based on the weight of the impacts and a clear narrative. I expect you to come back to your own case in second rebuttal.

Speaks:

-speak clearly and not too fast

-weighing impacts

-getting heated in cross is normal, but avoid outright rudeness

i do deb8

I think debate is about three main things: discourse, facts, and respect. Ideas always build on each other and there is always validity to the other side, even if you don't think there is.

So, here's how you win my vote:

1. Be respectful. Please no eye-rolling, ad hoc, rude voices, hostile body language ect. If you get passionate and feel the need to raise your voice to get your point across, go for it. But no hostility, please. If you are offensively rude to your opponents, I will drop you.

2. Evidence. Public Forum for me is based on facts. I'm an economics major, so give me all of your numbers. Give me the impacts, warrants, tell me why I should be voting for your side, and why your side proves the resolution. If you have competing sources, fight it out and tell me why your source is better. But have it on hand, because I will call for evidence if necessary.

3. Logic. Even if you have the best facts from the most prestigious sources, if you can't connect them with solid logic, they're useless for your side. Everything has to connect back to the resolution, so don't get lost in the cross-fire. If I can't follow the argument you're making, I won't vote on it.

4. Uniqueness. Even though PF is usually pretty straightforward, I like to see off-the-wall stuff. If you have a different and fun argument to make, I want to hear it. Just make sure it's not a plan to solvency.

Milton High School '17, Boston University '21

My Debate Experience

To provide some brief context about my history with debate, I did PF for three years during high school, I was the Co-Captain of the team my Junior year and the Captain my Senior year, and I am currently a member of the Boston University Debate Society. My Senior year, my partner and I won my regional NCFL qualifier. I have also judged several tournaments.

Disclaimer Regarding In-Round Insensitivity

As you may have seen in several other judges' paradigms, I also have zero tolerance for arguments that are demeaning (ie. sexism, racism, classism, homophobia, and so on). If it involves putting someone down or treating some group as 'lesser-than', it is not good argumentation and you need to become more mindful about the way you debate. That being said, I will be compelled to drop you if you debate insensitively. If you don't agree with me, feel free to utilize your option to strike me.

Now let's move on to some of my in-round preferences...

-I'll say right here and right now that my least favorite kind of debate is that which devolves into a merely framework debate and loses all interesting meaning. I've been there, you've been there - but please don't. It is honestly what I find the most tedious and unenjoyable to watch. Also, it strays from the purpose of PF, which (in my opinion) is to have meaningful, intelligent discourse about the resolution from both sides.

-Evidence, evidence, evidence. I love evidence. Use sources as frequently as may help your side, but also make sure you allot enough time to carefully explain to me why your logic is preferable to the other side's. In instances of conflicting evidence, explain to me why I should believe yours instead of theirs. Repeating what it says is not sufficient to convince me. If an evidence dispute becomes the deciding factor in a round, I will take both pieces under consideration. If you suspect miscarding, tell me to call for a source and I will.

-In general, throughout the round, really make sure that you effectively respond to all of your opponents' points and extend any offense of yours that still stands.

-I also want to mention that it is not my job as a judge to do weighing. The best type of round is where I have a team that gives me clear weighing and, given that I am a flow judge, I can trace all of their responses and extensions on my flow and the voting job has essentially been done for me. You really don't want to leave me to weigh things because we're not all the same person so I probably will weigh things differently than you.

-I also love jokes/puns, but obviously they are not necessary for good argumentation.

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.

four-year PF debater from Millburn, mother of Jimmy Chen, unicorn pundit

way to win the round: clearly win an argument, clearly tell me why it's more important than what your opponents are winning

fun facts: I don't hold first summary speakers to the same standard as the second in terms of defense, but generally speaking if you want it to be in the ballot, it should be in the summary; I won't call evidence unless it's clearly disputed in round, if your opponent is miscutting, lmk to call it; I like super clear signposting and when you do the work for me; Absent a weighting mechanism, I'll default to the easiest path to the ballot; pls don't run Ks i'll get confused and have to ask Max for help during crossfire

be nice to your opponents and I'll be nice in speaks!!

let's have a good time

https://twitter.com/itsgirllcode/status/843164268107255808?lang=en

My name is Logan and I think debate is cool.

I don't really care what kind of arguments you read.

Typically, the team that makes the smarter decisions wins.

If you are unclear, I will say "clear."

If you are too fast, I will say "speed."

The former is more likely to be an issue than the latter.

Third year judging public forum

You have to convince me why you side's contentions using logic or trust worthy evidence, do I need say... If your speech does not make sense to me for reasons of speed or convoluted logic or if in my judgement it didn’t make sense to your opponents I would drop the contention from consideration

expect a well informed judge who flows, expect an unbiased judgment based solely on team's arguments against each other's logic/information, who enjoys that task as a challenge

I went to McCallie (TN) and did primarily Public Forum for 5 years and I worked for Capitol for a summer. While I debated mostly regionally (GA-AL) I competed occasionally on the national circuit when school constraints allowed and did fairly well. I've done limited amounts of WSD and currently do APDA and BP at Northeastern, where I'm studying Economics and Finance. Important stuff is listed below:

Preferences

These are probably the only things you care about. Here's the rundown:

1) Arguments need to be extended fully for me to evaluate them.

2) It's a lot easier for you to illustrate a path to victory based on your offense rather than your defense. (There are exceptions, but this generally holds)

3) I want to sign a ballot of minimum intervention. This means that you should weigh early and often. One of the biggest things that messes up rounds is lack of weighing between mutually exclusive warrants that are trying to link into the same piece of offense. Be clear about why I ought prefer your conception.

4) Use crossfire strategically, but don't be an asshole. If you're a dick, your speaks will be lowered.

5) DO NOT EXTEND THROUGH INK. This is probably my biggest pet peeve.

6) Arguments premised on logic are more sound than arguments premised on author's names. Tell me what your evidence is saying (if you need the card) and why it's more credible than the version of reality I'm getting from your opponents.

7) Theory is fine to check abuse. It should be run as a last resort, only in conditions where it is not possible/extremely difficult to engage normally with the resolution, or in cases where a team has created a structural disadvantage.

8) Do you feel like giving me a roadmap? If you're not doing something atypical, please don't. This being said, do signpost during speeches.

9) Coin flip, side selection, and speaking order can all be decided if I'm not there, and I prefer teams to take care of this before entering the room at flighted tournaments.

If you have any questions about anything here (or things not mentioned here), shoot me a message on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/tpatri10).

I've judged rounds of: Public Forum, Congress, Lincoln-Douglas, Extemporaneous Speaking, Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, Interpretation of Literature, and Impromptu Speaking.

Strong debaters have a balance of facts, statistics, engaging rhetoric and clear delivery. Help me flow! I like lots of taglines and signposting, even during cross ex. If you're speaking fast, make sure you're not sacrificing clarity. Although I don't prefer when competitors spread, I can understand what they are saying (during the cross examination sessions). If you're interrupting your opponent habitually, it may count against you.

The winning team / debater is able to deliver and extend strong, well-supported, and prepared arguments while pointing out and breaking down flaws in the opponent's arguments.

I co-coached a strong south Florida team and have judged PF for 2 years going on 3. I have coached my team to many victories and have a lot of experience on how PF works. I am a medical professional who has a love of beagles and is in the process of opening a beagle rescue. I flow on my laptop and take note of cross. If I look confused I probably am, take note of that.

I am considerably lay but my two kids (debated for 2 years going on 3 and 1 year going on 2) have taught me a lot on the topics and the general PF debate style alone. Most of my preferences are based on them (in general)

I am not one to make a quick vote on lives. In order for me to consider it on my flow, I need to hear a two world analysis between the sides and weighing along with it.

General preferences-

1. I am okay with speaking speed but warn me before you start. If you are doing spreading, be prepared to give me a copy of your case. I can keep up for the most part but will not penalize your for you speed.

2. I do not disclose in round (unless mandated by the tournament) but will give generous feedback if asked about the round. I know the topics to a degree due to previous judging but as a debater it is your job to convince me. I will not vote off of previous knowledge.

3. I do ask that all crossfire be for the purposing of furthering case not combative only. Issues in cross need to be mentioned in a speech for me to evaluate them. Dominance in cross, especially in grand cross, does not mean cutting off your opponents.

4. You have a five (5) second grace period past speeches and anything said after that will not be taken into consideration. When it comes to cross, as long as the question is asked before the time, an answer is permitted.

Tournaments judged + many more...

Blue Key (2017 & 2018)

Blake (2017 & 2018)

Sunvite (2018 & 2019)

The Tradition at Cypress

Harvard (2018 & 2019)

Nova Titan 2018, TOC 2018, UK Season Opener, and many more (locals and such)

If you have specific questions that aren't answered here, please don't hesitate to ask.

*If you can logically work in how you save a beagles life in one of your speeches, you can have guaranteed 29 speaks. Does NOT need to be extended throughout the round*

(See top of paradigm for my reasoning to the above statement)

I have been judging LD debate for almost ten years. I am comfortable with speed, hate frivolous theory, and appreciate a thoughtful and well-structured K. If you have further questions, feel free to ask me at the start of the round.

I describe myself as a "flay" judge. I flow a round but I rarely base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighing. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.

I ABSOLUTELY DEMAND CIVILITY IN CROSSFIRES! Ask your question then allow the other side to answer COMPLETELY before you respond further. Hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. Outright snarkiness or rudeness could result in a 0 for speaker points. Purposely misconstruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. Though I award very few 30s on speaker points, I very much appreciate clear, eloquent speech, which will make your case more persuasive.

I have seen a trend to turn summaries into second rebuttals. I HATE THIS. A summary should extend key offense from case and key defense from rebuttal then weigh impacts. You cannot do this in only two minutes if you burn up more than a minute trying to frontline. If I don't hear something from case in summary you will lose most definitely. Contrary to growing belief, the point of this event is NOT TO WIN ON THE FLOW. The point is to research and put forth the best warrants and evidence possible that stand up to rebuttal.

When calling cards, avoid distracting "dumps" aimed at preoccupying the other side and preventing them from prepping. In recent tournaments I have seen a rise in the inability of a team to produce a requested card QUICKLY. I will give you a couple of minutes at most then we will move on and your evidence likely will be dropped from the flow. The point is to have your key cards at the ready, preferably in PDF form. I have also seen a recent increase in badly misconstrued data or horrifically out of date data. The rules say full citation plus the date must be given. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.

The bottom line is: Use your well-organized data and logic to win the debate, not cynical tactics aimed at distraction or clock dominance.

I’ve been judging PF for a number of years and I do practice flowing, HOWEVER, Flow is not at the top of my list for winning the arguments. Rather I consider your ability to persuade me as a typical everyday citizen. Your ability to do that is unique. I am expected to come into the Debate room without any previous opinion and with a clean slate, in order to keep my own personal opinion from influencing how I choose the outcome. In exchange I expect the debaters to assume that I do not know anything more about the topic than an ordinary person. It is therefore each debaters responsibility to define acronyms and define anything that an ordinary person would not commonly know.

I’ve been judging PF for a number of years and I do practice flowing however my decisions are determined more on persuasion than flow. I believe that it is extremely important therefore to know your judge and ask the appropriate questions to make sure that what you are saying and how you’re saying is catered to the listener because even if you know what you’re saying but the judge is not able to understand it or appreciate the logic behind it then you are at a loss. In short, KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. Feel free to ask me as many questions as needed before the round begins to clarify further. Best of luck and remember to have fun!

Background Experience

Competed in PFD for 4 years @ Nova High School. 2012-2016

Now coach @ Ransom Everglades

How I Evaluate The Round

As the great Kyle Chong once said, "I first evaluate the framework debate, then I vote based on who generates the most offense off of the winning framework."

How I Evaluate Arguments

Use your warrants, please. I can't evaluate an argument that I cannot understand, and I cannot understand arguments that are not fully explained. Note, empirics are worthless without logical backing. I respect great logic far more than I do what some random study found. Here's why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

This is a human activity. Craft your narrative! Make pretty speeches.

Timber Creek HS '17, Boston University '21

I did PF for all 4 years of high school and was captain of my high school debate team, qualified for the Tournament of Champions in PF, placed 10th at NCFL Nationals, current member of the Boston University Debate Society, and have judged PF at many tournaments.

I have no tolerance for blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic, bigoted, etc, arguments of any form on any resolution. If that's a problem, strike me and re-evaluate how you debate.

In terms of the way I evaluate a round, in order for a team to clearly win a round, the team must:

-Engage in framework debate (if applicable) and demonstrate why and how they win under their framework and/or the opponent's framework better

-Effectively weigh your arguments against your opponents and paint an extremely clear picture of why and how your arguments are more important (have more of an impact, are more/less likely to happen, etc). Failure to do so will result in me doing weighing of many arguments at the end of the round most likely in a way you won't like.

-For rebuttals, I believe the most effective and persuasive method is line by line responses with indicts of specific cards or refutations of particular warrants within the opponent's argument to be embedded throughout the rebuttal speech. Obviously also use a sufficient amount of evidence

Specific things:

-Speed is acceptable, however clarity is a necessity.

-Terminal offense must be in summary speech in order for me to consider it and evaluate it in final focus, make sure you and your partner are extending the same main warrants and delivering a clear narrative.

-If you suspect your opponents of severely misconstruing or misusing a card and want me to call for it, literally tell me to call for it and stress that the card is important in the round because they are incorrectly using it. Nevertheless, you must also explain how they are misusing it and what the card actually says and why that makes their argument fall apart or at least minimizes their impacts. If you don't do that, I will make my own judgement on the card and it might not be the same as your own. Overall, if a card that the round is being staked on is being completely falsified, I will drop the team that falsified it, regardless of other things in the round.

-Being funny in crossfire will get you extra speaker points, being unnecessarily rude or shouting in crossfire will get you fewer speaker points.

Debated PF for 4 years in high school, Parliamentary for 2 years at Wellesley College.

Hi! Looking forward to fun debate rounds. Please be kind to your opponents and remember to flow and weigh your impacts for me.

Name:Jens Rudbeck

School Affiliation: Horace Mann

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 6 Years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? No

What is your current occupation? Professor of Political Science at Center for Global Affairs, New York University

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: I prefer slower

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) I like both

Role of the Final Focus: Important that the reasons I should vote pro or con are highlighted

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Very important

Topicality up to the debaters to decide whether an argument is non-topical. If they cannot reach a conclusion together, I will evaluate whether an argument is topical based off their analyses

Plans: Not allowed in PF

Kritiks? up to debaters

Flowing/note-taking: note-taking

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? I Argument and style equally?

I value both argument and style

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

No

Please speak clearly and make sure you cite your evidence. I flow.

I was a policy debater in high school and college, but have been coaching other formats for the past 17 years. I would prefer that you don't speak too fast, as my ear is no longer able to catch everything like it once was. This doesn't mean you have to speak at a conversational pace, just that if you go too fast, I am likely to miss things on my flow.

I will only read evidence after a round if there is a debate about what it actually says. This means you are responsible for articulating the warrants within your evidence throughout the debate if you want those warrants evaluated. Author name extensions are useless in front of me, as unless you are debating about someone's qualifications, it won't matter in my decision calculus, and a name on my flow is nowhere near as useful for you as using that time to articulate the argument itself. Quality of evidence only factors into my decision if there is a debate about why it should.

I will vote in the way I am told to. If there is no debate over the method for deciding between competing claims, I will usually default to voting for the team that wins more arguments overall.

*Last updated 11/7/19*

Background:

Schools Attended: Boca '16, FSU '20

Teams Coaching/Coached: Capitol, Boca

Competitive History: 4 years of PF in high school, 2 years of JV policy and 2 years of NPDA and Civic Debate in college

Public Forum Paradigm:

TL;DR: You do you.

General:

1) Tech > Truth. If you have strong warrants and links and can argue well, I'll vote off of anything. Dropped arguments are presumed true arguments. I'm open to anything as long as you do your job to construct the argument properly.

2) The first speaking team in the round needs to make sure that all offense that you want me to vote on must be in the summary and final focus. Defense in the rebuttal does not need to be extended, I will buy it as long as your opponents don't respond and it is extended in the final focus. The second speaking team needs to respond to turns in rebuttal and extend all offense and defense you want me to vote on in BOTH the summary and the final focus.

3) If you start weighing arguments in rebuttal or summary it will make your arguments a lot more convincing. Easiest way to my ballot is to warrant your weighing and tell me why your arguments are the most important and why they mean you win the round.

4) I don't vote on anything that wasn't brought up in final focus.

Framework:

Frameworks need clear warrants and reasons to prefer. Make sure to contextualize how the framework functions with the rest of the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I will listen to any theory arguments as long as a real abuse is present. Don't just use theory as a cheap way to win, give me strong warrants and label the shell clearly and it will be a voter if the violation is clear. Also, if you're going to ask me to reject the team you better give me a really good reason.

If you are running theory, such as disclosure theory, and you want it to be a voter, you need to bring it up for a fair amount of time.

Kritiks:

I was primarily a K debater when I competed in policy in college, so I am familiar with how they function in round. However, I don't know all the different K lit out there so make sure you can clearly explain and contextualize.

Offense v. Defense:

I find myself voting for a risk of offense more often than I vote on defense. If you have really strong terminal impact defense or link defense, I can still be persuaded to vote neg on presumption.

Weighing:

I hate being in a position where I have to do work to vote for a team. Tell me why your argument is better/more important than your opponents and why that means I should vote for you. Strength of link and/or impact calc is encouraged and appreciated.

Evidence Standard:

I will only call for cards if it is necessary for me to resolve a point of clash or when a team tells me to.

Speaks:

- If I find you offensive/rude I will drop your speaks relative to the severity of the offense.

- I take everything into consideration when giving speaks.

- The easier you make my decision, the more likely you are to get high speaks.

Misc:

- I'm fine with speed, but if you're going to spread send out speech docs.

- Keep your own time.

- I will disclose if the tournament allows me, and feel free to ask me any questions after my RFD.

- I only vote off of things brought up in speeches.

Bottom line: Debate is supposed to be fun! Run what you want just run it well.

If you have any questions email me at joshschulsterdebate@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

Was a flow judge, now I would say I'm more flay.

Pet peeve of mine: please do not interrogate me before the round starts regarding what I will or won't vote for. You should run the arguments you think are best.

If someone wants to start an email chain pre-round, use this email: Senghas.Jacob@gmail.com

Debate Coach for Wayland High School, 2019-Present.

Debate Coach for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, 2017-18.

Former Extemp speaker and PF/Congressional Debater with Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, 2008-2012:

MA HS State Championships 2012, Congressional Debate, 6th Place.

2012 Harvard Semi-Finalist.

Collegiate debater for the University of Vermont in the British Parliamentary/WUDC format, 2012-2016:

Binghamton IV 2012, Octofinalist, Top Novice Speaker;

Vienna IV 2014, Finalist;

Ljubljana IV 2014, Semi-finalist;

Pan-American Championship 2014, 2nd place;

Northeast Regional Championship 2014, Semi-finalist;

Northeast Regional Championship 2015, Finalist;

Brandeis IV 2015, Semi-finalist;

Empire Debates 2015, Semi-Finalist;

Malaysia WUDC World Championships 2015, Finished in the top 10% of teams but didn't break, took round a round from a world finalist (not an achievement but I'm proud of it so it's going here);

National Championships 2016, Octofinalist;

Winner of countless irrelevant speaker awards.

I debated Public Forum at the Berkeley Carroll School in New York for four years. I sort of do parli at Wesleyan.

How to earn my ballot:

Please please pretty please weigh. Collapse a strong piece of offense, frontline it properly, and give me a clear impact story rather than going for a bunch of blippy arguments.

How to drop my ballot:

Say something overtly sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, etc and there is a pretty good chance I won't vote for you. Debate should be a place where competitors feel empowered, not unsafe or violated.

Also:

Don't lie about evidence.

Running theory just because you think spreading and ranting about ethics will scare you're opponents is weird and doesn't make you look cool or whatever.

I don't really care that much about whether you extend terminal defense in summary.

Have fun and good luck!

I am a lay judge, but I am on my second debater kid, so I do know a little bit about PF, just don’t go too fast. I'm an estate tax attorney in my day job. I like appeals to philosophy but only if you get it right.

In terms of style I like weighing and frameworks so I know what's important upfront.

If there is anything that I should know about you, anything I should accommodate, please let me know.

**Updated October 2022**

Hi, I'm Ellie (she/her)! I have experience competing and judging in PF and WS. For four years I competed mostly in APDA for Yale. I coached for Blake after my high school graduation. I have judged many rounds over time, but not recently, so be aware of that. 

Feel free to message me for feedback (if I forget you can nudge me), if you have questions about APDA, for moral support, or anything else. I'm happy to help!

Please put debate.ellie@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain if you make one!

This paradigm is for PF, though some things apply across events (eg: the decorum section).

The Split

Everyone frontlines now. That's nice.

Speed

I can flow speed, but proceed at your own risk. You can "clear" your opponents but do this sparingly. I don't use speech docs to fill in things I could not catch/understand.

Types of arguments

You are the debater and I want you to enjoy debating things that interest you. There are few things I refuse to hear.

Progressive arguments are important. I'll do my best to evaluate them fairly. I am not super well versed in K lit so while I will try and understand whatever you read, there's a risk I just miss something.

I really don't like when teams run squirrelly arguments just to throw off their opponents. Your points may suffer even if I vote for you and my threshold for responses will be lower.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring.

I am not amenable to speaks theory.

The only other args I refuse to listen to are linguistic and moral skep – I have yet to hear them in PF, but don't even try lol

Dates

read them lol

Evidence

I very strongly prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked. Do not cut cards in round.

Bracketing is bad. No debater math pls.

Summary and Final Focus

Extend defense. Don't go for everything. Args needs to be in summary to be counted in FF. Also, weigh.

~~Decorum~~

Being funny or witty is fine as long as it isn't mean. I am not afraid to tank your speaks if you are rude.

Prep

keep track of it i won't

Misc

sIgNpOsT!!!!!!!!

don't delink your own case to escape turns just frontline them

You can enter the room and flip before I get there (when we're back in person that is).

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/wear pajamas, go ahead!

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, strike me. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27.5-29 range.

4 years of public forum for Bronx Science (2011-2015).

3.5 years coaching public forum at Walt Whitman (2015-present).

2 years coaching public forum at debate camp (2015, 2016).

Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak. However, I will always prefer quality over quantity and will clock you heavily for blips. The debaters make the evidence good, not the other way around.

Evidence: If it's not an out round, and you don't ask me to do so, I will probably not call for evidence. Don't be shady and DO NOT miscut your cards.

How I evaluate the round: Develop clash as the round progresses. Weigh clearly and convincingly. I'm fine with extending terminal defense, but I need offense to be clearly extended throughout the entire round. Signposting is your friend. I appreciate a well-executed logical response.

Speaks: I will clock you for rudeness and arrogance. You can get a 29.5/30 by building a strong narrative. RuPaul references get you extra speaker points

Lives don't matter. If you want me to weigh lives, you must first tell me why lives matter. Otherwise, talk about literally anything else.

TL;DR: Always sign post in summary and final focus, extend, and provide warrants for impacts and responses. Do the weighing for me.

Signpost: Please signpost your voting issues at the top of your summary and final focus. Then as you speak, reiterate them at the top of each voter. If you don't signpost, I have no idea what you are talking about. It just sounds like you are extending your whole case or doing another rebuttal. Either way, I have no idea what to vote off of. IF YOU DON'T PLAN ON SIGNPOSTING, YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK.

Don’t extend through ink: If you get a concession out of your opponent, extend it in your speeches. I am flowing only the speeches so if you don't bring it up in your speeches, it didn't happen. Also, do not say "extend my 5 impacts" or "extend my 5 responses." Actually say these impacts or responses.

Collapse: Collapse all your arguments down into 1-3. If there is clash between teams, you can make that one voting issue. As long as the things are relatively related, I have no problem.

Consistency: Voting issues should be consistent between speeches. If you have two voting issues in summary, then you should have the two same voting issues in final focus.

Timeframe: All impacts should have a timeline. It is hard to weigh impacts if I have no idea how long it takes for them to realize.

No audible alarms: Please try not to use audible alarms. They are annoying and only serve to cut yourself off. While it will not affect speaker points if teams insist on using them, I will drop my pen when it rings regardless of where you are in your sentence.

Cross-applying: I will cross apply arguments and impacts that each team extends into summary and final focus even if teams don't do it themselves. In addition, if I card you and the evidence is critically relevant to either side, I will cross apply that also. This does not mean that I will create and vote off of new arguments I find in the evidence. This just means that if your card provides two impacts and you neglect to mention the other impact could negate the first one, I will take that into account and apply it for you. I am not an activist judge; I just want to make sure that evidence is being used properly and is not misconstrued. If I feel something is purposely misconstrued or left out, I will drop that card and any resulting impacts.

Weigh: Explain why the impact of one issue is more important even if the metrics are different. Hint, prioritizing lives is a losing battle, refer to top of paradigm.

Speaker Points: If you signpost, speak coherently, cover the flow, and are engaging, you can expect a 30. Prioritize coherency over speed because 1) Stumbling knocks off speaks and 2)Anything I can't flow I can't weigh. Not covering everything on the opponent's flow is OK if you cover all the important impacts and warrants. Missing a thing here or there won't affect speaks. Engagement just means you don't speak in a way that would lull me to sleep. Tournaments are long; I get tired. If you are funny, sassy, or at least make eye contact, I will be more than happy. Please don't look at your flow the entire time. Always SIGNPOST in summary and final focus. This is my biggest pet peeve. If you don't signpost, that's 2.5 points gone. Just tell me "first voter is x" and "second voter is y." Very easy to get these points and makes my RFD easier since I know what the big issues are.

Assume that I have a general understanding of the topic but definitely explain any esoteric ideas or little know events/facts.

Also, please don't be rude or condescending; it's a competition but everyone should enjoy their time in debate, not feel harassed.

As a judge, I will adapt to you too. Do what you do best!

That said, I am a pretty standard PF tech judge, with a couple of specific preferences, outlined below:

(1) I only vote off offense that is in both summary and final focus – if it’s in one but not the other, I probably won’t consider it in my decision. If you’re the first speaking team, defensive responses to your opponent’s case do not need to be in summary – I’ll still evaluate them if they’re in final focus. Turns that you want to win off of must be in 1st summary. If you’re the second speaking team, defensive responses need to be in both summary/final focus for me to evaluate them. If you have questions on this, please ask!

(2) If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time. I hope this encourages y’all to collapse, develop, and weigh arguments instead of going for like 4 different voters (unless you weigh all four of them :) ).

(3) I care very little about what your cards say. I care a lot more about the warranting behind them. I will never vote on the idea that something is just "empirically true," although empirics do help when you're doing warrant comparisons/maybe a probability weighing analysis.

(4) I rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round. I strongly dislike disclosure theory. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.

(5) In case it's helpful, I did nat circuit PF 2013-2017.

- and don't forget to have fun!

I am a parent of a high school debater. I do not have a technical background in debate. I have judged at about 6 tournaments in the past two years.

I can't flow as quickly as the debaters. Therefore I prefer that debaters speak at a moderate, conversational pace so that I can understand their arguments and how those arguments relate to what has been said previously in the round.

I prefer that debaters are respectful to each other, including during cross-ex. Questions and responses should be concise.

I prefer that debaters avoid using the phrase "you must vote ..." Instead, organize and explain your arguments clearly and allow the judge to make a well-informed decision.

I enjoy judging rounds when it's clear that the debaters are enjoying their experience as well.

ask before the round if you feel inclined to 

Did PF for a while, judged PF for a while, remain unconvinced that detailed judge paradigms are good for the event. The short version is this: I will judge your arguments as a reasonable person with little background knowledge, no opinions, and normal powers of reason. Arguments should be coherent, well-supported, and clearly tied to the resolution; rebuttals should be logical and used strategically; summaries should explain clearly why one should vote a certain way, rather than just describe the flow.

I will flow all speeches, but will reasonably assume that arguments rarely mentioned are not that important. If you want to speak particularly quickly, I will understand you, but I've rarely seen that help someone win a round. I *might* understand you if you use debate jargon (it keeps changing over the years, which is a good sign that it's not useful), but I have never seen that help someone win a round. If you try to use Cross-Ex to bully your opponents rather than ask helpful questions, I will only take that out of your speaker points, and it will not affect my decision. However, I've never seen that help someone win a round.

I look at sources extremely rarely; if you suspect your opponents have deliberately misrepresented their evidence, take it up with Tabroom and get them disqualified, but disputing sources generally has not, in my experience, helped someone win a round. Sometimes, debaters will ask me to do things, such as make their opponents answer a question, or tell me that I have no choice but to vote for their side, and I've never seen that help someone win a round.

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters take on very complex ideas/arguments in PF and the time limits for that event make it very difficult for debaters to fully explain these complex ideas.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pronouns: he/him

I started judging PF in 2016. Prior to that I judged middle school parli for 5 years.

I was a policy debater in high school and college 30 years ago, so I am comfortable flowing, can deal with real speed etc. For context, I have never heard a PF debater spread faster than I can flow. Ha! However, I am not deep on any on any technical aspects of PF---still learning :-)

Some pointers on me:

1.) Please signpost. I like to flow so I am annoyed when you do not signpost.

2.) I like evidence so I will sometimes ask to see it after the round. Don't over-represent what it says as that undermines your credibility. However, this does not mean that I don't value analysis. The best strategy involves excellent analysis backed by strong evidence.

3.) No new arguments in Final Focus.

4.) As I am a civilian judge, you should assume I know very little about the topic, i.e. what a college educated adult would know from 10 minutes of NYT reading per day. The only exception to this is business/technology as I work at a tech company on the business side. You should assume I am deep on those issues.

5.) I am lazy. I won't do anything that you don't instruct me to do. If you assume that I will connect things without you explicitly saying so, you do so at your peril.

6.) Humor is important. You get bonus points for having a sense of humor. I am kind so it counts even if you just try to have a sense of humor and aren't actually funny :-)

On a personal note, debate is the only thing I learned in high school that I have used at work every day for the past 25+ years. So great to see all of you competing!

Hello,

I am the Speech coach at Myers Park in Charlotte, NC and have now been coaching for three years.

First and foremost, I believe that Public Forum is a competitive speaking event. So while persuasive argumentation skills are essential to the event, clear and concise speaking are also highly valued. I can flow and understand quick speakers, but there is a limit to what the human ear and brain can comprehend so be wary of spreading (after all, I am from the South). I also appreciate when a team provides clear signposts (i.e. when responding to an opponent's argument, clearly state which argument you are attempting to refute). Two quick side notes, I don't flow the names associated with your evidence so don't just say the "John Smith" evidence (you should provide a quick summary to remind me of the specifics).

Frameworks/Weighing

If teams do not provide a clear framework or any weighing mechanisms, I will judge under a simple cost/benefit analysis. If a team provides a weighing mechanism and it goes unresponded to in the round, I will assume their opponents agree with it. This doesn't mean the team that provided it will automatically win the round as their opponent's arguments / evidence could better fit the criteria.

Winning the Round

I prefer quality over quantity. If your case has 4 to 6 contentions, I highly doubt you give enough analysis to support each of those (and I don't like teams that thrown in contentions just to distract opponents or waste time in the round). If you want to win my vote: your case should contain well-research and supported contentions with analysis of HOW your evidence supports your claims; your rebuttal should attempt to refute ALL of your opponent's contentions (if you don't respond to an argument, I'll assume you agree); you should provide clear links to impacts (I am not impressed by long, incoherent link chains); and you should provide a weighing mechanism to tell me WHY you believe you've won the round.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

Hey, I’m Bobby, and I’m really excited to be your judge for the next round! I competed for the Texas Academy of Math and Science and have just recently gotten back into judging.

Here’s some tips for getting my vote:

* I'll vote on anything if you can support it well enough, but I prefer to judge debates which center on arguments that are more closely related to the resolution.

* don’t miscut cards - it’ll be a bad time if I call for the card after the round and discover shenanigans

* provide a framework for weighing arguments, and adhere to that framework in your final focuses! Please my job as easy as possible.

* I like numbers. I'll vote by default on a quantitative impact over a qualitative one, unless someone gives me really good weighing analysis suggesting otherwise. See the point above, though - let me know how I should weigh different quantitative impacts against one another, or you might not agree with what quantitative measure I personally think is most important.

And here’s some tips for getting good speaks:

* be nice - this event is supposed to be fun! Don’t be afraid to throw a tasteful joke out there once in a while either.

* define jargon before you use it - make sure we’re all on the same page! PF's supposed to be accessible and even if I were to understand the jargon (no guarantees), I want to make sure everyone else does too!

* don’t spread - I’m almost certain there’s a way to communicate your idea with better word economy and less speed!

* I'm all for using crossfire for leading questions which set you up for a great speech right after. However, please don't read a card for 30 seconds in CX and follow up with a "what is your response to this."

Misc:

* Please adhere to the spirit of the event - this means not stealing prep time by going to the bathroom mid-prep or making the opponent’s life unnecessarily hard if they ask to see cards.

* I flow crossfire and consider it binding

Hello. Son here. This is what you should know about my father.

He kinda flows. I've seen it, it isn't pretty - it's a bulleted list - but it works a little bit. He'll know your contention taglines and will flow rebuttal responses that he deems worthy. That's better than nothing? He relies mostly on his memory so good luck.

Limit speed to conversational level. His English is fine but he absolutely hates debaters who speak really fast because he can't understand them and thinks they're losers. Speak slow and with confidence, he likes people who present themselves well.

Debate jargon to a minimum. I guarantee that he has absolutely no idea what a non-unique is, or even what a delink is at that. Just say that they're wrong and provide evidence. No need for technical terms, it'll just r/wooosh.

On the topic of speaking, he's like really harsh with speaks. He routinely gives out 26.5s to people who he thinks didn't do well. But if you follow this paradigm, you can get a 27.5 maybe.

Be respectful. He loves it when you like destroy someone in cross but you can't be super rude doing it, or rude in any facet. It's a fine line I know.

Good luck.

I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.

MAIN STUFF

I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice.

Here's how I make decisions

1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.)

2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW

3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches

I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.

SPEAKING PREFS

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants )

Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time, I only need to know where you're starting.

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh.

I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.

Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

Reading tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.

Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure.

Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. Track each other’s prep.

Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable.

PROG STUFF

Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership

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.

I'm a full-time teacher and coach in the North Texas area. I have experience coaching, teaching or competing in every event. I've been involved in Speech and Debate, as either a competitor or a coach, for 14 years.

PF

Theory and Ks - I'll evaluate and probably be able to understand these, but it's honestly not my preference to judge this kind of PF round. On theory in particular - please try to only run this if you believe you're the target of intentional and flagrant unfair behavior. Otherwise, I'd rather you just talked about the topic.

Speaking quickly is okay but please do not spread. The teams that get the highest speaks from me tend to talk at conversational or slightly faster than conversational speed.

If you're goal is to qualify for and do well at the TOC, you probably wouldn't consider me a "tech judge" ; I'll flow the round line-by-line in the case, rebuttal and summary but also want to see a lot of summation / weighing / big picture breakdowns of the round in the summary and especially in the final focus. I like a nice, clean speech that's easy for me to flow - tell me where to write things. Signpost more than you would think you have to.

Some answers to questions I've been asked:

-I think that it is strategically smart for the second speaking team to defend their case in rebuttal, but I don't consider it a requirement. In other words, if all you do in your rebuttal is attack your opponent's case, I won't consider all of your opponent's responses to your case to be "dropped."

-If you want me to vote on an issue, it should be present in both the summary and the final focus. The issue should be explained clearly by both partners in a similar way in each speech.

-If you say something about the opposing case in rebuttal and your opponents never respond to it, you don't need to keep bringing it up (unless it's a turn that you really want to go for or something like that).

-Speaker points - My 30 is "I feel like I'm watching someone debate out rounds at a national circuit tournament" and my 25 is "I'm going to go ask to talk to your coach about what I just saw." The vast majority of my scores fall in the 29-27 range.

LD

The question I get asked most often at tournaments when judging LD is "are you okay with speed?" The answer is yes, but you'll probably find that I understand your case/arguments better if you slow down during any analytics (interpretation, plan text, standards, spikes, etc.) that you expect me to write down or remember. You'll also probably find that unless you don't spread much, I won't achieve 100% comprehension of your "top speed." And I'm big on this one - if your opponent doesn't understand spreading, don't spread.

Another question I get asked a lot is "are you okay with policy-style arguments?" Again, the answer is yes, but with some caveats. The farther your argument goes from traditional LD or traditional policy case structure, the harder it will be for me to grasp it and the less likely I am to vote on it.

I used to have a lot of really negative stuff about theory arguments in my paradigm. My position on that has softened a bit. There is a place for theory arguments in modern LD debate, but I still generally think theory should be in the minority of LD rounds, and the abuse should be substantial, deliberate, and clearly demonstrable if a theory argument is being made.

I do not disclose speaker points.

Congress

I generally include the PO in my ranking of a round, although not as highly as the best speakers in a round. Expect a rank in the 3-6 range unless you screw up often, are an exceptionally good PO, or are POing a round full of very bad speakers.

A few particulars:

-It's a good idea to break down the what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and/or first affirmative speaker. Never assume that the judge has read or analyzed the item you're discussing!

-Refuting or extending the argument of at least one specific person by name is mandatory if you're the fifth speaker on an item or later.

-From the second you step foot into a Congressional Debate chamber, my expectation is that you are IN CHARACTER as a member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate. Breaking character (even during recess, or AGDs) and acting like a high schooler will disappoint me.

-I care about how good your best speech was more than how many speeches you gave.

-I am rarely impressed with three-plus main point Congress speeches. Unless you're in a round that has four minute speech times, this is a bad idea.

-I want to see a strong debate, not parliamentary games.

Extemp

The single most important thing to me is whether or not you answered the question. Your three main points should be three reasons why your answer is correct. Somewhere between 7-10 sources is ideal. You should present an extremely compelling reason in your intro if you are giving something other than a three main point speech; 95% of your speeches or so should be of the three main point variety. Your speech should be over at seven minutes. Grace time is for you to finish a sentence that got away from you, not deliver a conclusion. I often rank people down for talking longer than 7:10.

Oratory/Info

It's important to me that I be able to tell, based on your oratory, how exactly you are defining your topic and what exactly you are proposing we do about it. This may sound obvious, but one of my most common negative comments on oratory ballots tends to be something to the effect of, "be more clear about what your persuasive goal for this speech is." Speeches should have a personal story. They should have a literary reference. They need to include some research.

The most important thing to me about your informative speech is whether or not you are actually informing me about something. Again, this might sound obvious, but I feel like many Infos are either disguised persuasive speeches or speeches that are repeating very widely known information (and therefore, no actual "informing" is taking place). I tend to have a "less is more" attitude when it comes to Info visual aids - this isn't to say that I penalize students who have elaborate visual aids; just that if you only have a couple unsophisticated visuals you could do still quite well with me if you have a good speech.

For both of these events, I want a balance of "hard" evidence (research, data) and "soft" evidence (anecdotes, stories, literary examples).

Interpretation Events

My overarching philosophy with all interp is that as a performer, you are baking a cake. The three main ingredients of this cake are "characters," "emotion," and "story." Everything else - blocking, accents, how your intro is written, suitability of subject material, author's intent, humor - is icing on that cake. Not totally unimportant - just not the first thing I think about when I'm deciding whether or not I liked it.

On the "what's more important, author's intent or creatively," I don't have a strong opinion, other than that is important to know and follow the rules for your event in whatever league you're competing in.

I prefer in HI, POI, and Duo fewer characters to more characters; 3-5 is perfect, more than that and it is likely I will get confused about your plot unless your differentiation between characters is exceptionally good.

I'm not the judge you want if you have a piece that pushes the envelope in terms of language, subjects for humor, and depictions of sex or violence.

My attitude towards blocking is that it should be in service of developing a character or making a plot point. I find myself writing comments like "I don't know what you were doing while you said XXXX" and "you doing XXXX is distracting" way more than I write comments like "need to add more blocking."

Policy

I judge this event extremely rarely, so if you have me judging you here, treat me like an old-school, traditional debate coach. You'll do best debating stock issues, disads, topicality, and fairly straightforward counter plans. I probably haven't judged many (or any) rounds on your topic. As I said earlier with LD, spreading is fine but probably not your "top speed" if your goal this year is to qual for/break at the TOC.

I did PF for four years in HS and have coached PF for 4 years since. I was head PF coach for the Bronx High School of Science in the 20-21 year, and am an incoming graduate student in Philosophy. My pronouns are he/him.

Students' safety and comfort is my top priority in round so I will drop debaters who, in whatever way, make the round less safe/comfortable for other debaters (purposefully or otherwise). I also encourage debaters in the round to press claims to this effect in or outside of speeches, whether those claims are against their opponents, me, an observer, etc. Feel free to get in touch with me via email (nathan.witkin@gmail.com), including during the round.

Please default to they/them pronouns, should you be unsure of anyone's preferences.

---

I'm fine with speed, K debate, theory, etc. but clarity (w/r/t explanation and articulation) is a must esp. online. Consider that the odds I miss something scales with speed. I may ask for clarification if your audio cuts out at any point.

Defense is not "sticky," i.e. must be extended in every speech just like offense. Following from this, extension through ink is fine if your opponents don't extend the ink. This includes cases where a team extends conceded defense into summary, but not into FF. The defense is lost if not extended into FF. Second rebuttal still should frontline, because I don't accept completely new frontlining in second summary (you can still develop a previous defense debate in new ways).

New weighing in either summary is fine, but not in FF. As with defense in rebuttal/summary, I'm relatively permissive when it comes to what is "new," so you have some leeway to further develop prior disputes about weighing/defense/offense in FF. The rough threshold is whether what you're adding in later speeches can be reasonably construed as entailed by something said earlier (it is usually permissible to further specify or explain something, even if it has been mostly implicit up until the later speech).

I won't call evidence unless you tell me to, or unless I need it to make any decision at all (for instance, if the round hinges entirely on one piece of evidence).

On progressive arguments [in PF]: as a result of my academic background, there is a solid chance I will be at least somewhat familiar with the literature on what you are running. That means I may have a higher standard for what a sufficient explanation of the argument ought to look like. Your argument should be well-explained enough that unfamiliar opponents won't be classed out of the round by jargon. Relatedly, don't treat abstract impacts like those to reinforcing patriarchy (etc.) as magical trump cards for outweighing more generic PF impacts (I think this does a serious disservice to them, and often evinces a lack of understanding of the arguments themselves and their significance). That goes for post-fiat arguments and for pre-fiat ones you might be weighing against (for example) the educational value of traditional substance-debates. If you think your impact in either case should get special priority, weigh it like any other. The bottom line for me is that what you're reading is ultimately just like any other argument, and won't on face be treated differently because you're drawing from one academic literature (e.g. post-colonial studies, critical sociology, etc.), as opposed to another (economics, political science, etc.), unless of course you give me an uncontested or contested but won reason why.

Two addendums for rare(ish) situations:

1. I don't allow second-speaking team to trick first by frontlining one contention and then going for the other (since, if defense is not sticky, first team might then have dropped all their defense on the non-frontlined, but surprisingly extended contention if they did not predict the trick, and then lose access to it later since it wasn't in first summary). It's conceivable I might let this possibility stand, which would require first team to always extend at least one piece of terminal defense on non-frontlined args as insurance, but this seems like an unnecessary burden.

2. Weighing that is introduced in first rebuttal does not need to be frontlined in second rebuttal. I allow the second team to respond to weighing for the first time in second summary (it still might be a good idea to also respond in the rebuttal).

Let me know if you have any further questions before the round starts.

Worlds style debating is an exciting debate format - that offers new challenges to debaters; not the least of which is working with a larger team.

Do : show team cohesion. Your three speakers will look that much more formidable if the themes and arguments brought up by your first speaker are built upon and recapitulated by your second and third speaker.

Do not : speak or gesture between yourselves during round such that it becomes a distraction

Do not : trot out a series of cards and expect me to make the logical links in the argument.

Do not (further) : make the primary justification of an argument simply because an "expert" in a "think tank" said so

Do : attack your opponent's model from the outset

Do (further): point out to me that the proposition has shifted their case, especially in light of your attacks

Do : refute your opponent's arguments by collapsing individual lines of argument into themes

Do not : deliver a line-by-line, point-by-point refutation - one, it shows insufficient synthesis and understanding of the round, and two, you will likely start spreading too much for my liking

Do: bring up a variety of examples to support your argument using a global perspective (I refer to name of this style of debate - worlds)

Do not : limit your viewpoints to American-centric examples or viewpoints

Do: offer POIs that are short and succint

Do not : continue standing, make faces, loudly sigh or otherwise disturb the round if you have been waved down

UPDATE 2/2023: I have not coached or judged circuit PF in 2-3 years. The following paradigm was written in 2019 (I think). Most of what is below still holds true but some of my opinions and preferences have changed since then. Please ask me questions before the round and I will be happy to explain things there.

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

I debated for Mission San Jose High School for 4 years, and was relatively active on the Public Forum circuit in my junior and senior year. I currently coach Lake Highland Prep.

I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered here, ask them before the round begins.

- I evaluate arguments on the flow.

- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted, and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

- I am fine with moderate speed. Although I spoke very quickly when I competed, I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. You also may run the risk of too much speed hurting your speaker points.

- If there is no offense in the round, I will presume first speaker by default, not con. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.

- I do not take notes during crossfire and only pay attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech.

- I will typically only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus. If you read an impact card in your case and it is not in summary, I will not extend it for you, even if the other team does not address it. Of course, there are inevitably exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.

- No new evidence is permitted in second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from its initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses are fine.

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense for it to be in final focus, but it is responsible for extending turns/any offense. This obviously does not apply if your defense is frontlined in second rebuttal. Second summary and both final focuses need to extend defense.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly. If you're worried this may distract you, I will not do so at your request.

- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it's never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to read it.

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate.

- I will evaluate theory arguments and Kritiks if they are well warranted enough. As a disclaimer, if something doesn't make sense to me, I may not feel comfortable voting on it. This means you will probably have to over-explain advanced and complex arguments. I'm not a fan of pre-fiat Ks at all. You have to do a really good job if you want to run one in front of me, and I'll probably still tank your speaks.

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm but I personally dislike 'risk of offense' arguments because I think they allow lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity.

- If you plan to make arguments about sensitive issues such as suicide, PTSD, or sexual assault, I would advise issuing a trigger warning beforehand. If you don't know how to properly issue a content warning, ask me before the round. I believe debate should be a safe space, and while I don’t necessarily believe inclusivity should compromise discussion, the least we can all do is make sure everybody is prepared for the conversation.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take no longer than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate significantly while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Wear whatever you want, I don't really care.

- Be nice to each other!

If you have concerns, reach me at maxwu@uchicago.edu *now: maxwu@berkeley.edu.

I'm a first year out for PF, so as long as you do normal stuff, I'll be good.

Here are some more specific preferences:

- Signposting makes it a lot easier for me to flow, so please do it, or I might miss something as I'm evaluating my flow. Speed is fine, just make sure to enunciate clearly.

- Weigh, and I'll have a much easier time voting for you. Generally teams should weigh impacts, but if the two teams are linking into the same impacts, then weigh the links. 

- Terminal defense in final focus is fine if you're the first speaking team.

- If you bring me food, I'll give you higher speaks.

I debated PF at Durham Academy 2010-2014, coached there 2014-2016, and debated British Parliamentary at Duke 2014-2018. I started medical school in 2019.

Since I'm a little out of the game at this point, I probably don't have much knowledge on the topic. While some questions are forever (nuclear deterrence, gun control, etc.), I probably didn't debate this topic, so please make sure that you explain any terms of art. But given my background, I can handle some speed and jargon, but go at your own risk. The faster you go and the more you use jargon, the more likely it is that I don’t understand the full impact of your argument.

I come from a more traditional high school and college debate tradition so I value good engagement, weighing and accessible language. Good engagement means addressing your opponents arguments head-on and grappling with all of their nuance. Weighing is important because if I have to determine which of your arguments matter more or how the various arguments interact, you might not like my interpretation. Accessible language means minimizing jargon - more often than not, using jargon is a lazy way of getting out of actually making an argument (I did plenty of this in my time). For example, explain why your opponent's argument is "non-unique" instead of just saying that it is. While quantifying impacts is almost always helpful and effective, the mechanisms of how an effect comes to be matters a lot too. I will always evaluate whether your logic makes sense and whether your links still stand before I give you credit for your impacts.

Finally, please be respectful to each other. Being rude, abrasive, or condescending will be reflected in your speaker points. I will drop you if you are blatantly and unapologetically homophobic, sexist, racist, classist or any other kind of -ist. Debate must be an inclusive activity for all.

I am happy to answer any other questions that you have before the round begins.

Did you know?

 

When hippos are upset, their sweat turns red.

 

 

Now you know! Have a great round and go team!

I did PF for 4 years at Byram Hills. My paradigm's pretty simple:

- Collapse and weigh at the end of the round. If you want me to vote on an argument please do the work for me and tell me why. Do not try to extend everything.

- Any and all offense you want me to consider needs to be in BOTH summary and final focus, including turns. That being said, DON'T extend through ink.

- No, I don't require defense in summary, but I strongly suggest it, especially for second speaking teams. I would also really prefer extensions of defense in first summary IF the second rebuttal frontlines case.

- On that note, I think it's probably strategic for second speaking teams to frontline in rebuttal, but I don't require it.

- I won't call for evidence unless it's been contested in the round and I'm told to call for it, so if your opponents miscut something TELL ME and I will call for it.

- Roadmaps aren't necessary. Definitely sign post though.

- Speed is fine, but please don't spread - clarity is a requirement for me to be able to judge.

- I am old and never debated progressive arguments myself, so if you want to run Theory or Ks you need to explain them really well. If these types of arguments are run properly in front of me and not adequately responded to, I will vote for them. That being said, I don't want to hear a full T shell, and Ks need a role of the ballot argument.

Be nice! Have fun! Talk pretty!

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing.

I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech when it comes to policy debate. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.

Brown '21 | Lincoln East '17 | Email remaining questions to: a.a.zhu24@gmail.com

I will disclose and give oral feedback at the end of the round, just give me time to complete my ballot.

General notes:

- Be nice. I have no patience for people who are jerks. I will drop you, report you for being abusive, tell you in my oral critique, tattle to your coach, and take whatever other means I have available to me to ensure you're never rude in round again. Oh, and your speaks will be as low as they can possibly be.

- Debate how you normally debate. I'm open to everything, as there's a reason you got to where you are. I will never drop a debater or a team because I don't like their style of argument. I believe debate is an educational activity, not only for the students, but for judges as well. That means that we also need to continue to learn and adapt.

PF:

- I do not flow author names, rather, I flow card content. If you want to extend something, tell me what the card says too, don't just "Extend McDonald '18"

- Framework/Observations/Definitions: Don't run them unless it's absolutely necessary. Don't make the debate about the framework/definitions/whatever fluff you have at the beginning, this isn't what PF should be about. I will not vote on a framework just because it is there and is not utilized with your case. If the framework does come into play, however, I will reluctantly consider it. Finally, if both teams propose a framework, give me a good reason to prefer yours over your opponents'.

- Speed doesn't really matter, so long as your opponents and I can both understand you. To this point, if I can't understand what you're saying because of speed, I'll yell "Clear" at you. If I don't understand what you're saying because I don't think it makes sense, I'll look very puzzled at you and not be flowing for an extended period of time.

- I understand that debate is a game, but if you speak second and take prep after your opponents read their case, I reserve the right to deduct your speaks, or in out-rounds, pay less attention to your constructive.

- First rebuttal: don't go back to your own case and re-read what's in it. Feel free to weigh their case against yours, or make new analyses and even sub arguments, but do not simply reread what's already in the case that I heard the first time again. If you're done, end early. Rehashing what I already heard without giving your opponent a chance to respond to it isn't fair or strategic, and this will be reflected in your speaker points.

- I think it's extremely difficult for the second speaking team to win if they don't go back to their own case, but I have seen extremely talented teams pull it off. If the second speaker doesn't do some defense in rebuttal, that leaves the second summary speaker with 10 minutes of speeches to cover in just 2 minutes. If you want to go for this strategy, be my guest, just know that the path to winning on my ballot is paper thin in this scenario, and your summary speaker had better give the best speech of their lives.

- Please do some analysis and impact your cards, don't just throw cards/numbers/stats around. Impact calculus is important. I don't care if you tell me that this program will cost the U.S. $50,000 if you don't tell me what that means in the wider context of things. Will healthcare funding also go down? Will taxpayers have to pay extra? Will we have to cut other government programs? Tell me what is going to happen as a result of the numbers you tell me.

- I prefer big picture summaries. Start trying to narrow down the round into a few main arguments. If you must, fine, I'll try to evaluate "down their flow then down ours", but if you can cut a few arguments out that you deem unimportant, you'll only look better in my eyes.

Last updated: 2/2019

Important note for in-person tournaments only: I am disabled and use a trained service dog. If you’re in a room with me, there will be a dog quietly laying under my chair. The dog will not touch you, get close to you, or acknowledge your existence at all.

That being said, IF YOU HAVE A FEAR OF DOGS SO BAD YOU CANNOT BE IN A ROOM WITH ONE, please tell someone so they can assign you a different judge.

——

Current Affiliation: Boston Debate League

Background: Debated PF in Eastern Europe for seven years, been judging policy and PF in Boston for seven more.

Rounds judged this year: n/a

_____

Background:

- I'm a pretty standard tab judge. I'm happy to vote on any sort of issue as long as as there is decent weighing and impact analysis explaining to me why I should vote for it.

- That being said, I will drop arguments that are clearly offensive (racist/ableist/homophobic/etc.)

- It is important to me that you extend your arguments if you want me to vote on them: I very strongly tend towards the flow and voting on positions that have been present throughout the debate.

- Jargon and spreading are totally fine with me. I do flow much better if you help me out with good organization - signposting and roadmaps are always fantastic. 

- I strongly prefer being presented with a framework: I strongly dislike brining my own values into a debate. It makes the round very hard to adjudicate.

____

Subjective preferences:

(I try not to vote on these, but I do want to acknowledge my personal biases!)

- The kind of round I like listening to best sticks very closely to the topic: stock issues, disadvantages, counterplans, counterwarrants, topicality, etc.

- I'm more inclined to vote on a Kritik if you relate them to what is currently happening in the room (or at least explain why they're relevant)

- I can and will vote on theory if the need arises, I just personally find it tedious and I won't enjoy the round as much.

____

Stylistic notes and speaker points:

- I prefer you use variation in your tone in order to highlight important issues. This will have a positive effect on your speaks.

- Overly hostile behavior is unpleasant. Talking over each other in cross-ex, raising your voice in an attempt to threaten or silence, or making rude comments about your opponents themselves rather than their arguments will lower your speaks the more you do them.

- While jargon and spreading is good ***with me***, I do ask that you clear it with everyone in the room first and offer accommodations if anyone needs them.

Peter Zopes
Speech and Debate Coach, Chelmsford High School

I participated in Policy Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking in high school (in the late 70s), though mostly Extemp. I teach US History, Speech and Debate, and Government. I’m in my fourteenth year of coaching Speech and Debate. I think formal debate and argumentation has real value; it drives public discourse and helps society progress. I am very interested in what I see going on in the debate community, though not all do I agree. That being said, here is my judging paradigm that outlines my position on debate.

The Resolution. I prefer substantive debate that focuses on the resolution. There is a reason we have a resolution, debate that! Be clear, concise, and clash. Be topical. Debate the contentions, the evidence, the link, warrant, etc. Don’t waste time on frameworks or arguing about debate! I’m not a fan of theory or kritiks. (They smack of deconstructionist word play!) Be professional, speak to the judge (me!) not your paper or laptop, and address your opponent with respect. Stand during the round. Dress professionally. (Yes, imagine that!) I can flow most things that comes my way, however, speed and volume (not loudness, but the amount of information put forth) do not necessarily further the debate.

Case and Evidence. This is key. In LD, debate is value based, you must demonstrate how your case is constructed to achieve the value and value criterion you identified. If not, this will negatively affect my judgment on the round. In PF show strong case development in support of your side of the resolution, with strong claims, evidence, and warrants. Arguments need to be developed and elaborated upon, not just with vague statements, but with supportive evidence (statistics, analogies, statements, data, etc, from philosophical, legal, theological, historic, and news sources). This should be used both in case development and rebuttal (when appropriate). Evidence used should be clearly identified in the reading of the card in terms of both author and source. (Name of author, title of article, and if needed title of publication and date) During rebuttal explain how you or your opponent did or did not support their side of the resolution via claim, evidence or warrant. Specifically identify voting issues raised, defended or dropped.

Speaker Points. Be professional, polite, articulate, strategic, and clear. This is the basis for determining speaker points. DON'T Spread or even try to talk really fast. All words have a clear beginning and end. I need to hear them. IF YOU SPREAD, YOU LOSE. Your case should be presented in a manner that is not over flowing with debate jargon or nomenclature.

Something to keep this in mind: In the original debates, if either Lincoln or Douglas conducted their debates in the manner modern debaters do, neither would have won. The audiences would have walked away. Modern LD and Policy debate may provide you with some great learning experiences, however, constructing and delivering a case in the manner I hear today is not one of them. All you are learning is how to deliver to a narrow, self-selected audience. I hope and will do what I can to prevent PF from proceeding down that path. Further, too often debaters dismiss parent judges for not knowing enough about debate. That is the wrong mindset. It is not the parent judges' job to become an expert in your type of debate or the resolution. Your job is to educate them on the resolution and your case, and convince them your position is correct. You need to adjust your delivery to reach them. The number one consideration for any debater or speaker is reaching their audience. If you lose the audience, you lose the debate. Simple. The supposed "cool" judges who let you do whatever you want are not helping you develop your skills beyond the narrow world of debate. Selecting judges with widely different judging paradigms does! Good luck!

Update. I prefer a narrative presentation of the arguments. Telling me you are "frontlining' this, "extending" that, is overtly technical and undermines the rhetorical nature of the event which we chose to engage. Avoid the nomenclature of debate - identifying the structure various parts of or the process of argument, but explain to me, in clear concise language, what arguments you are advancing in the round and why they have impact compared to your opponents' arguments. Good speaking, like good writing, is precise and concise, avoids jargon and uses common, proscribed vernacular.