I debated in high school for four years, so speed is fine. I judge mainly based off of flow, so make sure you emphasize the points you want me to weigh. I won't count any new points that are brought up in the summary and final focus. If you have any specific questions, just ask :)

~~ hi :) my name is Mariah (she/her). please make an email chain if you're spreading or there's any chance that the audio is going to be bad: mariahcady00@gmail.com ~~

I debated policy at UGA and PF at Columbus High School. The following is my PF paradigm – if we're in a policy round, most of this probably won't apply to you. See the lower half of this paradigm for Policy rounds.

Speaks:

1. Warrant your responses and arguments, and it'll ensure I flow everything you say.

2. On spreading: a) Let me know beforehand if you are planning on doing so, and b) make sure your opponents are okay with the speed before round. If your opponents explicitly state they don't want spreading, and you spread regardless, I won't be flowing your speech.

3. I appreciate puns in round. (+0.2 speaker points for protentions :)). If you make any racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you the lowest possible speaks, notify your coach, and you will probably lose this round.

4. Be assertive, not rude.

Argumentation:

1. I vote off the flow. I try to interfere as little as possible, which means you NEED TO WEIGH.

2. Frontline!! Please :)

3. Signposting is extremely helpful.

4. I will vote tech over truth. If your opponents make an unwarranted assertion, refute it. Don’t rely on me to do the analysis for you. That being said: every argument at the end of the round should have still have a warrant. If there's no answer being made, my threshold for the warranting is definitively lower, but it's always necessary.

5. Summaries - I prefer line-by-line, but I don't mind voters.

6. No new args in final focus (with the exception of weighing analysis in 1st FF).

7. Crossfire/CX doesn't affect my decision. I definitely will not be flowing it. I'll probably type individual ballot comments during this time.

8. I would not highly recommend reading disclosure/paraphrasing/ any other theory/k in front of me in a PF round, especially if you are purposefully leveraging policy args against teams with less resources to win rounds on the flow. I'll evaluate these args on a case-by-case basis.

First-Speaking Team:

1. All offensive extensions and extensions of defense should be in first summary if the second rebuttal frontlined what they're extending in summary. If the second rebuttal did not frontline, then that categorization only extends to offensive extensions.

Second-Speaking Team:

1. The rebuttal should respond to any offensive overviews/turns/DA's. You do not have to respond to defense until summary, but it's probably strategic to do so on the arguments you’re going for later in the round (see 1st speaking team above).

2. No new weighing in second final focus. It’s unfair and gives your opponents no chance to respond.

Evidence:

1. Every card you read within a debate should be cited and be available almost immediately within context for your opponent to read. I will drop your speaks if you are unable to find or provide your evidence to your opponents or me.

2. Any evidence misrepresentations key to the debate will factor into my decision.

Intervention:

If you don't weigh in the round or provide me with a comparative, here's how I will typically decide the round if left to make my own evaluation of arguments:

1. I will generally default util, but specifics depend on the round.

2. I would rather vote on a stronger link and smaller impact than a weaker link and larger impact.

3. I've decided to begin defaulting aff. That being said, if you successfully argue in round why I should be presuming neg, I'll vote neg. If we've reached this point, :(

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

POLICY –

I have little to no knowledge on this topic area. Make sure you debate in front of me accordingly. Do line-by-line. I will always flow, please don't ask me not to. Please read evidence in round, pref accordingly. I love case debate. Think about and debate the internal links and you'll receive high speaker points. I'm most comfortable with CPs, DAs, & Topicality. I am also comfortable with K debates, as long as you make your K interact with the affirmative.

Anything else:

If you have any questions, please ask or send me an email! :)

History: Debated for 4 years on the national circuit and a little bit on the local circuit. Went to Semis at GFCA State 2018, Broke at NSDA Nationals 2018, and broke at NFL Nationals 2019, along with breaking at multiple national tournaments

UPDATE 11/13/20* It would be great if you can send me both of your cases before the round, it would be even better if you can also send me every card you use in the round, doing this makes my job easier and I will give you higher speaks.

Evaluation: I vote off of Final Focus, however anything not brought up in Summary should not be reintroduced in Final Focus (aka extending through ink) as I will not evaluate the argument, because you do not consider it important enough to be weighed in the second half of the round. I expect Road Maps before every speech besides the constructive, that way I know where you are going throughout the speech, and I can clearly recognize your route to my ballot. If you do not stick to your Road Map I will dock your speaks. Also, Sign Posting when giving your speeches will help me a lot, and I will probably be able to evaluate as much as possible as you will be giving me organized arguments. Make sure you extend your Framework throughout the round if you want me to evaluate it, also make sure to explain why your framework is more important than the opposition if there is a conflict in that area. If you don't provide a frame work I default to a Cost Benefit Analysis I would also love for you to explain the analysis and warrants behind the evidence that you bring up in the round, I do not really care what the author has to say directly, rather I care about how the card impacts the round. I am also a big fan of analysis from YOU as this event is focused around the education of argumentation. As for specific speeches I expect the 1st Rebuttal to have a great deal of offense as you should not have to play defense because the 2nd speaking team has not given their rebuttal yet. For the 2nd Rebuttal I expect it to have a good amount of Front lining as you should be responding to the 1st speaking teams rebuttal. I do not mind the 1st Summary having a little bit of defense as it is the only chance to respond to the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect you to be winning your links and extending important offense throughout the majority of the speech. 2nd Summary should be solely focused on winning your links and extending offense, as well as explaining to me why you are winning the round. For Final Focus your job is to win the round by extending offense, and winning/weighing your impacts. Side Notes: I am not super familiar with theory, but I will try to evaluate it the best way I can. TECH OVER TRUTH

Preferences: Cross Examination: Make sure to be productive in cross examination, you should be asking questions about areas you are confused about, you are not trying to gain a specific tactical advantage, that is why it is called a cross examination and not its own respective speech. I also do not flow cross examination so if you have something important to say you need to bring it up in your speech Speed: I can handle a good bit of speed, however make sure to emphasize the most important substance, that way I can make as few mistakes as possible. Attitude: I am not one to vote you down for being too aggressive, but just note that the majority of judges do not like when you act in a derogatory manner, and it is not that appealing. I understand you can get frustrated but just try to chill out. Speaks: I rarely give a 30, but if you get above a 28.5 it means that I view you as an above average debater so congrats.

History: Former high school debate on the Georgia circuit. Saw decent success in PF for GFCA and Extemp for GHSA.

Judging PF:

Rhetoric

I'm a firm believer in appealing to the lay person but embrace the move towards a faster paced, evidence-guided style with fewer of the rhetorical techniques that you'd expect to see in a public forum or appeal. Speed, evidence, and coverage wins rounds, knowledge and rhetorical appeals win speaker points.

Speed

Speed doesn't matter. Clarity does.

Crossfire

I do not flow crossfire. If you say something in crossfire you want to be on the flow, bring it up in the next speech. Be respectful, yelling and rudeness will cost you speaker points.

Arguments

I expect to see a lot of arguments in opening and after that I expect to see the main ones you're running with, whether you call them voters or not. Calling them voters or whatever you do to make them perfectly obvious makes them easier for me to notice and weigh. I'm a flow judge, but making arguments clear wins rhetorically. Whatever voters you're running with need to be there in every speech otherwise they're dropped. If you want me to weigh arguments through a particular framework, you better bring it up in constructive or rebuttal and continue it through summary and final focus

Decision

My RFD depends upon those arguments or voters that you make perfectly clear and support throughout your round. The most standing and heaviest offense (impacts) at the end of the round wins. Scoring offensive points wins, but don't forget to defend.

LH

he / him

My email for the chain is hbharper8@gmail.com but also feel free to reach out with questions about your round / my RFD

tldr: I am okay with anything you run as long as you are respectful.

Fun Facts:

I did PF from 2015-19

I do not like to base my ballot only on disclosure theory or topicality, so you shouldn't make those your only voters.

I do not like when teams try changing the structure (speech times) of the round with theory.

I don't expect you to necessarily run a counter-interp against theory if you don't know how to do that. Just engage with the substance of their theory argument like any other argument.

I will probably tell your first speaker that they went for too much in summary.

I think in summary defense is sticky unless it was frontlined.

The second rebuttal should address the first rebuttal but I will accept responses in second sum as well - just no new turns.

No offensive off-case arguments in the second rebuttal.

Speaker points:

I appreciate funny taglines and puns when they are in good taste.

Yelling / being mean in cross will hurt your speaks.

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.

About Me

I have been a Public Forum debater for four years at McIntosh High school. I will be attending the University of Georgia next year at their School of Public and International Affairs and will continue debate on their policy team.

Preferences

I value clear argumentation. I believe that debate is about how well you make your points relevant and impactful in the real world. Speed is not a priority for me. Debaters should speak clearly enough to refine their case. Sources should be accurate and credible, yet they need to be supported by analysis. However, if opponents do not criticize the validity of sources, I will not extend the debate for you. Points should carry through the round because I will flow the whole round (even cx). Frameworks need to be concise and follow a public forum style. Cases should have about 2-3 solid points. Usually, subpoints make debates distracting and unorganized. Unique arguments are encouraged, given that you argue your links. There should be a balance between offense and defense- one side should not be on defense for the whole round. Signpost your contentions to make flowing easier, and so that I know which points to focus on as a judge. My decision will be based on the side which has the most impactful standing contentions with consideration to the presentation of these points.

Speed: Do not lose clarity for quantity.

Substantive arguments should be well supported, organization helps the flow. My background is a history/philosophy/psychology/forensics teacher and debate coach. It is important to stay on topic, be concise and to directly address the resolution/topic.

I debated traditional Lincoln-Douglas for 3 years in high school. That means I didn't spread, so do not spread. I enjoy a classic debate.

I don't think new arguments in closing speeches are fair, so I will not weigh them in the final decision.

I listen in cross, but if something important is said during it, you need to refer back to it during your next speech for me to write it down.

**I'm going to be honest: if your case needs an email chain in order for your opponent and me to comprehend it easier then it is too long and I will probably not listen.**

Finally, give me 3 reasons at the end of your final speech as to why I should vote for you!!

I would say that I'm pretty open about what kinds of arguments I will listen to so I'll just give some likes and dislikes to make debating in front of me easier.

Likes:

Clear links and impacts. I have seen high level debates where people have a lot of great stuff but it's either out of nowhere or I'm not told what to do with it. Have a weighing mech or something similar and then use it.

Arguments that would make sense outside of debate. I'm not necessarily opposed to fiat, but I think a lot of people get really into debate-world and forget that reality is still relevant. I'm okay with fiat being used, but I'll definitely consider probability weighing if it's brought up. That being said, if you're running something like...ironically or as a parody I'm not necessarily opposed. I've run Ks that the whole point was aliens=capitalism. Just tell me what it means.

If you have a plantext, perm text, or any kind of text like that, and you give the other team a copy, make me one too. It just makes my life easier.

Weigh things at the end of the round. Don't make me do it, please or you might not like my result.

Dislikes:

Spreading. I can listen to speed--I've debate 8 years. But I have never seen a single round where it was necessary. Most spreaders tend to say the same 3 arguments 5 ways, so just only have 3 good arguments. If your strat is to spread out the other team by making 15 blipped arguments and then expanding on the 3 that were dropped just be better at defending 3 good arguments. I won't vote you down on this, but I might miss something you say and I'll definitely dock speaks.

Anything homophobic/racist/sexist ect. If someone tells you their pronouns use them. If you think you'll throw a debater of color off by saying something racist, don't. If it's offensive enough I might just vote you down on that even if you won on your flow. In the same vein, I'm not the kind of judge who will vote up edgy stuff like "genocide good actually".

Theory arguments that seem false on face: I'm not opposed to theory arguments. Some of them have changed my mind actually. But if you run a T on every word of the resolution, my bar to clear for kicking them is gonna be pretty low. Basically any version of "run 14 time sucks instead of being good at defending my arguments" is gonna be annoying to me. In the same vein, multi condo bad is something I'll vote on pretty easily if brought up. One or two kickable arguments is one thing, but again, 14 arguments you kick in the neg block is something I'll definitely buy the neg team saying isn't really fair for them.

In general, the type of argument doesn't matter as a matter of personal preference, so much as that both teams are given the ability to debate. The person with better arguments will usually win in front of me, not the person who came up with some off the wall strat to not have to debate.

I am a third year debater at Starr's Mill high school. I have competed locally and nationally.

*I will not vote for teams who run bigoted arguments. Any teams that display blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will be automatically dropped. This behavior ruins the educational environment in debate.

*Any teams that make condescending gestures during another person's speech will lose speaker points

How to get my ballot:

I value truth over tech. That means being able to logically explain your arguments is really important to me, cards have no value if you cannot explain them or if you clearly don't know what they mean. Well warranted argument that are consistently weighed and prioritized throughout the round will likely win. Tell me why I should prefer your arguments. Make sure to respond to your opponents arguments and do not extend through ink. Otherwise I will have to intervene which I really don't want to do.

cross fire:

Cross x is one of my favorite parts of the round personally, and I live for clash. However, too much interruption and an excessively condescending or disrespectful attitude towards your opponent will result in lower speaker points and a pissed off judge.

speaks:

I evaluate speaking throughout the whole round. I am pretty generous as long as you aren't disrespectful and are not distracting during your own speeches or your opponents' speeches. Bonus points for puns in case!

last half of round:

Any important arguments in summary should be in final, essentially these speeches should mirror each other. That also means no new arguments in final focus.

First summary does not require sticky defense for me, but make sure to not extend through ink.

most importantly:

have fun!! debate is a fun activity so enjoy what ur doing!!

xoxo abigail

I did PF in high school and I am now a senior in college, do with that information what you will. Please add mirandahopenutt@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain. This should be started in the tech time. Please include at least the cases and call the email chain something like "Grapevine Round 1 - Marist VL vs Marist HN."

The basics:

- I hate paraphrasing, please cut cards. I think it's bad for the activity, 9/10 times is misrepresentation, and high schoolers are less informed than the academics they are citing. I won't drop you for paraphrasing, but please make it abundantly clear where you pulled your argument from the text. (If it is clear, you could have saved yourself and everyone else a whole lot of time by just reading the card in the first place)

- I will vote on the most cleanly extended and well weighed argument in the round.

- Respond to first rebuttal in second rebuttal please (your speaker points will reflect whether you did). I will not evaluate new defense in second summary on offense dropped by the second rebuttal.

- Make sure your extensions of arguments are extensions of the entire argument. Saying "extend the Jones '12 turn" in summary is not sufficient for you to go for that turn in final focus, for example.

- I will evaluate theory, k's, etc., but I prefer debates on the topic. This is simply because I feel that I am much better at judging debates on the topic. So, if you choose to read these arguments go for it, but understand that I need you to explain exactly how they should influence my ballot.

I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and PF. Take that for whatever you think it means.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. I want to see CLEAR evidence clash.
• Speed - I like speed but not spreading as if it is policy. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. I can keep up with the amount of speed you decide to read at, however if I feel that your opponent is at a disadvantage and cannot understand you then I will put my pen down and stop flowing and that will signal you to slow down.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• Casing - Mostly traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis.
• I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, it isn't on the flow), who made the most successful arguments and Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with some low point wins. I am fairly generous on speaker points compared to some judges. I disclose winner but not speaker points.
• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

I have judged Public Forum Debate as well as most speech events [Impromptu, Extemp, Dramatic, Humorous, Duo, POI, Original Oratory, and Informative Speaking]. I've judged this variety of speech events for 4 regional tournaments this season.

When I'm judging speech I'm looking for speakers to be practiced, confident, and engaging. I look particularly for good speech organization/clarity. I expect speakers to have good poise [meaning good posture, avoiding distracting movement, loud & clear speaking, as well as professionalism - no hands in pockets, shuffling feet, touching hair, etc.].

I am a first year out from Columbus High School, currently at Agnes Scott College. I debated four years on the local and national circuit.

Speed

• Speed is good with me, as long as it is still clear. If I can't understand it, it only hurts you.
• If something is very important you should slow down and emphasize it just to make sure I get it on my flow. I get a lot but I can't guarantee everything.

My Ballot

• I do not flow crossfire. That means if something happened in crossfire that you think is important to this round then bring it up in a speech.
• If your opponent responds to your arguments, you have to respond to that in order for me to consider it in the round. You can't just keep reiterating your arguments, saying it multiple times doesn't mean I'll ignore their responses.
• No offensive overviews with new material in second rebuttal (basically don't try to put a new contention in second rebuttal).
• Everything important in final focus should also be in summary.
• I will vote off of what is properly extended into final focus.
• Weighing is crucial. If you don't want me to decide what arguments are more important then you need to tell me. Don't get mad at me if you don't weigh and then I decide what arguments are more important.

Framework

• Honestly, most of the time I think framework in PF is dumb. However, if you want to run it, I won’t hold it against you.

Speaker Points (a general guide)

• 25: You were either completely incoherent, extremely offensive, or both.
• 26: Your speeches were disorganized, pretty under time, and/or quite unclear.
• 27: Average.
• 28: Generally organized, clear, use up all time.
• 29: Well organized, spoke well, use up all time.
• 30: Amazing organzation, very clear and coherent speaking, use up all time, overall spectacular performance.
• Disclaimer: this is a very rough guide, the reasons the points I give will definitely vary throughout rounds and if I have specific reasons I will try to include in either written or oral critiques.

Evidence

• I expect all evidence to be properly represented. If you believe your opponents are misrepresenting a piece of evidence, tell me to call it and I will at the end of the round.

Demeanor

• I am fine with aggression just don't be a terrible person.
• If you make any racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory or disrespectful comments, I will give you extremely low speaks and notify your coach.

3rd year PF debater

- Summary and final need to mirror, if something is in final but not summary it won't be evaluated

- Weigh your arguments, say why your arguments matter more than your opponents

- Be able to explain your warrants, if your link chain makes no sense it's hard to evaluate your argument

- If it's contentious in round, I will call for evidence (so please don't misrepresent your cards!)

- Typical PF speed is okay as long as you're articulate

- Speaker points: punny contention taglines help, don't shake your head/be a jerk during your opponent's speech

-Flow Judge

-I mostly weigh what is in the final focus, and because of this, tell me what to weigh in the debate in your speech.

-I'll allow a brief amount of defense for the first speaking team, but if it’s in the final focus, it must be in the summary.

-Try to have clean Cross Xs: don't interrupt your opponent too much and try not to get too muddled, or spend the whole time on one question (unless it's crucial to the debate)

-Don’t steal prep

Columbus High '19 and University of Georgia '23. I've done speech all four years, having success both on the local and national circuit, qualifying to both TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Though I did speech, I understand how PF flows at a general level.

Some ground rules:

1. I can handle speed just fine. However, if the argument you're trying to make is really important, slow down so it leaves more of an impact. The quality of your words is more important than the quantity.

2. Though I will be flowing, I am more on the lay side when it comes to tech. If you use terminology that I don't understand, then I will probably make a face and put it aside. If you see this, fix it by explaining it in a more "lay" fashion.

3. Everything said in Final Focus, MUST BE in Summary. Any new arguments brought up in FF that was not said in Summary will not be weighed.

4. In Summary, give me clear voters on why you won this debate. Make my job easier by explicitly telling me what should be weighed the most in the round. Fail to do this and it will be harder for you to win my ballot.

5. It's fine to be assertive, being rude isn't.

6. Puns are great. However, any discriminatory remarks made will result in a 22 for speaks and a good ol' talking to with your coach.

7. Time yourselves. I'm lazy.

8. I will make mistakes, and if I do, my b.

If you have a question or anything like that, don't be scared to ask me. I'm a pretty chill dude.