About Me

I am a 4th year Public Forum debater who has competed at multiple NSDA National Tournaments, GFCA State Tournaments, and TOC qualifiers. Personal interests include sports, music, art, cinema, and the outdoors.

How I Evaluate the Round

I evaluate the round based solely on the flow, with speaking being evaluated completely separately. Since I am evaluating on the flow, I prefer teams to utilize tactics such as the line-by-line and signposting, as well as the off-time-roadmap. Please, however, do not give a worthless off-time-roadmap just to tell me that you will be rebutting the other team's case. Lastly, I am a big fan of overviews, frameworks, and other topical analysis to help narrow the debate a provide a mechanism for me to weigh the round.

Speaking Preferences

My main speaking preference is definitely CLARITY. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you, and I vote off the flow. Feel free to speak as fast as you'd like, but ideologically I'm opposed to spreading in Public Forum or Lincoln Douglas, and will probably dock your speaks for such. First speakers, make it a point to have your constructive sound as perfected and refined as possible, as it is effectively the only speech in the round you have the opportunity to prepare outside the round. Second speakers, make it a priority to give a good final focus, as I consider that to be the speech where rounds, particularly those that I am evaluating, are most often won or lost.

Former PFer for Milton High School in GA, debate Parli for Dartmouth, would call myself generally flow judge:

1. 1st summary does not need to extend defense ever, though if 2nd rebuttal spends a sizeable amount of time on defense it may dock you in the round. NOTE: For 3 minute summaries I expect first summary to cover defense as well, especially turns, if turns are not extended then I will not extend them in final

2. Please weigh. If you make me weigh for you, you may not like how I evaluate arguments, so don't leave it up to me. Also, please warrant/explain your weighing analysis. If I have two different weighing mechanisms given to me without explanation as to why I should choose one over the other, I will still be just as clueless as to how I should evaluate the round.

3. Please signpost. Be clear about where you are on the flow, I do not want to waste time finding my place.

4. Warranting is extremely important. I value a strong link chain with good flow of logic over random impacts that don't seem to connect, don't expect me to buy impacts that I have no idea how you got there. If the link chain is good, chances are the impact will be very strong. Furthermore, I love to hear attacks at the link level more than the impact level. Obviously, both are very important but keep in mind attacking an argument's logic is a great way to make me value it much less on the flow.

5. Be generally civil (I don't mind passion during cx just no shouting match plz), nothing rude/offensive, have fun

If you have any other questions or concerns feel free to contact me before or after round through cell (678-925-8683) or email (aditya.a.choudhari.22@dartmouth.edu).

I have 4 years of experience in pf, ld, impromptu, hi, duo, and oo. I debated in college for Mercer and did parli and policy. If you have any questions about college debate, I am always happy to answer them.

For PF cross ex: I do not flow cross ex, but I do listen. If something important comes up in cross and you want me to weigh it, bring it up in a speech. If someone asks you a question regarding evidence you read in round, DO NOT and I repeat, DO NOT just re-read the card with zero context. If you cannot explain the argument to a five year old, you don't need to be making it.

Tech: Framework is very important to me and you need to explain how you're winning the framework in order to win the round. Generating clear clash is also important, and in the unlikely event that you cannot generate clash, you should clearly explain why you outweigh in terms of impacts. I love clearly articulated links and it makes my job very easy when you give me a weighing mechanism.

Truth: I've seen some k debate happen in ld recently (super interesting, and tbh I'm into it), and should you choose to run one, I'm definitely going to need you to respond to the tech as well as you can. I am totally fine with a k aff. As long as you can be somewhat remotely topical, I will not vote on T. I will often give some credence to truth over tech arguments, but you can't just say it. You have to explain to me why your k outweighs everything else in the round (and I'm a human, so who's to say a little ethos won't be effective?).

Speed is fine, but if you're trying to spread and I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" one time, and if I still can't understand you, I'll just put my pen down until I can.

I love debate and I want you to love debate too. So, do what you do, do it well, and have fun!

Hey, my name is Sam! I debated on the GA circuit for 3 years and nationally for 2 (2014-2017), breaking even my senior year at ToC and Nationals. Since then, I have judged and coached for several programs. Weigh your arguments and their terminal impacts against your opponent's arguments and impacts in summary/final focus. Second-half cohesion is important, make sure the summary and final focus work well together. I will not vote off of anything that fails to be extended from speech-to-speech. I can follow most speeds you're used to, but please do your best to speak clearly. Be polite to each other and enjoy the learning experience: D.B.A.A!

Experience/Background: I coached at Columbus HS from 2013-2021, primarily Public Forum, and now coach at Carrollton HS (2021-present). I did not debate in high school or college, but I have been coaching and judging PF, a little LD, and IEs since 2013, both locally (Georgia) and on the national circuit, including TOC and NSDA Nationals. I spent several years (2017-2022) as a senior staff member with Summit Debate and previously led labs at Emory (2016-2019).

Judging Preferences:

If you have specific questions about me as a judge that are not answered below (or need clarification), please feel free to ask them. Some general guidelines and answers to frequently asked questions are below:

1. Speed: I can flow a reasonably fast speed when I'm at the top of my game, but I am human. If it's late in the day/tournament, I am likely tired, and my capacity for speed drops accordingly. I will not be offended if you ask me about this before the round. For online rounds, I prefer that you speak at a more moderate speed. I will tell you "clear" if I need you to slow down. If I am flowing on paper, you should err on the slower side of speed than if I am flowing on my laptop.

2. Signposting and Roadmaps: Signposting is good. Please do it. It makes my job easier. Off-time roadmaps aren't really needed if you're just going "their case, our case", but do give a roadmap if there's a more complex structure to your speech.

3. Consistency of Arguments/Making Decisions: Anything you expect me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Defense is not "sticky" -- meaning you cannot extend it from rebuttal to final focus. Please weigh. I love voters in summary, but I am fine if you do a line-by-line summary.

4. Prep (in-round and pre-round): Please pre-flow before you enter the round. Monitor your own prep time. If you and your opponents want to time each other to keep yourselves honest, go for it. Do not steal prep time - if you have called for a card and your opponents are looking for it, you should not be writing/prepping unless you are also running your prep time. (If a tournament has specific rules that state otherwise, I will defer to tournament policy.) On that note, have your evidence ready. It should not take you longer than 20-30 seconds to pull up a piece of evidence when asked. If you delay the round by taking forever to find a card, your speaker points will probably reflect it.

5. Overviews in second rebuttal: In general, I think a short observation or weighing mechanism is probably more okay than a full-fledged contention that you're trying to sneak in as an "overview". Tread lightly.

6. Frontlines: Second speaking team should answer turns and frontline in rebuttal. I don't need a 2-2 split, but I do think you need to address the speech that preceded yours.

7. Theory, Kritiks, and Progressive Arguments: I prefer not judging theory debates. Strongly prefer not judging theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument. If you are using theory/Ks/etc. in a way intended to overwhelm/intimidate an opponent who has no idea what's going on, I am not going to respond well to that.

8. Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If it comes up in cross and you expect it to serve a role in my decision-making process, I expect you to bring it up in a later speech.

9. Speaker points: I basically never give 30s, so you should not expect them from me. My range is usually from 28-29.7.

Hi! I competed in PF on the local Georgia circuit for 4 years and the national circuit for 2 years at Starr's Mill High School and go to GT.

*I will not vote for homophobic, racist, sexist, xenophobic, or offensive arguments. If you run something bigoted or if you are racist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, etc. - I will drop you.

*Do not interrupt unnecessarily in crossfire (this is especially true if you're a male debater in cross with a female opponent). Do not shake your head, make faces, mutter, etc. during your opponents' speeches (this is especially true if you're a male debater doing this to a female opponent). I hate this.

How to get my Ballot:

I do not want to intervene. Please weigh and do not extend through ink so I don't have to.

I like well warranted and well-weighed arguments. I will vote on arguments most heavily weighed (with good warrants) that still have offense left at the end of the round.

I won't vote for an argument if it isn't in Summary and FF.

Second rebuttal must respond to first rebuttal arguments/offense if the second speaking team is collapsing on those arguments. Defense doesn't have to be in first summary and Summary and FF should be mirrored.

Weighing:

This is one of the most important parts of the debate. I cannot and most likely will not vote for you if you do not tell me how to weigh your arguments. Warrant your weighing analysis.

Signposting

This is crucial. Signpost clearly and often. Tell me where to flow before your speeches in the latter half of the round.

Collapsing

If it isn't in the summary and it's in the FF I won't vote on it. When I was a novice I went for all my arguments. Don't. Pick one to two arguments you are winning on and go for those.

Evidence

From my experience debaters misrepresent evidence a lot. I want Author [Not Institution Only], Credentials (preferably, but not required), and Year. I will not tolerate cards that are cut incorrectly or misrepresented.

If you tell me to look at your opponent's evidence because you believe it is misrepresented- I will.

Speaker Points

Making puns and being witty while having a good debate will make you look good and have high speaks. You will have very low speaks if you are offensive, rude, and generally not conducive to a good debate.

Feel free to ask me about anything before/after round. I will disclose if the tournament allows me to. If you have any questions feel free to email me at <holt.tylerjames@gmail.com> or message me on FB.

I was founding moderator and head coach of Lambert High School's Speech and Debate Team since its inception in 2012 through May, 2021, and I judged regularly during that time, mainly in PF, LD, and Individual Events. I hold a bachelor's degree in English, a master's degree in Communications Psychology, and a doctoral degree in Management and Psychology, all focusing on learning and communication in human development and in the workplace.

Although my formal debate activities in high school and college occurred in classroom settings only, I did participate in public speaking and theater/telecommunications productions during that time, and I've studied philosophy, logic, international business, rhetoric, and persuasive writing over 40 years as student and educator at the high school and college level. I have numerous academic publications and one book on writing, cognition, and communications; and, as an instructor of Advanced Placement (AP) Language and Literature, as well as college courses in Communications and Marketing, I've taught classical methods of argumentation to my students as well as how to identify and respond to logical fallacies and manipulation of language and thought. I have completed the NSDA Cultural Competency training, traveled and taught overseas, and have worked in a wide variety of diverse American schools. I treat each debater as a unique individual worthy of respect, regardless of background or lifestyle, but you need to tell me a story, connect the dots, and support theory with examples to win.

When judging student debate, I look for consistent definitions, contentions, frameworks, and logical flow of argument, as well as clear explication of ideas, responses to opponents' contentions and values, and an understanding of the implications of the affirmations or negations of the propositions. Students who articulate respectfully and confidently earn better speaker evaluations from me, and I appreciate preparation, addressing appropriate counterarguments, the citation of sources, and the accurate inclusion of current events from news and readings. I encourage audiences for public speaking, value truth and technique, and I require that evidence to be shared in a timely manner. Add me to your e-mail chain before beginning your round: cwhyatt007gmail.com.

At the end of the day, the students who will win have more clearly, logically, and consistently presented their own positions while effectively responding to their opponents. It's all about The Clash, my friends, so stay free, stay free.

Former PF Captain/ President of Carrollton High School Debate team. I am a Political Science Major at University of West Georgia and plan to go to law school.

I think that public forum should be accessible to any person that could come off the street and observe a round. With that in mind I believe that your speech should be clear, enunciated, and only moderately quick. If you spread it is likely I'll miss a lot more than if you are presenting clear, well thought out arguments and instead of just a wall of facts.

I judge a round based off of cost benefit analysis if no framework is offered. Rebuttals and summaries should be clearly organized, following down the flow of the opponent's case and ending with defense of your own case. Signposting is also very important for me to follow down the flow, especially if you are moving through arguments quickly. This makes it easiest for me to properly weigh links and such on the flow. In the final focus, you should weigh the opponent's case against your impacts and explain why your position outweighs. Anything in the final focus that hasn't been extended throughout the case is likely to be dropped.

I try to provide good RFD's both after round and on Tabroom, so you don't feel like you got screwed. This usually includes individual speaker constructive criticisms/comments only on the Tabroom RFD. If you have any questions about how I decided a round feel free to ask.

Hi all,

I am a parent judge, but I have been judging PF for middle school kids last few years. I am open to hearing all types of arguments.

Prefer to vote for teams that demonstrate these qualities: a) better analysis and impact calculus b) speaks clearly c) direct clash and d) solid evidence and arguments

Keep your emotions under control.

Please respect each other and make it as fun debate.

I am a parent judge - 2020-2021 was my twins' final year as high school debaters, and I usually judged at almost every tournament, so I have been lucky enough to see a bunch of really great rounds. I typically judged PF, but have also judged a fair amount of LD.

I am looking for a DEBATE - not just the best speeches. I will give the win to the team that makes the most compelling case as to why their side is right and/or the opponent is wrong. I tend not to flow every specific point, but rely more on which team's overall argument is stronger. I probably put more weight on cross-ex and final summary arguments than most judges.

I usually am more convinced by a smaller number of really great points that are well defended than a whole bunch of pretty good points (quality of argument versus quantity). I am also looking for the debaters to pay attention to what their opponent says and specifically give a good counter argument to those points.

Parent judge. Have been judging for 3+ years.

Paradigm:

I favor logical, well articulated and; persuasive delivery over speed and overly passionate delivery.

Evidence - if a card is weak, out of context or too good to be true, call it out and challenge it. If you leave it uncontested, you are missing an opportunity.

Crossfire - questions/challenges left answered/uncontested counts in the opponents favor.

Delivery:

No personal attacks, no yelling. Be assertive but not aggressive.

Speak clearly and persuasively. Content is more important than speed.

Respect time. When time is up, don't pile on 50 words to make a point. These will be discarded.