I debated PF and Extemp for Grapevine. I graduated in 2018.

SPEED: I'm fine with speed but don't mumble or lose clarity I'll just stop flowing.. it's PF for a reason.

FRAMEWORK/VOTERS: I like a framework debate. Numbering your voters helps.

LINKS/IMPACTS: I vote off of impacts and links. I'm not going to make the link or impact calculus for you so make it clear in the round.

EXTEND: I'm not going to extend something across your speeches if you don't bring it up. I don't expect the first speaker to extend their own case in rebuttal since there's no offense on it. If something isn't extended to the last speech I'm not voting on it. For the sake of all things PF, extend!

CROSSFIRE: I pay attention during cross, use this time wisely.

OVERALL: Don't be snarky in order to make a point. I was second speaker so I understand that it gets feisty but honestly, if you can't make your point by being respectful to the event and your opponent, then you can't really debate it at all. I will dock speaker points if you're rude.

Have fun! Debate rocks. Here's to a good round! Good luck and see you in the room.

Howdy! I was a PF debater for Grapevine High School for four years. I've competed on the National Circuit and at TFA State.

For your benefit I've outlined a few paradigms below that would be beneficial for you to follow (although I'm pretty relaxed so if you never read this then that's cool too)

A framework is appreciated. I would like it at the top of your case in constructive but if you need to read it in rebuttal that is fine too. I do frame the round based on how you tell me. If you don't give me a framework I'll fall back to a cost-benefit analysis. If you're going to get into a framework debate make sure you tell me why I should prefer your framework to your opponent's.

I won't extend anything for you so:

if you drop your own argument it won't count against you it just won't count for you either(even if your opponents try to extend it)

extend throughout every speech (if it gets dropped in summary I can't weigh it)

**this does not apply to the 1st speaking team on rebuttal, you do not have to extend your own arguments because the other team hasn't had a chance to refute your arguments yet. Don't waste your time, spend it attacking the opponent's case!**

Summary speeches: I was a 1st speaker so I put a lot of weight on these speeches! I should be able to cast my ballot after hearing both summaries. The most important thing you can do in a summary speech is weigh out the arguments. Tell me why your arguments are better than your opponent's and why your arguments have more weight in the round.

Final Focus: Give me voters. I do not want a line by line speech just tell me the reasons I should be voting for you.

Other Notes:

I do generally give oral critiques at the end of the debate and I will usually disclose so you won't be left hanging

Please please please don't spread. I am fine if you talk fast but keep in mind PF was designed for anyone to be able to walk in and understand you :)

Generally, I give pretty high speaks just speak clearly, persuade me, and be confident.

Be kind. Have fun.

NO SPREADING!!!!!!!!! I cannot emphasize this point enough! Debate should be about how well you know your case, can support your case with evidence, use logic to link your case and evidence together, and use logic and evidence to counter your opponents arguments. Speaking so fast that the judge or your opponent can't understand you doesn't mean you are a good debater, it just means you can talk really fast (and maybe not even say anything). I don't like winning on technicalities. Spreading is a means to winning on technicalities. Speaking fast so you can get lots of arguments in that your opponent will drop is my definition of winning on technicalities. I realize this is a game and you are trying to play that game but I also believe this should benefit you in life. There is no use for spreading in life, period!

I am a traditional LD/PFD judge. I don't want to hear K's, counter plans, or theory. If you want to do that you should be in CX/Policy not LD or PFD. You were either assigned a side or flipped a coin for a side. A good debater can debate both sides. Please tell me what you are going to do then do that. Also, please use logical reasoning to link your argument together as well as with your evidence. Don't skip steps. Don't use reasoning such as If A then B therefore Z. In doing this you have skipped lots of steps. I'm not saying the conclusion of Z is wrong just that you haven't proved that Z is correct. Don't make me skip steps to get to your conclusion because I won't, that is your job. An example of this is the nuclear war argument. You can't say things like if a particular political party wins an election then nuclear war is imminent. This is complete non-sense and shows me that you have no idea how to reason. Solving for nuclear war is hard and requires lots of steps and evidence to get there. Don't use that argument unless you are prepared to do the work to get me there.

I really dislike it when the debtor just reads their case. I'm not expecting you to have it memorized but know it well enough that you can talk to me about it. If you just read it that doesn't show me that you know anything about your case, just that you can read. You should be able to present your case in a way that shows me either you wrote your own case or that you know it well enough to be able to speak without having to rely on your computer for everything. Obviously if you are a Novice then I don't expect so much from you. However, both Novice and Varsity should be able to pronounce correctly all the words you use.

Your summary/final focus speeches should tie everything back together for me. Tell me what arguments your opponent dropped. Give me voters. I realize this is a game and you are throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks but lets pretend that is not what is going on. So please don't say things like "Judge, if you don't believe that then how about..." You better believe, or at least act like you believe, your whole case or I'm not going to.

Hello!

I am a parent judge who has a background in computer science and experience judging a few rounds. I appreciate those who speak at a normal pace and signpost clearly. As always, please be respectful and have fun!

Good luck!

I coach at Plano West Senior High School in Texas: LD, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and extemp (and some policy debate).
I have been coaching since 1999.

I can handle speed, if you are clear; if you aren't being clear, I will let you know.

My highest priority is impacts in the round. Having said that, I expect clear warrants that substantiate the impacts.

I like big picture debate, but I will vote on specific arguments if they become a priority in the round.

I'm pretty straightforward. I want debaters to tell me HOW to adjudicate a round, and then tell me WHY, based on the arguments they are winning and the method of adjudication. The HOW part would be something like a standard, or burdens. The WHY part would include the warrants and impacts/link story for the arguments being extended. I am not at all particular about HOW you go about accomplishing those two tasks, but without covering those components, don't expect a W. I need a clear framework, so I like it when some time is spent laying the groundwork at the top of the case. If you don't give me a framework, I will formulate my own.
I'm not a big fan of theory, but if a true abuse exists, I will vote on it. Keep in mind that if your opponent has a unique argument for which you are not prepared, that means you are not prepared, not that abuse exists in the round. I do not expect case disclosure and will not consider arguments that it should exist.

I want to see clash from the negative.

I fundamentally believe that the resolution is a proposition of truth and that if a truth claim is made, the burden falls on the person proving it true. Having said that, I'm totally open to other articulated strategies.