I am a former speechie who began coaching public forum debate a year ago. This makes me either the best lay judge or the worst flow judge you've ever had.

I have no preference for whether you sit or stand. I can keep up with speed, but not spreading. I appreciate clearly organized speeches. I like a final focus that makes my job easy by expertly articulating the voting issues of the debate. I really like a creative case that anticipates stock arguments.

You can assume if it's public forum that I have a pretty good understanding of the topic, so don't feel like you have to break things down for me. For other forms of debate, I tend to catch on quick, so you probably don't need to explain things to me like you might for a lay judge.

I have a fairly solid understanding of debate jargon, so don't be scared to get technical.

I appreciate strong, confident speakers, but I'll never vote on speaking ability.

Ultimately, I think of debate as a mental chess match, and I vote on the team or speaker who best plays the game.

I am a teacher with 28 years of teaching experience with a master's degree but not in political science. I am a lay judge but I have been judging since 2015.

Please don't talk so fast that I can't follow you. If I can't follow you, I can't vote for you. No off time road maps. Everything is timed because I am the official time keeper. Feel free to time yourself but my time is the only time.

Please be clear and precise in your presentation. Be respectful and not condescending. Build your case, tell your story because I am looking for the thread that binds your case, your crossfire, summary and final focus together.

During your rebuttals be respectful and not condescending. Make sure to don't just attack the others but also defend your case.

During your summary restate the facts and clearly address any misunderstandings.

During your Final Focus make me want to vote for you!

About me: Debate and extemp speaking for a couple of years in high school in Texas, 35+ years ago. I honestly remember very little about policy debate. Assistant debate coach and judge, briefly, 25 years ago while teaching school. Practicing attorney and trial lawyer for 21 years.

My son's school is a newer debate program (1.5 years), and I've been judging debate (PF, LD) and speech (OO, extemp, impromptu) events since Spring 2018.

Paradigm:

I appreciate organization and signposting in debates, and off-time roadmaps are fine. Tell me which arguments you are refuting. Tell me your contentions (e.g., say, "Contention 1," "In response to the Aff's Contention 1," etc.) so that I can outline/flow easily.

Tell me what your voters are. Defend your value as being more important than your opponent's value, etc. It's better not to drop more arguments than your opponent does, although drops don't mean you automatically lose my vote if your case -- as a whole -- is more effectively proven. Impacts are important.

I try to flow debates. If I were to go into court and spread my case to a judge or jury, would I win? If I were a candidate for public office in a values debate with my opponent, and I spread my arguments to the audience, would I win? If you speak too fast or unclearly, I will miss something, thus I do not PREFER spreading (although this does NOT mean you get an automatic loss if I can understand what you're saying). I find most spreading to be monotonous and unpersuasive.

I like traditional debate, and prefer that you actually run a case supporting or opposing the resolution as given and refuting your opponent's case, rather than running theories or PICs, or whatever. As I say, these are preferences, but are not automatic win/loss. I like real debate of issues. To be fair and open toward each individual, I do NOT vote my own beliefs. If you convince me that your case is better, and you are more persuasive -- even if I disagree with what you're trying to prove -- then you can still get my vote.

Public Forum paradigm

I now coach speech, but I have also coached Congress and have judged PF and LD for the past 15 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t (or don't).

I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.

Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.

Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.

I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.

And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.

Lincoln Douglas paradigm

Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?

I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.

Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.

Congress paradigm

Congress rankings are based on content (structure, evidence, clarity, analysis, clash) and delivery (articulation, fluency, vocal and physical expression, confidence/poise). Most importantly who advanced the debate and contributed the most through the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of his/her/their speeches and questions?

Civility, courtesy, and respect apply here as well.

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.

LD:
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Both:
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

I teach Mandarin 1 at Strake Jesuit. Good debaters are like big politicians debating on a big stage. Persuasion is necessary. Speak clearly if you want to win. Please make sure your arguments are topical. I'd like a clear story explaining your position and the reasons you should win.

I flow rounds. Alerting me to clear contentions and off time road maps assists me in completing my flows. I am absolutely not capable of flowing if you SPREAD, in fact, if you choose to SPREAD, I will stop flowing and listen. I prefer to hear you present your arguments verses reading your prepared material. The documents will provide me the name of your source when I review before making a final decision. I favor up to date resources as changes happen daily, when presenting your argument I focus on the year of the evidence to include in my flow. Cross fires should be civil. I generally look to typical speech characteristics when determining speaker points, such as speaking with clarity and articulation. I also consider the general characteristics of giving a speech such as how you present yourself through your demeanor both individually and as a team, as well as with your opponents.

Speak clearly

Hello-I'm Sam, I went to Newton North High School in Boston and am now a sophomore at Cornell University. I've been in PF since 2014 at local and national tournaments. Below is a detailed paradigm, but feel free to ask specific questions before the round starts if anything is confusing or if I have left anything out.

Round Overview

I do not accept kritiks, plans, or theory arguments in PF, save that for Policy or Parli. Public Forum means you could have this debate in front of a random person on the street. I will drop you for anything that is not arguing the resolution. That being said, if you want to, be creative with definitions and explain to me why your interpretation of the topic is more important than your opponents interpretation of the resolution.

I will keep time but feel free to keep track of your own as well, my time will be the ultimate time we use in the debate. If you are out of time, finish your sentence. That is different from finish your idea. I will hold up my hand with a closed fist to let you know you are out of time.

Please let me know when you are taking prep. If you want to call cards, let me know and we will stop the round to do so. Be responsible when you call cards because we want this tournament to run on time. Also know that there will be times when I will call cards at the end of a debate if I am curious about a point of clash, questioning the author, in general if something seems off. But, it's your job during the round to let me know that there is something up with that piece of evidence if I should not buy it.

I disclose if the tournament rules allow, and if there is time, I will give feedback after the round. Also, if you have questions about the round and how I ruled please find me after the round and I will be more than happy to explain in detail my decisions. I find this helps debaters moving on with how they debate later on.

Constructive

I want clear cases. Make sure you lay out your arguments into contentions and sub points. I have experience in debate so I can deal with fast talking, but as a general rule no matter who your judge is, the faster you go, the less comprehension. Make any observations and definitions, frameworks you want but be prepared to argue yours over your opponents. Feel free to run unconventional arguments on the resolution so long as they make sense. I like when you grab my attention like that.

Rebuttal

Don't do off time road maps. This annoys me to no end. No one actually follows them and they are often used as an excuse to not signpost. As soon as the first word leaves your mouth, I start my time.

Summary

Crystallize the round to the important points of clash, don't summarize every detail.

Final Focus

Weigh, Weigh, Weigh. Write my ballot for me. Explain to me why you have won the round and why your impacts matter more. I can't pick you up if you don't tell me why you have won. This is not another rebuttal speech. No new arguments, but new analysis or analogies work well.

Cross Fire

I listen very carefully during CX. I do not flow because this is the time I use to see if the debaters know what they are talking about. Don't be aggressive, be assertive. Let your opponent ask questions too, try not to cut people off. I flow after CX about what I thought the important points were. Grand CX is my favorite part of debate so have fun with it but make sure one person is talking at a time. Use this time for PRIMARY POINTS OF CLASH and not small little nothing points. A big portion of speaker points are developed here.

Overall

Have fun with it! This is a fun activity. We all got up early on a Saturday morning because we truly care about PF so please have fun and let me know at any point in the round if there are things going on that are making you feel uncomfortable or if we can make the round a more enjoyable space for you.

Background: Lawyer

I do not tolerate speed. I’ll only evaluate what I can follow clearly.

I’ll drop you if you’re not civil in Cross-X.

Tell me how your arguments interact with one another. Weigh. Clash. Fill my ballot out for me in final focus.

Most importantly, have fun. I admire your amazing talents as debaters, and you’re going to be successful in life just from participating in this activity. Good luck, and I look forward to a great round!

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

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.

I am okay with any speed.

Speak your contention very clearly at the beginning of your points, I prefer off time roadmaps.

Time yourself and tell me loudly when you are starting.

Keep your own prep time, inform me that you are taking prep and tell me how much time was taken after.

Know all the speech times so we can avoid confusions and get through the round fast.

If a coin flip is required, the debaters will flip and decide and inform me after which side they are on and speaking order.

No preference on desk arrangement or how CX is done.

I did public forum for four years at Durham (graduated in 2017) and am comfortable with any speed or level of technicality. That being said, public forum is meant for a public audience and thus the speed of the debate should be accessible to all judges as well as your opponents. I'm a "flow judge" but that doesn't mean I don't think warrants are important.

***No prior debate experience (lay judge), however, been judging Individual Events and occasionally Public Forum for the past 4 years

- state your framework (if you have one) at the beginning of your debate

- when you state your contentions, make sure you state them clearly

- off-time roadmaps are helpful

- prefer no spreading, but keep in mind I can't flow towards you if I can't understand/hear you

- prefer you keep your own times

Jacob Pritt

jacobjpritt@gmail.com

Jesuit High School '12

Harvard College '16

Tulane Law '19

2019-2020 LD Paradigm

Hi everyone, my name is Jacob Pritt, and I judge tournaments from time to time around the New Orleans area for Jesuit. I competed in LD for four years, graduating in 2012. I qualified to the TOC three teams, cleared twice, and won top speaker my senior year. I also won the Louisiana State Championship in 2010. That being said, I haven't coached on a high level since my first year out, 2013, so I am not going to be up to date on the newest trends in LD. Here are some things to keep in mind if you're in front of me or deciding whether to pref me:

Background - I ran Kant on both sides of every topic my senior year. I also ran a lot of creative/philosophy-focused frameworks my last two years. My sophomore year I ran exclusively util. I also have a philosophy degree. I'm going to be most comfortable evaluating philosophical debates and weighing impacts. That being said, feel free to make creative arguments/run whatever you want or whatever makes you comfortable. If it's complex, just make sure you're explaining it well. I didn't run Ks/continental philosophy often, but I'm relatively familiar with the literature.

Decision Calculus - the most important thing you can do is tell me which layer of the debate comes first and why you're winning that layer. If you do that well, you'll be happy with my decision. I really don't care what types of arguments you run - tell me why they matter most and why you're winning them at the end of the round.

T/Theory - I haven't kept up with the trends here/what is common practice or commonly considered abusive/frowned upon, so don't assume I know anything. Make your interps very clear and read them very slowly. I feel pretty comfortable evaluating these debates. My presumptions are that fairness is a voter, drop the debater, no RVI. Obviously you can overcome this by making an argument.

Speed - I haven't judged a super fast round since 2014, so please start slower. Slow way down for tags, theory interps, etc. I will make it very obvious to you if I don't understand what you're saying and expect you to adjust. If you're super clear, feel free to work your way towards top speed, I should be able to follow it, but it's been a while so keep that in mind.

If you have any more questions, please ask me before the round or feel free to have your coach (or you if you're debating independently) send me an email at the above address.

I am excited to judge this round of debate for you.

I will intiate the "go" for each section of the round and keep official time.

When crossfire begins, the leading team will ask 1 question and allow the other team to answer. After they answer, that team will ask 1 question. This continues for the 3 minutes. Teams should not interupt the other while they are speaking.

There is no "off the clock" time to roadmap or set framework. All time is accounted for.

Lastly, after the round, and we have left the room, please do not confront me for explanation, justification, or to tell you how you did. All of this information is on this Tabroom platform and uploaded within several minutes of the round.

Good luck!

Judging 10 years. Debated Lincoln Douglas style in high school for around three years.

Preferences for a round:

Slower debate based on good arguments with emphasis on clash and solid evidence.

I am a parent judge who thinks a high quality debate combines evidence and analysis. Explain why your evidence is important and how it relates to the resolution.

I am not a fan of spreading (speed does not equal persuasiveness for me).

Signposting is good.

Clearly articulate the voting issues in your final focus.

There is a fine line between being assertive and being rude. Rude behavior or condescending tones detract speaker points.

I debated PF all through high school, coached all through college, and am now coaching at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. My role in the round is to interpret the world you aim to create, and to that end you should tell me explicitly what it is you are trying to do. I stick to the flow as well as I can.

common question answers:

1. Anything that needs to be on the ballot, needs to be in Final Focus, and anything in final needs to be in summary.

2. The first speaking team should be predicting the offense in first summary that needs to be responded to, and putting defense on it then. This ALSO means that the second speaking team has to frontline in the rebuttal. Any arguments/defense that are not in the First Summary are dropped, and any arguments that are not frontlined in the second rebuttal are dropped.

3. Summary to Final Focus consistency is key, especially in terms of the relevance of arguments, if something is going to be a huge deal, it should be so in both speeches. You're better off using your new 3 minute summary to make your link and impact extensions cleaner than you are packing it full of args.

4. I will call for cards that I think are important, and I will throw them out if they are bad or misrepresented, regardless of if they are challenged in the round. sometimes when two arguments are clashing with little to no analysis, this is the only way to settle it.

As a note, I am pretty hard on evidence, especially as sharing docs is becoming more popular. If you are making an argument, and the evidence is explicitly making a different argument, I won't be able to flow your arg.

Speed is fine, but spreading isn't. I'll evaluate critical arguments if they have a solid link, but they have to link to the topic y'all, so they basically have to be a critical disad.

I evaluate theory if it's needed, but I'm really skeptical of how often that is.

Feel free to ask for anything else you need to know.

You should pre-flow before the start time of the round, that will help your speaks!