Anything goes

I am a lay judge with a couple years experience. I appreciate structure (rebuttal should be used to rebut your opponent’s case; focus should be used to tell me why your argument wins), and I will try to follow your flow. If you get me early in the tournament, you should explain acronyms and detailed points before assuming that I know what you’re taking about. You’re the expert, you need to make sure I understand your points. Please refrain from jargon and technical debate terms. I know what a block is, but I get lost when a team refers to terms they may have heard a coach use. I understand better when you use plain english to explain your structure and the effectiveness and meaning of your arguments. Unless you are amazingly talented, speaking ridiculously fast will be lost on me. You will be polite and respectful to your opponents.

Hi! I’m really excited to be your judge today!

A few notes:

1. Sign posting is an absolute must. If I cannot follow you, that’s a problem.

2. No spreading, this isn’t policy debate.

3. I will reward you for being clear and impacting all of your claims. Tell me why this argument matters!

4. Be civil! I will give you low speaks if you are rude and talk over the top of one another.

5. Be clear on why you believe you have won the round. Evidence, Evidence, Evidence!

I flow rounds completely and carefully. I understand the need to fit a lot in to your time, but I need to be able to understand you to give you credit for your arguments. As an academic, I appreciate knowing the source and context of data presented in order to evaluate its credibility.

I weigh arguments as the round proceeds myself, but I appreciate if you help me in weighing arguments in summary and final focus.

I diminish speaker points for speakers who don't maintain a civil atmosphere or who are verbally aggressive to either opponents or partners.

Don't spread & have fun! Thanks!

Background:

I am a parent judge who has been judging for around 3 years and consider myself a flay judge. I'm trained as a scientist so logical argument supported by evidence is what I am looking for. I usually read up about the topic beforehand, so I have some knowledge about it.

Preferences:

I am more tech over truth but the argument needs to be believable for an easier win (I am a little more tech than you might imagine)

Please collapse and weigh your arguments against your opponents' arguments (Quality > Quantity)

I flow but I won’t flow if you’re too fast or hard to understand

I vote of the flow but good speaking always helps

I will call for cards usually if they are important for your case in the round. I take evidence very seriously and will drop you if I find it misconstrued.

Theory: I know nothing about theory or how to evaluate it. If you run it there is a high probability that I won't evaluate it.

Don’t be rude or offensive and don’t interrupt during cross or you’ll get dropped

Hey this is Chris and this is my dad. A couple of things to keep in mind

1. Please signpost

2. Speak p slowly: He doesn't flow extremely well

3. He doesn't really like new offensive overviews in second rebuttal

4. You probably should weigh and respond to your opponents weighing, and metaweigh if applicable

If you ask him any questions abt this paradigm he's probably gonna be confused bc he's never read it. So just go along with it and you should be fine.

UPDATED January 2024:

I haven't been judging LD for a while; I've mostly been judging PF for the last 3 years. I've almost certainly left things out of this paradigm - if you have more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at serena.e.fitzgerald@gmail.com.

Generally:

I competed primarily in LD in high school (graduated 2015) and NPDA in college (graduated 2018). I've been a (mostly) full-time debate coach since.

I base win/loss only on the content of the arguments; speaker points are based on a combination of rhetorical performance, strategic vision, and technical skill.

Speed is fine, but I'm somewhat rusty, so I might "slow" or "clear" you. I'll call for cards if there is a dispute over their content, but I won't rely on a speech doc to cover for mudmouth or sloppy spreading.

I don't vote off of "arguments" made in cross, only in timed speeches.

Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first. Absent debaters' arguments, I generally default to evaluating procedurals first, kritiks second, and policy arguments last.

I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless extended in the last speech; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.

Specific arguments

LARP/policy/util debate - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.

I am willing to engage in a lot of warrant comparison if the debaters don't do it for me in order to weigh whether a DA/ADV is more probable, so having specific, solid warrants in your evidence (rather than broad claims) will likely help you.

Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks.

I have a relatively high threshold for frame-outs. I find myself more comfortable either voting on substantive solvency arguments based in the critical literature, or granting a weighing mechanism that substantively benefits your critique, than an outright "don't evaluate their case at all" framework. The other two options might be more strategic ways to cross-apply your framework cards in front of me.

In college and high school, I mostly read Ks focusing on Marxism, anti-colonial writers like Fanon and Friere, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari. Puar, Mbembe, and Butler are some of the contemporary philosophers most influential over me. For other theories, you may want to read an overview if you are collapsing to it, to make sure I understand your thesis accurately. (It's probably helpful even if I have read that author before, since you might be emphasizing a different part of their work.)

Theory/ Procedurals - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow.

I find that compared to other judges, I'm not as rigid about the phrasing of theory arguments. If someone substantively makes a "we meet" argument but doesn't formally flag it as such, I will still evaluate the content of the argument and apply it to the theory. However - this is imperfect, and I may not always know what you meant a particular argument to refer to, so it is still always best to flag your arguments and signpost clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of IVI's as they are usually read; the existence of theory in debate does generally seem like the best way of deciding and enforcing the "rules" of debate. However, I find they're usually more persuasive when they incorporate more substantive arguments (especially if it dovetails with the thesis of the case or other arguments presented) - for example, many of the responses that critical affs develop to topicality are very interesting.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for the past two years at various tournaments. I value clear communication, and persuasive delivery. Speed and debate jargon will make it harder for me to follow you. I also value respectful engagement during crossfire. Make sure you actually let your opponents answer the questions you ask, and don't be insulting or mean. I take notes, and I try to practice flowing, but appreciate when students focuse on a few important arguments rather than making lots of individual answers. This also means that when you reference arguments from earlier speeches you should not refer to them by the author's name, but rather by the claim/thesis of the argument - the author's name generally will not be on my paper and it won't really have any meaning on it's own. I generally place more value on impacts with a high likelihood rather than a high magnitude. The more implausible an argument is the less likely I am to be persuaded by it. Often the side with the clearer, more intuitive and better explained/defended story is the one I vote for in the end. At the end of the round, please make sure to clearly tell me why the arguments you think you're winning are more important than the arguments your opponents might win. If you don't clearly compare these impacts you leave it open for me to do, and you may not like the result. Thanks, and have a great tournament!

I am a parent judge. This is my 1st year of judging Public Forum. I value clear arguments and well structured cases. I prefer debater to be slower and clear in explaining their cases.

I was a policy debater at Bronx Science in the 1980s and currently run the upper school public forum debate team at Nightingale Bamford. I flow and can handle speed, as long as it is clear. I listen to crossfire, but do not flow it. If there is something important said in CF that you need to win, please apply it during your next speech. No new arguments in summary or final focus, please. Also, it makes me a little crazy when people call for a million cards, and/or when a team takes 10 minutes to find evidence. You can be on the internet now and everyone is working off computers--there is really no reason on earth not to be able to provide your evidence if called for.

Lastly, and most importantly, I like debaters to clearly explain their arguments, and to weigh them. In a perfect round, debaters would be assertive but polite, enjoy themselves, and make it easy for me to know how to vote by weighing in the back end of the round. Overviews are find and can help frame things if there is something you want to emphasize, etc. Mostly just be clear and imagine what you would like to RFD to say....then say that ;-) Good luck and know how important this activity is and how much respect we judges have for you all. Best of luck.

I am a parent judge, and I have judged for more than 3 years on the national circuit.

Preferences:

- Speak clearly at a conversational pace

- Have logical and well-explained arguments

- Avoid debate jargon

- Signpost clearly

- No Ks, Theory, etc.

- Be professional and civil

- Cross: I may not take notes but I pay attention

Background:

* Live-long engineer dealing with logic and deduction on a daily basis.

Amateur PF judge striving to take good notes and follow the flow. A few notes:

* Prefers acronyms explained when they first appear. As you apparently have done more research on the topic than I do. Both sides knowing the term doesn't necessarily mean I know the term as well.

* Be respectful and act professional. Use reasoning and logic to win the "public" in your public forum debate.

I am a parent judge with four years of experience in judging Public Forum. Never competed Public Forum or any other Forensic activities, but as a parent judge I always read some review articles about the topics, therefore I do have some background knowledge in things that you are talking about and enjoy watching the debate.

I prefer clear and not too fast speech, so I can catch up the words and meaning of your talk.

I use following criteria when I judge a round:

Were the arguments intelligent? Your response to the arguments

The discrediting to the opposition’s response

The debaters back up their assertions with logical thinking and evidence when needed

Fair in interpretation of the resolution and one another’s statements?

Who is advancing the most significant arguments in the round?

I don’t weight much on the speed of speech, believe less words with sound arguments are much better than too much words which have to be delivered with fast speech.

Don’t have preference on the format of Summary Speeches, and evaluate argument over style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, their arguments have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches. If a team is second speaking, I prefer that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech.

Don’t vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus.

Don't be rude. If you're funny make jokes. If you're not, just don't. I did the event, so I pretty much know what going on. Don't talk too fast and if you're responding to another Congressperson, bring up new points, don't just rehash.

I competed in debate through both at the high school and college levels. Since then, I have worked with a couple of debate teams, most recently with my two teens who compete. I have judged many Lincoln Douglas and PF debates (novice / JV and Varsity levels.) I was a policy debater in my competition days so, I do know how to flow and follow arguments.

I am like a vigorous clash of issues and I am not a fan of accusations from one side that the other has violated some unwritten technical rule. Please, debate the resolution, counter the opposition’s claims, and respond to attacks. I do like interesting analysis and interpretation of the resolution, but please have it make sense. I am not a fan of spreading and will stop flowing if you are speaking to fast to be understood. If I can’t flow the debate, I assume that neither can your opponent. I can accept “fast” but it must be understandable and at a rate I can flow.

I love to see debaters use cross-x in a manner to lead their opponents down a road, only to find a dead-end with an ambush ready for them. In cross, lead your opponents with intentional questions to direct them where you want them and make your points! Please keep up with current events. I am impressed when debaters understand the issues they are debating and they can relate to current world events. A debate plan must make common sense and most judges read news and keep current. Know your topic!

Lastly, be courteous and respect your opponents. The winner of the debate will be the side that has the most persuasive arguments for/against and makes the most sense.

I am a Parent Judge.

Please speak at an average speaking rate and speak clearly.

When you explain arguments and analysis to me, please do so in layman's terms and make the round as clear as you can.

Here's my story. I've been an attorney 35 years, and way back in the late 1970's/early 1980's I competed in high school (Morris Hills NJ) and college (Rutgers) and also did some high school coaching, in policy debate, speech and congress (they hadn't "invented" LD or PF debate back then!). I'm not a teacher and I don't keep track of trends in debate theory, but I know my way around a courtroom, so I know a few things about cross-examination and argumentation, and I still remember how to judge all these events. A couple of comments. In debate, if you want to speak fast, that's your call, but it has be clearly articulated; if I can't hear it clearly and understand it, I'm not writing it down. In speech events such as extemp and impromptu, it's not just what you say, but how you say it. Poise, articulation and presentation matter.

Hi! I'm a parent Judge from Wayland High School,

I've only judged at three debate tournaments before and I'm not very familiar with debate terminology.

Please go Slow so I can better understand what you are saying.

Hi

I Diana Sabzevari. I am a Traditional judge who have been judging for last 5 years at local tournaments. I've judged in National tournaments as well.

About me: I am a parent judge in LD, PF, and parli. My professional background is in IT.

Basics:

• Tell me why and on what grounds you’re winning -- this matters a lot
• Tell me how I should evaluate the round. Give me the standards
• ALWAYS make comparative claims about the other teams evidence & arguments (in relation to yours). Direct clash is important
• Speed is good, but clarity is far better. Be efficient with your speeches. If you can’t speak quickly without slurring, don’t speak quickly
• LD and Policy Specific -- Favorite strats to least favorite. Respect this order, but avoid if possible.
• Politics/Case
• Impact turning the whole case
• Topic specific T
• Politics/Process CP
• PIC with internal net benefit
• Ks
• Be nice. I will not give good speaks to people who act inappropriately in rounds or to their partners/team. Being offensive is not funny. I refuse to accept abuse in round.

General

Performance/Non-traditional: I default to traditional.

Speaks: 28 is average. I doubt you'll get a 30. Try not to talk into your paper/flows/laptop because I won't say "louder" unless it's really extreme and I might be missing arguments. Speak clearly and persuasively.

For the chain: blayneatbloomberglaw@gmail.com

Are you a K PF team? Consider striking me! I am probably not the judge for you. See below for details!

I judge for Union Catholic in New Jersey. I judge 20 or so rounds a year, mostly PF with some LD and Policy. I was a policy and parliamentary debater. I've been judging for around 20 years.

Event specific info follows below.

PF

I strongly prefer resolutional debate given the purpose and current state of PF. I won't require the other team to know clash debate, debate methodology, framework, or topicality. I have a strong preference for resolutional debate.

What does that mean for you?

Do you have a soft left case? That's fine! I'm looking a strong link to the resolution, then an impact. I can work with any impact. Structural inequality, structural violence, racism, sexism, ableism -- these are all great things to talk about.

Are you're running a K-alt or a progressive case? Those are tougher. I will not know your literature. Please slow down and simplify. Use ordinary language. Be clear about the alt/role of the ballot. If your advocacy is "resolutional debate reinforces existing power structures (and that's bad!), rejecting the resolution is activism, activism is a better methodology for change", say that. Then, in your framing, explain as directly as possible how the ballot constitutes an act of activism.

Speed is fine, but please don't spread. What's too fast? If you adjust your breathing to accommodate your speed, that's too fast.

If you're familiar with truth v. tech, I'm in the middle. I vote off the flow, but I don't have to vote for "bad" arguments (i.e., arguments lacking warrants, evidence, analysis, and/or impacts) even if dropped. Presentation matters. Line-by-line is great, but by the end of the round, I need a clear sense of your position and why it wins.

Use the flow to structure speeches. Let me where you're at on the flow, provide helpful labels for your arguments, tell me when you're cross-applying. If you're kicking an argument, it helps if you tell me.

I will not vote on disclosure theory absent a mutual agreement. If both teams consent to disclosing prior to the round or to flashing files prior to the round, then, during the round, one team breaks the deal, i'll listen to theory.

Nothing is sticky. 1st speech = case, 2nd speech = case, 3rd speech = respond to 2nd speech, no need to extend case. 4th speech = defend your case, attack other side; anything not extended in this speech is dropped.

In rebuttals, please collapse. Make choices; don't go for everything. Focus on your best offense and defense.

You can lose arguments and win the around. Don't be afraid of conceding, just mitigate or outweigh. If you write an honest ballot for me, you are more likely to get a favorable decision and high speaks.

In crossfire, be a pro. Share the time. Ask brief questions, give brief answers. Be friendly, be helpful. I dislike leading questions in cross. Make arguments in your speech, ask about them in cross. If your opponent's answer is "I'm sure you'll tell me," you've asked a bad question.

Last thing: don't run "as many as 900 million people could fall back into poverty in the event of an economic shock like the Great Recession," unless you have a card showing that 900 million people fell into poverty between March 2020 and today.

Policy

Don't spread. I can't keep up. If you want the ballot to address your arguments & strategy, slow down.

I prefer policy arguments to critical arguments, substantive arguments to theory, and real world impacts to terminal impacts, but argue what you want.

On Ks, I won't know your literature. Start simple. Tell me your thesis, make your alt clear, and build up from there. If you dive right into the evidence, I will be lost. I am more likely to vote for your K if I understand what your alt means in the real world. Good alts specify an action that's being taken, who is taking the action, and when they take that action. If you provide examples, that's very helpful.

For T, I default to reasonability.

Collapse in rebuttals, don't go for everything. I prefer depth to breadth.

I know this sounds very conservative, but it's not that bad. These are preferences not requirements. My comfort zone is traditional policy, but I'm up for whatever. I've voted for Ks, K affs, and CP theory. If you go this route, you'll just need to invest more time in explaining how it works. It'll be fine.

LD

For circuit LD, I’m a lay judge.

You could do worse. My background is policy. I flow, I’ll listen, and I’m open-minded. Brave tournament directors put me in LD/PF bid rounds. Plus, I enjoy debate. I want to buy your argument.

Even so, let me emphasize: I AM A LAY JUDGE.

We all want an awesome round.

However, I’ll be frustrated if I don’t understand what’s going on. You’ll be frustrated if you get a weird decision.

That’s definitely not awesome.

Keys to getting a good ballot:

* Slow down. If you spread, I will get lost.

* Talk about the resolution.

* Go easy on theory. I’m the wrong judge for RVIs. I’m okay for T. There are better judges for condo/fiat/counterplan theory, but I can get through it.

* Use plain language. I will not know your lit or your jargon. Walk me through it.

* Clash. You don’t need evidence. Understand the arguments. Put some thoughtful analytics on the flow.

* Talk about details. Is your framework utilitarianism? Tell me what’s good. Tell me how to figure out whether it really is for the greatest number. Is your T intep reasonability? Give me a way to measure reasonableness. Is your theory impact fairness? What is fairness? How is it measured?

And last of all, in LD, I prefer to truth-test the resolution. Aff talks about why the res is true. Neg talks about why it isn’t. Framework matters some, case impacts don’t really matter, and the question at the end of the round is: who did the better job of proving the truth or non-truth of the resolution?

That said, you give me a plan, I turn into a traditional policymaker policy judge.

If you want me to use a different standard, give it a shot. To do so, I need rules for applying your standard.

I would like you to be courteous to each other. The team with the better constructed argument and clearer communication will be the winner. Please use a moderate speed to deliver your arguments. Furthermore, please use discretion when calling for cards and please have cards ready upon request. Excessive card calling without a clear purpose will be noted negatively against you.

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.

I am a parent judge and I appreciate steady paced speech. DO NOT SPREAD. I want you to use evidence and I think that it is necessary within a round but DO NOT USE a card if you can not explain the logic of the argument behind it. I have judged at one tournament on the national circuit before and at one local tournament. Try have fun!

I'm a first year out. I debated Public Forum for three years on the national circuit for Campbell Hall in Los Angeles. I am now a freshman at Brown University and I do APDA.

This is mostly preferences. At the end of the day, I will probably adapt to you.

Speed: I can understand and flow pretty much anything up to tier one policy spreading. Just be clear and I'll be fine. However, if you're going to really spread, you should probably either give your opponents your case/speech doc and/or ask them if they are okay with speed. Also please signpost.

Progressive debate: I will vote on theory and Ks if they are structured and well warranted. If you're going to run non-shell theory it should be pretty strong. I think that progressive debate is interesting and I will appreciate it if you bring up an issue that makes the debate more meaningful. I don't really like disclosure theory, but I suppose I will vote for it if it's dropped.

Second rebuttal: I don't require case defense in second rebuttal, but you should probably respond to turns, as that is offense.

Summary and final focus: Any offense should be in both, but first summary does not have to extend defense if it was unresponded to in second rebuttal. If a turn isn't in summary, however, I will just consider it defense. Please collapse. I would recommend one contention/subpoint (basically one on-case impact) and 1-2 turns. I would prefer line-by-line to big picture. However, I expect you to extend warrants and impacts in BOTH these speeches. I need the whole argument in order to vote for it.

Weighing: You MUST weigh. Even if you have just a tiny bit of offense left, if you weigh, and tell me why that tiny bit of offense matters more than all of your opponent's, and your opponent does not weigh, I will vote for you. If you have the same impacts, please weigh on strength of link. Weighing should start in summary so you can compare weighing mechanisms, but I don't consider weighing in FF a new argument.

Prep time: Unless tournament rules directly contradict, TOC rules apply. You can prep while your opponent is looking for evidence to encourage quick access to evidence. In general, I'm not too strict about prep time. Don't go way over, but I encourage you to call for evidence, and I think strict adherence to prep time discourages that.

Evidence: I will call for it if you tell me to, even if I think it is insignificant for my decision. I want to crack down on evidence abuse, but the debaters have to be the ones to check each other. So, if you see some really abusive evidence and your opponents don't drop it, tell me to call for it. If it is genuinely abusive, I will vote them down. If evidence is highly disputed within round and it makes it hard to fully understand what is going on, someone please just read it aloud in cross-ex so I understand what y'all are talking about.

Speaker points: I will be pretty generous as long as you don't say anything offensive. Have fun, speak clearly, be strategic, and have a well organized speech, and I will give you pretty high speaks. Feel free to make jokes, be sassy, etc.. Make the round fun to judge. +1 speaker point for salt and vinegar kettle chips. +1 speaker point if you use grand cx for something useful like resolving a conspiracy theory.

Overviews: I love a weighing overview. The only thing I don't like is offensive overviews which are basically another contention (if it is theory or a turn on the whole case, fine). If it is in first rebuttal, I could vote for it, but certainly not second.

Frameworks: Only read one if it is a. not util/cost-benefit analysis and b. well warranted. For example, do not read a US interests first framework and never tell me why the resolution actually implies it or give me a philosophical backing for it. If you win your framework, I will only consider arguments that fit under that framework. I will default util if no framework is read. This means I assume no framework = util framework, so "they don't provide an alternate framework" is not a good defense.

Fiat: I give the AFF fiat only in that the resolution is passed. This means I don't really buy politics DAs, you can't assume the government is now composed of different people/ideologies, and the AFF cannot have detailed plans of how the policy will be implemented unless they have evidence that this is the most likely manifestation of the resolution.

General stuff:

- Dropped arguments are conceded. If your opponents say the sky is green and you don't respond to it in the appropriate speech, for the sake of the debate, the sky is green. Basically tech>truth.

- I am unlikely to do this, but if I truly believe there is no offense left on either side, I will default to the first speaking team, since I believe they are at a disadvantage.

- Only give me an off-time roadmap if you're doing something unusual. If you have an overview, please tell me where to flow it.

- I don't mind paraphrased evidence as long as it actually says what you're saying it says.

- I will disclose unless someone will yell at me for doing so.

i did LD for montville township from 2014-2018. i was not a super successful debater and its been over 4  years since i last debated. take that as you will

anything is okay but the more niche or complex something is, the clearer ill probably need you to explain it to me. im somewhat familiar with the common theory / k / philosophy arguments

regardless, i will evaluate arguments that have a clear claim and implication for the round, even if i don't completely understand it. however, if your opponent claims there's no clear warrant to something and you still don't explain it adequately then i probably wont be able to vote on it.

i can probably handle somewhere in the ballpark of 50% of the average circuit debater's top speed, although im not entirely sure because it's been a while since i last judged.

if some evaluation technique is not argued for but necessary for me to evaluate the round (mostly weighing but also some theory issues), im just going to do whatever makes the most sense to me to do in that particular situation.

I am a parent lay judge and have been judging for the past few years.
This means try to keep the debate at a conversational speed.

I have a business and marketing background.

Whilst I will do my best to take notes, I do appreciate sound logic and constructive evidence.
It would be beneficial for you to hash out your link chain and narrative throughout the round.

Please engage with what your opponents say in their speeches and not just ignore it.

Above all, please make the debate an inclusive space and be respectful to your fellow debaters.
Remember to have fun!

Add me to the email chain: htang8717@yahoo.com

I have been a coach for over 10 years , but my team is student-led and you can consider me lay. (This was written by my students to prevent judge screws-you can thank them later.) I appreciate a more personal form of debate when it comes to judging.

Lots of eye contact with the judge (even during crossfire) and always address me as “judge” and your opponents as “my opponent (s)“ during speeches. Stand for all speeches and crosses, except grand. I will be highly inclined to vote for the other side if you do not address your opponents contentions and extend and show the impacts of your own.

Do not waste time looking for your cards. Have your cards ready and make sure that the evidence being cited is easy for your opponents to find.

During interactions with your opponents, I will dock your speaks and drop you if you act like a bully. Please, have an appropriate amount of physical desk space between you and your opponent.

When speaking, I appreciate a clear emphasis on what is important. I’ll be timing you, but please keep time for yourself.

I do not have any particular preferences in judging Public Forum Debate. I ask that all students keep their own time both for speeches and prep time

Updates for Kentucky:

I have never used this online system so forgive me if I don't know what's going on with the technology.

If there's something wrong in terms of technology I'll be very lenient so don't worry about that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I'm judging you in LD, sorry in advance, I'm a PFer. With that being said, I just want to be entertained, so if you have the most fun running K's, theory, or tricks do so, I'll vote off anything if it's explained properly. If you take "I'll vote off anything" as me being clueless, you're probably right. Otherwise, I have nothing else to say to you but to have a good and clean debate.

Now into PF land (I'm a first-year out, 1 year of policy and 3 of PF in high school):

The crux of what I said above still holds true; I want to have fun and I want you to have fun too.

Some overarching things

- Please time everything yourself, I'll try to time everything, but sometimes I forget to press the button and am pretty lackadaisical on that front as a whole

- Don't speak to your partner during their speech or crossfire. They already have so much going on, another voice is just distracting and tends to produce worse results. Even if they're forgetting something important, I think it's better to let your partner be self-sufficient so they can learn for later debates.

- While eye contact is nice, don't bore holes into my skull. I'm probably too busy flowing or writing comments to notice anyways

Onto more speech by speech things

CASE:

- Clear link stories and quantified impacts make me a happy camper.

- I enjoy unique arguments, but I know that it's harder writing up really obscure cases, so don't worry about running stock arguments.

- Speak clearly. I can handle any speed below legitimate spreading so don't worry too much about that. If I can't understand you, I'll audibly say something once. If you don't heed that, then it's on you.

Rebuttal:

-SIGNPOST! I can generally figure out where you are when you speak, but I don't want to have to do that work.

- As much as I find card dumping hilarious, I don't think it's particularly effective so please don't just string off a hundred cards in a row.

- I like there to be some weighing in Rebuttal, even if it is just 15 seconds at the end of the speech.

- Rebuttal is for Rebutting. If you are just reiterating your case for no purpose other than reiterating your case, kudos to you for using your time, but it's really not necessary. This is not to say don't defend your case in the second rebuttal, but if you're not actually engaging in with the arguments your opponents have put down I don't know what you're doing.

Summary:

- Some people like to treat this as a second rebuttal, but it really should be boiling down the round to a few key issues.

- EXTEND YOUR OFFENSE! I don't know how you plan to win a round without offense, but if it's not mentioned in summary, I'm not letting it through to Final Focus.

- Don't give me a one-off sentence with just a claim. Try to do some explanation behind the argument.

- WEIGH! Just do it.

Final Focus:

- OFFENSE! Tell me why you are winning the round. Make it easy for me to write the RFD in your favor.

- WEIGH!

Some other things:

(Copied from Aadharsh Pannirselvam)

In general, don't lose sight of the fact that debate is a game, and that novice year(s) are supposed to be about learning first, fun second, and W's third.

(Now my own words)

I love humor. Debate is stuffy enough as it is, making me laugh will reflect well on your speaker points. I love meme cases, but if you want to run one, make sure your opponents are on board, debate is still supposed to be an educational activity and I don't want to see one team being deprived of that educational experience.

I'm known to inflate speaker points. If you got below a 28.5 then something really didn't go well.

If you want to run policy-esque K's or other unorthodox arguments, then I'm probably your best judge to do that on. However, if you are running theory or a K, then again, I would want you to at least warn your opponents as to what you are planning to do. I will legitimately vote off of anything, but that being said, you need to clearly explain things no matter what argument you try to extend.

Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth

^Make of this what you will

Bonus speaks for accurate and sensical application of chi-squared analysis.

If both teams want me to simulate a non-flow judge for whatever reason I can do that.

I plead the fifth

conwayxu93@gmail.com

I competed for four years in PF in high school across circuits, TOC, NSDAs, etc.

Will vote off what I am told to weigh/how to weigh it during the summary through FF. Make sure the summary is thorough and more than just dropping taglines as "extensions"!

Can flow fairly quickly but I can't weigh something if I missed it.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round!

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.