I have done Public Forum Debate for 4 years and am familiar with the format. I will primarily be judging the round based on the technical aspects, focusing on what pieces of offense are left by the end of the round by the teams and then weighing these arguments based on a framework to determine my vote. Narratives and rhetoric will affect the frameworks I choose to adopt in my judgment of the round. I will not consider new arguments and evidence developed during and after 2nd summary unless they are clearly interacting with previous statements made.

Hi debaters,

I have three years of judging experience and have been very active in the speech and debate circuit this year. If I am judging you in public forum, please don't speak very quickly- I won't get everything you say if you spread. I am a flow judge and use it when making decisions in PF. Please don't speak over your opponents in crossfire in a rude or unreasonable way. When asking a question, please give your opponent an opportunity to answer.

During the debate, you should make your main arguments clear, and make it clear what you want me to vote off of. Weigh in summary and final focus, and if you want something to be a voting issue, put it in both summary and final focus. I am a fan of clear and smart frameworks.

Thank you and good luck! Enjoy the tournament.

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

I debated PF throughout high school. Weighing is cool. Everything in FF must be in summary. I'll call for cards if you ask me to. Be nice!! Call me master, and I'll bump your speaks.

Every donut you bring me is an extra bonus point

Hi there! My name is Andrew, and I'm a current college senior. While in high school, I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for Regis, but I haven't continued with debate since then (besides judging to help out my school when needed).

When I debated, my partner and I were considered staunchly "traditional": We argued the resolution as it was written, spoke slowly, and engaged with our opponents' arguments directly. That's definitely the style of debate I prefer — that said, I understand that that's not necessarily the trajectory of the activity these days, and my experience in LD means I'll probably understand whatever you throw my direction. If you have any more specific questions, just ask me before the round!

*cma85@case.edu for speech doc*

About Me

I debated for 4 years at Poly Prep and was relatively successful on the national circuit.

I now coach PF for Edgemont Jr/Sr HS in New York.

TL;DR

You know how you debate in front of a classic PF flow judge? Do that. (Weighing, Summary and final focus extensions, signposting, warrants etc.)

That said there are a few weird things about me.

0. I mostly decide debates on the link level. Links generate offense without impacts, impacts generate no offense without links. Teams that tell a compelling link story and clearly access their impact are incredibly likely to win my ballot. Extend an impact without a sufficient link at your own peril.

1. Don't run plans or advocacies unless you prove a large enough probability of the plan occuring to not make it not a plan but an advantage. (Read the Advocacies/Plans/Fiat section below).

2. Theory is important and cool, but only run it if it is justified.

3. Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not.

4. I am not tab. My threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. This can include incredibly dumb totally ridiculous impacts, link chains that make my head spin, or arguments that are straight up offensive.

5. I HATE THE TERM OFF TIME-ROADMAP. Saying that term lowers your speaks by .5 for every time you say it, just give the roadmap.

6. You should probably read dates. I don't think it justifies drop the debater but I think it justifies drop the arg/card.

7. I don't like independent offense in rebuttal, especially 2nd rebuttal. Case Turns/Prereqs/Weighing/Terminal Defense are fine, but new contention style offense is some real cheese. Speak faster and read it as a new contention in case as opposed to waiting until rebuttal to dump it on an unsuspecting opponent.

Long Version

• Don’t extend through ink. If a team has made responses whether offensive or defensive they must be addressed if you want to go for the argument. NB: you should respond to ALL offensive responses put on your case regardless if you want to go for the argument.
• Collapse. Evaluating a hundred different arguments at the end of the round is frustrating and annoying, please boil it down to 1-4 points.
• Speech cohesion. All your speeches should resemble the others. I should be able to reasonably expect what is coming in the next speech from the previous speech. This is incredibly important especially in summary and final focus. It is so important in fact that I will not evaluate things that are not said in both the summary and final focus.
• Weighing. This is the key to my ballot. Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. If one team does this and the other team doesn’t 99/100 times I will vote for the team that did. The best teams will give me an overarching weighing mechanism and will tell me why their weighing mechanism is better than their opponents. NB: The earlier in the round this appears the better off you will be.
• Warrants. An argument without a warrant will not be evaluated. Even if a professor from MIT conducts the best study ever, you need to be able to explain logically why that study is true, without just reverting to “Because Dr. Blah Blah Blah said so.”
• Analysis vs. Evidence. Your speeches should have a reasonable balance of both evidence and analysis. Great logic is just as important as great evidence. Don’t just spew evidence or weak analysis at me and expect me to buy it. Tell me why the evidence applies and why your logic takes out an argument.
• Framework. I will default to a utilitarian calculus unless told to do otherwise. Please be prepared to warrant why the other framework should be used within the round.
• Turns. If you want me to vote off of a turn, I should hear about it in both the summary and final focus. I will not extend a turn as a reason to vote for you. (Unextended turns still count as ink, just not offense)
• Speed. Any speed you speak at should be fine as long as you are clear. Don't speak faster than this rebuttal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg83oD0s3NU&feature=youtu.be&t=1253
• Advocacies/Plans/Fiat. I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine. The aff is allowed to say that the action done in the resolution is passed through congress or whatever governing body we are discussing. That is it. This means that you cannot fiat out of political conditions (i.e. CUTGO, elite influence, etc.) or say that the resolution means we will increase infrastructure spending by building 20th century community learning facilities in the middle of Utah. If you want to access plans and still win my ballot, you must prove a rock solid probability of the advocacy occurring in the real world.. (Note the following is just a guideline, other forms of proving the following are ok as long as they actually successfully prove what they say will occur.) In an ideal world that means 3 things. First, you prove that there is a growing need for such action (i.e. If you want to run that we should build infrastructure in the form of low-income housing, you need to prove that we actually need more houses.). Second, you prove that the plan is politically likely (Bipartisan support doesn't mean anything, I want a bill on the house floor). Finally, you need to prove some sort of historical precedent for your action. If you are missing the first burden and it's pointed out, I will not by the argument on face. A lack in either of the latter 2 can be made up by strengthening the other. Of course, you can get around ALL of this by not reading any advocacies and just talking about things that are fundamentally inherent to the resolution.
• Squirrley Arguments. To a point being squirrely is ok, often times very good. I will never drop an argument on face but as an argument gets more extravagant my threshold for responses goes down. i.e. if on reparations you read an argument that reparations commodify the suffering of African Americans, you are a-ok. If you read an argument that says that The USFG should not take any action regarding African Americans because the people in the USFG are all secretly lizard people, the other team needs to do very little work for me to not evaluate it. A simple "WTF is this contention?" might suffice in rebuttal. NB: You will be able to tell if I think an argument is stupid.
• Defense Extensions. Some defense needs to be extended in both summary and final focus, such as a rebuttal overview that takes out an entire case. Pieces of defense such as uniqueness responses that are never responded to in summary may be extended from rebuttal to final focus to take out an argument that your opponents are collapsing on. NB: I am less likely to buy a terminally defensive extension from rebuttal to final focus if you are speaking second because I believe that it is the first speaker's job to do that in second summary and your opponent does not have an extra speech to address it.
• Signposting/Roadmaps. Signposting is necessary, roadmaps are nice. Just tell me what issues you are going to go over and when.
• Theory. Theory is the best way to check abuse in debate and is necessary to make sure unfair strategies are not tolerated. As a result of this I am a huge fan of theory in PF rounds but am not a fan of in using it as a way to just garner a cheap win off of a less experienced opponent. To avoid this, make sure there is a crystal clear violation that is explicitly checked for. It does not need to be presented as the classic "A is the interpretation, B is the violation, etc." but it does need to be clearly labeled as a shell. If theory is read in a round and there is a clear violation, it is where I will vote.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points on both how fluid and convincing you are and how well you do on the flow. I will only give 30s to debaters that do both effectively. If you get below a 26 you probably did something unethical or offensive.

Evidence

I may call for evidence in a few situations.

• One team tells me to.
• I can not make a decision within the round without evaluating a piece of evidence.
• I notice there is an inconsistency in how the evidence is used throughout the course of the debate and it is relevant to my decision. i.e. A piece of evidence changes from a card that identifies a problem to a magical catch-all solvency card.
• I have good reason to believe you miscut a card.

RFDs

I encourage teams to ask questions about my RFD after the round and for teams to come and find me after the round is over for extra feedback. As long as you are courteous and respectful I will be happy to discuss the round with you.

Former debater in high school. Current Speech Language Patholgist. I’ll be looking for clear arguments with points listed and enunciation. I don’t want to hear you speak 4x the speed of a human. Don't go over time.

I'm a parent judge in my first year of judging

Hey everyone.

I'm a third year out originally from Tampa, Florida. I debated in PF for 4 years at Newsome HS as the A in Newsome EA, currently studying at Boston College.

- I do not need defense in first summary, but if you deem its relevant I'll flow it

- I'm pretty good with speed and was always a debater that talked fast, so as long as I don't yell "Clear!" then you're fine

- Please be nice in cross, I already think that CX is annoying in it's very nature, you will win exactly 0 brownie points with me as a judge if you intentionally dominate or demean your opponent at any time

- If you say something outright offensive you're definitely not going to win

- Collapse and weigh arguments starting in Summary. This means that by the summary speeches I should have a clear idea of exactly what you want me voting on and WHY I should do in comparison to the one's your opponent is ahead on.

- I will vote on theory or Ks if they are thoroughly explained and warranted. However, I believe that both of these should be used as a check back on either an egregious abuse instance in the round or within the resolution itself. Senseless use of theory or a K just to waste time or to limit your opponent's ability to debate will result in less speaker points and depending on how I see it in the round might even cost you the win. I won't buy disclosure theory.

- Lastly, and arguably most importantly to win my ballot, be very concise and clear in the Final Focus, I always find voting off of arguments way more compelling if you only extend the relevant ones and you tell me the story of how you win them and how they're the most important thing in the entire world to me.

If you have any questions at all feel free to either email me at Nick.Arozarena@gmail.com, or ask me before the round. See ya soon!

Background:

I debated PF for four years at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts. I'm currently a sophomore at Georgetown University and I've coached for a variety of camps and schools over the past couple of years. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge, but definitely feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. This also means full extension of arguments (ie warrant and impact extension) in both speeches.

- Weighing. Make sure it's comparative, not just general reasons your argument matters. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I think the best teams go deeper with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Weighing should start as early in the round as possible.

- Frontlining in the second rebuttal. I don't think you need to do a full 2-2 split in the second rebuttal but you are obligated to respond to any new offense brought up in the first rebuttal. I definitely think it is strategic to frontline the argument you are going for.

- Extensions of defense. Every back-half speech is obligated to respond to your opponents' case and with a three-minute summary, this is certainly doable.

- Jokes. Making me laugh gives you a nice bump in speaks, just don't try to be funny if you're not.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I can handle some speed but I don't write too fast and have always preferred slower debate. Along the same lines, I have never been a fan of really blippy rebuttals where you read a lot of random cards.

- New offense in the second rebuttal. I am not a fan of new offense being read in rebuttal as an overview (weighing overviews are nice though). I think turns are great, but if you're speaking second in the round, I require that you weigh any turns that you read. This is specifically to encourage you to not read a bunch of blippy turns in second rebuttal. I think it is strategic for the first rebuttal to weigh their turns as well, but I don't require it.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ie read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). If you think something abusive happens, call it out. In general though, I don't have a lot of experience with critical argumentation and those types of debates will probably naturally end up with you getting a) a worse decision and b) less educational value from me as a judge.

- Tabletotes. They honestly just look silly and are a pretty weird flex.

I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and now at Waring School since 2005. I have coached national champions in both policy debate and public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

I am a senior at Harvard, so I only judge PF during this tournament each year. In high school, I competed in Congressional debate and speech. I do my best to follow the standard tournament PF rules.

I keep a flow during debate, and I like to see strong rebuttal when I'm considering who won on a certain topic. I balance strength, logic, and evidence of your constructive arguments with thoughtful, empirical, and/or logical responses to the other team's arguments. I like to see evidence used to back up your points; however, usually both sides are going to have evidence for their case, so I also like to see you use logical reasoning to tell me why I should favor your claims and supporting evidence over your opponent!

Overall, I like to see the balance of presenting your own arguments in an organized, efficient way, while also attacking the points of the other team. Weighing your arguments in summary and final focus is helpful for me when making my decision about what to consider; since I have a limited judging background, I'm not extremely familiar with the rules about what speeches you can/can't make new arguments in, but it's helpful for me to organize my thoughts if the last speeches are truly a focus of what points you won on and why you won, and why I should believe that you won those points.

I also like to see a productive cross examination with clash on the main points of contention. I don't like to see a lot of arguing back-and-forth about the minutiae of a point, especially if it's taking up a lot of time. I also like to see respect! I don't like to see condescending or disrespectful attitudes toward the other team. Let your arguments speak for themselves. No spreading. If you can speak quickly and I can still understand you and flow, that's fine. If you're speaking so quickly that I can't understand you, then I can't use any of the information you're giving me.

Judging PF is fun for me, because I remember being in your shoes. I love seeing the talent that you guys bring to this meet! Have fun, and good luck!

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

How I Judge

I am receptive to most kinds of arguments, but this post captures my judging philosophy well: http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.in/2012/11/what-does-good-judge-believe.html. tl;dr: I like hearing novel and interesting arguments, but I have "a defeasible presumption in favour of a moderate liberal position on most ethical issues... By "defeasible", I mean that the presumption could in principle be overcome by a persuasive argument, [and if so, I will listen to such] arguments with an open mind." I love weighing, and I don't think your argument being dropped (however coldly so) constitutes a winning weight.

My speaks reflect the quality of warranting and impacting-weighing. But, just saying "scope, clarity, and probability" isn't enough. Spend time on weighing and do interesting weighing on actor or scope or principle or whatever else. I don't care for rhetoric or style.

I also hold the belief that human extinction is unlikely.

Warranting vs Evidence

I always prefer better-explained mechanisms and logical warrants over evidence. I care about evidence only when a claim isn't intuitive to believe just based on warrants. Do use evidence to make counter-intuitive warrants/claims stronger but don't use it when it doesn't contribute to the believability or power of your logic.

Choose your evidence well: suss sources are just that—suss.

Engagement

Line-by-line is good but so is contention by contention; I'm quite friendly to broader responses as long as they're good responses. I don't mind if you're not too exact on the flow, will assemble clashes myself if I have to, and am happy to cross-apply warrants/weights.

Theory

I do not look favourably on most Ks. I will listen to theory but I'll only care if it was relevant to the round itself and the framing/conceptualization of it.

Speed

Don't spread but speed is alright.

+1 Speaks

If you pronounce my full name (Hemanth Bharatha Chakravarthy) right in the first try, I'll bump you up by 1 point. Alternatively, if you cite evidence about something that happened in the Tamil community in India, I'll give you +1.

Update 10/1/2020

When I first started five years ago, most local tournaments were doing paper ballots. I can’t believe speech and debate was the first activity that went entirely online since the TOC before the pandemic! It’s a different new world...

I have already encountered various tech issues in the rounds I’ve judged thus far. Please be prepared with multiple devices - a phone and a computer and perhaps even one more back up. We will work it through together!

Good luck!

Update 11/25/2018

I have judged extensively in both LD and PF in the past year, and have grown to dislike the lack of civility in some rounds. Remember - speech and debate is about having fun! If you are the only person in the room having run, then you just lost a round.

Please note the following:

1. Fair warning - If you use language that doesn't belong to the classroom, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.

2. If you ask a question in rebuttal, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.

3. LD - No spreading. Debate, in any form, is about making a point. To me, that point has to be made with common sense. Please do not try to convince me you are smarter than everybody in the room by speaking too fast. If a smarter-than-average person cannot get your point, you lost the round. Period. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge. You will get a 25. If you have two "tech" judges and me in the elimination rounds, and if you CHOOSE to spread "strategically", you will be dropped. Again, it wouldn't be a debate if a judge cannot understand you.

Background

I am an Assistant Principal at Princeton High School. I was Head Coach of the PHS Speech and Debate Team in the past five years.

Preferences

I can follow just about all fast speech by now. However, I have a strong preference for convincing arguments over speed or other stylistic elements of debates; I prefer strength and confidence over aggression without substance. I want to clear warrant to your claim, clear impacts and clear weighing. Simply put, convince me with common sense and logical reasoning.

Don't forget - this is about you having fun!

Good luck!

Hi, my name is Romi Biswas. I am a parent Judge and I have some experience judging in tournaments.

Preferences:

-Don't spread during your speeches. I probably won't catch what you are saying and will miss important points that you bring up.

-Please don't make any weird hand gestures for it sometimes makes me confused and annoyed.

-Please be polite and don't be overly aggressive, especially during cross x.

-Don't use that much debate jargon during your speeches. Also, don't bother using theory for I won't vote off of it unless the situation you present is serious. In that case, please explain your theory.

-I won't flow cross unless you bring it up in one of the speeches that you make.

Harvard '19

UCLA Law '24

Coaching for Harker at Berkeley 2024

SLOW DOWN AND CLEARLY ENUNCIATE -- I WILL NOT FOLLOW SPEEC DOCS DURING SPEECHES. I CAN'T HEAR GOOD AND I WILL ONLY TELL YOU TO SLOW DOWN TWICE, AFTERWARDS UR ON UR OWN.

TLDR: I am personally more familiar answering the K than reading it. 2NR should tell me if they want me to judge kick, 2AR should tell me if they don't want me to. I did policy debate for eight years and coached it for longer. I have judged LD only a few times -- bear that in mind if you are going to go for some niche LD theory argument.

Online Debate: Plsss get affirmative visual or verbal confirmation from me and your two opponents that they are ready before speaking. I will pause time if there's a tech issue in a speech or CX. Be extra mindful of not interrupting too much during CX.

Debater Comfort and Safety: If anyone in the room is making you feel uncomfortable during, before, or after the debate please let me know and we can figure out together how to proceed. I feel zero qualms kicking out spectators who make students feel uncomfortable or speaking to the appropriate coaches/tab about a safety issue in round. If your opponents ask for accommodations, please honor them. Debate is adversarial but I believe it is still important to be somewhat kind; there is a thin line between "sassy and competitive" (good, fun) and "mean-spirited and cruel" (bad, not fun). We are likely complete strangers, so be mindful of your power and how you may come accross, especially when debating younger students. No explicit threats of violence towards individuals in the room or at the tournament. I'm just trying to judge a debate round, don't put me or your opponents in a weird position, please.

End of Round Speeches: I will default to good evidence comparison in speeches, and will only call for cards to verify your analysis. Forgoing terminal impact defense is less important if you have other defense, such as internal link defense or link defense etc.

Framework You need to have external offense and to extend case defense or answer aff solvency to win this argument in front of me. I judge this like a DA/case debate, which means both the aff and neg team need to compare impact calculus and solvency mechanisms. I do not feel strongly about any set of framework impacts so long as they are well explained. For the aff: I was on the neg side of framework debates more often than not as a debater, so I have thought more about the neg's impacts than your 1AC's most likely. This means you need to do more judge-direction in your speeches. The aff has to clearly explain the 1AC impact and/or offense against framework, why its bigger than the neg's offense, and if relevant, why TVA/SSD cannot solve it.

Ks: Buzzwords do not amount to a persuasive argument. Effectively using the language of your authors is different from saying buzzwords and hoping they do all the explanation. Purposefully confusing the other team isn't an effective strategy if you don't eventually explain it clearly to me. Links and root cause arguments should be clearly articulated, delineated, and contextualized to the affirmative's evidence, language, or plan. Explain what your framework interpretation means for how I decide the debate. I really dislike negative blocks that completely disregard the 2AC order and don't do any line-by-line, unless that style is explicitly related to your arguments (but im still probably not the best for that). I like when aff offense is about the plan text and aff advantages. Reps Ks: I don't feel like perf-con is a deal-breaker BUT you have to do way more work to distinguish the neg's rhetoric from the aff's if you do this and the perm is very winnable.

DAs The politics DA has been bad lately. Maybe you will come up with a smart version of it and I will like it, or maybe your opponent will be really bad at answering, but I will not just assume bad politics cards are better than they actually are just because the debate community really likes the politics DA. Many politics DAs can be defeated by smart analytics and evidence comparison. Intrinsicness/perm on politics doesn't do much for me.

Theory/T I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other about the abusiveness of the states cp, XO, courts CP. I think conditionality is probably good, if you go for conditionality bad in the 2AR and execute well I will understand. The executing team should do a good job explaining why I should reject the argument and not the team, and provide a clear counter interpretation. I am more than happy to vote for theory. I'm more aff leaning on Process/Consult CP theory, but this still requires good affirmative execution. Do impact calculus.

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.

I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. (If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it). I like to hear authors' credentials and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round (not just shells/blocks), so explain to me how you actually interact with the opposing side or I will get frustrated as judge. Weigh impacts and pull them through framework; I overwhelmingly vote on offense that supports framework. Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater and interper from a traditional circuit (competed in high school and college) and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, and speech events across multiple circuits for years and judge all events. Please avoid confusing traditional with lay, as I'm fine with debate jargon, etc. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

About me: I'm Mr. Bravim (pronounced brah-veem). 25 yrs. in speech & debate. Competed, judged, and coached all over (e.g. FL, D.C., Korea, China, Uganda).

Email: bravim@cghsfl.org

* PF Prefs

Overview: I remember the reasons PF was introduced as an event in 2002. I believe the spirit of PF necessitates a less technical, but ultimately more persuasive debate activity than policy or circuit LD. The idea that hyper-technical arguments would be advanced knowing the opponents will have problems even understanding what the argument is about is abhorrent to me. This ultimately lacks both in educational value and fairness. That said, I understand any event will evolve over 22 years and there are going to be different ways to gain in round advantage. I think running Ks, theory, and spreading should not be the norm in Public Forum. I think topical arguments with really good warrants and evidence are the best path for PF debaters. I think the round should be educational and accessible for teams, judges, and any observer who wishes to spectate the round. The notion that the only "good" debate is nat circuit-oriented is not only arrogant, but also wrong. I've witnessed 1,000+ debate rounds and seen poor argumentation all over the place.

I favor a lot of clash, well-developed links analysis, and an aggressive style of debate. Indicting evidence with quality arguments on why it matters in the context of the round impresses me. I enjoy pointed crossfire and will flow concessions and hold teams to them. Warrant everything. DO NOT DROP WARRANTS in your extensions. In PF, remind me of the big picture from summary onward.

Keep a consistent link story on your offense. If you have a particular lens (framework, observation, etc.) in which I should view the resolution, make sure it is well-warranted and extend throughout the round. I like clear framing mechanisms. I prefer a smaller # of voters (1 - 3) to many poorly-explained voters in FF. Weigh or risk judge intervention (I don't want to do it). You can't win on the flow if you don't tell me why the arguments matter by the end of the round.

On Speed: Moderate, occasional, and strategic use of speed in PF is OK if the other team + allthe judges can follow you. Never sacrifice clarity for speed. Don't bully your opponent with speed. That is not why PF was created. The vast majority of your speech should be understood by an ordinary person with no background in debate if you're doing it right. I much rather teams win 1 significant argument over a bunch of smaller, less-developed arguments on the flow. I dislike spreading in any debate event, but most especially in PF.

Evidence comparison is critical and a good way to impress. Please make warranted arguments why I should prefer your card over your opponent's card. There are many ways to accomplish this, I'll consider any of them so long as they make sense. FYI: One relevant, high-quality card is often better than 2 - 3 generic cards that are not contextualized. Extend card tags on every speech. Knowing your evidence really well and explaining it really well in round all but guarantees high speaks.

On theory: I've heard my share of theory arguments and find the majority of those rounds dull and the arguments thin. I much rather you win on something else, but will listen if this is your thing. : (

You can go line-by-line or be more analytical. Anything that is unclear will not get extended or weighed on the flow. Never forget that debate is foremost a PERSUASIVE activity. If you cannot persuade the average person with your case, you aren’t debating effectively. Ways to impress me as a judge: 1. Depth of Analysis, 2. Topic Knowledge, 3. Effective Advocacy, and 4. Clear Narrative. I value meaningful cross much more than most judges.

A pet peeve of mine in PF is summary treated as a 2nd rebuttal speech. That is not the point of summary! Show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had 2 rebuttal speeches and summary is more than a shortened rebuttal.

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all 3 are part of effective argumentation)

* LD Prefs

I'm best at adjudicating traditional LD rounds. However, I will consider any warranted argument presented in round. Please weigh clearly and effectively and lay out the big issues in the round/voters. Tell me the clearest path to the ballot! I do not want to intervene. I find a quality framework debate/clash VERY interesting. If it's getting debate on fw is circular and/or the differentiation is minimal, go for something else.

Slow down on card tags, warrants, weighing, and voters. If the framework clash is a wash, I'll default to evaluating contention-level offense via the weighing analysis given to me at the end of the round. If I don't understand what you're talking about (speed, lack of clarity, lack of explanation, or warrants), there is NO CHANCE I'll vote off it. Thus, explain the argument/warrants not only in case, but throughout the round if you want me to vote off of it.

Spend time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already done in your constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time in case I missed something.

Don't drop warrants in your extensions. I may not have gotten it in case and even if I did, I like to be reminded. Will not evaluate any argument in which the warrant is missing or unclear.

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all three are part of good debate)

Above all else, I favor clash and the resolution of clash by debaters with good overviews, weighing, and depth of topic knowledge.

In order of preference:

1.) Trad/lay 2.) Plan/CPs 3.) Ks 4.) Theory

I find most theory debates dull, but will listen to them if that's what you want to do. I've voted off theory maybe 4 times and I've judged a lot of LD rounds. I prefer you try to win anywhere else unless there is a flagrant, obvious, and clear violation of the tournament rules or NSDA rules. Above all, the quality of argument matters more to me than the style of debate. I don't mind some speed used strategically, but please don't spread throughout the round. I'd much rather you win one good argument on the flow and weigh than 10 smaller ones that I struggle to follow because of speed/clarity issues.

* Big Questions

No preference between real-world and philosophical evidence, but a combination is really powerful! I like framing. I like big picture analysis. I like extended warrants. Pointed questioning and strong topic knowledge impress me a lot and should help you win a ballot in a close round.

* Congress Prefs

I despise 1-sided debate. If there's no one left on the other side, call the previous question, table the bill, or deliver an impromptu/extemp speech on the other side. If I hear the same exact points made without specific references to the arguments presented by the other side, points will be low.

I love clash in congress. I like pointed, direct questioning. I'm impressed by tactical use of parliamentary procedure. I value the role of the P.O. more than most. Don't be shy about running for P.O. If you're good at it, do it and I'll rank you fairly!

Critical evidence comparison & strong topic knowledge impress me a lot. Creative and/or funny intros make me happy.

PET PEEVES

1. Taking too long to set up for debate. (Be prepared, be punctual, be professional)

2. Taking too long to pull a called card from case (after 1 min. if the card doesn’t exist, drop the arg.)

3. Reading at top speed, close to top speed, or 200+ wpm for most of the round.

4. Boring me. Some have forgotten that there is a performance aspect to ALL debate events and that if you seem apathetic, I will care less about your argument if you don't appear to care about it. If you want me to vote for your argument, make the attempt to seem like you care about whatever you're running. You chose to run that. It's your baby.

Note: I don't disclose speaker points. Don't ask. I will disclose my decision if the tournament is single-flighted. If rounds are double-flighted, I will not disclose for the sake of time, but will publish my ballot.

FOR FUN

I <3 multivolume narrative nonfiction, dystopian & post-apocalyptic fiction, retro video games (mostly fighters), boxing, soccer, and cats. If you're bored at a tournament and have an interest in any of that stuff, come say hi! : )

Good luck to all!

I am a former high school debater that has dabbled in everything. I’ve been judging for the past six years and have judged everything, but policy. I recently graduated with a degree in Anthropology, with a focus on cultural anthropology. I’m a pretty typical PF judge and will vote for the team with the most compelling argument, however, I do like a solid framework. As far as cross goes, I don’t care if you sit or stand—whatever is most comfortable for you works for me. I don’t like when you address me during cross because I feel like you should be focused on your opponents instead. My BIGGIE is DO NOT SPREAD. If you are going too fast, I will not flow the round and drop you. This is PF, not policy. I have an extensive speech background and will be pretty merciless when it comes to speaker points. Other than that, remember to be respectful during the debate. Things can get pretty heated sometimes, but that is no excuse for rudeness. If you say things during the round that that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will drop you immediately. Let’s be kind to one another and remember to have fun! I look forward to hearing some good debates!

Hey!

I was a high school debater at Carlsbad High in San Diego, and I'm currently studying Political Communication at Emerson College in Boston.

Please make sure you don't spread because I want to be able to understand all of your arguments as clearly as possible.

I'm a flow judge.

Keep crossfire civil and calm.

If you find yourselves getting stuck on one specific issue, don't continue to just argue it back and forth. Debate is made out of multiple arguments.

Impacts! Impacts! Impacts!

Make sure to have a solid argument for your definitions and framework, so I can be sure how I should be judging the issue.

Thanks <3

I believe that I come into each debate as a first time observer. Convince me. I believe in professional, respectful decorum. I do not adhere to bullying behaviors. I look at support for contentions and I don’t disclose.

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

Tech > truth

I reward strategic risk taking (collapsing on one warrant and outweighing your opponents, kicking case and going for turns), but make sure it is actually strategic and not abusive to your opponents (like conceding a delink on an argument two speeches after they read it to get out of turns they've been extending and spending time on). I love unique arguments if they're warranted well.

for the most part, I'll let you do whatever you want. Make strategic arguments, choose what impacts are important, and tell me why you are doing a better job of winning. Three caveats to this..

1. Don't read arguments that are blatantly offensive. This means if you read sexist, racist, classist, ableist, etc… arguments, you will lose the round and get the lowest speaks I can give you.

2. You shouldn't attempt doing stuff for the sole purpose of excluding your opponents as a way to win (ie spreading, reading Ks/shells, etc). If your opponents tell you this is a problem and you continue to do it, you will lose the round and get the lowest speaks I can give you.

3. Second rebuttal needs to respond to at least the offense or turns that the first rebuttal makes. The first FF can extend terminal defense from the rebuttal, the second needs to extend it in summary. All offense (case arguments, overviews, turns) needs to be in every speech post rebuttal.

I’m excited to watch the round.

I did Policy debate 2013-2017 in Montana, culminating in winning the state championship. I did a year of American Parliamentary (APDA) at MIT, and spent a month teaching debate to high school kids in Italy. I've judged Policy, LD, and PF.

A bit about me -- I am a history, philosophy, and gender studies teacher. Keep this in mind when you are making historical or philosophical arguments. Try to be historically accurate!

I have been coaching since 2017.

Debate should not be a competition of essays or research papers. I will not flow a case that is sent to me. Instead, I only flow what I hear.

I firmly believe that Speech & Debate should be an inclusive, accepting, and kind place. Treating your opponent(s) with kindness and compassion should always and forever be the goal, and we should encourage rather than discourage people from continuing in this activity. Treat others how you wish to be treated, and leave the debate space better than you found it.

World Schools Debate:

I have been coaching Team NJ for the last two years. Make sure you explain, explain, explain. Because we are not using cards here, or using less cards, you need to tell me the logical conclusions you are reaching when you reach them. Tell me the "why" and the "how" behind the resolution or behind your model. Just saying "this will happen" or "this is obvious" may not be so clear to the judge. The "why" and the "how" behind your thinking is often much more important and will develop the round more clearly.

Be global in nature! This is World Schools Debate. While the United States is part of the world, it is not the only example out there - be creative! I would even add - the United Kingdom is part of the world but not the ONLY part of the World worth debating. Try to take a global mindset and worldview when you can, and it will make the round more fun.

Creating models or counter-models are totally fine with me. But, be clear! If things are wishy-washy, it leaves room for interpretation and could be easily attacked by your opponents. I also like details! Just stating "change will happen" or "we support innovation" (for example) is not enough. What kind of change? What kind of innovation? I love a debate that really creates a clear picture of your vision for the judge.

Ask POIs! Make them topical and respectful! Be creative with your hooks! These are some of the most fun parts of World Schools Debate and they will certainly help you with style/strategy.

Public Forum:

Above all, I want you to debate based on your style. Don't try to "read me" and change your case mid-round. The best debaters have been people who have been themselves and done what they do best - within reason.

However, I have judged PF more than anything else, and I am a firm believer that PF is designed for the public. Trying to run theory on me/your opponent to intentionally confuse me/them/us is NOT PF. In addition, this isn't LD. Using LD tactics that are not friendly to the public is not good debate.

As I said before, I am a history teacher. Be accurate. Don't make things up. It's usually pretty obvious.

Calling cards - In terms of evidence/intervening.... I don't like to intervene in a round. I would much rather prefer you to be able to make things clear. However, I may call for cards if I have to at the end of a round. I generally don't want to do this. To me, having to call cards means that the round was messy and not really productive.

Speed - I do not like spreading. I understand that you may have to speak quickly in order to fit your case within the time limits, but I will not pick you up if I cannot understand or flow all of your arguments. If you are going too quickly, I will stop typing/flowing. With a slower round, I think that it allows for an overall better style of speaking and debating.

Arguments - Please signpost and be clear with your cases. If I have to keep jumping up and down the flow to "find" the turns or arguments that you're speaking about, it will be difficult for me to keep up with the round, and then difficult for me to pick you up. Weigh your arguments. I don't want to hear the classic "lives v. money" weighing -- be specific! Go deeper with your analysis. Make sure that you use both offense and defense, and interact with your opponent's case. It's always upsetting to sit through an entire round where the cases were argued simultaneously but did not clash.

Crossfire - I really like cross. BUT, make it productive. Arguing for arguments sake, being rude, interrupting, talking over your opponent, not answering questions, or turning CX into another speech will lead to lower speaker points.

The biggest thing... do not be rude. Being rude discourages people from joining this activity.

Lincoln Douglas:

Most things from PF also apply here in LD. I definitely judge PF more than LD, but love the philosophical aspect of a good Lincoln-Douglas round. I definitely prefer traditional debate compared to progressive. Please make sure you understand the philosophy you base your case on - I am a philosophy teacher.

Speed - I do not like spreading. I understand that you may have to speak quickly in order to fit your case within the time limits, but I will not pick you up if I cannot understand or flow all of your arguments. If you are going too quickly, I will stop typing/flowing. With a slower round, I think that it allows for an overall better style of speaking and debating.

Arguments - I am fine with K's in a Lincoln-Douglas round as long as it is topical to the resolution. Running one to be abusive to a younger opponent or purposefully confuse either the opponent/the judge is not good, and you should not do this. If you are running one, be respectful of both my time and the work that your opponent has put in. K's that are not topical are extremely hard to judge and that will be reflected in your speaker points. Besides that, in terms of arguments, I want to see good debate. Make sure you are historically accurate, nonoffensive, etc. I'm a pretty traditional judge, but can be convinced to see some progressive debate. However, again, if I'm missing a crucial point on the flow because you were not clear or you spoke too quickly, you did not do your job as a debater. Weigh arguments, make sure you are actually debating each other (rather than running simultaneously cases that do not clash/interact), etc. Don't just tell me that "X dropped the card" and leave it at that. Tell me how and why they dropped the card, and/or it turns to your case. Above all, be clear in the round.

In all types of debate, keep in mind: QUANTITY IS NOT QUALITY. Don't try to win by simply overwhelming your opponent(s) with arguments. Gish gallops will not work with me, so don't try them.

I am an old-school LD judge. I want to see a clear values clash and hear some philosophy, not just a long list of cards. Cases that are not grounded in ethical theory will have a harder time winning me over. Kritik cases are fine so long as they are not abusive -- that is, so long as they leave the opposition some ground from which to argue. A kritik of the resolution is fine, but generic kritiks that could be run against any case / resolution are not.Also, any out-of-round kritiks just aren't going to work with me. These almost always revolve around claims that I have no way to verify, or debaters essentially making up rules that they they then accuse their opponents of breaking.

I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading in LD. I believe that it is the bane of the event. Certainly it is an excuse to toss out a lot of abusive one-way hash arguments. Anything much faster than a typical conversational pace is likely to cause me to stop flowing your case. Make your point with QUALITY, not quantity.

Please do NOT offer to send me your case. If I cannot follow your case AS YOU PRESENT IT IN THE ROUND, you are NOT communicating it clearly enough.

Tech cases are unlikely to impress me. Win with strong arguments, not technicalities.

Semantic arguments are fine, but keep them on point; don't descend into trivialities.

In Public Forum, I am similarly NOT a fan of "progressive" debate. This is PUBLIC forum, so make arguments that could impress any reasonably well-informed and attentive audience, not just judges who know all of technical debate language. Make reasonable claims which clearly support your side of the resolution, support them with significant and relevant evidence, and weigh impacts. Tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponents', tell me why your evidence is superior to theirs, tell me why your claims lead to me voting for your side of the resolution.

i debated for 4 years at lexington high school (1 year in novice policy and 3 in varsity pf) and am now a sophomore at boston university.

i'm not super particular about much, but here's what i do care about:

1. warrants: have good ones. i don't care who said what if you can't explain why.

2. weighing: do it, as early in the round as possible.

3. dates: read them. recency is important on pretty much every pf topic.

4. framework: i will default to util unless you give me a compelling reason to do otherwise.

5. analysis and evidence: i want to hear both. i want neither for you to spew evidence at me nor for you to make a bunch of unsubstantiated arguments. that said, if you're second speaker and you don't have evidence against an argument your opponent made, i would much rather hear a fully analytical response, rather than you wasting my and your time with a random card that's only vaguely relevant.

6. responses: there are few things that annoy me more than a second speaker getting up for rebuttal and saying some shit like "we have 17 responses" and then reading a bunch of weak cards that only sort of respond to the contention as a whole. i would rather hear fewer but better responses, that actually respond to the specific arguments being made.

7. extensions: don't extend through ink.

8. collapsing: do it. if i hear all of the arguments in your case again in summary and final focus, i will be sad. please don't make me sad.

9. speaker points: obviously, speaking more fluidly and persuasively will earn you higher speaker points. if you have a good sense of humor, i will raise your speaks. i really appreciate it if you make me laugh. if you are rude or offensive, i will lower your speaks. please be nice!!

if you have questions about any of this or something i didn't mention, feel free to ask me about it before the round! if you have any questions about my rfd after the round or want some extra feedback, i'd be happy to talk to you.

tl;dr: here

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

I am a new judge, have been very interested in speech and debate. I have two years of experience in ToastMaster speech club. I like the speaker who is respectful to his/her opponent as well to judges, speaks loud and clear, shows high level of confidence and demonstrates logic.

I have been a parent judge for PF for six years. Though I take a lot of notes, please do not be fooled into thinking I am a flow judge. I am most definitely a lay judge and appreciate debaters who do not speak too quickly or use a lot of jargon. For example, if you must use a term like "non unique," please specify what part of the argument you are referring to, or better yet, don't use the short-cut term "non unique" at all, as it is more informative if you are more explicit in your reasoning. If you speak so quickly that I do not catch the details of your arguments, you may lose the round, even if your arguments are superior, since I will not have heard them in full. Lastly, if you are dismissive or rude toward your opponents, your speaker points will suffer, and it will impact my decision for the round. Rounds that are conducted in a respectful and collegial manner are much more pleasant for judge and competitors alike, and they tend to result in much higher quality debating all around.

Excellent debaters and excellent debate rounds are characterized by the competitors' ability to speak clearly and understandably, identify the major underlying arguments at the heart of evidence and examples, and succinctly present a case for their own side as the round evolves. I value your ability to explain why something matters (more than just XYZ person said so in this article) within the larger context of an overarching argument. As the debate progresses, you should be telling me what the major reasons are to vote for you, as opposed to travelling infinitely down the rabbit hole on the details of a specific argument.

Treat each other with respect. This is most noticeable in cross fire. Ask your question and grant your opponent a reasonable amount of time to respond. Though in the moment you may feel the urge to interrupt, it is never helpful.

Qualify your sources, don't just say a name. Tell me who said it, where they said it, and the reason it is valuable.

Enjoy yourselves and relax, the round will always turn out better if you are having fun and learning.

Rcarragher19@gmail.com

For an efficient round I request that debaters speak clearly and at a rate that can be properly understood. Respect is important in a round, be forceful without being rude. Make sure to make all points clear and carry them all the way through the debate.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

I am a parent judge. I have judged debate for two prior years, a few tournaments each year. I work hard to keep personal bias from impacting my decision and judge based on the mechanics of the debate as I understand them. Far fetched contentions are not my favorite, but I do rely on the opposing team to call these out.

I like debaters to speak at a reasonable pace - not too fast - and to provide a framework for their case that will help me follow the discussion throughout the round. Please make clear connections to the framework to help me stay organized in my head as I process the back and forth.

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

Parent Judge

Public Forum Paradigm

I place a lot of importance on critical analysis, reasoning/rhetoric, and wit. Please do not card dump and or misrepresent your statistics.

Speech and Crossfire: Please focus on the main arguments from both sides and argue about the same things rather than drift to various subtopics.

Intervention: I do not intervene in debates. However, I do look at the sources when calling cards just in case the cards do not exist or the cards are questionable.

Summary: Please note that any new arguments in summary will result in decreased speaker points out of fairness to the other team.

Comments and Feedback: I do not give immediate remarks right after the round. I need time to make decisions.

Time: Please follow the rules and do your best within the allowed time frame.

Have fun!

former policy debater, judged a few pf rounds before

I have 6 consecutive years of experience in PF debate since junior year in middle school. I am an active member at northeastern university debate society since fall 2018; member of Harvard debate council since 2016. I have coached public forum debate for two years since summer 2018. And I have taught both middle and high school students enrolling in international school in mainland China, including students from British Columbia Academy, Shanghai American School, Western Academy Beijing, International School of Beijing, etc.

Judging PF debate, I evaluate more on your weighing in the impacts on a particular data/ evidence you and your opponents brought up in a round. I do not like to have four people speaking at the same time when it's grand-crossfire, if that happens, I will not take notes from either side. I can flow speed but I also prefer you to speak/ pronounce everything accurately and present your contentions with concrete evidence and supportive logic.

1. I hate speakers asking "do you have evidence on that" all time. If you do challenge your opposing team for evidence on a particular argument, explain to me why evidence in this case matters.

2. If you give a road map/ speech mapping, I would not time you. You can go as specific as possible. I would prefer you use signposts in your speech because that would make it easy to follow.

3. If you compare framework, make sure why yours is superior than the opposing team's. I do not need you to refresh both frameworks for me. Same thing when you weigh impacts. I don't want you to repeat what you and your opponents said. Always make sure you explain to me why yours is better in order to win my ballot.

4. I would not apply what you mean unless you mentioned the technical terms. For example, if your opposing team DROPPED an argument, make sure you mention it.

Shortcuts:

speed √

weighing √

summary and final focus √

check cards √

time for yourself/ opponents √

exceed time for >10s √

shouting in crossfire X

cutting speeches ("no no no"/ "answer my question please"/ "let me..."/ "what I was saying...") X

speak too loud/ low X

disrespect X

personal attack [ABSOLUTELY] X

I'm a parent judge without real debating experience myself :-)

I don't mind your speaking speed but please be clear. My flow skill is not there yet but I do try.

I pay a lot of attention to good arguments (plus for your side) and effective rebuttals (minus for your opponent). Your summary and final focus just need to bring up those plus and minus points.

Your insightful and innovative arguments, if you can back them up well with clear logic and/or credible sources, will be appreciated. I consider judging a learning experience and enjoy it very much.

Please be respectful to your opponents as I don't favor aggressive behavior.

Good luck to both teams!

My background in debating is mostly in APDA (read: Parli) and British Parliamentary (later of which I kinda did in HS in Singapore)

Couple things of note that I like to hear

1. Please be comparative when you debate, like tell me why things get better on your side rather than say "your opponents have no solvency" - it helps give context to the issue

2. Please be very explicit in weighing issues between each other, as well as paint me a narrative that I can follow— I dislike having to do the legwork for teams that don't paint me a picture of your path to the ballot or whatever

3. You can talk fast and do all that flow stuff. idc (so long as it's not full on spreading)

Otherwise, I consider myself pretty much tabula rasa, I will vote on any metrics you decide I should prioritise (provided you win that the metric is the one we should be adjudicating on)

Also 30s for anybody who can actually prove the "climate change is a series of cascading tipping points" argument in case

I am a parent judge and this is my 6th year judging. I take notes but I do not really "flow".

Things I like to see:

Weighing (tell me why your impact is more important than theirs)

Reasoning as to why something is

Telling me why I should vote for you (clear up clash)

Telling me where you are on the flow in rebuttal

Collapsing in the round is preferred but not required

Things I don't like to see:

Speed

Bringing up new things in 2nd final focus

Being rude to the opponents

Using debate jargon

*assume I don't know the topic or the literature/arguments surrounding the resolution*

Email: achoi07650@gmail.com

1. Tech v. Truth

- varies on a case-by-case basis but will mainly default to tech

- always assume I don't know anything

- generally not an interventionist judge

2. Positions

Disads - cool

Counterplans - cool except in PF

Kritiks - cool

Theory - cool, but run it for a legitimate reason and not as a time-suck or abusing someone who doesn't know how to respond (@ novices/middle schoolers)

Topicality - will rarely vote on it

3. Speed + Evidence

- any speeds fine but plz it's public forum shouldn't be spreading

- I probably won't call cards but you never know

- plz don't plagiarize + know the rules of evidence

4. Speaks

- will give high speaks for nice round :)

- if y'all chill expect 28+

- if y'all rude/disrespectful/purposely making someone feel uncomfortable expect nothing higher than a 25

5. Basic stuff

- please weigh

- I ain't tolerating problematic behavior in my rounds. You know what this means. Please be respectful, this event ain't life or death depending on a win.

- I beg, please don't excessively call for cards. I take the whole round into perspective and a card probably will not change my decision and if it will, I'll call for it myself. However, do what is in your best interest.

6. Digital stuff

- Usually tournaments say camera on (I believe) but if not I don't care whether or not your camera is on or off. I will keep my camera on unless something wild occurs.

- If you experience lag I may interrupt your speech for you to repeat something. Don't be flustered if I ask you to repeat something it is important for me to hear it :).

- Say if you need me to accommodate something. I'm fairly flexible as long as it is agreeable with everyone and the tournament staff/guidelines.

I've debated policy for two years and PuFo for two years. I flow debates (am okay with spreading) and will decide the winner based on which team debated better. If you are racist/sexist in the round, you will get very low speaker points and might lose the round because of this - please stay respectful.

Policy

I am fine with any kind of argument (thought I don't really like Politics). Just do line-by-line and stay organized. Impact-Calc is important. For Kritiks, actually explain the argument, otherwise I'll asume you don't know what you're saying.

PuFo

As I understand it, the point of Public Forum is to be persuasive. So, please make eye contact and make sure to tell me why you win. Otherwise, I am open to any kind of argument as long as it is fair! Ask me more specific questions before the round begins.

But here's my standard philosophy for the round (borrowed a lot of this from John Hines)

1. Make Arguments. I will keep a careful flow of the debate and will do my best to vote based upon warranted arguments extended throughout the debate. Your job is to speak clearly and coherently and to dispute the warrants within your opponents’ arguments with analysis and evidence.

2. Make Choices. Most debates come down to a couple of key issues which need to be resolved by me; Your ability to accurately frame the nexus issues of the debate for me will reduce the need for me to resolve these questions for you and make me a much happier judge.

3. Don’t be a Jerk. As Ed Lee of Emory says in his most recent Judge Philosophy--"Respect is non-negotiable for me". I work VERY HARD as a judge. I spend time constructing my post-round discussion to be clear, concise and educational. I promise to give you plenty of time to ask productive follow-up questions. Rudeness and snide remarks during cross-ex, insulting the intelligence and good will of the other team and other derisive and insulting behavior towards opponents will not be tolerated. I love seeing passionate engagement with argument, but quickly become physically uncomfortable when passion turns into hostility. If you are confused as to where this line resides watch my non-verbals...it will be very obvious.

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).

Please don't spread. Rapid speed doesn't bother me, as long as you are signposting and being logical in the order you address issues. Please don't give an offtime roadmap unless you are doing something very unusual.

I prefer some frontlining in second rebuttal. But if you have a lot to cover, I'd rather you cover your opponents' flow sufficiently if that means sacrificing some frontlines. I'll live.

In terms of responses, I vastly prefer solid logical responses over card dumping. I think convincing turns are some of the most effective responses and, if done well, make me way more likely to vote for you. If you're extending a card throughout the round, please make sure it's actually relevant and convincing enough to vote for. Don't just extend cards so that you can do some namedropping in final focus.

For summary and final focus, frontline and weigh. Please. Also, don't extend through ink. It's one of my biggest pet peeves, and I will not consider an argument that you extend without frontlining.

Be respectful of your opponents. Don't talk over them in cross, don't try and make cute jokes at their expense. You aren't being funny, I promise. Also, don't be sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. Good luck!

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

I am a coach for the Summit High School debate program.

For e-mail chain: melaco@gmail.com. Speechdrop is also great.

School Affiliation: Summit HS, NJ

Number of Years I’ve been judging debate since 2018.

Number of Years I Competed in Speech/Forensic Activities: 4 years (A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.…)

If you read nothing else, read this: I am a flow judge. (IMO, truth does not exist within the confines of a debate round. The setting of the resolution is the beginning of world creation, which you will build upon and participate in during the round and that is outside the confines of "the real world." I fall short of being a tech judge, but I lean tech.) I expect teams to warrant and clearly show why arguments should be voted on, including weighing. Be very clear in your final speeches on why you are winning the round. State clearly what your path to the ballot is. I want to judge without intervention, so you need to give me the exact reason to vote for you on the flow. I prefer for you, in your final speech, to tell me the RFD you would like me to write.

I don't vote on anything in cross, unless it has been brought into a speech. I don't vote on new arguments brought up too late in round.

Happy to clarify any of my prefs, ask before round begins.

Organization: I need you to be clear and organized in order for me to follow you to your best advantage. Sign-posting in speeches and line-by-line in rebuttal is always appreciated, it ensures that I'm following you adequately.

Plans/Kritik/Theory: I went to a critical theory-oriented art school MFA program, so no surprise, I love theory, kritik and tricks because it reminds me of grad school. I have a pretty broad background on much of the literature. That being said, it's good to consider me a flay judge when presenting theory/kritik/tricks. You need to completely understand your argument (and not just reading something you found on the wiki or that a friend gave you), and it needs to be clearly presented during the debate in an accessible way. I need well-explained, warranted voters. Please warrant your implications. Be very clear on why I should vote for you.

Timers and Prep: I generally run a timer, but I expect you to also be keeping time. When you run prep, I like to know how much time you think you've run, so I can compare it to my own time. Also, if you pause prep to call a card, I expect all prep to stop while the card is being searched for, then prep can start again when the card is found.

Everything Else:
Cards (where applicable): I prefer factual, carded evidence. I accept tight academic reasoning. I accept published opinions of recognized, experienced professionals within their realm of knowledge. If a card is called by a team, and the other team can't find it, I'm going to strike it from consideration. I rarely call cards unless there is a dispute about the card. I really hate judge intervention, so I flow on how cards are argued by the debaters. Generally speaking, I will not call a card based on disputes that are only raised during cross. I will only call a card for two reasons: 1. if there is a dispute about a card between the debaters brought up in a speech and it is an important dispute for the judging of the debate or 2. if the other team has given me reason to believe evidence is fake or fraudulent. Dishonesty (such as fabricating research sources) will be reported to tab immediately.

Judge Disclosure: I personally feel it is good for a judge to disclose, because it keeps us accountable to the teams that we are judging. As a judge, I should be able to give you a good RFD after the round. So, if tournament rules and time allow, I don't mind sharing results with you after I've finished submitting for the round. However, I will not disclose if that is the rule for a particular tournament or if there are time constraints that need to be taken into consideration.

Judging after 8pm: I'm a morning person. If it is after 8pm, I am probably tired. Clarity in your speeches is always important, but takes on even more importance after 8pm. Talk to me like I'm half-asleep, because I might be.

SPEAKER POINTS:

Default Speaker Point Breakdown:
30: Excellent job, I think you are in the top two percent of debaters at this tournament.

29: Very strong ability. You demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and ability to use analytical skills to clarify the round

28: Ability to function well in the round, however at some point, analysis or organization could have been better.

27: Lacking organization and/or analysis in this debate round.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. May have made a large error.

25: An incident of offensive or rude behavior.

I coach beginners (elementary/ MS) debate, so I'm very familiar with PF, but I work on a very novice level, i.e. 3rd- 8th graders and we typically do more simple topics.

I have a basic understanding of jargon, but you're better off putting things in lay terms. I'm not good with speed, I'll zone out and not process anything you're saying, so I'd suggest speaking a smidge above conversational pace if you want me to truly take in your case. I get it if you want to speak fast to get a lot in, just be sure to repeat the main things you want me to take away to ensure I've got it. If you want to take the risk, that's up to you! :) I really don't recommend it.

I'm usually swayed by more compassionate, emotional arguments and will typically vote for the side that helps more people in a more tangible way. I like when you tell me specifically what to vote based off of.

I don't judge very often, so I definitely am not a perfect judge, but I'll do my best! PLEASE don't expect me to be a tech judge. I am not! I flow, but I miss things at times. I don't have rules about what needs to be in what speech, but obviously you can't bring up something new at the end.

I'm easily charmed by a good public speaker, and have noticed that if someone is a good speaker I'm more receptive to their arguments. I try to keep it to the content when picking a winner, but I've noticed this about myself and am not always conscious of it, so I figured it's beneficial for you to know if I'm your judge.

I always figure it's best to be polite and professional. I think it reflects better on you if you stand for your speeches and keep your own time. It's not a make or break, but you'll come off a lot better in my eyes if you do these things.

If you have a specific question, feel free to ask! :)

I am a parent judge.

I try to flow, but am not an expert. I find off-time roadmaps helpful, for those who use this technique.

Impacts are important as are link chains - the link chain should be well-supported and believable.

Please speak at a reasonable, conversational speed to ensure that I am able to easily capture all of your points.

Please plan on keeping your own time - I will also use a timer, but appreciate when debaters track the time independently and stay within the allotted amount.

I prefer not to disclose outcomes in the room, in order to keep the event on track. I will submit comments for all participants via tabroom.

I look forward to judging great rounds - best of luck to everyone!

Argument

Be able to clearly link your claim, evidence, and warrants

Understand your argument and be able to explain it in clear and simple terms

Make sure to show a clear impact on your arguments.

The weighing of Impacts including their likelihood will play an important role in the debate.

Speaking

Always be polite

Speak at a good pace. It is not a race

Misc.

You may finish your sentences at the of a speech, but please keep it within reason.

Be prepared to provide evidence if asked. If you do not provide the cited article, I will be forced to consider the evidence invalid.

Hello! I am a parent of two Newton South Debaters (seniors), and I've only judged a few times. I will come into every round with a clean slate, and I will take notes, but I don't know how to "flow".

Some things I like:

A slow, understandable pace. I know debaters have a tendency to speak fast, and I will try to keep up, but if I can't understand you, I can't evaluate your arguments.

If you tell a story. One or two big ideas for me is really persuasive. Explain in depth why your arguments are correct (my son says this is called warranting)

Weighing! I don't understand the buzzwords, but I would also like to know in a comparative worlds analysis why your world is preferable.

Be Nice! Humor is appreciated, but don't be disrespectful.

Some things I don't like:

Speed (see above)

Yelling (please keep the volume at a reasonable level)

Rudeness

Off-case arguments (please no)

Buzzwords

Going for everything - explain why your best argument wins you the round

At the end of the day, debate is about fun ~ so please have fun! Also let me know if I can make the round more accessible to you!

Hello! I am a parent of a second year Newton South Debater. This is my third tournament judging. I will come into every round a clean slate, and I will take notes, but I don't know how to "flow".

Some thinks I like:

A slow, understandable pace. I know debaters have a tendency to speak fast, and I will try to keep up, but if I can't understand you, I can't evaluate your arguments.

If you tell a story. One or two big ideas for me is really persuasive. Explain in depth why your arguments are correct (my son says this is called warranting)

Weighing! I don't understand the buzzwords, but I would also like to know in a comparative worlds analysis why your world is preferable.

Be Nice! Humor is appreciated, but don't be disrespectful.

Fist Bumps!
Some things I don't like:

Speed (see above)

Rudeness
Off-case arguments (please no)

Buzzwords

Going for everything - explain why your best argument wins you the round

At the end of the day, debate is about fun ~ so please have fun! Also let me know if I can make the round more accessible to you!

I debated 4 years for Davis High School and have been coaching for the Boston Debate League since 2017. My experience was mostly with traditional, yet flow, LD and Parli.

I'll vote anything but you have to explain it well and (almost certainly) not at your top speed. I will give you three chances to be intelligible: I'll say "clear" once and "slow" once, at which point I will no longer say anything and flow only what I am able to decipher.

My objective is to be as tabula rasa as possible, so I establish the truth of the round entirely on what is presented in the debate. In my view this has two practical implications for you (above and beyond telling you that I'm flow): 1. assertions made in constructive speeches will be evaluated as true if uncontested. 2. ideally you would warrant and debate everything related to the debate from first principles, including what impacts matter, because I will not assume anything about whats good/bad/true/etc. This second point may seem to contradict the first (why am I telling you to warrant everything if I'll grant you claims without warrants?) but the logic is simply that while warranted arguments are infinitely superior to unwarranted claims, I prefer to accept unwarranted claims that teams make (or tacitly accent to by not responding) rather than intervene and perform analysis of the truth that isnt made in round.

I expect framework debate and weighing. It's imperative that you impact to the framework chosen (so, for example, if the round is util, societal welfare, net benefits, or anything like that ALL I care about is welfare analysis).

I like creative positions, not a fan of just doing "the meta". I also dont really know the trends so dont expect me to know the debate world terms for stuff. These things tend to make me less favorable to techy or tricks debaters but it's not because I have an issue with the arguments themselves.

I view speaks as a way to noncompetitively assess debaters, so I dont assign them based on how well you speak or anything. Instead it will reflect how I feel about your case, strategy, etc.

Handle time, evidence, prep, etc amongst yourselves. But taking a bunch of time to sort through evidence is boring and bad for the tournament, so be quick about it.

I call for cards to determine if theres misrepresented evidence or to figure out exactly what the argument made in the round was. I do NOT call for evidence to do my own analysis of what's true--you should debate the validity of your definitions, facts, whatever in the round and I will evaluate it on that basis alone.

For Parli:

Tag teaming is fine. Dont abuse the grace periods. Give me the resolution before the round. In the absence of presumption arguments, I presume neg.

For LD:

I won't vote on anything not present in the 1AR for aff or the 1NC/R for neg. Defense you intend to use should be present in these speeches too unless it only makes sense in response to a later speech.

I'm pretty committed to evaluating Framework and then Substance under the winning framework. This doesn't necessary imply traditional debate if you want to run some non-traditional frameworks or substance arguments, just that I will still resolve the round in that order.

In the absence of presumption arguments, I presume for the affirmative.

For PF:

I won't vote on anything not present in summary. Uncontested defense can be used in final focus even if not extended in summary. In the absence of presumption arguments, I presume for the first speaking team.

Things I Am:

- I'm a judge, therefore, I exist and have supreme authority.

Things I Am Not:

- Your timekeeper.

General Preferences:

- Signpost, signpost, signpost! I'm not your guide, I'm the tourist. Take me on the journey that is your case and make sure I leave you an amazing Google review.

- A note on spreading. I've accepted that Public Forum has adopted this from LD and Policy, but I don't like it. And neither does Zoom (it gets hard to hear and leads to technical difficulties, not to mention a migraine) If you can serve me some champion level spreading, I'm here for it. If you say the same word fifteen times because you're going too fast, no speaker points for you, Gretchen. Therefore, spread at your own risk.

- Which brings me to another note: Public Forum is meant to be just that, an event that is accessible to the "public." I give much higher speaks to teams who not only provide solid evidence but are able to relate their case and evidence to real world events, political action, etc. related to the topic. Social media and democracy provide a HUGE opportunity to do this. So while I appreciate a tech argument, don't get so caught up in the technicalities that you forget to talk about the current reality of our political climate in an impactful way.

- Weigh. Don't throw around words like magnitude, etc. unless you are going to define them appropriately. Otherwise, I will think you are using big words to sound smart and don't actually know what you're talking about.

- "Your case is the story, and the round is your stage!" - A wizened debater quoting Shakespeare... But for real, tell the story that is your case and defend it. I don't care what strategy you're using, so don't ask, just go for it. If I think it's sloppy, that's where my ballot will come in.

- Don't bring up new evidence in Second Summary, Grand CX, or FF. That's just cruel.

On a more serious note, I will disclose and provide feedback after rounds. Please do not question my decision. If I say something wasn't clear or I was confused, that's not my problem as judge, that's yours as a debater and failing to make a clear argument. I will do my best to be constructive so that you can improve, therefore, please be respectful on your part and accept feedback from others (which is vital not just for debate, but for your personal success, period).

If you would like additional feedback after reading YOUR ballot, I can be reached by email at devereaux@aa.edu. Please include the tournament and your school code in the subject line so that I know which flow I should be referencing.

Thanks kids and let's have some fun debating!

If both teams agree, i am willing to turn prep into 4 extra minutes of GCX.

Jay Garg has a really good paradigm (esp the part about Jackie's paradigm). Can we just pretend I copy and pasted it here? Jeremy Lee also has a good paradigm. If you are confused / unsure about how I evaluate anything or just want to shoot the breeze, please ask before the round to clarify.

I competed in high school speech and debate all four years back in the 1990s and have been judging Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for the last eight years.

Well reasoned arguments and high quality evidence are more convincing to me than twenty evidence cards- quality not quantity please! Speech and Debate is fundamentally an oral communication event and if I can't understand you your arguments can't persuade me.

Although NSDA rules allow citing sources as "Jones 2020", if I need to weigh competing evidence, knowing that "Jones 2020" is from The Washington Post instead of Wikipedia is important.

If you can't find the evidence in 30 seconds, we will move along- Organization is part of the preparation for this event.

Learning how to organize your thoughts quickly and how to stay cool under pressure/cross examination is a terrific life skill- this is an amazing activity and will help you in your later professional life no matter your high school win-loss record.

General:

I am a lay judge. I do follow the flow, but I don't judge exclusively on that;

You may sit or stand to present but both teams will do the same. If the room is cramped, it’s better you stay in your seat;

If you are going to speak quickly, your elocution needs to be good enough for me to understand you;

I do not run a clock on time, track your own time and keep your opponents honest about theirs;

If you are relying on an electronic device to make your speeches and it goes down, I will run your prep time until it is corrected. If you run out of time, I expect you to continue without it. If you can’t, I will consider that a forfeit;

I have a thorough knowledge of statistics so making arguments that go off the deep end (speculative) or citing sources with a statistically insignificant sample size, or "cherry-picked" data or conclusions will diminish the impact of your card.

Misrepresenting cards will cost you, whether done intentionally or not;

You may use an off-time road map to state the sequence of your argument but do not use it to make your case.

About me:

I have an engineering background and work in the heavy construction industry. I am swayed by facts, data, logic, and reason and do my best to avoid emotion in decisions at it mostly leads to failure or disaster in the realm of the physical sciences where I work.

My hobbies include history, particularly military history, automobiles, woodworking, outdoor sports, and evolutionary behavior/genetics.

CONGRESS PARADIGM IS BELOW THIS PF Paradigm

PF:

ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 8 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".

I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!

I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.

Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!

Unless NUCLEAR WINTER OR NUCLEAR EXTINCTION HAS ALREADY OCCURED, DON'T BOTHER TO IMPACT OUT TO IT.

SAVE K'S FOR POLICY ROUNDS; RUN THEORY AT YOUR OWN RISK- I start from ma place that it is fake and abusive in PF and you are just trying for a cheap win against an unprepared team. I come to judge debates about the topic of the moment.

YOU MIGHT be able to convince me of your sincerity if you can show me that you run it in every round and are President of the local "Advocacy for that Cause" Club.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.

Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".

NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.

In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

1: The first thing I am looking for in every speech is ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY. 2. The second thing I am looking for is CLASH; references to other speakers & their arguments

3. The third thing I am looking for is ADVOCACY, supported by EVIDENCE

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS A SPEAKING EVENT, NOT A READING EVENT! I WILL NOT GIVE EVEN A "BRILLIANT" SPEECH A "6" IF IT IS READ OFF A PREPARED SHEET/TUCKED INTO THE PAD OR WRITTEN ON THE PAD ITSELF; AND, FOR CERTAIN IF IT IS READ OFF OF A COMPUTER OR TABLET.

I value a good story and humor, but Clarity and Clash are most important.

Questioning and answering factors into overall placement in the Session.

Yes, I will evaluate and include the PO, but it is NOT an automatic advancement to the next level; that has gotten a bit silly.

Public Forum was devised to convince the average person on the street. I’m that person. Speak clearly at a normal speed and I’ll be able to make a reasoned decision. You are all great kids. Have fun!

I am a parent of a high school debater and have been judging PF for 2 years. I grew up in SIngapore debating, parliamentary style debates. My judging ethos is fairly straightforward:

- i suspend my opinions and what i know about a topic outside the room and come in as a blank canvas. My role is NOT to be an expert, but to be an objective and neutral civilian, being exposed to arguments, fresh, in each round.

- i strongly prefer civilized, thoughtful and persuasive debate. I will credit professionalism, civility and a good sense of humor.

- i will discredit rudeness of all kinds. I do not enjoy theatrics (such as actively eye rolling toward me when your opponent is speaking - it will work against you, not for you), nor do i value those who simply railroad and speak loudly and fast over others in cross. Debate requires active listening to one another which is not possible if you won’t listen to your opponent or let them finish what they are saying. Please avoid all theatrics and distraction techniques.

- i will consider unanswered arguments as defeated; and will not credit (may even take point away) for new arguments introduced late in the game. And please stick to the truth and actual facts, not fake facts.

- volume and speed are not what i value. So yelling loudly or jamming numerous arguments extremely quickly and tripping over your words do not impress me. I value a debater who is confident enough to stay focused and rely on the strength of their research their ability to nuance and react thoughtfully and speak at a reasonable volume and pace. And be civil to their peers across the table.

Please speak at a pace that is not difficult to follow.

When possible, offer brief outline of argument before starting.

Over my 3 years in high school debate, I competed in every event but policy. Broke to dubs at NCFL 2017 in PF. Now I'm doing college parli.

Feel free to speak briskly, but I probably can't handle your spreading. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast.

My approach is primarily tabula rasa: when something goes uncontested, it becomes true in the round and pre-fiat args are fine. However, I will drop you for using slurs like the R-word or other harmful language, regardless of whether your opponent brings it up in-round. This is especially true if you direct such language at your opponent. Please give trigger warnings before the round to give your opponent(s) the opportunity to meaningfully opt out of the debate if your case covers sensitive topics like sexual assault, mental illness, eating disorders, etc.

If a piece of evidence is an important part of your warrant, you better extend it.

It is your responsibility to time your opponent(s) and hold them accountable. Knock if they're going over time so I can stop flowing.

High speaks reflect (in no particular order): passion, polished speeches, good diction and articulation, clear organization, and confidence. Basically how I would have voted if I was lay. Bad puns and unnecessary analogies will give you a considerable boost. Have fun!

LD: Framework makes the game work. Winning the FW debate by a mitigatory hair doesn't mean I'm going to evaluate the entire round under your FW; multiple competing theories can be true and none are perfect. Ultimately, I want to be the least interventionist possible, so if you and your opponent tell me that you don't like this, I'll just evaluate the round how you prefer. If you run util but don't extend consideration to non-human animals, you absolutely suck. Barring presumption args, I go aff.

PF: If you want to boost your speaks, rend your opponents' souls in cross. The first-speaking team doesn't need to extend rebuttals into the summary if the second team hasn't responded to them. This means the second summary is the first speech that must touch on both flows, so barring presumption args, I go second-speaking team. However, if the second rebuttal goes on both flows, first summary must do the same, which disadvantages the first-speaking team, so I'll presume first-speaking team in this case.

CX: Pls be nice to me.

Parli: Debaters must at all times speak in a British accent and you have to do the silly hand thing when asking a POI.

NOTE: If you think parts of this paradigm are dumb, let's chat before the round. If you convince me, I'll change it.

I am the current director of speech and debate and Yearbook adviser at Coral Springs High School.

From 1997-2000, I competed in LD and extemp. From 2004-2018, I was an editor at The Miami Herald.

I am in the learning stages for judging PF and LD, so I will need clear arguments and technical explanations. I cannot keep up with spreading yet.

In PF I appreciate unique arguments, but they must be conveyed clearly and in a way most people can understand. In LD, feel free to use any wild arguments or theories, just be able to back them up!

I have no bias toward any argument or theory or style but I require respect for your opponent(s).

Any other specifics, please ask.

I am an LD coach in the CFL, but I have experience judging all debate events.

Value & Criterion - remember this is LD, not PF. Ultimately I am looking for you to tie all points in your case back to your value structure. Your value structure sets a standard for me to weigh the round. Be sure that your case upholds the standard established in your value structure.

Clarity, Logic, & IMPACT - Keep your arguments concise and to the point. Snowball effects and illogical conclusions will cause me to discount your arguments. I want to see impact!! Why is what you are arguing important? Why should I care? Evidence should be clear and concise, cited and applied correctly to your case.

Structure & Narrative: I like to see a clear narrative throughout your case. Why and how does your offense outweigh your opponents? I like you to give me clear voters that link back into the narrative of your offense.

QUALITY > Quantity - Speed does not win a round with me. Logical, original, well-thought out arguments will win your round. I will flow as you debate, and if I cannot understand you I can not flow your arguments. I can handle some speed, but if you spew out as many arguments as you can or barrel through reading your case, I will likely just drop my pen. A good debater can give clear, logical arguments in the time frame allotted without needing to speed read. Again, QUALITY is better than quantity.

Maturity & Civility - I will take points for arrogance, rudeness, or immaturity. There is never cause to be nasty or unkind to your opponent. If you cannot argue your side diplomatically and respectfully, your lack of professionalism will be reflected in speaker points.

A few notes on flowing....

If you call for a card in round, and then fail to bring it back up, I assume you conceded the point to your opponent. Depending on the specifics of the round I may dock points for this.

I do not flow the author's name of a card. If you continue to reference arguments by using the author's name as a tag, I won't know to which argument you are referring, and I won't be flowing it.

I do not flow CX but I am listening closely and I appreciate when you extend arguments or points from CX into rebuttal

I will use my flow in my decision making, but it will not be the only point of reference for my decision. There is something to be said for your style of communication and delivery as well as the arguments you make.

I have been a parent judge for 5 years. I can flow a round pretty well but am not a technical "flow" judge.

Speaking:

1. SPEAK SLOWLY

2. Don't be rude or offensive in the round

3. Speak with clarity and elucidation

4. ALWAYS signpost and roadmap: it makes it much clearer for me as a judge if I know what you're talking about

Argumentation:

1. I am NOT familiar with counterplans, theory, or kritiks so please don't run them or I won't be able to judge you appropriately.

2. Summary and FF consistency is important when evaluating arguments

3. Have impacts and WEIGH. Too many times have I seen debaters just say we win because of X argument while never explaining why that argument is the most important to evaluate in the round.

4. Please don't run crazy and difficult to understand arguments. If your opponents can't understand the argument, I probably can't too. If you do have a less common argument, please warrant it and provide ample evidence, and I might be able to understand it.

Evidence:

1. I appreciate citations (Author's last name, month and year, and source if you can).

2. Please don't lie about your evidence; if you are, I most certainly won't vote for that argument.

3. I will call for evidence if it becomes an important point of dispute in the debate.

4. I am a strong believer in quality > quanitity. Meaning, don't tell me you win because you have more evidence, tell me you win because your evidence is more reliable, or just don't focus so much on evidence accuracy.

5. I usually flow arguments, not evidence, so telling me to refer back to some random person isn't sufficient.

How to win:

If you do these five things better than the opponents, you will win:

1. CLEARLY identify the arguments in the round and which ones are important

2. WEIGH and preferably give me a weighing mechanism to warrant me voting off of a specific argument

3. EXTEND arguments and enunciate their importance throughout the round

4. ADDRESS all the arguments in the round, and highlight dropped arguments

5. TELL me a story/narrative that uses persuasion not just evidence

I follow the NSDA guidelines for speaker points. I will give 30s if I think you are one of the best I've seen.

(1) Please don't spread.

(2) While I will not categorically ignore theory arguments, I think they generally are a waste of time that would be better spent on-topic. I have a hard time conceiving of a scenario in which I would vote based on a theory argument. I also will just not at all enjoy listening to theory.

(3) If the impact of your argument involves a nuclear winter or billions of people dying, I am going to be extremely skeptical (unless the motion is literally about nuclear disarmament). Please warrant out more modest impacts to help yourself in the likely event that I am unconvinced that, e.g. ending the capital gains tax will result in Russia launching nuclear weapons.

(4) I'm generally accepting of any argument that's well warranted; it's up to you as a debater to convince me why your opponent is wrong. I'll try to be a blank slate.

(5) Levity is encouraged and can coexist with good debating. Don't be rude or uncharitable to your opponents.

(6) Just please don't spread.

weigh

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

If you do not have an off case position, I will forget your off-time roadmap. Please tell me in your speech what argument you are addressing.

Read whatever (non-offensive/egregiously untrue) argument you want; I try to be flexible.

I will not evaluate theory arguments presented in the ABCD interp violation blah blah format. If you want to explain your theory argument in the (relatively) conversational language that you present all your other arguments in, then I will listen. https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

I reserve the right to be more persuaded by a team.

Name: Li Fang

School Affiliation: Lake Highland Prep

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 4

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? N/A

What is your current occupation? Engineer

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery

· - I am a parent judge, so please don’t go too fast. I would rather you develop a cohesive narrative throughout the round so that I am able to follow you effectively.

· -That is not to say that you have to speak as if I was a child, but rather you speak at a moderate rate (similar to that of a conversation)

· -I prefer the quality of the argument over the substance of material you present (i.e. more pieces of evidence DOES NOT mean you will win)

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

· -I believe that anything you want me to vote for should be in both the summary and the final focus, especially if you are the second speaking team

· -I prefer a big picture summary. As I said earlier, I am a parent judge and therefore I cannot comprehend if you go on the line by line

Role of the Final Focus

· -This speech I find to be most important. Please tell me what your final arguments are AND why they are important in the context of the round

· -I would appreciate it if you were able to condense the arguments that you present, along with what is going on the round. I don’t have the experience that you have and therefore I can’t sufficiently adjudicate the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

-Topicality: N/A

-Plans: N/A

-Kritiks: N/A

Flowing/note-taking

· -I do not flow to the extent that former debaters and/or coaches do. I have no experience in actually debating so I can’t flow very well

· -However, I will still take notes down and pay attention to what you are saying.

· -In order to compensate for my inability to flow like other debate and/or coaches, speak slowly and explain your argument and why they outweigh your opponents.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

· -I value the argument more than the style in which you debate

· -If you are debating as if you are in another event such as Lincoln Douglas, I will not appreciate that. Public Forum, to me, is meant to be understandable to the public, so please be respectful of your opponents while explaining your arguments.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

· -If you want me to consider an argument that you believe to be winning, please mention it in both the summary and the final focus. I don’t think it is necessary for it to be mentioned in the rebuttal (the rebuttal is for responding to your opponent’s case, not mentioning your own).

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

· -No. You do you.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

· -Not at all.

· -Any argument I vote for must be in the last two speeches (Summary and Final Focus).

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

· -If you are to say anything that blatantly racist, sexist, or offensive. I will drop you immediately with very bad speaker points

· -Make sure to have fun.

Arturo Féliz-Camilo

I studied and practice law, hold two law degrees and teach History. I'm familiar and like the economic/social/historical arguments. I've been coaching (mostly PF) since 2013 for New Horizons Bilingual School in the Dominican Republic.

I love debate, and the strategy game. I love to see a good clash of ideas and interesting/novel analysis. I'll buy any argument as long as you link, warrant, and support it with relevant evidence. Still, I think some arguments are just in bad taste.

I believe communication is key. If I can't understand it due to speed, I won't flow it. I won't ask you to slow down. I almost never intervene. Debate should not be about brute force your opponents into submission, but about a clash of ideas.

I really enjoy a civil CX. Ask for evidence if you must, but don't make the round an evidence match. If you call for evidence I hope you're planning to do something with it. I listen to CX but won't flow it. I'll note cool stuff in the hopes it makes it into your speech.

It's ok to offer an off-time roadmap, just don't take a minute doing so. Quickly give it and move on. Don't ask. Just do it.

Explain, analyze, and warrant your case, don’t just read it. Weigh, impact, link, extend, boil down, crystallize. Feel free to sign-post/roadmap. Absent a framework and weighing I'll go with what stands in the end.

I'm not in love with Ks or Theory. Run them at your own risk. I like to think that we should debate under the agreed upon rules. I will buy arguments on technical aspects of PF, as a matter of order and fairness. I think too many debaters are running disclosure in a dishonest way. All that said, I will buy anything that makes sense, including abusive behavior, bad faith misgendering, and anti-violence. I am not absolutely closed to theory, but I'll usually only buy it if it's run in good faith, and not as a strategy to win a round.

Pettiness will not win me over, but you gotta stand your ground. Sassiness is awesome, but the line between the two is just so thin.

You want to win your round? Be smart, creative, fun, thoughtful, and strategic. Outweigh, outsmart, outperform, outclass your opponent.

Add me to your evidence chain arturo@arturofeliz.com

Hello, I have not judged this semester. Please be kind to each other.

I am old and cannot flow speed particularly well but will do my best to keep up.

Theory is okay if it checks abuse, but I don't like it if it's frivolous. I will always caution that I may not follow Ks as well as you do, so read them at your own risk.

I will call for evidence if it sounds too good to be true and reserve the right to disregard entire arguments if the evidence is particularly miscut.

Have fun!

I'm a former debater from Florida and competed locally and nationally on my team for three years. I was in PF the entire time but I also have experience judging LD.

PF

Collapse and weigh towards the end of the round. If you want me to vote on an argument and you honestly feel like you've built a decent narrative for it, reiterate it!

Offense that you want me to consider should be put in both summary and final focus. All I ask is that you properly warrant it and do not extend through ink.

Defense does not need to be extended in summary unless you really feel like an argument is in critical danger. It would probably be beneficial as a second speaking team more often than not.

I may call for evidence if I feel it's justified. If you tell me to call for evidence, I absolutely will at the end of the round. If evidence is miscut, let me know!

Roadmaps are nice and signposting is lovely. Go take your spreading to other events and leave it out of PF!

Have fun throughout the round please. I love movie/tv references and jokes throughout the round if they're tasteful, I'll definitely give you higher speaks for them.

LD

I'm comfortable with spreading as long as competitors can send me their case. I'm familiar with traditional and progressive styles/arguments. I'm not too picky about what I want to see in the round.

Theory is fine as long as it's developed and warranted very well so be careful with it. If I see that the theory is not genuine, it could have the opposite effect you'd like it to.

Just like in my PF paradigm, tasteful jokes, memes, and references could get you more speaks but won't affect my voting decision.

I’d like to start this talk off with a parable. A story if you will. I was at a college, a second tier, not an ivy league school, a second choice school, and I was in a class. And there was a student in that class, okay? And the, the teacher, he was spouting some horrible non-sense, about how, it was something about how women’s rights are not legitimate, something that everybody knew was false, but if anybody had spoken up, he would’ve taken extreme joy in failing them. Okay? Nobody spoke up. One person raised his voice. Once person started talking. The teacher couldn’t believe it, the classroom couldn’t believe it either. But in the end, he had logic on his side. And at the end of the day, he proved his point. That student was Albert Einstein.

I don’t flow crossfire, if something important happens, bring it up in a speech.

I need clean extensions, meaning that if there are responses on your argument that you don’t answer, I won’t count the extension. Moreover, things brought up in final focus must be cleanly extended through summary.

Rhetoric sounds pretty but it doesn’t win debates or make arguments, I want clash and warranting.

Please for the love of God weigh the impacts and arguments of the debate or I will and it might not end well for you.

Don’t give me off time roadmaps unless you’re doing something unique in speech structure (like responding to your opponents responses first in second rebuttal).

Finally, use key voters in summary and final focus, you will save time, be more clear, and weigh better. If for some reason you are compelled to just do the weird second rebuttal form of summary that competitors are so fond of nowadays I STILL NEED CASE EXTENSIONS, MAINLY WARRANTS. Just addressing responses and vaguely reaffirming your case and impacts is not specific or good enough.

I DON’T BUY BAD ARGUMENTS!

Blippy arguments make the debate nearly impossible to judge:

Cards should have warrants and you should be able to access the warrant and reasoning behind the card a quote without context is not an argument. You should be using warrants not just reading a quote. If you are extending evidence you should be reading the warrant, not just a blip.

THE DEBATER WHO HAS BETTER ARGUMENTATION WILL WIN OVER THE DEBATER WHO JUST READS A CARD THAT SAYS WELL ACTUALLY WSJ SAYS XYZ.

there should in general, be more engagement on the framing aspect of the debate. Tell me:

How you link into framing
Why that is good
Why your opponent doesn't
why that is bad

pick one main argument that you are winning and link to framing.

pick what offense the other team has and outweigh it

he/him

I have been a coach at Evanston for 5 years, and have been judging for them for 7+

please be clear if spreading, very important that you pause and sign post during argumentation. I will defer to what I hear in speeches and use the speech doc sparingly. It is importance to change cadence when spreading in order to emphasize warrants and impacts in order to differentiate. I don’t want to have to read the cards to figure out what you are saying in your speeches, you should be clear enough so I can flow

Tricks are pretty annoying and don't really help people learn how to debate, It is on a case to case basis on how I will weigh tricks (long story short, id recommend NOT reading them in front of me)

The most important thing in the round is that your arguments are accessible, and inclusive to everyone. That being said, be inclusive to your opponent inside the round. If your opponent doesn't understand speed, slow down. If an argument is not clear and is hard to understand, explain it. If you don't do these things, I will have a hard time voting for these arguments. That being said, I am pretty much open to any argument (regardless of event) as long as it is warranted, and impacted (as long as it is not exclusionary or violent). This includes critical arguments in public forum. Don't lie about evidence. This is a very good way to automatically lose the round with me, and more often than not almost any other judge, or judge panel.

Decision-Making:

Framing:

If you tell me to look at a certain framework and it is fair and reasonable, then I will do so. If I don't think it is fair I probably wont evaluate under it, but I will tell you why I think it's unfair, and how to make it fair. For LD, it is more about warranted framing. I don’t like/understand phil framing when it’s spread, and I literally have no idea how to evaluate it when it’s read at 200+ wpm

K's are cool.

Decorum: You should do what makes you comfortable in round, if you want to sit down for cx cool, stand up, cool. Sit down for speech, yeee, stand on your head. Let people know if there is anything you need to make the round more accessible or more comfortable for you.

Speaker points: Being kind in round is the best way to get 30's with me. Also, if I learn something new or interesting, you will probably get good speaks

winners get probably 28-30, then the losing team .5 less

30: you were cool in round

I don't always remember to time, so please be honest and hold yourselves accountable.

LD:

I cannot flow spreading, so please don't do it.

In making arguments you cannot skip any steps. I know how to evaluate debates, but I am new to LD, so there are lots of arguments that most LD judges know all about that I am unfamiliar with. That does not mean you can't run them in front of me - you just have to be able to fully explain everything part of the argument, avoid jargon where possible, and be crystal clear about why you winning it matters for the round.

PF

- Please time yourselves

- I appreciate concision, but I think evidence too often gets misconstrued when it's paraphrased. I understand paraphrasing is common now, so I reserve the right to check evidence at the end of the round even if the evidence is not challenged by the debaters (I won't look for holes in the evidence - I just want to make sure what was said matches the original writing).

- I accept logical defensive responses made in crossfire as part of the flow. Cross is still not for reading cards.

- I don't think defense needs to be extended in late round speeches unless it is answered. The alternative to this would be to allow extensions through ink, which is wrong.

- I try my best to flow. I won't vote for things I don't understand. I don't want to keep you in the dark about whether or not I understand something, so my face should give away when I am confused.

- If multiple arguments flow through to the end of the round and there isn't good, explicit weighing, I will vote for the argument that was best constructed/most persuasive to me. Since how I feel about arguments is pretty nebulous, you should weigh early and often. Do not leave it for the last moment. If you can't think of anything productive to do in crossfire, set up weighing mechanisms.

Don't mind speed, but prefer it be a tad slower than normal. Good argumentation. Really enjoy a good aggressive debate. Not hostility, but if you're opponent makes a bad argument don't be afraid to attack that.

My name is Jonathan Freedman. I am a lawyer, and while I did not debate in high school, I have been judging Varsity Public Forum for three years, and JV Public Forum for two years prior to that. If I can't understand you, I can't flow for you, so please speak slowly, clearly and loudly. No spreading, please. I judge tech over truth, so I won't argue for you. It helps me to flow your speech if you give me an off time roadmap, so please do so. If you have any questions, ask me before the round starts.

I know things like theory and kritiks are starting to show up in PF, but I am probably not the right judge for that kind of argument. I will only vote on the substance of the resolution.

Weigh or else I will be sad :(

Updated for Harvard Tournament 2020:

Background:

I am currently a senior in college. I spent four years debating for Mountain Brook High School and competed on the local and national circuits in LD and PF. Since graduating, I've worked with CX teams in the Boston Urban Debate League but have done zero work on the current LD/PF topics. Please explain any of the more common topic-specific terms/acronyms because I am not familiar with the literature.

LD preferences:

• Write my ballot for me. Give me voters in your last speech. Weigh your arguments and actually engage with your opponent's arguments. I don't want to vote off a technicality.
• I like plans, CPs, and DAs. I ran a lot of these when I was on the circuit. I also did a fair amount of traditional debate so am always happy to judge a classic V/VC case.
• I don't like tricks or frivolous theory. Please don't run theory unless there's actual abuse in the round.
• You can run Ks and analytic philosophy but I'm not very familiar with the literature.
• Other types arguments: Feel free to ask me for my thoughts before the round. In general, I'll vote for just about anything as long as you can explain your argument well and how it functions within the debate.
• Extensions must include a claim, warrant, and impact. This includes extensions for dropped arguments.
• It's been nearly four years since I left LD, so speak a bit more slowly than you normally would. Definitely slow down for tags and authors.
• Don't be rude to your opponent and don't run offensive arguments.

PF preferences:

• My decisions are largely based off of the final focuses. However, in order for me to consider a point brought up in final focus, it also needs to be extended in the summary speech.
• Have all of your evidence readily available for your opponents to read. If you take too long to pull up evidence that your opponents are requesting, I'll dock speaker points. However, ideally you're asking to look at evidence during crossfire so that we're not wasting time waiting for people to search for evidence.
• Evidence comparison is a must if you have evidence that contradicts your opponents' evidence. Without it, I have to intervene and decide for myself which evidence I think is more valid.
• Explain how your arguments link back to the overall framework for the round. This is especially true in the final focus. Make sure you're weighing impacts and thoroughly explaining how they interact with the overall framework.
• Ask questions doing crossfire. Don't use it as more speech time.
• I don't think the second speaker has to address the opponent's arguments against their case during the rebuttal. Feel free to just refute your opponent's case.
• Extensions should generally include a claim/warrant/impact, even if your opponent dropped your argument.
• Speed is fine.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

1. **** NO SPEED**** It is not educational, nor is it conducive to my evaluating the round as fairly as possibly. It is difficult to properly score you as I will not be able to understand you well. I dislike lack of clarity and theory. Be thorough in your argument.

I will weigh ethical arguments as long as I have an objective means to evaluate them. It's your job to provide that.

2. Evidence comparison is critical. Please make warranted arguments as to why I should prefer your card over your opponent's card.

3. Be courteous, if someone is obviously not the same skill level PLEASE don't bash them over the head with their own case and tell them they are stupid. I hate that, please don't be disrespectful.

4. Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh all of your impacts...... please. An easy way of winning your round just weigh the argument its not hard display it and show it to me and it will only serve to help you.

5. Jokes are pretty cool I love it when done correctly if you will add a joke in your case or make jokes and are able to make me laugh trust me it will reflect on your ballot in the form of speaker points.

6. I like some clash and argument and I like how you defend your self within the round. Having super easy going rounds that is chill are my favorite we are all family here so be calm and chill out.

7. The environment is key so if you say anything along the lines of Environment bad, You better have a solid reason to back it up.

8. NO SEXISM, RACISM, OR ANY OPPRESSION GOOD OR OTHER OFFENSIVE ARGS ( I will 100% drop you if you try to say any of these things are ok), make sure you address everyone by their preferred given name and treat others with respect and the way you wanted to be treated.

*PLEASE READ FOLLOWING NOTICE: I have specific judging philosophies for the different styles of debate (Policy, ld, pofo, parli) For a full record of my judging history, please look for my other account by searching my full name, Mariela Garcia. Any rounds that I judge after October 16, 2015, will be located on this judge's page. I apologize for the inconvenience.*

General Information About Me

My speech and debate background:

I am currently an senior director for Advantage Communications, a leading speech and debate company that in 2023, had 60% of our students in out rounds at the NSDA championship. I have dedicated the past few years developing district programs in California and Illinois for affluent and Title 1 communities of various backgrounds. I train and advise staff, students, and families, while also creating curriculum with our team of experts. My students and teams are usually in the finals, if not champions. As a coach, I want students to challenge themselves to read material that they wouldn't otherwise read if they were not in this activity. My goal is to ensure all students feel empowered enough to use the stage to say something they truly care about OR that they feel is urgent. I also encourage my students to do at least one event in each category every year if their schedule allows so they stay well-rounded. I train coaches to ensure they bring out the best in students by engaging a growth mindset that keeps them both busy with goals rather than busy work. I work with students from all backgrounds, ethnicities, economic brackets, orientations, races, genders, etc. and it is my goal to ensure all my students feel that there is someone in their corner that is rooting for their success.

My Experience in Debate:

• I debated for about 4 years at CSU-Fullerton ranging from novice to varsity. I am currently the head coach and director of the policy and public forum teams at La Quinta High School. I have been coaching them for almost a year now.
• I have judged policy, ld, pofo and parli, at all levels for 4 years now at various tournaments and have coached minimally in the past. My entire record is not on my judging history, given that many of these judging events occured when I was filling in for missing judges at our CSU-Fullerton tournaments.

My Educational Experience:

• I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculum. More than likely, I will know if you have made up evidence or if you took evidence out of context. I will automatically give you a 25 for your speaker points and you will lose the round.

My Debate Motto:

• EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES. I encourage you to be creative with your arguments, even if that means you must debate the resolution (Policy/LD). However, please note my requirements for these types of arguments to be valid in a round below.

My Speech Motto:

Practice does not make perfect, only perfect practices makes progress. This means that you have to bring 100% of yourself OR communicate to your coach if you cannot do that at a practice because without full commitment, we cannot grow and improve at a steady pace. I believe that students are keenly aware of the world around them and they have a lot that they want to say to adults, so I encourage my students to read articles that will help them better express a message, argument, or idea because it is my job to ensure they sound astute on stage. As for acting, it is one of my passions that I am constantly working on improving so I can better teach my students. Impromptu and extemp are difficult events if you don't respect formulas, but if you take it as a coding project, you can create neuropathways that will easily help you during your prep time. I love to coach and I love to teach others how to coach students.

My Judging Philosophy for Policy/LD:

All types of debate prescribe to a game with rules that are ALWAYS debatable. Having said that, I encourage debaters to establish a role of the ballot and a role for the judge as a way for me to score the round. This is separate from framing the debate through framework arguments. Framework tells me how to evaluate and prioritize certain issues within the debate while giving me net benefits to preferring it over other framings. The roles you give to the ballot or judge are additional arguments that allow me to weigh the round given the interpretations you give to those roles and clarifying the necessity to accept these roles as opposed to upholding my own predisposition.

Thus, I will do my best to keep my predispositions away from the round. We as judges merely evaluate the arguments presented to us given the strategies that are used to explain and spin the issues. I stay true to the flow and not my opinion. A debater’s job is to clearly communicate what your argument is and spin the debate by reverting back to the arguments you should have consistently presented throughout the debate to answer the opponents opposition. Thus, you have to warrant your explanations and create clear impact calculations to narrow down my vote in the last speeches.

I welcome metaframing debates and kritiks. However, kritik debate is hard work. This means that if during cross x you do not have a clear explanation of your alternative, metaframing, or links to clarify to the opposing team why your kritik exists in the debate, you have basically lost the round. You may be able to explain it in later speeches, but the cross x is your time to make sure I know what it means to vote for the k. The best k’s engage the topic or the affirmative to either turn the case or frame out the affirmatives impact. Topicality against these types of arguments are good but are not enough to win the debate. To win the debate against a k, you must set up a good framework and topicality argument and demonstrate why it is that we should preserve the norms of thinking in the direction you want us to go (lay out the harms, impacts, and voters). Net benefits for both k and fw/topicality are necessary.

LD debaters must explain how their criterion is the correct moral choice to make. LD is not about solving an issue per say, it is a morality debate. So please make sure you emphasize how your case supports your criterion and why your criterion is the best moral position to take, especially if you aren't doing TOC or CA style debating. Remember that LD started off as a debate about morality, and not so much policy. If there is a plan, I expect you to provide solvency and the neg can counter with a CP. I will respect the type of debate category you enter and I will also respect arguments about the importance of keeping a distinction between LD and Policy. After all, I do believe that while many teams that experienced cuts to their budget have moved to LD to carry on their policy habits, it is also hurting the policy debate community and their budget when we bleed the two together. This doesn't mean we can't have a K in LD, I mean the criterion/value portion of LD welcomes the K, but it does mean that people DON'T have to have a plan but if they do, then you have the burden to prove it's probability and solvency.

Specificity is key. Don't put your judge in a position where they may need to intervene with their own thoughts or emotions, just prove your point thoroughly and make sure you do it in a way that can easily be flowed and explained. This is how I know that no one else knows your argument better than you and I reward specificity with higher speaker points. You don’t need masses amount of evidence to win the debate. Quality over quantity.

Note some other specifications about formalities in debate that I judge on:

Clarity & Speed:

I value clarity over speed. I am fine with any speed. I will give you three warnings for clarity, no exceptions. After that, do not hold me accountable for missing an argument on the flow since I clearly gave you a warning about not being able to understand what you were saying.

Do not spread the following items for your own benefit: Value, Value Criterion, Contentions, Tag Lines, Authors, Date". This avoids me having to call for evidence to make my decision. I want to be as fair as possible. It is your responsibility to to help me make it a fair round.

Road Map & Sign Posts:

This helps me keep up with you on my flow. After the first constructives, I recommend the following structure:

• AFF: Overview, What you are winning on, Dispute Neg. claims by referencing evidence, Why you should win debate(calculation of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, risk of solving, etc.)
• NEG: *BLOCK SHOULD ALWAYS BE SPLIT: I will take off speaker points for teams who fail to do so* Overview, Restate arguments (should be split in block), Why Aff isn't resolving your claims with clear warrants from your evidence, and why you should win the debate (calculation of actualization of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, etc.)

Evidence:

As long as I can follow a clear, reasonable, and logical line of thought, I will always value that as evidence. This means that if you use your experience, poems, performance, or anything that can be seemingly categorized as "unorthodox" evidence, I will still count it as a warranted claim in the debate. I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculm. EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES.

Diplomacy:

• SPEECHES: If you need to yell, scream, or perform your speech in any way that is necessary to make emphasis to your claims or give it performative interpretations(say that you are running an identity K or performance K), I will NOT deduct speaker points. Make sure that any claims you are making can be backed up reasonable, logical lines of thoughts. Try to be as respectful to the other team as you can.
• CROSS X: Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in cross x, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Judging Philosophy for POFO and Parlimentary:

As A Team

I only judge on what you actually said in the round. I will stick to my flow and nothing else. So you have to make sure you are clearly defining terms and positions on issues that are raised in the round. Evidence is key in pofo and parli and the rules must be followed thoroughly as to set up fairness for every student in the tournament. Contention of the rules is reserved, in my opinion, only to policy and LD debaters. In making the decision, judges are expected to ask the following questions:

1. Which team was more persuasive?

2. If yes to number 1, did the debaters back up their claimswith evidence?

3. Based on my flow, were the ideas understandable enough that I can repeat (almost word for word) the argument that they made?

4. Were the debaters polite and professional throughout the entire round? (speaker points)

As Individuals

Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another.I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in crossfires, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

General Notes about my judging preferences:

I mimicked my judging philosophy from many of my past coaches and through my experience in debate, but I found a great breakdown of what most judges will judge like by looking at Mike Maier's judging philosophy. He has great tips on what you should be doing in almost every form of debate and recommendations for you as well. I highly recommend that you read it. I do hold different positions on some of his ideas, so please make sure to note those distinctions by reading my paradigm thoroughly. Do not expect me to give you a thorough breakdown of my judging philosophy before the round!

Mike Maier's judging philosophy link: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Maier,+Mike

Please do not spread. Signposting is requested. Make impacts clear.

A compelling argument carried is far better than several floppy arguments dropped. Quantity does not impress me much if it is in terms of arguments and not impacts. Help me to anchor my understanding of the round. My background is in the humanities, literatures and languages. I enjoy listening to a well presented and tight case.

More "creative" interpretations of the resolution are thus welcome. I flow but do not pay much mind to CF or Grand Cross. I use that time to collect my thoughts and weigh, as time in-round is at a high premium. I do pay mind to constructive and rebuttal. Please pass important points from CF onto C+R+Sum for my consideration.

If you call for evidence, do not prep while you wait. Do use the evidence in a way that changes the course of the round. If the round doesn't turn on the card, don't call for it.

I am a parent from Newton South, where both my kids have been active PF debaters. I have judged 50+ rounds across 12+ tournaments. I will take notes on your arguments but am not a "flow" judge. Please speak clearly, give warranting and weigh your arguments/impact relative to your opponents. I do not look favorably on teams that are rude to their opponents, or misconstrue or misrepresent evidence. I look forward to meeting you, and hope you have fun!

LD Debate: I am a judge that leans toward the classic style. I don't mind K-debate, but you'd better make it apply to the resolution! I am not a fan Topicality arguments. If you run more than one off, I'm not going to apply the rest. Don't be a whiny debater. Debate the round! Speed is fine as long as you are articulate. Don't be rude to your opponent, and if you are a male debater...DON'T BE SEXIST OR CONDESCENDING to a female opponent. I want to hear framework, value, criterion, impacts, and links. Give me that and I will be happy.

PF Debate: Framework and Impacts! I don't like rudeness in Cross Examination. I like a mix of claims, warrants, and narrative. Tell me a story. I am not looking for solvency. I'm not sure why people think they have to solve in PF. I just want to understand why you support or oppose the status quo, how that fits into the framework provided, and where/how it impacts. Don't make it too difficult.

Speech and Interp: I enjoy being in speech and interp rounds, where I get to see student's personalities take flight! I love stories, and I feel like the journey's students choose to take us on are important ones!

In interp, I look for HONESTY and connection in each performance. Don't force emotion. We see that! It takes us out of the context of the piece! Also, please don't stare directly at me. I can't get lost in your piece if you are including me in the scene. I want to be a fly on the wall. And I'm a big believer in the FOURTH WALL. Also, I'm not a fan of those who exploit special needs characters, or make fun of them. If you use the "R" word in my round, or show disrespect to special needs characters, you will hear about it on my ballot. Please reconsider doing this in any piece you choose. It is exclusive and disturbing...don't resort to such things for the purpose of a trophy. This community encourages you to find growth in your humanity as well as your talents!

In speech, I like it when I learn something I didn't already know. Teach me! I love coming out of rounds and telling people, "I was in this OO/Informative/Extemp round and I just learned that..." And I don't mind controversial subjects either! As long as you aren't excluding anyone, or being offensive to a particular group of people (race, ability, religion, sexual preference...etc), then I'm okay with controversy. And whatever your topic...have conviction!

In both speech AND interp, I like it when students make CHOICES and take CHANCES. I'm a tough judge, but only because I want you to improve and have the best critique you can get to do that! I love the community that speech and debate provides for students. I also know that the experience I get from every single performer is invaluable! So thank you!

I am a parent judge with experience.

Once you determine the PRO/CON, it would be helpful if the PRO team sits on my left side and the CON team sits on the right side.

I do try to flow, but I am not great at it. Please make sure to clearly state your contentions. An off-time roadmap will also be very helpful.

Please speak at a conversational speed, speak clearly and PLEASE ENUNCIATE. Speaking too fast will probably mean that I will miss much of what you are saying and it will count against you.

Impacts are important and should not be minimized, however, link chains are more important to me. The link chain should be compelling, well supported and believable.

I have trouble keeping track of evidence tags, especially when you refer to it later in a summary and closing statement. If it is something important to your case, please make sure to emphasize it.

Please plan on keeping your own time, but I may also time the round from time to time.

Please be kind to one another. I appreciate that debate is competitive, but foul language, and mean spirited-comments will not be tolerated. I want you to work hard and learn, but I also want you to have fun.

I hope we have a great round. Good luck to you!

I am a parent and lay judge who has been judging for 2 years.

When debating, I look for people who are able to stand by their arguments well. I don't care what the argument is, as long as you are able to back it up and defend it against your opponent's rebuttals.

No spreading, no jargon or acronyms.

Updated for virtual debate in 2021-22.

Add me to the email chain: azgphoto@hotmail.com.

If providing / exchanging speech docs: Please email the text of your speech to me. I prefer this to a link to your doc in the cloud. If you also want to send a link, that is fine.

Time: Speeches and cross: Please state something like "my time starts now" or "time starts on my first word." Prep time: Say "starting prep now," "time starts when I get my partner's call," or hold your timer so that everyone can see it when you start prep. Also say "stopping prep, we used X" or "x remaining." This helps me and everyone in the round keep track.

Virtual evidence exchange: Teams must be able to pull up evidence and provide it promptly. Teams asking for evidence must keep both microphones on until the evidence is received in order to keep your prep time from starting. Any team asked for evidence that cannot provide it within 1 minute may lose prep time.

----

Experience: I am a former Bronx High School of Science policy debater where I debated all four years and competed regularly at national tournaments. This was a while back. Abraham Lincoln was the President. (Obviously joking.) This is my fifth year judging PF debate for what is now my son's former high school. See my judging record below.

Please read my full paradigm below.

Signposting. Please signpost all of your positions/arguments. This includes your warrants, impacts, links, as well as when you weigh the issues in each speech. Numbering with signposting is often helpful for me to make clear what you consider to be independent arguments. Without good signposting, I (like any judge) may miss part of an argument or not vote on what you believe is key to the round.

Speed is okay but you must be clear. I flow debates. If I can't understand you or feel like I am missing what you are saying, you will be able to tell by the look on my face in the round. Online debate adds another level of difficulty to this so if I can't understand enough of what you are saying, I will say "clear."

Warrant your arguments and weigh them (where it makes sense to do so). I do not want to do any analysis for you that you do not present in the round. Intelligent and thoughtful analysis can beat warrantless evidence.

Evidence. Know your sources and tell me precisely what your evidence says. The NSDA allows paraphrasing but I don't think it is worth the potential trouble that can result. Context is often very important. If a team is paraphrasing and the evidence is critical to the round, I encourage you to call for it and look for weaknesses in your opponents's characterizations. Also, consider the persuasiveness of the author. I won't necessarily know who the author of your evidence is. Consider telling me enough so that I can evaluate how persuasive the evidence is as well as explaining why your opponent's sources may be biased or untrustworthy. I may ask for evidence that becomes important in the round. All evidence must say what you claim that it does. If paraphrased text doesn’t say what you claim that it said, I will weigh that against you. I don't like to call for cards but if you think that someone's evidence doesn't say what is claimed in the round, ask me to call for it. (Don't tell me to call for evidence that is not at issue in the round and don't bother to ask me if I want to see evidence after the round. I will tell you if I want to see something.)

Cross: I may make notes during cross but if you want to make an argument or respond to one, it must be made during a speech in the round. You can refer back to an argument made in cross but make sure I understand how you are using it in the round.

Frameworks: If your opponent seeks to establish a voting framework for the entire round, address that framework directly. Tell me why I should reject it or why I should adopt an alternate framework. If you do not respond to your opponents framework directly, I will treat that as though you have accepted it.

By the end of your summary speeches, I should have a clear idea of exactly what you want me to vote on and why. (“We win the round on x is nowhere near as helpful as “We win the round on x because ...” Please address your opponents’ voting arguments head on.

Extend your key arguments into Final Focus. Extending an argument is not the same as repeating an argument. Know the difference. If you want me to vote on it, it must be there.

On a related note, don't drop your opponents’ voting arguments. If an argument is truly dropped and this is pointed out in the final focus, I will give the dropped argument to the team that made the argument. They may not win as a result but it could be easier to do so. DO NOT, however, claim that your opponents dropped one of your arguments when, in fact, they merely responded generally to it.

Timing. When time runs out, please stop speaking. If time runs and you are in mid sentence, you may complete the sentence but only if you can do so in no more than a few seconds. Arguments made or responses given after time is up are NOT "in the round."

I will disclose my decision after a round along with my RFD if the rules of a tournament allow me to do so.

Progressive arguments: I am not very familiar with progressive arguments / Ks, so run them at your own risk. That being said, I will evaluate any argument presented on the merits of the argument.

Hello, Greetings !!!

I am a parent judge and have some experience judging public forum debate format. I am aware of incredible time & effort debaters put in for preparation and how much they value and look for judge's feedback. I would like to be fair in judging and would suggest following,

1. Speak Clear,loud, confident and concise.
2. Speed - Like medium so that i can flow. No spreading.
3. Please do not bring up new arguments in Summary and Final Focus. Extend your arguments and collapse in Summary and FF.
4. Do not personally attack or use offensive language towards your opponent. I expect this to be a sportive and enjoyable experience.
5. Stick to the time limits.
6. I expect clear evidence and warranting when supporting arguments.
7. Voters - If you want me to vote for you, please make it clear what arguments you are winning on.

Good Luck debating !!!

i did varsity PF + LD in high school, so i'll be keeping a pretty thorough flow of all the clashes in the round, and that's how i'll be voting

the most important thing for me is the arguments; the strongest arguments will win the round

also it'll be super obvious if you are twisting your opponents words or not engaging in good faith with the debate, neither of which is persuasive. genuinely show me why your arguments + responses are stronger

in your final speech, crystallize for me the key arguments and tell me why your side won on those

I consider myself a traditional judge. I judge based on good argumentation, clash, composition, articulation, and poise. I prefer speed at a moderate rate and volume within a reasonable range.

I am a current APDA debater and former national circuit PFer. I evaluate off the flow, but will not credit arguments if critical links are missing. I am more sympathetic to analytical claims than most judges. You do not have to extend defense past rebuttal, but if you want me to vote on an offensive claim, please extend it into final focus.

Three years coaching PF, 4 years debating British Parliamentary. I prefer socialist, people-centric advocacy. If you are spreading, make sure that you are still actually articulating the words in your speech. spreading is fine, but if it becomes inaudible then it makes 0 sense for me to flow the small chunks that I am able to catch. Spreading in this fashion is a tactic typically used to hinder an opponents ability to flow and keep up but it also has an adverse effect on the judge's ability to actually judge what you are saying. Ensure that you are linking your arguments back to your framework. Framework should be a rubric of sorts your team claims that needs to be fulfilled in order for you to win. If you would like to challenge evidence, I will look into it once the round is complete so all teams should have the non-redacted version of the sources they are using for their cards.

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.

I am a parent judge for Acton-Boxborough and I have judged on the local/national circuit for two years.

English is my second language, so please please don't spread. Keep the word count at 180 will be great.

General Preferences

I like arguments that are logical and explained clearly. If you do this, then you will be successful.

I do not flow cross, but I do pay attention. Be civil and respond logically. Don't be over-aggressive.

Rebuttal

I like arguments that are logical and are supported by cut evidence. Rebuttal is your time to point out flaws in your opponent's arguments with clear logic from your side. Please don't read a bunch of general prepared blocks - I want to hear relevant, targeted responses.

However I do think extent on your own contention is important. The case can't be solely won just on rebuttal.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am a traditional LD judge with experience. As the competitor, you must explain to me why you win. While I will vote on arguments if that is what you convince me to vote on, I prefer that you strongly support your value/criterion and impact. You are able to win under your opponent's value/criterion. I am not a strong proponent of progressive LD, so if you are going to run theory or a K, you must be prepared to strongly defend its use. I will not automatically vote down the the use of theory or a K.

Moderate speed - if I can't understand you, I am not flowing or following your arguments.

Public Forum

I have experience judging PF, but I have never competed in PF. As the competitor, you must explain to me why you win - convince me. Impact your arguments clearly. Also, I am not economist.

Moderate speed - if I can't understand you, I am not flowing or following your arguments.

Judge Philosophy

Name: Kate Hamm

School Affiliation: Ransom Everglades

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 10+

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: X

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 34

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: X

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? All events

What is your current occupation? I am a high school teacher and head coach.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: Debate may be crisply delivered, but I am not a fan of the ‘spread’ in PF. If you need to spread – switch events. Can I flow the spread? Sure, I just don’t want to in PF. If the round comes down to two well matched teams, the team that has better, more persuasive arguments will beat the spread every time.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Summary speech should begin the narrowing process of the debate. The debate should be narrowed into the key arguments. I don’t want to hear a line by line of 16 minutes of argumentation spewed into a 2 minute speech!!!

Role of the Final Focus: The role of the final focus it to weigh the impacts of the arguments that were narrowed in the debate and persuade me as to why one side won and the other side did not.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: If the refutation (rebuttal speech) does not attack an argument presented in their opponent’s case, their summary may not try to do so. If the summary speaker leaves an argument out of the debate, their partner may not bring it up in the final focus. If arguments from the Constructive case are not extended by the summary, nor mentioned in the debate after the constructive case, please DO NOT try to impact them in the Final Focus.

Topicality: Really? This is an issue in PF only if a team tries an abusive definition. I do not want to hear a theory debate.

Plans : Some resolutions are policies…

Kritiks: Oh Hell No. Not in PF.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow… a lot.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

I generally judge on the arguments and score points on style… therefore, I do give low point wins.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? The rebuttal speech in PF should refute the opponent’s arguments; they may rebut their own, if time. But that is not mandatory for me. It is mandatory, however, that the summary speaker narrow the debate to the arguments that stay in the debate. The final focus may not extend a case argument if their own summary speaker dropped it.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? See above.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Absolutely NOT!

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

I love debate… I reward (with speaker points) students who elevate debate into a fine art. I do not reward (with points) those who make it into a short form policy event or a two person LD circuit circus. If two teams are giving me a spew fest of spread crap, the team who wins the flow will win the debate, but neither team will win high speaker points!

First and foremost this activity is one of communication. If you aren’t communicating… find a different activity.

I go to college, but I did four years of PF with Princeton High School and it was a lit time. I’m pretty flow, but I probs won’t know a lot about the topic. I love judging!!

Important things:

1. Pls be nice :'), ie no interrupting or talking over people

2. I don’t like when people whisper or react non-verbally during speeches (like making faces)

3. Signposting and well structured speeches

4. Frontline frontline frontline

5. Please collapse in final speeches!

6. I love me some weighing in later speeches → easiest way to my ballot

7. Explain your arguments ~with analysis and logic~ as I vote on thing that Make Sense and not on cards

8. I HATE long metaphors that don’t really make sense and/or are grossly over-exaggerated lol

9. If you ask me to call for a card I probs will, or if it's highly contested

Overall, I vote pretty much entirely on flow (but if you talk too fast I will miss things) and if you make references to cardi b you will see it in your speaker points ;)

Feel free to ask me questions before/after round!

I am a parent judge who values common sense and clear logic in argumentation. The following are my preferences:

1. Always organize and collapse on your arguments.

2. If your evidence contradicts your opponent's, convince me with logic. More recent evidence may not be better.

3. Slow down if you do not articulate your words.

4. Be respectful and let your opponents answer the questions you asked during crossfire.

Go read Justin Qi's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

tldr: First time parent judge, but enough background knowledge to follow arguments fairly well, minimize confusing jargon.

I am a first time judge, so please no spreading (obviously), keep unnecessary evidence battles to a minimum, and try to put things in layman's terms rather than using confusing debate jargon-- I can't vote for you if I don't understand your argument.

Things that will help me vote:

- Clear extensions of the warranting/reasoning of arguments through all speeches

- Signpost- tell me exactly where to write things down

- Tell me exactly what I should be voting on and why

- Tell me what you are winning, and why it matters

Reasons for auto-drop:

- Your opponents beat you

Extra info:

- I will usually disclose with a very brief in-person rfd

https://gph.is/2HThgly

I am an assistant coach at The Potomac School, and previously was the Director of Forensics at Des Moines Roosevelt. If you have any questions about Public Forum, Extemp, Congress, or Interp events, come chat! Otherwise you can feel free to email me at: quentinmaxwellh@gmail.com for any questions about events, the activity, or rounds I've judged.

I'm a flow judge that wants to be told how to feel. Ultimately, Public Forum is supposed to be persuasive--a 'winning' flow is not inherently persuasive. My speaker points are generally reflective of how easy I think you make my decisions.

Things to Remember…

0. The Debate Space: R E L A X. Have some fun. Breathe a little. Sit where you want, talk in the direction you want, live your BEST lives in my rounds. I'm not here to tell you what that looks like!

1. Framework: Cost/benefit unless otherwise determined.

2. Extensions: Links and impacts NEED to be in summary to be evaluated in final focus. Please don't just extend through ink--make an attempt to tell me why your arguments are comparatively more important than whatever they're saying.

3. Evidence: If you're bad at paraphrasing and do it anyway, that's a reasonable voter. See section on theory. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. I also prefer authors AND dates. I will not call for evidence unless suggested to in round.

4. Cross: If it's not in a speech it's not on my flow. HOWEVER: I want to pay attention to cross. Give me something to pay attention to. Just because I'm not flowing cross doesn't make it irrelevant--it's up to you to do something with the time.

5. Narrative: Narrow the 2nd half of the round down with how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. I like comparative analysis.

6. Theory: If an abuse happens, theory shells are an effective check. I think my role as an educator is to listen to the arguments as presented and make an evaluation based on what is argued.

Disclosure is good for debate. I think paraphrasing is good for public forum, but my opinion doesn't determine how I evaluate the paraphrasing shell. This is just to suggest that no one should feel intimidated by a paraphrasing shell in a round I am judging--make substantive responses in the line-by-line and it's ultimately just another argument I evaluate tabula rasa.

7. Critical positions: I'll evaluate Ks, but if you are speaking for someone else I need a good reason not to cap your speaks at 28.5.

8. Tech >< Truth: Make the arguments you want to make. If they aren't supported with SOME evidence my threshold for evaluating answers to them is, however, low.

9. Sign Post/Road Maps: Please.

**Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don’t know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that with some humor and panache.**

Background

- 3 years national circuit PF at American Heritage-Plantation in Florida (2013-2016)

- 2 years policy debate at FSU (2016-2018)

- 2 years coaching PF for Capitol Debate (2017-current)

Paradigm

- Do anything you want to do in terms of argumentation. It is not my job as a judge in a debate community to exclude certain forms of argumentation. There are certain arguments I will heavily discourage: Ks read just to confuse your opponent and get an easy win, theory read to confuse your opponent, anything that is racist, classist, transphobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I will not immediately drop you for trying to confuse your opponent, I might for the latter half. The threshold for trying to confuse your opponents will be if you refuse to answer crossfire questions or give answers that everyone knows aren't legit.

- The most frequently asked questions I get are "can you handle speed?" and "how do you feel about defense in first summary/does the second speaking team need to cover responses in rebuttal?" To the first, if you are spreading to make this event in accessible to your opponents, I will give you no higher than a 20 in speaks. I am fine with spreading, but if either your opponents or I clear you, I expect you to slow down. If your opponents need to clear you 3 or more times, I expect you send them a speech doc (if you had not already done that). To the second, I do not care. It is probably strategic to have defense in first summary/ respond to first rebuttal in second rebuttal, but if you do not do that, I'm not going to say it has magically become a dropped argument.

- K's are cool, theory is cool. You need to know what you are talking about if you read these. You should be able to explain it to your opponents. If you are doing performance stuff give me a reason why. You should be prepared for the "we are doing PF, if you want to do performance why not go back to policy" debate.

- I default to whatever debaters tell me to default to. If you are in a util v structural violence framing debate, you better have reasons to defend your side. I do not default "util is trutil" unless it is won as an argument.

- Sound logic is better than crappy cards.

- The TKO is in play. If you know, you know.

- Speaker points will be reflection of your skill and my scale will remain consistent to reflect that. The average is between a 28.2-28.5. If you are an average debater, or your performance is average in round, that is what you should expect. Do not expect a 30 from me unless the tournament does not do halves.

Any questions:

email- ryleyhartwig@gmail.com

Or you can ask me before the round.

History: I did PF debate during highschool, debated in the GA circuit and went to many National Circuit tournaments. I have been judging PF for a while now. I have been off the circuit for a little while though, and may not be knowledgeable about recent developments within the last year in regards to PF.

How I evaluate the round: I expect you to extend your arguments throughout the whole round. This means offense from the rebuttal needs to be extended through the Summary and Final Focus for it to be weighed in the round. I also do not like it when teams bring up something from rebuttal in the final focus without extending it through summary (called extending through ink), doing this will likely result in the argument being dropped off my flow.

Argumentation: I expect all arguments to be properly warranted and impacted with supportive evidence to go with it. However, don't just speak off cards.

If you want the argument to be important, then make sure I know that it is important.

Updated 1/12/19

If you treat me as a normal flow judge, you will likely be fine. If you want any more specific info on how you can win my ballot or improve your speaker points, either read below, or ask me before the round.

I don't require second rebuttal to cover first rebuttal's responses, but I generally look favorably upon teams that do so. First summary does not have to cover defense. Weighing is important.

------------

Above all, I value efficiency and consistency in Public Forum. That is to say, I look very favorably upon teams that can build a strong narrative and develop it throughout the course of the round. Probability weighing is essential, since a high probability argument with a strong link chain builds a better narrative than a high magnitude, low probability, unrealistic "debate" argument. The final focus and summaries should also be very consistent with one another, and I will not vote on blatantly new arguments brought up in the final focus.

At the same time, I like teams and debaters that can speak slowly and clearly and still cover the entire flow with cohesive arguments. I do not like teams that speak extremely quickly and simply dump dozens of blippy responses to every facet of the opponents' case. I will not vote you down if you do this, but your speaker points will most likely suffer. In many cases, forgoing an additional response and spending more time to explain a better response will be a good strategic move in front of me -- I value clarity highly.

Making non-traditional or unique in-round moves correctly will improve your speaker points by 0.5, since I believe they are examples of debate ingenuity and critical outside-the-box thinking. I want to reward debaters that are able to adapt to specific rounds with non-traditional strategies, rather than using the same exact argumentation in every single round. However, in a lot of cases, these strategies will not benefit you, so think carefully about the situations to use them in.

Examples:

1. Grouping arguments

2. Terminal logical responses

3. Non-traditional speech structures

4. Pre-emptive frontlining

5. No defense in Final Focus

Sam Heller

he/him/his or they/them/their

I haven't been heavily involved in debate since 2016, so don't expect me to up to date on trends in the activity or on this year's topic.

Be clear - I flow from your speech, not your speech doc.

I'm not a fan of ridiculous and contrived internal link chains. I think that the way debate as an activity values high-impact, low-probability risks over lower-impact, high-probability risks is fundamentally flawed and bad for the activity. You don't need a nuclear war/extinction impact for me to care about what you're saying. That being said, this doesn't mean if you make a nuke war claim I'm going to ignore everything else you say. It just means my default impact framing is not going to be "any risk of extinction outweighs everything else" like it is for most judges.

Debate is about arguments, not cards. You can make a good argument without reading a card, and you cannot use reading a card as a substitute for articulating an argument. Also, a card that simply states a claim without providing a warrant is useless.

If I don't know what the aff does after the 1AC, then the neg has a lot of leniency in their ground. You don't get to wait until the 2AC/1AR/2AR to explain the aff.

Framework/Topicality - K affs and T/Framework were the fastest-changing parts of debate when I left the activity, so I assume I'm behind the times a bit on these debates. That being said, I don't think I judge them fundamentally different than other args in debate. The neg needs to answer case, and the aff can't only extend case - they also need DAs to the neg's interpretation.

Reading cards after the round - I do it, but primarily only to verify the claims made in the debate when there's a disagreement between the two teams (i.e. aff: "our card says x", neg: "no it actually says y"). I will not give you credit for arguments in a card that are not articulated during the round.

I have a soft spot for arguments older than I am (inherency, T-Vagueness, voting net on presumption) - I know these args died for a reason but if you find a way to make them I'd be excited!

PF:

I'm like a 7-8/10 for speed in terms of what I can flow. My preference, however, is a 4-5 during the case and a 7-8/10 in rebuttal where necessary.

If you are the second speaking team and you don't come back to your case in rebuttal, there are going to be some pretty easy extensions in summary (probably) that are going to mean game over for you.

I will vote on a warranted argument regardless of whether it is a "traditional" argument. That said, I am hesitant to vote on theory for the sake of running theory. Ex: Running theory without a clear in round abuse story is probably not going to fly with me.

In general, I would say that I am just going to vote on whatever is the path of least resistance on the flow. Make it easy. Write my ballot.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD - Based on what LD generally looks like now, you probably don't want to pref me. I strongly prefer a more traditional style of debate. Will I listen to anything? Yes. Will I be annoyed? Yes.

Congress - Analysis ✔ Sources ✔ A conversational style ✔ Good clash ✔. A good PO will probably make my ballot, but I strongly prefer the good speakers. I just read Neal White's Congress paradigm, and I agree with everything he said.

Blaine High School '14 / Ripon College '18 / Assistant Coach New Trier '18-'20 / Chicago Debates UDL '20-

She/Her/Hers

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Me:

I'm a former debater from the Minnesota Circuit and have experience debating/judging PF, LD, and Congressional debate. I now work for Chicago Debates recruiting judges for their policy program (don't assume this means I am a "policy" type judge). Since I don't cut cards or coach for a living, I won't come with deep knowledge on every topic. In fact, most of my time will be spent in the policy world so whatever topic I am judging may be my first exposure for the season. I say this so you don't assume anything when making arguments. I come into rounds with a pretty blank slate and that's how I will evaluate your arguments.

***NOTE FOR ONLINE: Typically I'm ok with speed but with online tournaments audio can be choppy and hard to understand. You will need to slow down and adjust for this new reality we are dealing with. I'm going to get annoyed if you're running at top speed and I can't understand you because you didn't adapt to zoom.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judging LD:

When I competed in LD I was mainly on the local circuit and thus had a lot of VC debates. I understand that LD has changed a lot since I competed. I am open to alternative structures and off case positions but understand that I won't be technically versed on all of the nuances within these positions. Keep that in mind when making your selection. I'm not a circuit hack so if you're going to run theory, Ks, etc. just make sure you're crystallizing and being clear. DAs, Plans, and CPs are what I'm most familiar with and as an old school LDer Phil debate can even be a fun a time. Other than that I'm open to listening.

****When it comes to email chains I will only reference them if absolutely necessary such as evidence check. As a judge it is not my burden to read your docs. As the debater it is your burden to be clear and easy to follow so I don't have to reference the docs.

Speaking of being easy to follow, the flow is very important to me and thus so is organization and clear signposting. My biggest pet peeve is the abandonment of a clear signpost. Also if you're going to be throwing multiple arguments against one particular card/argument make sure to number your responses. This may seem super trivial but makes a huge difference in the quantity of arguments I'm able to evaluate at the end of the round. My rule of thumb is if I don't flow it I don't vote on it. If you're unclear or messy I won't flow it. Deductive reasoning should tell you that I'd prefer quality over quantity of arguments/positions.

In addition to signposting, weighing is huge for me! If you're not comparing and weighing your arguments why should I have to when casting my ballot. My high school coach used to always say, "the worst thing you can do is make your judge think." Now as a judge myself, I completely agree. Without weighing or evaluating clash your arguments are just two ships passing in the night and I'm left with two random flows. If you're unsure what to weigh it can be as simple as showing me what an aff vs. neg world looks like. If you're an experienced debater give me impact analysis and/or meta-weighing. Weighing is everything!

More common questions that come up: Yes I will accept disclosure theory and believe it is a good norm but I don't personally care if you disclose or not. That's up for your opponent to decide how they strategically want to handle it. Cool with speed but please see my note if this is a virtual tournament.

Speaks start at a 27.5 for me if you lost the round and were disorganized/made blippy arguments. Most debaters will end up somewhere in the 28 range for me. The 29 range is reserved for debaters who were organized, persuasive, and made unique arguments. These are the debaters that understand quality or quantity in their argumentation strategy. 30s are rare for me. I save this for debaters who made me say, "wow that was a good debate." I also don't disclose speaks.

tl;dr: I try to approach every round with a blank slate. The most organized and persuasive debater who takes care of the flow will win my ballot. This is a communication activity after all. Oh, and PLEASE WEIGH. It's that simple.

Judging PF:

My biggest issue with Public Form debate is card clipping and evidence abuse. You need to make sure if you are reading evidence they are full cited cards and not a random sentence you cut for an article and strung together with sentences from other articles.

When it comes to first rebuttal I don't have preference if you go back and frontline/defend your own case. That's a strategic choice you need to make. The summary speech is the most important speech to me and often where I write my ballot. Make sure you are fully extending and weighing your arguments here. This is not just a second rebuttal. The best debaters will make time to boil down the debate and setup their partner for the final focus.

[copied from my LD section] If you're not comparing and weighing your arguments why should I have to when casting my ballot. My high school coach used to always say, "the worst thing you can do is make your judge think." Now as a judge myself, I completely agree. Without weighing or evaluating clash your arguments are just two ships passing in the night and I'm left with two random flows. If you're unsure what to weigh it can be as simple as showing me what an aff vs. neg world looks like. If you're an experienced debater give me impact analysis and/or meta-weighing. Weighing is everything!

I also look for cohesion between partners. You are working as a team so don't setup key issues in the summary and then ignore these key issues in the final focus. Work together to make a complete and clean extension through the round.

One of my biggest pet peeves in PF is when someone asks before CX "Do you mind if I ask the first question." Uh you just did. Take control and just ask a question.

Speaks start at a 27 for me if you lost the round and were disorganized/made blippy arguments. Most debaters will end up somewhere in the 28 range for me. The 29 range is reserved for debaters who were organized, persuasive, and made unique arguments. These are the debaters that understand quality or quantity in their argumentation strategy. 30s are rare for me. I save this for debaters who made me say, "wow that was a good debate." I also don't disclose speaks.

Judging Congress

If you're competing in congress and reading this, kudos to you for being strategic about your judges. I believe judge adaptation can totally be a thing in congress.

Despite what people may think, congress is still a debate activity. The debaters I rank highest in the chamber are those that show a range in their speaking, create clash, and are actively involved through the entire session. I am not only judging your speech but also the amount of questions you ask, if you're utilizing Robert's Rules, and when you choose to speak. If you are someone that is going to give 3 sponsorship/first neg speeches then you won't rank that high. I'm much more impressed by a debater who can be flexible and join the debate at any point than a well rehearsed speaker. I also look at number of sources and times you reference other senators/reps. Flowing is still a thing that can be utilized in congress and I notice when you do it well.

If you serve as a PO that's already license for a higher rank but I will be watching to see if you take control of the chamber and if you're consistent with calling on questioners without showing preference.

Lastly the speeches you give should still be a well organized and presented speech with intro, 2-3 points, and a conclusion. I love a cheesy intro with a bit of personality so have fun with it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please Don't Do These (applicable for all formats)

-Forget to signpost (This is #1 for me). I hate disorganized debate

-Argue sexist, racists, or homophobic points

-Card Clipping

-Extend without analysis or impact. It's not enough to tell me to extend a card.

-Ignore the framework debate if it is applicable

-Turn the last speech of the round into a second rebuttal.

-Excessive off-time road maps, especially when there is only an aff/neg flow to worry about.

-Be mean or obnoxious to novice or newer debaters

-Look at me for facial expressions and validity if you think your opponent is being dumb or whatever. I usually have a straight face while judging and won't give any indication to validate you. The best way to tell if I'm getting everything you're saying is if my head is down and flowing.

Experience:
I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain: robeyholland@gmail.com

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.

Speaks:

· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.


The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.

Framework:

· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.

Procedurals:

· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.

K:

· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.

Performance:

· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.

CP/DA:

· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.

Tricks:

· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

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 have been coaching public forum at Shrewsbury High (MA) since 2014, and am now the head coach there. Please note that Shrewsbury PFers have been instructed not to send their cases to their opponents or their judges. They also will not partake in Theory or K debates since they have no place in Public Forum Debate. They will be debating the resolution as is the entire goal of PF debate.

I have a lot of experience judging, but have also been in the tabroom a lot recently. I believe in the values of public forum debate, meaning that the debate should be able to be adjudicated by a citizen judge. I will flow, but I'm looking for clear signposting and a clear structure to each speech. This is just good practice.

I love a good narrative, but not at the expense of solid evidence and impacts.

I want logically sound warrants, please don't just say that my card is from 2023 when theirs is from 2021...I want a real reason for why your evidence is better in relation to your contentions.

Please give me clash and weighable impacts. But please don't just say you outweigh on scope or magnitude without telling me why.

I really don't want to call for evidence, so please don't use false figures or try anything dodgy. This includes things like, "our opponents didn't respond..." when they clearly did respond.

I will not judge based on any plans, counterplans or critical theories. That is simply not in the spirit of public forum debate.

I don't like roadmaps. Your speech should be clear enough for me to follow without one and it's a problem if you need one, and although I'll probably let you give it, I won't be listening to it.

Don't be rude. This includes good etiquette in crossfire. Condescension will make me look for a way to give you the loss.

I do really like cases I haven't heard before. Just be careful though, the reason they're new is that there's usually an issue with them! That's the fun of all this right!?

I'm a parent judge that has been judging over the last 2 years. I will flow but speed and extreme amounts of jargon will make it harder for me to follow you.

I am more likely to vote for a few well articulated arguments than a ton of individual, unwarranted arguments. When referencing things from earlier speeches, don't just tell me the author's name. Reference the claim/thesis of the argument itself because more likely than not, I won't have the author's name on my flow. Also, I tend to pay a lot of attention to crossfire. Please be respectful to each other.

I generally place more value on impacts with higher probability that impacts with a high magnitude. The more implausible an argument, the less likely I am to be persuaded by it. Given a close round, I will often side with the clearer and more logical team. Also, weigh arguments. Don't just tell me your arguments are important, tell me how they COMPARE to your opponents' arguments.

I really admire the effort that all of you put in to partake in this activity. That being said, enjoy the tournament!

I am open to any argument as long as it is logical, topical, well-warranted, and well argued.

I may not be familiar with your jargon and abbreviations. I would like you explain your argument in a coherent fashion.

I don’t like spreading! I want to hear signposts clearly. Off-time roadmaps are preferred. Slow down your speaking whenever possible.

Do not rely too much on cards, your precise and concise analysis is more important.

I generally give 25 - 30 points, with 30s reserved for the outstanding speakers. Points will be taken off for rudeness and unethical evidence.

Ensure your argument isn't just based on evidence but reality.

Please don't speak fast at the expense of your clarity. If you fit 20 minutes of speech into 6 minutes then I probably will understand 0 minutes.

I appreciate a dynamic, well-executed debate so intonation is useful, but not at the expense of enunciation.

Hey guys! Really excited to be judging you this round. I have a background in debating American/British Parliamentary and Extemp Policy, and I've coached World Schools and Public Forum extensively. A few brief things to know about my judging style:

1. I'm okay with people speaking moderately quickly, meaning 1.5-2x conversational speed. If you are spreading too quickly for me to flow, I will use the policy norm of saying "clear" and expect you to slow down after that.

2. Weigh. Impact. Otherwise, I will evaluate the importance of your arguments for you, and 50% of the time it won't be in the way you want me to.

3. Even if you're in a research-based format, give some logic to back up your evidence. You will not win based on a single, unsupported statistic or quote from some old guy.

4. All POIs/crossfire must be incorporated into later speeches in order for me to count it as substantive. Explain to me why the answer you got from your opponents matters in the context of the round.

5. I do not vote off of theory. The one exception to this is trigger warning theory. Include a content warning if you are going to discuss distressing topics (e.g. sexual violence).

Harvard 2022 Update: I used to tell debaters that I liked KitKats so they could gain my favor. Due to the inability to deliver snacks online, I'll mention instead that I'll like you infinitely more if you mention Bulgaria in your speech :)

Bring me a donut for bonus points (currently accepting by mail due to Covid-19 restrictions)

PF debater for four years, went to the TOC that one time.

How to win my ballot:

1) Signpost and Speak clearly. I can handle speed but if you're shouting cards at me and mumbling through them I can't guarantee I'll flow them.

2) Impact and Weigh. Don't let me do the thinking, tell me why I should vote for you and off what (Especially in FF and Summary).

3) Extend. If you want me to vote off something in FF, say it in Summary.

4) Talk to each other in CX. I don't flow cross, if you make a good point, put it in a speech.

5) Be nice. We're all friends here.

I'm a full-time nurse with a child on the debate team. I've been judging at tournaments for two years. I judge PF more regularly than other events, but my son is an LD debater, so I am familiar with the format and the nuanced differences from PF.

As a parent judge, I want to remind you to speak slowly, clearly, and enunciate. Make sure you signpost and clear tags. I prefer that teams show respect to opponents in cross-ex, and try not to talk over one another.

Truth over tech.

Give clear voters and weigh impacts.

I debated PF for 4 years at Ardrey Kell both in NC and on the national circuit.

Now that my history is out of the way, basic info.

I'm tech over truth so if I have to vote off a terrible argument, I will, even if I hate it.

I love obscure, weird arguments as long as they have proper warrants. Please please please don't give me a weird argument for the sake of being "weird," if that argument has zero merit.

I am a "flow" judge so speed is fine, although I strongly discourage spreading. If you're speaking so fast that I can't understand, which is extreme, I'm just going to put my pen down and not flow anything till you slow down.

While I enjoy cross-fire and think it's the best part of a PF round, I'm not going to flow it, so if something important happened, make sure you say it in a speech.

While weird, obscure arguments are great, I'm not a fan of theory. While it does have a place in debate, I don't think it works with public forum because public forum, by definition, should be available for the public to watch and understand, and theory detracts from the public's ability to understand the debate. However, there is a caveat. If your argument is amazing and isn't just a way of confusing the other team or a hail mary, I will listen to it as long and I will factor it in.

Things I like to see in debates:

- Weighing: What you've (hopefully) heard from your debate coach every day since you've started debate, weighing is important. If you don't weigh, I have zero idea how to compare arguments, and I will come up with my own way of comparing arguments, which you probably won't like. So please weigh and I'll be more inclined to vote for you and give you high speaks.

- Summary/Final Focus connection: Everything that's said in final focus must have been said in summary. I don't care if you came up with the ultimate argument that can win every round in the prep time before final focus if it wasn't said in summary. Only exception to this is first final focus, which can respond to points in the second summary because, unless you can predict the future, in which case you should go to Vegas and stop debating, first summary can't respond to a speech that hasn't happened yet.

- Evidence guidelines: Don't just refer to evidence as the "AUTHOR" card, I rarely flow author names unless I feel the card is sketchy in some way. I will have no idea which card you're mentioning and will probably disregard what you are saying. Make sure, every time you mention a card, actually use that card by explaining the argument itself and why I should care about it, don't just reference it. If the card's not important enough to actually explain it, it probably won't matter for the debate either.

- Humor: Please inject some humor into the round. Nothing is more boring than a serious PF round. Roasting the other team is welcome, sarcasm is welcome, jokes are amazing. Successful roasts will be given +1 speaker points, however, if it is a bad roast, and I feel you interrupted the debate for no reason, -1 speaker points. If you are constantly funny, I will give you more speaker points.

Things I do not like to see:

- Rudeness, sexism, racism, etc: If you're being excessively rude or being discriminatory at all, I will give you a 20L regardless of whether or not you should have won the debate.

Speaker Points breakdown:

- 30: Amazing job at not only speaking, but also your arguments and reasoning. More likely if you are funny. (A+)

- 29: Probably the most common point level, still a really good job at speaking and reasoning. (A)

- 28: Tied with 29 for most common point level, above average job. (B)

- 27: Average job, one of speaking/arguments would be lacking a bit. (C)

- 26: Below average, possibly both speaking/arguments lacking. (D)

- 25: Large errors, considerably below average. (F)

- <25: I will almost never give points less than 25, unless you're being rude or discriminatory.

Finally, if you read this far, if you can incorporate a Marvel reference, specifically Black Panther, I will give you +1 speaker points. However, if I feel it was forced, you'll get -1 speaker points.

Have fun debating!

Experience: I competed throughout high school in PF and LD, and have judged both since graduating.

Preferences: Adapt to your opponent and make sure to have a clear framework. Will take off speaker points for spreading.

UPDATE FOR HARVARD 2023.

For email chains: clj9264@nyu.edu

I have been both the head coach and assistant coach for Timothy Christian School for 5 years. Currently, I am not coaching because I am in grad school, but still keep up with PF resolutions. I was a local/regional/national circuit debater in both LD and PF for 3 years for Timothy Christian School. I then spent five years coaching and judging on all these levels. For the past two years, I have judged LD more than anything else but have mostly done case work in PF.

As one my old debate friends/partners has said (thnx Michael):

If you paraphrase a piece of evidence and your opponent calls the card and all you have is a link to an article and you have to control F your way through the page to find what you are referencing I WILL NOT EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE. CUT YOUR CARDS

Now back to my paradigm,

LD SPECIFIC:

A fair warning that I spent the majority of my high school debate career debating PF, but I have 50/50 judged VLD and VPF since 2017.

I have always been a judge that viewed spreading as okay, but I’ll be realistic with you saying that I haven’t judged LD in a year so I’m a little rusty. Run anything you want and run what will best help you win, but make sure to add me to any email chains and slow down for taglines. If you run a K, make sure that it is CLEARLY explained because I am not well-read on most K lit. Although, run whatever is best for you, and I should be able to adapt. I will truly flow anything you run and evaluate them in the round. However, this is also a warning that if you run anything offensive to either me or your opponent, I will not hesitate to drop you, or at the very least significantly drop your speaker points.

I will say clear a few times, but then it is up to you to remember.

While I will read anything presented to me in email chains, I still find it your responsibility to effectively communicate your speeches to both your opponent and me.

PF SPECIFIC:

Keep in mind, however, that PF has changed drastically since I graduated in 2017, although I did also debate VLD for a period of time so I have that experience to draw upon, and I have been coaching/judging PF since I graduated.

Run whatever you want but be sure to be able to engage with those who may not debate the same way as you (i.e., if you have adapted to be more of a tech debater but your opponents are not, be sure that you can still engage in traditional debate.)

As for basic debate preferences, continue reading:

Some things that are necessary for you to win any PF round, whether it be tech or traditional:

1. Extensions. If you want me to look at an argument in your final focus, it is essential that you extend it during your summary.

2. Outweigh. Give me a reason as to why your 25% is more important than your opponent's $200,000. Tell me how the people you are affecting are more important than your opponent's. Essentially, do not make me assume anything and do not make me pick which is more important. *This does not mean I automatically vote util. I love a good framework debate (it’s the LDer in me), just let me knowwhy I ought to look to your evidence as opposed to your opponents.

3. Write the ballot for me. Give me clear voters during the round. Literally, tell me what to write on my ballot. Again, do not make me pick which is more important. Forcing me to make a decision will only result in a messy RFD and critiques. Tell me why your side is more important.

I will vote off of the flow, so make sure to signpost. Don't bother with an in-depth off-time roadmap, instead, just tell me where you are starting. I will only intervene on the account that there are no voting issues during the round, no weighing mechanisms, and no real arguments standing, that being said be clear and very selective. Do not feel the need to argue every single point. I understand that not everything can be covered in a three-minute summary speech. Instead, make smart decisions about what is necessary to win the round.

FINALLY, FOR EVERYONE:

Regarding speaks, make sure you are respectful, or I will not hesitate to lower your speaker points. Low speaks never equates a loss in my book, but speaks are important as I am sure you all know (esp during bubble rounds). As a debater who got into one to many heated discussions, I saw how that could affect my speaks. I love when debaters show that they are passionate, but that does not have to translate as being disrespectful.

Essentially, debate is about having fun and gaining knowledge. It is meant to be a space where we are able to respectfully argue positions and learn from others, so make sure that every round is focused on this. Also, if you took the time to read this all and incorporate a musical theater reference into the round, this may benefit your speaks :)

Competed in PF primarily on the Texas circuit with a little bit of national circuit exposure at NSDA Nationals and the TOC.

I'm tab; I'm open to any (inoffensive) argument as long as it's well-warranted.

I can handle speed as long as you aren't spreading. Clarity is key and if I can't flow it I can't evaluate it.

I strongly prefer that the second speaking team address, at the very least, all offense on both sides of the flow (opponent's case and turns on their own case). Ideally, the second speaking team should also address some critical pieces of defense on their side, but it is definitely acceptable to frontline defense in second summary. If the first speaking team doesn't extend turns in first summary, the second speaking lucks out and I can't penalize them for not defending their case in second rebuttal. I do not require terminal defense to be extended in the first summary, so the first speaking team can extend that from rebuttal to final focus.

All offense that you want to collapse on needs to be in the summary speeches. That said, however, you don't need to go for everything. Just focus on what you need in order to win the ballot.

When making extensions, please try to extend both the link and the impact.

Make sure to have good weighing, organization, and collapsing. Please signpost! Tell me exactly where you on the flow you are addressing so I don't have to waste time looking for it. Otherwise, I'll wind up flowing less of your speech.

Weighing your arguments is incredibly important. I will do my best to avoid any intervention whatsoever, but if you aren't going to weigh properly, I may be forced to do the weighing myself. This is very risky for you.

Given the ubiquity of sketchy evidence in PF, I take evidence ethics very seriously. Feel free to paraphrase evidence, but do so with integrity. Egregious misrepresentations of evidence will disappoint me greatly, and will damage your speaker points and likely my decision to vote for your side.

I will call for contested evidence if debaters make it clear they want me to call for that evidence. I may also call pieces of evidence that I suspect may be misrepresented.

Witty, inoffensive humor will likely benefit your speaker points!

Feel free to ask any further questions prior to round.

I am a parent judge.

I have judged at local tournaments several times at the PF category.

I will focus more on the "how?" rather than the "what?" of the debate.

Things I vote off of:

1. Presentation/Poise and Articulation

2. Speed and Jargon - Moderate pace which allows me to properly understand your arguments. Do not focus on technical jargon.

3. Explanation - Explain me why I should listen and care about your arguments.

Hi! I’m writing this for my dad (who doesn’t believe in paradigms). A couple things you should know:

He’s a parent. Treat him as such; you know what to do.

He’s a professor who gets paid to evaluate students. You’re debating in front of someone who definitely can tell a good and bad link chain apart.

He says he understands speaking quickly. However, he doesn’t think that fast speech is persuasive. I wouldn’t go fast, and definitely not spread.

He doesn’t know any debate jargon. Use at your own risk.

He is a historian, and knows a lot of history. Same for public health -- be careful that what you run would be accepted by an academic in the field.

Be polite & fairly formal. He just spent 15 minutes complaining to me about informal paradigms.

He wants debate to be fun. I'd recommend smiling.

He doesn't believe in off-time road maps. He says that he has never seen them in the rulebooks, and that debaters simply say "first I will rebut the opponent's case, then I will make our case" -- which isn't either surprising or helpful.

Overall, debate like you would in front of a teacher ready to edit your case. Good luck and good debating!

I am a Business Executive for the world's largest Fintech, which is a fast paced dynamic industry.

My Judging preferences:

Don't race through the material, be coherent and articulate with a 'paced' dialogue. If you go so face that I can't follow, it doesn't benefit me in understanding your argument. Ultimately, that hurts you.

Make your case, but understand the opponent's argument as well, and attempt to respond to it. Otherwise, it is two speeches, vs. a debate.

No issue with passionate or directed confrontation on topics with opposing team, but in a polite way. Not a fan of 'brilliant jerks'

I debated for four years in PF on the national circuit for Acton-Boxborough and coached PF at Bronx Science.

General:

- Second rebuttal should preferably respond to new offense/turns from first rebuttal

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense unless second rebuttal frontlined it. In that case, first summary should extend defense on the relevant parts of the flow

Things I Like:

- Summary and the final focus consistency. This means proper extension of arguments (i.e. warrant and impact extension) in both speeches.

- Weighing. Make sure your weighing is comparative (ex: strength of link, clarity of impact, etc) in relation to your opponents' arguments rather than just a bunch of pre-written reasons why your impact matters.

On theory/progressive argumentation:

I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (i.e. read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round) because of PF's speech structure. That being said, if someone says something problematic or does something unfair, definitely call them out for it. Feel free to try to amend my views on debate, just do so knowing that I'm not incredibly versed on progressive argumentation. If you do read progressive arguments in front of me, tell me exactly how they function within the round and should influence my ballot.

Finally, if you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue.

I am an Australian judge (currently an active member of the Harvard College Debate Team) most familiar with the Australs/World Schools format and spent 8 years over the course of my adolescence debating in this format. I will pick you up if you are reasonable and warrant well, and will drop you if you run a case that is very inaccessible or technical.

Note here that I WILL intervene if I think that something has been said in the context of the debate that is so unreasonably far-fetched that it is clearly empirically incorrect, and drop it (regardless of whether or not this has been refuted --> applies mostly to formats lenient toward intervention such as World Schools and less to APDA unless that is your collapse).

I will always buy practical arguments over principle.

Do not assume that I am an expert on the topic you are discussing, and spell it all out for me, including specific weighing.

Finally, don't be rude. It's against the spirit of debate generally and doesn't do much in the way of creating an environment conducive to making everybody feel comfortable.

I am a lay judge but it may help to know that I invest in young entrepreneurs for a living: so I judge peoples effectiveness at convincing me on a daily basis. I do not bring my existing knowledge or biases to the round - rather I look for effective contentions and how well you defend them.

For speaker points - I start midrange and go up or down from there in small increments. Clear enunciation of contentions and counters are appreciated. Use your words always and politely! Rudeness, speaking over others, aggressive body language are not.

Good prep counts as much as your delivery skills. I look for data-driven arguments and logical arguments. If you are asked for a card, I expect you to find it quickly.

If you choose to share your case arguments with me (so I can follow along better) or share evidence when called for, please email Shyam.Kamadolli@yahoo.com.

I am a foreign language teacher for Poly Prep and have started judging for them in 2019. I do not have a background in debate, but I try my best to educate myself on the current topics.

I will flow and take notes during your speeches, but it would help if you do not use in-depth topic or debate specific jargon. Please do not spread and be nice to your opponents. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask before the round.

I am a parent of a high school debater and I have been judging PF at the National and Regional levels for the last five years.

I love the guidance "To what degree will an argument improve the world as holistically as possible given the resolution––humans, environments, economies, etc.?" Using numbers, and sizes of numbers, to make these cases is critically important to my decision-making processes.

I love ethically-collected, fact-based contentions from reputable sources, such as from the gray circle at the top of this curve: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba Think tanks on both ends of the spectrum, particularly those funded by right-wing/Koch money can get a bit sketchy in this context.

And above all else, I expect measured cadence during statements (if I can't understand you, it does you no good!), and a spirit of graciousness during crosses. Points will be taken away for the above misses (particularly if I can't understand what you are saying) as well as any demeaning, sarcastic, or derogatory comments, facial expressions, tone, or evidence. I dislike using debate tribal language in excess and particularly in lieu of content. The "frothing at the mouth preacher style" does not work well with me; I merely ask you to be authentic. Your content should convey the weight of your arguments, not your actions. You will be docked speaking notes for discussions, nodding, or other facial/body expressions while the other team is presenting.

I also delight when humor can be interjected. And smiles are always appreciated.

I will happily share my thought process with teams once the ballots have been entered, while respecting the rules of the specific debate.

I don’t mind speed, but I need to be able to understand arguments (exercise discretion)

Evidence should be clearly tagged.

Framework & impact analysis- I need to know why you’re winning arguments (clear weighing mechanism). Why do you outweigh?

Extensions-please extend the warrant and author.

Simply, set up the case in the constructive, give me reason to disagree with the opponent by attacking and defending (rebuttals), clarify anything misconstrued/flesh out in summary, then give me a reason to vote in final focus.

Familiar with K, DA, CP, T, Theory. If you go for it, it needs to be fleshed out. Internal links, net benefits, impact calculus are critical.

.

Relax. Enjoy. Have fun. BREATHE!

I am usually able to set aside my personal bias to vote for the best argument. This is why you are here; to persuade. Being right in your own mind does not matter; convince me.

For the most part, I am a tech over truth judge, however, crappy link chains will not suffice even if dropped by your opponent. Further, I prefer traditional Lincoln Douglas framework debate over all else. This said, I am willing to listen to anything but cannot promise that I will understand dense phil or high theory. In essence, explain the argument and I will do my best to evaluate it.

If you spread, you should be very clear. I am not super comfortable with speed for I usually judge PF.

Use CX to your advantage. A strategic CX is key to pinning down your opponent and making the debate interesting.

Evidence is good but you have to impact it out. Don’t simply win arguments, give me reasons to vote for you. If you make a clear story, I will most likely vote for you. With this in mind I want to hear voters at the end of the round; explicitly tell me why you are winning.

Other than that have fun. If you make me laugh, your speaker points will go up.

I went to high school in Ann Arbor, MI and I did 3 years of PF. Just a few important things to know about me as a judge...

1. I'll vote on anything that is extended properly (both in summary and final focus, with the exception of terminal defense). I won't require the second speaking team's rebuttal to respond to turns/responses from the first rebuttal (although you can, of course, if you like), but they must be in the summary or I can't vote on them. 

2. You must do the work for me. By this I mean you have to tell me what you want me to vote for and do any/all weighing. I want my ballot to be the most objective representation of the round, which means I want to intervene as little as possible. If I have to intervene, it probably means you're not doing a great job of debating.

3. I care about ethical evidence use; this is the one thing I won't hesitate to intervene on. If, for whatever reason, I think you're intentionally manipulating, misusing, or fabricating evidence, I'll call the card in question after the round. Please don't cut corners, it ruins the debate for everyone involved.

4. I'll leave my email on the ballot in case you have any later questions/want to clarify something. Don't hesitate to send me an email or come find me after the round, I'm happy to talk!

I am a parent judge. My day job is Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, where I spend most of my time running a research lab exploring the role of non-coding RNAs in gene expression and heredity. I know quite a bit about science, but, alas, not so much about economics or public policy. This means that, unless we are debating a science question, I am not an expert. Additionally, I have never debated myself. For this reason, if you use topic-specific or debate-related jargon/acronyms there is a pretty good chance I will not know what you are talking about. Although I do my best, I am also not a "flow" judge and, therefore, you are not likely to win the round based on debating subtleties or total number of contentions made/refuted. I find that most PF speakers overestimate my ability to follow their arguments. Bludgeoning me with a laundry list of facts, whose relevance I find difficult to ascertain, is probably not going to get my vote. Remember, you have been thinking about this material for a long time... I have been thinking about it for a few minutes to a few hours. If you remember anything from this paradigm remember this...less is often more with me. Organize your arguments clearly and logically and avoid burying me under poorly connected factoids. Spend time explaining the underlying essence of why your central arguments are better than your opponent's central arguments and you will do well. As the old saying goes..... don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.

I was formerly a 4 year PF debater at Stuyvesant High School, a 4 year PF coach for Hunter High School, a 4 year APDA/BP debater in college, and the Director of NSD PF for 3 years. 3 things to note:

1. I don’t need defense in first summary if 2nd rebuttal didn’t answer it and you extend it in final focus, but I do need defense in 2nd summary if you intend for that response to factor into my decision. All offense must be in both summary and final focus.

2. I give relatively low average speaker points, as I will award an average PF speech a 28.

3. Do not be afraid to grill me after the round if you think I have made a mistake in evaluating the round in any way. It will not sway me but it might teach you something and i really don’t mind at all.

This is my fifth year judging PFD. I did not debate in high school or college, so I try to approach PFD as a "citizen judge." When I listen to a debate, I track a lot of factors. The three most important factors are: 1) citing information sources and demonstrating that you performed solid research and know your topic, 2) expressing a clear set of contentions and subpoints, 3) and how well you listen to your opponents and attack their argument.

In terms of delivery, I favor slow or medium pace and clear, well developed arguments.

Finally, it is important that each team respects its opponents. I understand that debates can get exciting, but I do not like to see opponents interrupting or talking over each other too much in crossfire. Good luck today.

My background is in comparative literatures and I currently teach high school Spanish. I prefer Congress and forensic arts over Public Forum but am equipped to judge all events. I know you are passionate about debate and I seek to provide the most objective decision possible so please make sure you are speaking at a slower rate than usual. If a PF round sounds like a ping pong match and everyone is spreading, I cannot accurately flow. Regarding research, make sure the sources are credible and current. It becomes interesting when you question, challenge and re-evaluate the opponent’s sources. Sound logic, decisive language and weighing arguments are key. There are plenty of arguments out there as to why high-probability events are worse than high-magnitude ones and vice versa, so all it takes is a little effort to come up with an effective strategy. It should go without saying but professional decorum is necessitated; before, during, and after rounds.

Hello,

I am a mother of a debater. This is my third year of PF judging, however, Harvard is my first online tournament.

You can consider me a lay judge. I understand the flow and try to follow the rules of the flow, but I believe in logical and supported by facts arguments more than in just counting items in the contentions, rebuttals, and responses.

I value the interesting logical and effective arguments and the evidence of the hard work and research.

I prefer when you speak in an understandable pace. I know debaters have a tendency to speak fast, and I will try to keep up, but if I can't understand you, I can't evaluate your arguments.

Please show respect to your opponents, I cannot stand rudeness and offensive behavior.

Most important have fun!

Good luck!

I am a father of a debater. This is my third year judging.
I consider myself a flow judge, but my son tells me that I am a lay judge. I guess, the truth is in between. I try to keep counts for all items in the contentions, rebuttals, and responses, but maybe not to that level to be considered a real flow judge.
I am not a native English speaker, so please don't speak very fast, especially if you are also not a native English speaker.
So, try to do your best, I and will try to do my best as well. Good luck!

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.

A lay judge who's been judging for a few years now, I'm not a big fan of frameworks and I absolutely do not do Theory.

Hi! I did PF for 4 years in high school. I graduated from high school in 2017 and I do parli now at Harvard.

Notes

- I haven't prepped the topic. Please explain things

- I try to only vote off of offense that's in final focus and summary. This is to encourage you to collapse on arguments and weigh

- I don't care if you have a card for something if you can explain why it's logically true

- I love warrants. Please don't justify something by just saying its "empirically true"

- I'm rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round

- I don't flow cross

Wikispaces no longer exists for some reason so I'm gonna try and summarize here.

I went to Scarsdale and did Public forum debate there. I am now on the Columbia Parliamentary Debate Team.

I will disclose at the end of the round. Debate is stressful enough without guessing for hours as to who won. The one exception is if its unbelievably close, and for me to tell you without thinking about it past the normal time at the end of the round, would be almost akin to guessing. This has happened a total of once I believe.

If you read a card in the first two speeches, you have to at least tell me its a card in the second two. You don't have to read a tag, but I have to know you said it earlier, so I know I can go back and find it on the earlier parts of the flow after the round. If you don't do this, I won't vote off of it.

I don't care if you go fast, as long as I can flow. I'm faster on computer than paper, but I'm not bad overall. If I ' cant get it the first time, I won't vote off of it.

I don't care if you're a jerk in crossfire, as long as someone doesn't appear visibly uncomfortable. If they do, ease up. No one should leave a debate round upset because they felt bullied. With that said, so much of crossfire is useless because people are trying to yell about who has a right to speak. Focus on getting one really solid point across. You're more likely to sway the needle.

If you want to be card-centric, do that. I'm game.

You don't have to rebuild in the 2nd rebuttal. If you do it well, however, it can be really effective.

Weigh in the summary, weigh in the final focus. Weigh in the rebuttal if you can. If you do those things, I will give you high speaks. I have no issue giving a lot of high speaks. A lot of you are high-quality speakers.

Heyo! I (a debater) am writing this for my mom (very much not a debater) based on some preferences she’s mentioned over the years. Here’s what you need to know:

In short, she is the public that public forum was made for. She writes “notes” but consider her a very traditional lay parent judge.

The easiest way to win her ballot is to make the round as clear as possible for her. Don’t get caught up in the nitty-gritty of the round; rather, collapse on a clear narrative and give her big picture ideas (pro tip: try a two-world analysis in your weighing!).

Assume she has no topic knowledge, so warrant(!!) very clearly— she won’t make the logic jumps for you. Also, her threshold for BS arguments is pretty low (she’s more truth > tech) so if you are running something squirrelly, warranting is especially important.

This is super specific but she’s a big fan of numbered responses in rebuttal lol. She probably won’t be flowing but she still likes signposting and labelling ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Lastly, try to keep jargon to a minimum. Speed = no.

Good luck and have fun!

TLDR: my paradigm is intended to

a) facilitate a fair debate and actively intervene against slime like making new arguments in the last speech, forcing progressive debate on unprepared teams, and misconstruing evidence.

b) emphasize the importance of preparation, research, and evidence interpretation.

c) encourage pre-round agreements between debaters in order to improve the quality of the round.

I’ve debated a mix of public forum and policy in high school and have judged PF, LD, and CX (not recently tho so explain everything pls ty) for a long, long time. I will occasionally coach one really strong PF partnership. Please mention the credentials and methodology for your evidence! If you do not explain why your numbers are true, I will not grant you the statistic. I don't care what evidence is there, I care about causality, confidence, and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Without empirical proof, your warrants are just claims.

At National Tournaments: please flash or email chain your cards to me and your opponents:

frankielidc [at] gmail.com

In PF I value truth >= tech and am neither a tabula-rasa judge nor a traditional judge. As long as the opposing team agrees before round, read whatever you want. In LD and CX I am tabula-rasa (I don't prep the topics for these formats anyways) with exceptions: no RVIs unless it is frivolous, I'm not experienced judging non-topical affs, I don't like listening to extinction level impacts but will vote on it, and I evaluate Theory above Ks unless the K interacts with our concepts of debate, fairness, education, or competition.

I am impartial to speed in most cases but will say "Clear" if it is difficult to understand and "Louder" if it is too quiet. Please don't spread faster than 300 wpm, flash or email the doc and please slow down at important taglines.

PF Specific: Unless the rebuttal is a stomp, the round is almost always determined in summary. I will grant sticky defense in first summary, unless it’s terminal. Second summary needs to extend defense if they want it in FF. All offense arguments in FF must have already been in Summary. No need to extend cards for impacts in Summaries, but you must weigh. I like line-by-line. If for some reason the running late and flagged by Tabroom, I will evaluate the Summaries to determine the round. This implies that you aren't forced to frontline in second rebuttal.

If you read anything new in second FF, I will drop you with the lowest speaker points. If there was a new argument in first FF, I will drop them with the lowest speaker points. A quick "z is new in FF" will make it easier for me to identify it. If both teams do it, I'll judge based on other parts of the round and just dock speaks.

You can loosely abstract that out to the other speeches in other debate events for my preferences there--just ask a question anytime during the round if you are unsure!

Citing Cards: Citing the affiliated organization or academic journal > a random last name. If you aren't reading a peer-reviewed study from a journal, government agency, or educational institution, I'm probably not writing that card down. I don't mind paraphrasing, but you leave the interpretation of the evidence up to me. I will call cards out of interest and I will drop teams based on NSDA evidence rules.

Calling Cards: If you enter "it says x; no it says y" over the specifics of a piece of evidence, you're wasting time in the debate. Call the card, say the indictment in a speech and request that I call the card myself. After this is mentioned, the evidence should not be contested anymore in the round and I will consider it credible until I have looked over it after the round and decided for myself on the relevance of the evidence. In addition, unless you specify, I will choose whether the indict drops the argument, evidence, or team. Telling me how to vote off of subtleties in evidence makes it so much easier for me.

If a card is called during the round, please don’t prep until the other team receives the card. If you're giving the evidence, please don't stand by your opponents' desk awkwardly...

Please time yourself and use the honor system. Please don’t communicate with anyone outside the round or spread without letting everyone else know before the round.

I will disclose after round with an RFD if time allows. I can give individual feedback as well after the round by email or if you track me down.

TOC update: If you read disclosure or paraphrase theory [especially given what I said about consent between both teams] I will automatically drop you with lowest speaker points and end the round.

Less serious stuff:

PLEASE interrupt your opponent in crossfire when appropriate with a quick statement or brief question. It isn't a 3 minute speech, just don't be excessive and don't raise your volume.

If your opponent doesn't know an answer to your question in cx or crossfire, don't move on. Let them stew in silence >:)

Don't say "Outweigh on scope, we have the largest number in the round."

On topics where I am actually coaching a partnership, I will know every single study back-to-front on the topic.

If you read a turn, bonus speaks if you physically turn around during the speech.

No off-time roadmaps. We all know you're trying to compose yourself before the speech.

If you define every word in a resolution, your speaks will drop by the number of words in the resolution.

Bonus speaks if you show off mental math and it's correct. If you're incorrect, I'll deduct speaks.

Down to listen to fun cases if you know you're not advancing to out-rounds.

3 "Clears" and you're out!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contention 2 is Drowning in Debt:

In states without right-to-work laws, companies anticipate demands from union negotiations and naturally increase their financial leverage, which the Corporate Finance Institute ‘22 defines as the amount of debt used to pay for a company’s expenses. This happens for two reasons:

First is To Limit Union Demands. Deere of the Quarterly Journal of Economics warrants, a union can demand no more than the value of future revenues. By borrowing money, a firm must pay the creditors and shareholders a portion of future revenues first. That’s why shareholders prefer unionized firms that use financial leverage.

Second is To End The Negotiations. Bronars of the Quarterly Journal of Economics explains what happens when a union doesn’t back down. As debt rises, the firm declares bankruptcy, forcing the union to now bargain with the creditors, who could simply replace the union with nonunion labor and restart the firm.

For these two reasons, Dalia of ISU ‘15 empirically concludes, a 0.1 percent increase in the probability of unionization increases a company’s debt by one million dollars and increases its debt-to-equity ratio by 12.3 percent. This relationship only exists in states without right-to-work laws as Chava continues, firms immediately decrease leverage within one year of right-to-work’s implementation. Thus, Dalia furthers, firms in right-to-work states use 13 percent less leverage than firms in non-right-to-work states.

The impact is a financial catastrophe. Debt quickly piles up as Patti of the Italian Economic Journal ‘14 quantifies, a 10 percent increase in leverage raises the probability of default by 6 percent. Disastrously, Campello of the Review of Financial Studies ‘17 reports, each bankruptcy of a highly unionized firm costs an additional $343 million to the firm and $51 million to shareholders. After the dust settles, Dalia concludes, firms in non-right-to-work states underperform by 9.5 percent each year.

We urge a negative ballot.

TL;DR — Tech > truth. Please don't make me do work. Be nice :)

Background: I debated in public forum for Harker for 4 years. If you have any questions about my preferences listed below, please don't hesitate to ask before the round.

How I vote:

1. I look at the framework debate and consider the offense under the winning framework. Please settle this early in the round if possible.

2. I evaluate the easiest paths to the ballot first. This is where it helps to (1) have a smart strategy throughout the round that makes the narrative easier, and (2) explain warrants well.

3. Weigh. Do as much of this as you can. Clear up the clash on important issues and weigh your impacts, because I will do neither of these for you. Your goal is to make it as easy as possible for me to locate your best path to the ballot, and to essentially write my RFD for me through your weighing analysis. I'll be upset if you make me clear up clash or do my own weighing analysis, and your speaks will decrease even if I vote for you.

4. If the debate is a complete wash, I default to the first-speaking team (not con/squo) because I believe in the structural advantage of the second team.

Specifics:

- Speed. Go for it — I'll be able to follow, but I'll let you know if you aren't clear. If I feel that you're abusing this (think borderline spreading), then I'll lower your speaks but I won't vote against you for it. Clarity and quality of argumentation are always the most important.

- Arguments. Any type of argument is fine as long as it's topical and not blatantly offensive. I try to be tabula rasa, and I might bump up your speaks if you run creative arguments that fit a well-warranted narrative.

- Extensions. All offense you want me to evaluate must be in the summary and the final focus. You can extend terminal defense from rebuttal straight into the final focus and I'll evaluate it, but I still prefer it being in the summary as well. Every extension should include (1) evidence, (2) explanation of warrant, (3) impact, and (4) how I should weigh the argument (especially in the final focus). Clear signposting is critical.

- Evidence. Minimum citation is author and date (institution is also nice). I dislike calling for evidence, but I'll do it if (1) something seems suspicious, or (2) you explicitly tell me to call for the other team's evidence. I'll drop any team with a blatant evidence violation, but if it's something like sketchy debate-math then it's better to just point it out in speech. Have your cards ready: I'll drop a card and lower your speaks if you can't produce it within 2 minutes. Don't call for cards that you won't use. When exchanging evidence, do it right away and don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Crossfire. I don't evaluate it, so you need to extend concessions in later speeches. Ask real questions and keep answers brief if possible; don't try to fit a new speech or I'll lower speaks.

- Theory. I don't have a nuanced familiarity with theory debates, but I will evaluate it if you overexplain how I should weigh the argument in the round. Generally, all arguments are fair game unless blatantly offensive. If you think an argument is abusive, it's better to explain this to me as a response and I'll weigh the argument less, but I lean away from voting directly off of theory arguments. In short, only run it if you really know what you're doing, and even then, use it with caution.

How to get good speaks (in order):

1. WEIGH. The easier my vote is, the higher your speaks are.

2. Signpost. Make flowing as easy as possible.

3. Have a strong narrative / strategy throughout the round.

4. Bonus: creative arguments, making me laugh.

How to get bad speaks (in order):

1. Be mean to the other team.

2. Do something sketchy with evidence.

3. Abuse crossfire with long speeches instead of questions.

4. Speak quickly to the point of spreading.

I'm a lay judge and english is my second language so please go slow, preferably around 180wpm max.

When you extend warrants/impacts please explain them clearly, don't just extend a tagline.

please weigh

logical warrants are stronger than empirics, so please have a warrant for your stats

have fun

Parent judge.

Prefer debaters to speak clearly at a normal speed.

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.

I am a lay judge. Please do NOT rush in your speech. I value logic and persuasive argument from debaters. I do not tolerate any racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive comments, and any of the aforementioned will lead to a reduction of your speaker points. Please be polite and respect your opponents, and most of all have fun! That is the purpose of debate after all.

Some background about me: I am a parent lay judge and have judged at locals for the past three years. My daughter is currently a senior and has been debating for South since her sophomore year. The last time I judged a tournament was one year ago at Harvard.

Now, onto in-round stuff.

Speed: If you want me to understand your argument it is to your advantage to speak slowly.

Arguments: I will look for convincing arguments that are rationally presented—even if I suspect that they are not necessarily true. Be careful though, I am a huge history/current events buff and if you say something that is factually incorrect there is a good chance I will realize that. (If you run into me in the halls, or we’re waiting around before round, and you want to talk about conflicts of the 20th century I would be happy to do so).

Evidence: Extend card names throughout all your speeches. If there is clash over one particular card tell me to call for it in final focus and I will look at it after the round is over.

Extensions: I already mentioned card names, but for overall arguments I will only vote for something if you extend it throughout the round and mention it in final focus. I am not persuaded by second speakers who “wave the wand” (extend offense—or defense if you’re second—in their final focus that was not extended in summary). I will only vote for arguments that are extended in final focus. I will not vote for a contention that was dropped after summary.

Round strategy: Please collapse on your arguments. By summary I should have a rough idea of what contention/link(s)/impact(s) you’re going for. Do not extend everything in your summary, and most definitely don’t extend everything in final focus. I like when debaters pitch “narrative” for the arguments they extend. This narrative helps me understand your argument better and is also a good way to get in weighing without throwing out unwarranted jargon like “scope” and “magnitude.”

Debate jargon: I am unfamiliar with most jargon. My daughter just explained what a “turn” is so you can say that and I’ll pick up on it. Besides that though, avoid using jargon and actually explain what stuff like “mitigate” means rather than saying it quickly before a response.

Other stuff: please signpost, this helps me follow your argument and also flow your rebuttal correctly. Please be respectful and kind to each other during round. If I sense that a debater is overwhelming an opponent by spreading or constantly speaking over others in cross I will be less inclined to vote for you. I have zero tolerance for any sexist/ racist/ homophobic etc. behavior.

Lastly, I don’t judge for my own personal enjoyment; I judge because my daughter loves this activity and I want to support her.

Hi Debaters.

I am an English and public speaking teacher, as well as a speech coach at Fenwick High School. I also judge Public Forum debate. As a judge, I look for speech clarity, logic, and organization. I look for a quality argument, preferring evidence backed reasoning over hypothetical scenarios. Watch spreading so that it doesn't backfire. If mumbled with lack of articulation, I won't be able to critique an argument I can't understand. Be respectful at all times, and show your passion for debate.

Public Forum:

I am a former policy debater and have a year of experience judging public forum. I stick to the flow and will not evaluate new arguments in the final focus that I cannot trace back to earlier speeches. Do your thing and I will evaluate the debate accordingly. Feel free to ask questions

If you think it matters, my poliicy paradigm is below

7/31/2017

email - marguliesmorgan@gmail.com

tl;dr - Two important things:

1. Tech over truth

2. An argument is a claim+warrant+impact, do your thing and I'll evaluate the debate accordingly

Who?

I debated for four years at Nevada Union High School in California and qualified to the TOC with two bids my senior year. I liked to think that I was fairly flexible but I went for the kritik pretty often. With that being said, I will vote on any argument, as long as you do the better debating.

Args

T – I will default to competing interpretations unless I am told otherwise. The violation must be clearly explained , if it is not very clear by the end of the debate I will default aff. The most important part of the standards debate is the impact (duh). Limits and ground are NOT impacts, you must tell me why they are important.

Kritiks – This is the argument I read the most often. You do you. You must explain the link in the context of the aff and I really don’t like links of omissions. Make sure the alternative solves the impacts of the kritik. Don’t assume that anyone in the round knows what you are talking about until you have explained your arguments.

Disads – Okay lets be real, the disads are garbage on this topic, but!! if you do it well, you will win the debate. I think evidence comparison and evidence quality is very important in these debates so make sure your ev says what you are saying it says(?). The 2nr/2ar must do impact calculus please please.

Counterplans – I go for the states counter plan a lot and I think it is one of the most over powered arguments in debate. Write your cp text smart so you don't link to solvency deficits and cheat as much as you can. Make sure there is an explanation of how the net benefit works / how it spikes out of the disad and you will be all good. (Also 2NC counterplans are always justified and you should make as many as you can to solve 2ac offense sorry not sorry)

Theory – You gotta do what you gotta do, make sure you impact out the standards. I will evaluate the debate neutrally but with that being said: "No neg fiat" is the worst argument in debate and I think the neg gets as many conditional advocacies as they want.

K affs – Non-traditional affirmatives I think can be very creative and educational. Be passionate and if you understand what you are talking about, you should be good. Make sure you have warrants for your structural claims and do your thaang. These affs should be at least tangentially related to the topic.

Framework - K affs are really cool and all but so is framework. I go for framework in a more limits/skills/procedural fairness way go for whatever. This position when combined with nuanced case arguments is definitely the move. Defend the house.

Be kind, respect your opponent, and have fun!

If you have any questions you can ask me before the round or email me!

I am an assistant coach of PF Debate at Charlotte Latin, and a junior at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. I did PF debate for 4 years at Pinecrest High school in North Carolina. I am an Aries

My preferences are straightforward, although I would like to emphasize two points:

First, summary and final focus should be linked. More specifically, voting issues in final focus must be in summary as well.

Second, key-points of crossfire should be brought up again later in a speech. I will only write down CX concessions if they are in a speech.

Signpost and clearly tag all arguments. Competitors should foster good clash in the round. Competitors should call attention to dropped arguments and provide clear voters in the final speech. Speed/spreading should never be used as a tactic to undermine the education of the round.

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

I debated for four years at Walt Whitman High School (MD), where I now serve as a PF coach. This is my fourth year judging/coaching PF. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.

Other preferences:

- If second rebuttal frontlines their case, first summary must extend defense. However, if second rebuttal just responds to the opposing case, first summary is not required to extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already).

-I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.

- I don't need second rebuttal to frontline case, but I do require that you frontline any turns. Leaving frontlining delinks for summary is fine with me.

-I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.

- I love warrants/warrant comparisons. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached (ie explain the warrant behind it). Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.

- Speed is okay but spreading is not.

- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative. Simply saying "their argument is vague/we outweigh on strength of link/we have tangible evidence and they do not" is not weighing.

- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing. With this in mind, please trigger warn your cases. Trigger warning theory is probably the only theory shell I will ever vote on, but I really really don't want to because I hate voting on theory. PLEASE TRIGGER WARN YOUR CASES AND/OR ASK YOUR OPPONENTS IF THEY READ SENSITIVE MATERIAL PRIOR TO THE ROUND BEGINNING TO AVOID TRIGGERING PEOPLE AND THEN RE-LITIGATING THE TRAUMA FOR THE ENTIRE DEBATE. If you care about protecting survivors, you will ask before the round if a case has sensitive material. Also, I hate disclosure theory. Just ask your opponent to share their case if it is a big deal to you.

- I highly encourage you not to run arguments in front of me about people on welfare having disincentives to work, or any other type of argument like that which shows a clear lack of understanding/empathy about poverty and the lived experiences of low-income people.

- I like off-time roadmaps, but BE BRIEF.

The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks.

Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round or if there is anything I can do to accommodate you.

Hi! I did PF at Hunter College High School (NY) until 2017, and was an assistant coach for Saint Mary's Hall (TX) from 2017-2020. Honestly just make the round fun and entertaining please I beg of you.

A quick note: I’ve experienced a lot of debate rounds, and have probably had more bad than good experiences. Let’s make this a good one! Come into the round ready to learn and be supportive to everyone in the round, including your opponents. Have fun and be kind to everyone in the room. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round a more safe and fun experience for you (feel free to Slack me in advance of the round!). Please give a meaningful (i.e. people can actually opt-out if they are worried about being triggered) trigger warning if you’re reading arguments on sensitive topics (for me personally esp with regards to addiction, abuse, or sexual violence). Contact your opponents and me before the round or give people a chance at the beginning of the round to text you to ask that you not read certain arguments you warn us about, and actually read a different case if someone asks! Happy to walk people through best practices for trigger warning if there's confusion. Given the fact that I'm specifying this, I will 100% vote off trigger warning theory if the abuse is clear, and will auto-drop you if you don't trigger warn an argument I can't judge bc it is a trigger for me. I’m excited for the next hour we’ll spend together! :)

Otherwise:

· Weigh

· Warrant and extend warrants not just card names

· Frontline offense in second rebuttal, extend defense the speech after it's frontlined, offense needs to be in summary + ff for me to vote off it

· You can go fast, but don’t spread

· Read any kind of arguments except disclosure (not gonna lie though, my understanding of theory specifics is minimal so I won't evaluate it very technically, if that's gonna annoy you, don't read theory in front of me--otherwise, just explain stuff clearly and don't rely on things like them reading a counterinterp or not having drop the debater to win the argument)

· Believe in role of the ballot arguments if you read them

I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013 and I do flow.

State the resolution (amazing how many forget to). I like frameworks but they're not musts. Introduce important acronyms.

When it comes to evidence, I look for quality over quantity. Be clear about sources ("Smith of Harvard" doesn't tell me much) and how the evidence supports your claim. I will ask to see evidence if I sense it's been misused.

Please weigh in summary and especially final focus.

Speak clearly. I'm not a fan of spreading.

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

I look forward to serving as your judge. As you prepare, I would emphasize the following points:

First, be sure to speak clearly and at a reasonable speed. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your arguments, and they probably won’t factor highly in my decision. Remember that the quality of your contentions -- and not only the quantity -- is important.

Second, as I listen to your speeches I will be looking both at the content of your argument and your argument structure. Good organization and clear, logical transitions will earn you points. For LD, this generally means that contentions are tied clearly to the value and value criterion, and that you consider underlying assumptions behind the points you make.

Finally, civility is important. Interrupting or being rude to your opponent isn't going to earn you any points. I expect every debater to flow and to be nice to his or her opponents and partner. Cross-examinations should be civil and at a conversational volume.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a policy wonk and NSDA trained Adjudicator. For history, I competed from high school through college in debate. I have worked with Boston Debate League judging for several years.

My pronouns are I/she/hers. Please let me know what yours are as well as your preferred name if it is different from what is on tabroom.

On the issue of speech: you are awarded speaker points. Your speaker points are comprised of rate of speech and clarity. I should not have to refer to your cards to understand your speech. My focus as an adjudicator is on you, not your cards the entire time.

The policy mapping I use: rate of speech, clarity, pre-round prep, evidence sharing, flow, in-round strategy, audience adaption, and thinking on the fly. Things I look out for: evidence distortion and non-existent evidence. When you give me all your evidence know that I will read it to check for distortion and non-existent evidence. During the debate you have my full attention.

Policy is my favorite section to judge. Remeber the question and present a solution. This is not LD, although I also judge LD. Please do not try LD K's in policy. I want an evidence based debate that addresses the proposed question. KNOW YOUR EVIDENCE! I like to hear theory and substance. You must have a strong theoretical framework to warrant deontological or consequential arguments. Who provides the best value and criterion? Giving me an "end of world" solution does not belong in Policy. We're here to solve a problem.

Be prepared. Pat attention to time because I do. Be polite at all times. The point of debate is the civil exchange of opinions. Clash is good! If you find yourself getting nervous, stop and take a breath. Above all, you should have fun and always use this as learning process.

Strong argumentation begins with the topicality, harms, inherency, framework and solvency. Hit each of those.

A thread of logic is required throughout the argument; meaning you cannot begin with one aff and veer off onto a completely different aff simply because your opposition is forcing you to. It is imperative to stick to your aff; be prepared to argue it, defend it in the neg, and have good, solid counterpoints prepared.

Debate is an inherently competitive event. Having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event provided the jargon does not become the event. However, they should not replace substance and do not automatically add impacts. Words matter. Choose them wisely. You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round. I could rattle off all the terms, but really, they add nothing and from a National Debate Champion and former trial lawyer, debate is not won or lost on terms. It's won or lost on topic knowledge. Know your stuff. Know the purpose of your 1AC and 1NC. Your NR's are only to make your final points and address last arguments; by that time all heavy lifting should be done.

Your NR's are your summations. Lay out your argument, EVIDENCE, and reasons for a decision.

My ballot is contingent on how well you use, analyze, extend, link, and weigh evidence and theory (not on how well I read it). Speaking quickly is fine; as all things in debate, please be clear about it. Please have your camera on when speaking.

I have judged PF for about at year. I have judged about 25 PF debates of which over half have been at national tournaments. I look for a logical approach to the topic with specific contentions supported by solid evidence. The debate should be enthusiastic but professional. I am a retired Marine Corps Officer and former Chief Systems Engineer for C-130 Programs at Lockheed Martin.

I debated all throughout middle school and high school. I attended Polytechnic High school in Pasadena, California. My main event was Parliamentary although I've also competed in World Schools. I taught Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary over the summer after my senior year of high school and first-year of college. I currently attend Harvard college and am an active member of the Harvard College Debating Union (HCDU).

As a debater, I appreciate rigorous argumentation and expect a lot of engagement with the other team's ideas.

I like off time road maps. I like overviews with voting mechanisms that are carried down the bench. I need weighing that directly engages with the other side's impacts. Don't try to win everything. Just show why the things you're winning matter more. Signpost so I know where to flow. I get annoyed by messy debates. If something was dropped by the other team, just tell me to extend it because it was dropped; I don't need you to retell me the argument/idea/piece of evidence/etc. Don't be mean to the other team because it will almost certainly hurt your speaker scores. Being assertive is not being mean; being condescending is mean.

Also, time yourself and your competitors because I will not.

To summarize, I don't think it's my role to limit the kinds of styles or arguments that you can succeed with (unless they are overtly harmful). But it's important to me that everyone has a fair chance to engage. I think that the educational value of debate is maximized when there are coherent narratives on both sides that result in thoughtful comparison of perspectives and ideas. Ultimately, it's your choice how you debate, but I think the following preferences will make for a positive experience.

Warrants are important in every part of the debate.

Weighing should clarify how to vote when both sides have offense. If you don't weigh, you leave it up to me to choose which argument I think is most important. I default to util.

I can keep up with the faster end of PF, but enjoy rounds that are at most moderately fast and incorporate strong narratives.

I'll evaluate theory arguments that are read to check severe instances of in-round abuse. Paragraph theory is acceptable in these instances.

However, I disagree with frivolous use of theory in PF. Teams should not enter rounds with the intention of running theory on negligible violations. Do not look for a violation so that you can make the debate inaccessible for the other team and win the round on a technicality.

I am receptive to meta-debate analyses and arguments about the role of the ballot. I’m willing to listen to Ks, although I have little experience reading or evaluating them. If you read these arguments, please avoid excessive jargon and use accessible language.

Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. I will do my best to give you meaningful feedback about your strengths in the round and how I think you can improve. Good luck and have fun! :-)

Hello,

I consider myself to be a "flay" judge. I take comprehensive notes and try my best to vote purely off the argumentation presented in round.

A few things:

1. Speak at a reasonable pace. If you go way too fast and are unintelligible, your speaks will hurt.

2. I will call evidence if you ask me to, or if the evidence just sounds BS. Be careful.

3. If you call me the "Sheriff" I will give you +1 speaker points.

I competed in public forum debate at NSU University School for 4 years and am currently a freshman at MIT

• I really value warrants. Well explained warrants and warrant comparison are an easy way to get my ballot. Impacts don’t matter if you don’t clearly explain how you get there!

• I rarely debated against spreading, theory, K’s, etc. so just consider that when adapting. I won’t automatically vote against theory or K’s, but I am probably not experienced enough with them to evaluate them the way you want me to.

• Weigh and collapse onto fewer arguments

• Voters should be in both summary and final focus

• It’s really helpful for your first speaker if second rebuttal responds to turns

• I appreciate lighthearted humor

• I won’t tolerate any offensive arguments, rhetoric, or behavior

• Don’t misrepresent evidence

Lastly, please please just be nice in round.

LD

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

PF

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

Flow judge who appreciates civility, especially in cross, which should be used for asking and answering questions, not speech making. Generally, a question may be followed by a follow-up, after which it is the turn of the other side. Starting the first constructives with key definitional and framework arguments is a good idea, as is providing, in FF, your view on how the impacts should be weighed. Try to terminalize your impacts in terms of values, including human life, equity, the environment, etc. Debaters should keep their own time only, and provide their account of how much prep time remains after each instance in which they take some and reconcile it with me if I have a discrepancy. Evidence should be represented with scrupulous accuracy, and the source should be fully identified, including the credentials of the writer, the date, and the publication. If I call for a card and observe that the evidence is old and you didn't give a date, I'll be concerned. Likewise, if you use evidence in a way that's misleading, I won't be pleased, e.g. if you use it to make a general claim when it's talking about a specific instance that bears little relation to the contention it's being used to support. Evidentiary challenges should be presented to me immediately after the final speech. Stylistically, debaters should speak clearly and audibly, while avoiding shouting. Speed will always be an issue, and debaters are urged to pace themselves mindfully of their opponents and judge(s).

Policy Update

Please see the above, as applicable, especially as regards civility. I prefer that issues of framework, topicality, definition, and interpretation be dealt with up front. Creativity is fine, but it must be firmly grounded in the reasonable. New arguments should not be presented in the rebuttal speeches, although there's always a judgment call when they're coming in as blocks. Clash is good; clash nullification is problematic. Plans should be substantive and intended to further policy objectives, not trivial and intended simply to confound the opposition.

World Schools Debate Update

I suggest clarifying what is at stake in the debate early on, i.e. if the motion carries, what would be the implications beyond the specific impacts. For example, in a debate on restrictions on hate speech, there might be a lively debate about whether or not the Prop model would, say, have the impact of reducing bias-motivated violence, but I'd also be interested in a framework and definitional analysis of whether hate speech is an instance of free speech, and, more broadly what we'd be both gaining and giving up philosophically if the motion were to carry. Similarly, I'd be interested in hearing about what the standards would be to make a determination that speech was in a prohibited category and who would make these judgments. In other words, this discipline affords an opportunity both to consider PF-style impacts and also the broader, philosophical dimensions of the topic. I'm also interested in each team's thoughts on burdens, both the other side's and its own. What do you think you have to prove in order to win the round? What should your opponents be required to prove? Of course, examples are important, but often I need to know the context, what you're trying to prove, and how the example proves your point. In the example above, perhaps there's a country that has criminalized a certain category of speech. Is there a particular historical or cultural context that we need to know if we are to understand why they did so? Is the example generally applicable, i.e. would its example be desirable in many countries with different histories and cultures? I'm fine with your collapsing a round to your view of the fundamental clashes that should determine the outcome, but I suggest you not ignore an opponent's argument, even if you elect not to extend your analysis of it, i.e. point out why you're dropping it; otherwise, I might think you've overlooked it or are conceding it without showing why doing so is strategic. In terms of style, with eight minutes, there's no reason to talk rapidly or, heaven forfend, begin shouting, or go overtime. You can show your passion through the clarity and cogency of your argumentation, but try to remain calm. Ultimately, you win the debate by persuading me that your side of the motion's world is more desirable than your opponent's--for the reasons you have successfully argued. On POIs, my preference is that a debater signals a POI with their hand, whereupon the speaker, when they notice the signal, either takes the point or gently waves it down. Since the speaker now knows that the opponent has a point, it is not necessary for the opponent to resignal the original point or a different one; however, it's courteous for the speaker to pause before waiting too long to take the POIs they wish to recognize. I do tend to think that each speaker should take two per constructive. Having taken two, if the opponents wish to pose one or more additional points, the speaker may say that they will be taking no further points during that speech. Just a suggestion.

I debated in NPDA/NPTE for three years. I view debate as a game, which means that every strategy is a game piece. Use it as you see fit, and play as you prefer. Speed is great, though there’s also a difference between speeding out a team and bullying novices. It probably won’t lose you the round, but your speaker points may reflect overt abuse. I haven’t judged a team that can talk faster than I flow, but I’ll clear you if that happens so you don’t have to try to guess my threshold. Similarly, I value content over presentation. Kritiks are my favorite piece in debate, but if a policy affirmative wins framework or a perm, I have no problem voting there. I’ll listen to non-topical affirmatives; win the flow. Run T, theory shells, etc. as much as you want- again, win the argument. Don’t assume that if an argument is common, I will fill in the warrants for you. I also acknowledge that the debate world tends to have different realities than the real world- whatever is said in round will generally be assumed true unless argued otherwise. I view ink as the wall between arguments- so points from the 1AC shell can be pulled as support for the 2AR if not discussed throughout the round. Likewise, a drop in the 1AR doesn’t get to be answered in the 2AR.

I am a PF-only judge. I prefer PF debate to be PF debate - in other words, it should be accessible and persuasive to a lay judge. Speed or unexplained jargon that would befuddle a well-educated but inexperienced judge will result in low speaks and possibly won't be flowed at all. That said, I do not attempt to be a pure "tabula rasa." Instead, I will judge from the perspective of a well-informed (i.e. someone who keeps up with national/international news) and well-educated (i.e. someone who remembers what they were taught in their high school and core college classes) layperson.

Beyond that, I expect teams to clearly layout a framework for the round and impact to that framework. I am fine with a "framework debate" if the central point of contention between teams is their framework. I flow, but primarily as a memory aid.

I will call for evidence, but only if one of the teams in round challenges their opponents' use of that evidence. Unnecessary or frivolous evidentiary challenges are not appreciated and will be penalized.

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 debated PF in High School, coached in College and now work and run tournaments for the NYCUDL. I judge on the flow most heavily on the last four speeches. Please weigh and give analysis beyond dropping weighing mechanism terms. The more effective your analysis and explanation of the round the more likely I will vote for you. I won't drop your arguments if you don't bring them up in every speech, but I will weigh and value them less because that indicates to me that it is not an essential argument to your case. Be kind to your opponents I will dock your speaks for being rude to anyone in the round.

UPDATED FOR NCFL 2019

Ryan Monagle Ridge High School PF coach

In general the clearest ballot story tends to win the round.

Speed: I'm fine with most speed, easiest way for me to comprehend your speaking style is by starting off at conversational pace through the first card so I can familiarize myself with your cadence. After that feel free to take off. Just a note on speed and spreading, I'm 100% 0kay with speed and enjoy it in really competitive rounds, however the speed needs to be justified by a greater depth in your argumentation and not just the need to card dump 100 blippy cards. If there is ever an issue of clarity I will say clear once, afterwards I will awkwardly stare at you if there is no change and then I will stop flowing.

Rebuttal: MAKE SURE YOU SIGNPOST, If I lose you on the flow and miss responses that is on you. I'm fine with line by line responses though most of the time they tend to be absolutely unnecessary. I would rather you group responses. Card dumping will lead me to deducting speaker points. Trust me you don't need 6-7 cards to respond to a single warrant.

Summary: Don't try to go for literally everything in the round. By the time Summary comes around the debate should have narrowed down to a few pieces of offense. Any offense you want to go for in final focus has to be in summary. Whether or not you go for defense in 1st summary is up to those debating in round, sometimes it isn't 100% necessary for you to go for it, sometimes you need to so it to survive the round. You should make that evaluation as the round moves along.

Final Focus: Weigh in final, if neither teams weighs in round then I have to do it at the end of the round and you may not like how that turns out. Weighing should be comparative and should tell me why your offense should be valued over your opponents.

Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, typically I spend time writing the ballot and reviewing the flow. However, I still pay attention to most occurrences in crossfire. If you go for a concession be explicit and I'll consider it, but you need to extend it in later speeches. Also if you happen to concede something and then immediately go back on it in the next speech I am going to deduct speaks.

Speaker Points: My evaluation for speaker points revolves around presentation and strategy/tactics in the round that I'm judging. Feel free to try to make me laugh if you can I'll give you big props and you'll get a bump up in speaker points.

Please, I beg debaters to take advantage of the mechanisms that exist to challenge evidence ethics in round, I would gladly evaluate a protest in round and drop debaters for evidence violations. I think the practice of lying about/misrepresenting evidence is something a lot coaches and competitors want to see change, but no one takes advantage of the system that currently exists to combat these behaviors in round.

For NCFL: Judges can read evidence if the validity of the source is in question you have to explicitly tell the judge to call for the card in question.

I am a lay judge and I am a teacher. I understand the flow to some extent. Please make sure you present well constructed arguments and explain your evidence and refutations clearly. If you use data, explain its significance. Thank you.

Background - I debated public forum in high school. I am a business and computer science university student.

Preferences - PF, as a contrast to the other high school debate formats, should be evaluated equally on ethos and logos with elements of pathos providing impact when the other two prove insufficient. This means that speaking style and strategy play an important role in the round.
I flow, but my flows for the constructive and rebuttal speeches are separate from summary and final focus. I will only refer to the original speeches when it is necessary to settle a dispute that isn't settled by the final speeches. For this reason, there is accountability for evidence, cross fire, argumentation and analysis, and strategy.

Structure - it is easier for me to flow your rebuttal if I know where and how to apply your arguments.
Summary should start to reframe the debate - I don't want to hear a recap of the first speeches, I want to hear you reorganize the debate and begin to demonstrate why you are winning given your case and in spite of your opponent's.
By the end of the final focus I should have a clear understanding of why I am voting for you.

TL;DR
My judging style is set up to reward strategy first, technical style second, and semantics only when absolutely necessary.

Although I “flow” arguments on a flow pad, please note that I am not a technical judge which provides points here and there and tries to determine which arguments were “carried” to the end of the round or which ones were “dropped”. Instead, I flow to help me keep track of the arguments that are made by both sides and the critical analysis that is conveyed to me to support or refute arguments. Please use the crossfires to ask each other questions and speak to each other, rather than addressing me and asking me to take note of certain statements (which can and should be done during summary and final focus). Consider the final focus as the points I should consider in my reason for judgement write up.

Please weigh, as I find this to be critical to my analysis.

Use "cards" only to support your analysis, not to say "my card is better than your card". A round that heavily relies on "card" after "card" has missed the mark of what debate is about.

I did Public Forum debate in high school. However, that was four years ago, and I have not been involved in high school debate for a couple years. Thus, my paradigm may be a bit dated and my "jargon" skills a bit slow.

What I prefer to see in a round:

1. Keep the other team accountable by timing them yourselves. Try to have pre-flows before the round please.

2. Take it easy during crossfire, that being said I may occasionally transcribe a card name that I missed in speeches. Bring up CX concessions in speeches.

3. Please signpost and give me succinct roadmaps for every speech.

4. You don't have to go back to case during rebuttal if you are second speaking team.

5.When you make an extension it is okay to extend the idea behind the card, you don't always have to extend the argument by extending an author name

6. Do not extend through ink or go for dropped offense, I will not evaluate the argument.

7. Defense sticks in 1st summary, meaning that I do not expect defensive argument extensions in 1st summary. In both summaries new evidence can be brought up but new arguments cannot.

8 Please don't let GCX devolve into a shouting match

9. I am okay with a line by line summary or crystallization summary but I typically prefer a big picture final focus. WEIGH in summary and Final focus, make my job easier. If you don't weigh or make sound extensions I will have to evaluate arguments in my head and that forces me to intervene when I shouldn't have to.

I try not to intervene in a round but I will if:

1. I am forced to weigh arguments and do argument comparison for them.

2. Evidence is egregiously misconstrued.

Progressive PF

I am okay with Jargon, I would try to shy away from it in general.

I am okay with Plans and CP's

I do not like Kritiks in PF, but I will evaluate them if they are fleshed out well enough and extended. I will evaluate theory especially if any of the aforementioned progressive arguments comes up. I am more likely to pull the trigger on theory even if it's blippy against K's, CP's, and Plans.

If you are running any progressive arguments please walk me through the logic.

Speaker points:

be funny

Pretty generous with speaks typically give 27-30

If you're rude in any sense of the word you will get horrible speaks (20-26)

BACKGROUND:

I debated for four years (2013-2017) at La Canada High School in California. I have debate experience in PF and California Parliamentary Debate, and speech experience in Oratory, DI, Extemp, Impromptu, and Prose. I've been in out-rounds at both state and national tournaments.

I currently compete in APDA parliamentary and British parliamentary debate at Brown University. If you have any questions, whether regarding my paradigm or not, please feel free to email me at christopher_morillo@brown.edu.

tl;dr: I do parliamentary debate primarily, and accordingly I value logic and impacts far above cards being thrown at me. Most importantly, I care about weighing, and I won’t vote for random things on the flow that aren’t weighed in final focus.

PF:

Feel free to run a framework, but don't run one just to run one. I will not vote on a framework just because it is there and is not utilized with your case. Don't make the debate about the framework/definitions/whatever fluff you have at the beginning, this isn't what PF should be about. If the framework does come into play, however, I definitely will consider it. Finally, if both teams propose a framework, give me a good reason to prefer yours over your opponents'.

Speed doesn't really matter, so long as your opponents and I can both understand you. Signposting is very helpful no matter the speed.

Second rebuttal: at least try to defend some of your case. It is extremely unfair for the first summary speaker if the second rebuttal only attacks. I'm fine with a 3/1 split, even potentially a 3:30/0:30 split (but that might be pushing it.)

Please do some analysis and impact your cards, don't just throw cards/numbers/stats around. Impact calculus is important and is primarily what I vote off of.

Do some analysis in summary. Don't just extend cards without reasoning. See above. Essential in Final Focus.

Probability, Scope, Magnitude are fine go-tos. But in my book probability usually outweighs the latter two (aka something really bad but really unlikely is not important to the round!).

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, be nice. This activity is absolutely meaningless and reductive if it is exclusive to those who are privileged enough to handle its often toxic culture.

Speaker Point Scale:

Below 25 - Offensive

25-26 - Below Average

27 - Average

28 - Good

29 - Great

30 - Perfect/Almost Perfect

I am a parent but have judged at multiple tournaments.

My background: Bachelors in economics from Rice and Masters in public policy from Harvard.

I make my decisions based on the weight of the impacts and a clear narrative. I expect you to come back to your own case in second rebuttal.

Speaks:

-speak clearly and not too fast

-weighing impacts

-getting heated in cross is normal, but avoid outright rudeness

Experienced PF judge, First time LD judge

I value the quality of presentation and reward things like eye contact, slowing down when highlighting impacts, weighing/organizing in later speeches, and persuasive rhetoric.

I am skeptical of statistics unless they are backed by good warranting and sound reasoning. Explain your evidence rather than just stating it.

Bring any meaningful cx points into your main speeches.

Be respectful to one another.

Slow down, I have to be able to understand you to flow. If I can't understand you, that is bad

Rounds should NOT have any theory arguments.

debated for bxsci a minute ago

humor is appreciated :)

I am a Parent Judge. I have been judging PF for roughly 2 years.

Here are some important points to consider about my judging preferences:

- Be organized and clear. Speak loudly and clearly. Clarity is much more important to me than speed. If I cannot follow your arguments and miss them in my notes, I will not be able to evaluate those arguments and, possibly, will not be able to vote for you.

- Signposting is a must. Tell me what you are talking about before making your argument, so I know where to flow it and where it fits in the round. If you do not, there is a high chance I will not be able to follow your argument and, thus, cannot evaluate it in the round. Also, try to avoid technical jargon and tons of abbreviations—at the least, explain them to me and simplify the round.

- I will vote for the team that makes clear, logical, and realistic claims and does effective weighing of impacts. Have comparative reasoning behind your arguments that is persuasive. Also, explain to me why I should care more about your arguments and how they are more important than your opponents’.

- Be Confident, but DO NOT BE RUDE. Always treat your opponents with respect and courtesy in crossfire and rebuttal.

- Summary: I will start deciding my ballot during this speech, so extend important arguments that you want me to evaluate, explain the reasoning behind them, show their importance/relevance, and thoroughly develop them. Grab attention by confidently answering opposing refutations.

- Final Focus: Wrap up, weigh, and extend/emphasize key points and show me why ultimately that one ballot is for your team.

- Your framework, if you have a meaningful one, should be stated at the beginning of your first constructive speech. In your framework, tell me how I should evaluate certain impacts and why they should matter the most. In absence of a meaningful framework, I will evaluate on a cost-benefit analysis.

- Evidence – I will try not to look at evidence unless either side explicitly states that they want me to or if I have a serious doubt as to the legitimacy and truth of the evidence.

- Speaker Points - I will not hesitate to deduct speaker points if I feel that you are being disrespectful, insensitive, and uncourteous. I award points based on effective rhetoric and vocal emphasis to important points.

In the end, remember this: public forum debate is all about PERSUADING the public audience.

Good Luck!

I have judged debate since 2001. From 2014-2021 I coached Public Forum and Speech events. I retired after 8 years as the Co-Director of Speech and Debate at Cary Academy in North Carolina in 2021.

DEBATE: In debate (LD/PF) I look for clear claims, evidence and links to logical, clear impacts showing contextual analysis. I flow each round and look for you to bring your arguments through the round, tell me the clash and how I should weigh.

I judge as if this activity is preparing you for the real world. I won't flow what I have to work too hard to follow or translate (read speed). Asking for evidence for common sense issues won't count either. You can use flow jargon, but tell me why. You want me to flow across the round? cross apply? for instance, tell me why. Don't exaggerate your evidence. Finally - I'm not here to show you how smart or clever I am by pretending to understand some sesquipedalian or sophomoric arguments (see what I did there?)- that means. 1.) do a kritik and you are going to lose because you failed to acknowledge that ideas can conflict and are worthy of discussion; 2.) "the tech over truthers" and other silly judging paradigms don't make you a more articulate conveyor of ideas once you have to "adult". I will know the topic, but judge like a lay judge. Convince me. Have fun and enjoy the activity!

CONGRESS: Well researched unique takes on a resolution are important. Simple stock arguments and analysis is easy. I look for you to look deeper into the consequences/outcome of passage. Don't rehash, not only is it boring but it suggests you needed to listen more closely. Refutation of previous speeches shows careful analysis in the moment and it shows you have more than the case you wrote the night before (even if you did :)). Presentation is also important. I don't like BS for the sake of being a good presenter but a balance of solid research, thoughtful analysis, ambitious and relevant refutation from a persuasive speaker will get high marks!

Milton High School '17, Boston University '21

My Debate Experience

To provide some brief context about my history with debate, I did PF for three years during high school, I was the Co-Captain of the team my Junior year and the Captain my Senior year, and I am currently a member of the Boston University Debate Society. My Senior year, my partner and I won my regional NCFL qualifier. I have also judged several tournaments.

Disclaimer Regarding In-Round Insensitivity

As you may have seen in several other judges' paradigms, I also have zero tolerance for arguments that are demeaning (ie. sexism, racism, classism, homophobia, and so on). If it involves putting someone down or treating some group as 'lesser-than', it is not good argumentation and you need to become more mindful about the way you debate. That being said, I will be compelled to drop you if you debate insensitively. If you don't agree with me, feel free to utilize your option to strike me.

Now let's move on to some of my in-round preferences...

-I'll say right here and right now that my least favorite kind of debate is that which devolves into a merely framework debate and loses all interesting meaning. I've been there, you've been there - but please don't. It is honestly what I find the most tedious and unenjoyable to watch. Also, it strays from the purpose of PF, which (in my opinion) is to have meaningful, intelligent discourse about the resolution from both sides.

-Evidence, evidence, evidence. I love evidence. Use sources as frequently as may help your side, but also make sure you allot enough time to carefully explain to me why your logic is preferable to the other side's. In instances of conflicting evidence, explain to me why I should believe yours instead of theirs. Repeating what it says is not sufficient to convince me. If an evidence dispute becomes the deciding factor in a round, I will take both pieces under consideration. If you suspect miscarding, tell me to call for a source and I will.

-In general, throughout the round, really make sure that you effectively respond to all of your opponents' points and extend any offense of yours that still stands.

-I also want to mention that it is not my job as a judge to do weighing. The best type of round is where I have a team that gives me clear weighing and, given that I am a flow judge, I can trace all of their responses and extensions on my flow and the voting job has essentially been done for me. You really don't want to leave me to weigh things because we're not all the same person so I probably will weigh things differently than you.

-I also love jokes/puns, but obviously they are not necessary for good argumentation.

I have no background in high school or college debate, but I have been a practicing attorney for more than 35 years and have been judging PF debates for 8 years.

I am a great believer in the “citizen judge” roots of Public Forum. The debater’s job is to persuade the man on the street, with no background as to the resolution of the month, that pro or con should win. Thus, clarity and focus are paramount. Your job is to persuade, not confuse, me. Well-structured arguments and effectively utilized evidence are key, but so are articulation, modulation, and engagement. A glance up from your laptop from time to time can work wonders, as can staying in the Zoom frame in a well-lighted room.

I do flow arguments, but not in a very technical way. A dropped argument will only count against you if it is material to your overall presentation and not offset by more meritorious arguments that make it through Final Focus.

Spreading and the pointless acceleration of pacing it engenders are strongly discouraged. You should choose your arguments carefully and deliver them at a pace, and with an energy and focus, that are designed to persuade.

Use your evidence fairly and judiciously. Do not overstate its significance or twist its meaning beyond recognition. I will only ask to see your card if the outcome of a round turns on an evidentiary dispute, but, if it comes to this, you want to be confident that your card can be read as presented. Also, feel free to request your opponent's cards, but do so sparingly and only when necessary to dispute a material contention or buttress a key argument.

Unfortunately, only one team can win; that’s the way it is in real life and in every courtroom I have ever appeared, so try to roll with the punches.

Most importantly, have fun. Few things are as satisfying as a hard-fought win; or as motivating (for the next round) as a too-close-to-call loss.

I debated for four years at Bronx Science and am currently a junior at Yale. That probably makes me a pretty traditional flow judge at this point, but I have no idea. I would say do normal things and you're good

If you want more specifics

I don't think that first summary has to cover terminal defense. I also don't think second rebuttal has the burden of frontlining your own case. Personally, I probably don't think either is strategic, but it is totally up to you

I think probability is a really undervalued standard in debate. More compelling than any impact calculus is convincing me that your impacts will materialize in the first place. This often means winning on the link level, but also relates to the types of arguments you make. In general, I have a low bar for what constitutes a good response to low-probability, high-magnitude type arguments, and I would be very receptive to teams that use probability as a way to evaluate the round

On a similar note, I think it is important that teams maintain the truth value of their arguments over the course of the entire round. I don't think you can concede defense on an argument to get out of a turn your opponent reads on it. You ran that argument — you should at least be able to defend that it is true for the entirety of the round

I am a big fan of narrative debate and teams that tell a cohesive story over the course of their speeches. In the end, the best teams will be able to distill my decision to a single sentence as to why I should believe the resolution is or is not true. It is really persuasive when that thesis is articulated from the jump

Theoretically, I am open to theory and Ks, but truthfully I had very little experience with them when I debated. While I understand that is what tech debate has been gravitating towards, I will have a very hard time voting for a non-topical argument. If you are running theory or a K as your central strategy, you should think of striking me

s/o Mr. Huth, Ben and Elias :), and the Bronx debate team. Big things only

Experience: 4 years of public forum, 4 years of NFA-LD (one-person policy debate), and 2 years of coaching NFA-LD. I haven't coached debate in several years; however, I still occasionally judge.

1/7/2022 update - I understand and am willing to evaluate theory; however, I would prefer to judge a debate about the topic. I firmly believe that debaters should be mostly in control of the round and what is read and I certainly will not punish you for reading theory, but I personally enjoy debates that are centered on the topic.

I am still in the process of formatting my paradigm for the high school circuit, so please excuse its brevity.

I feel that debate should reward hard work. I will call for cards at the end of the round, and my ballot and speaker points will be used to reward the team with a greater quality and quantity of evidence.

I prefer substantive arguments and default to a logical-decision maker paradigm. I am rarely persuaded by theory arguments that are not topicality or shells that do not have real implications for the solvency of the affirmative.

You should engage in evidence and impact comparison. Impact comparison should be a full exploration of the link, internal link, and impact card to produce a full analysis of the probability, timeframe, and magnitude.

Speed is not an issue for me as long as it is reciprocal and not exclusive.

Hi,

I have judged PF for a few years.

Be respectful to your opponents, especially in crossfire, and don't make bigoted arguments

I will flow your speeches, but I expect you to call out if your opponent dropped an argument, has incorrect logic/ facts etc.,

Speed: If I cannot understand/flow it, it does not count i.e., I favor normal speech speed , quality arguments vs spreading/quantity.

Cross: Raise items in speech if you want me to flow it and use it in my decision.

Clearly identify your arguments, warrants, highlight clash, weigh, identify voting issues and why you should win the debate

Generally, I will call for cards only if asked, or if my decision rests on a card. Don't use that as an excuse to misrepresent cards.

Theory? Please don't!

Lastly, have fun!

More of a flow judge than not, but don't spread and don't assume all jargon will be understood. I value extended arguments, will not pick up any new arguments brought in FF, and weighing is greatly appreciated. My advice as a coach and request as a judge is to tell me what is important and then tell me why you've won those points.

I value consistently extended arguments over arguments that were not extended throughout, but that doesn't mean I won't value them if all else is equal.

Crossfire is a place for actual questions, not BS excuses to make an argument, and never a place for reading cards.

Don't be rude or demeaning to anyone in the round, and failure to do so will be heavily reflected in speaker points. Humor always appreciated when appropriate.

Things to think about while debating:

1. Debate is a public speaking activity. Good debaters are able to engage the judge and speak clearly, and slowly despite time restraints. Lay judges (me), find it much harder to understand debaters that are fast-paced and try to jam pack their case with information. Make sure your case is enough to convince the judge, and teams can also present more information in later rounds.

2. It is best when you have statistics and data to back up your arguments. Evidence can make or break your debate.

3 Much of my decision will be based on debaters understanding of a topic. Make sure to have thorough understanding and thinking of the issue.

Coming from a dominantly PF/Parli background, I'm comfortable with most things so long as debaters let me know beforehand.

Want to spread?

A-okay, just let me know.

Off time roadmap?

A-okay, just let me know.

Self time prep?

A-okay, just let me know.

Anything else?

Just let me know and we can talk it out.

The only things that I'm nitpicky about are intelligibility when speaking and timing for crossfire. Otherwise, it'll be round-by-round what I'm looking for in the debaters. Don't worry about what you think I'll want to see as a judge, just do your thing.

I did PF in high school, TOC qualled 2011 and 2012. I've judged nat circuit PF for the last couple years, and also judge middle school parli to help out my cousin. I occasionally judge congress, but wouldn't consider myself an expert in the event at all. Just happy to help the community.

#1 Tip: I don't know the topic as well as you do, especially early in a tournament

• Commons Arguments:Often times, later in competitions, people get lazy with how they're running common arguments because they expect judges and opponents to know the gist of it. I do not lol.
• Acronyms: My acronym literacy is next to nothing. If you're going to use an acronym in round, especially for a foreign policy thing (ASEAN, NPT, PMC,... there are tons), please make it clear what the thing is and the letters that go with it so I know what you're talking about. Do this the first time you bring up the acronym -- if it is in case, open up your case right now and add in the spelled out version of the acronym.

Things you can/should do in PF:

Sign post well

Speak as quickly as you want, but if you speak so fast/with poor diction I can't write down/don't understand your arguments I won't vote based on it. This means if you're running complicated arguments that are hard to follow/have lots of links, it's in your best interest to slow down so I don't miss anything.

It's in your best interest to distill things to voters in summary and final focus. Saying "i'm starting with their case, then my case" this late in the round probably means nothing to me, because I know more about the arguments being discussed than where they came from. It also means your speech will be a lot easier to follow instead of having to keep cross applying stuff that was said in random places.

If the round gets too messy/hard to follow, I might miss arguments, and you might not be happy with my RFD.

Little things

Treat your opponents and all arguments they make with respect.

Not a fan of when people say "for a brief off time roadmap" prior to giving the roadmap. Just tell me the roadmap, i'll assume it's off time. I'll start time when you start talking about the arguments. In rebuttal, just tell me which case you're starting with. In summary and final focus, just tell me the voters. Examples

• Rebuttal: I'll be starting with the pro case and then the neg. Is everybody ready? [speech]
• Summary/Final Focus: I'll be talking about key voters: Economic impact, Justice, and Global warming. Is everybody ready? [begin speech]

I really don't like keeping time, I trust you all to do a good job. Seems like this is harder online, so I will do my best to keep time, but don't make my life difficult.

If you're sending links instead of cut cards to your opponents, it's disrespectful to them and their prep time.

When I call for evidence if I have to read the whole article and you're misrepresenting any of it, I won't vote on it. I will look for ways you are misrepresenting it, and will definitely vote against it if the other team points it out, and will probably vote against it even if the other team doesn't point it out..

Nuclear war will pretty much never happen, or at the very least is unpredictable. If your opponent says you don't provide a threshold or uniqueness (and you don't), I won't vote on it.

I went to McCallie (TN) and did primarily Public Forum for 5 years and I worked for Capitol for a summer. While I debated mostly regionally (GA-AL) I competed occasionally on the national circuit when school constraints allowed and did fairly well. I've done limited amounts of WSD and currently do APDA and BP at Northeastern, where I'm studying Economics and Finance. Important stuff is listed below:

Preferences

These are probably the only things you care about. Here's the rundown:

1) Arguments need to be extended fully for me to evaluate them.

2) It's a lot easier for you to illustrate a path to victory based on your offense rather than your defense. (There are exceptions, but this generally holds)

3) I want to sign a ballot of minimum intervention. This means that you should weigh early and often. One of the biggest things that messes up rounds is lack of weighing between mutually exclusive warrants that are trying to link into the same piece of offense. Be clear about why I ought prefer your conception.

4) Use crossfire strategically, but don't be an asshole. If you're a dick, your speaks will be lowered.

5) DO NOT EXTEND THROUGH INK. This is probably my biggest pet peeve.

6) Arguments premised on logic are more sound than arguments premised on author's names. Tell me what your evidence is saying (if you need the card) and why it's more credible than the version of reality I'm getting from your opponents.

7) Theory is fine to check abuse. It should be run as a last resort, only in conditions where it is not possible/extremely difficult to engage normally with the resolution, or in cases where a team has created a structural disadvantage.

8) Do you feel like giving me a roadmap? If you're not doing something atypical, please don't. This being said, do signpost during speeches.

9) Coin flip, side selection, and speaking order can all be decided if I'm not there, and I prefer teams to take care of this before entering the room at flighted tournaments.

If you have any questions about anything here (or things not mentioned here), shoot me a message on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/tpatri10).

Technically a senior on leave from Harvard, I debated 4 years in Public Forum for The Dalton School.

For 1st Speakers:

During Constructive: Please make eye contact with me during your constructive speech. You have ideally read your own case at least 2 times before round, so I want you to at least try to make a personal connection (i.e. genuinely try to sell me on your case).

During Summary: Please start boiling down your points. I want you to start weighing during this speech, and tell me how you're winning.

If you go for every single point in the round, you will lose 0.5 speaker points. Your job is to start condensing it for me. Also, don't just do it for me; as a former 2nd speaker, I remember how much easier my job became when my 1st speaker would deliver a very clear and effective summary. So, please do it for your partner, too!

For 2nd Speakers:

During Rebuttal: Please start out with an overview, explaining why I should listen to your framework / overview over your opponents, not just telling me why your framework is valid.

If you're the 1st speaking rebuttal, just go down their flow. Don't just dump evidence; you could read me all the evidence in the world, but I want you to provide me with the logic behind such arguments. Explain any turns you may make clearly.

If you're the 2nd speaking rebuttal, I want you to not only go down their case, but also respond to any turns your opponents make on your case.

During Final Focus: Write my ballot for me. Do this, and you will win. Explain to me what arguments you are winning on; hammer in on things I should extend in the flow and explain to me why they're important. Don't just read me evidence I should extend, or else I have no justification for doing so. Anything that you say in final focus that wasn't mentioned in summary will be ignored.

General Stuff:

1) PLEASE SIGNPOST. Tell me where you are on the flow, or else I will be lost, which will be very frustrating.

2) I don't actually flow cross, so please provide crossfire analysis at the beginning of subsequent speeches if you want anything said during cross to be weighed in the round (concessions, turns, logic explanations, etc.).

3) Any disrespectful or racist, sexist, inappropriate, etc things said in round will lead to an automatic 25 speaker points or less, and depending on severity, may even lead to an automatic win to the other team.

4) At the end of the day, it's just a debate round where you guys are arguing a topic you've spent hours researching. Have fun, WEIGH, and enjoy!

"Let us hold our discussion together in our own persons, making trial of the truth and of ourselves"

Protagoras of Abdera (Father of Debate)

Hello debaters!

I've been coaching and judging in PF debate for four years now. I flow main arguments, responses and monitor time. I like clash, that your cases include for each of the claims the warrants and you explain clearly the impacts (explain why your arguments are important and what could happen if this is not done, in an accurate and understandable way)

Please know the purpose of each of the interventions:

-Constructive Speech: Time to present your side/ your case to me. I like contentions that are unique, have quality, that are relevant, credible, and creative. Watch out with the pace...No problem if you are speaking fast, but too fast or too slow affects your delivery and how you'd be understood.

-Rebuttal: You are to respond by refuting, invalidating, blocking the opposing team's arguments most of the time. Give evidence, and you can include some defensive arguments as well.

-Summary: The word says it, you will make a recap of what has happened, highlighting the stronger points of your team's side.

-Final Focus: "Last shot" to convince me and explain all reasons why I should vote for your team. Go ahead, be persuasive!

-Crossfires and Grand Crossfire: CLASH! Back and forth questions and answers... Remember that in the Grand Crossfire EVERY SPEAKER participates.

General:

Do your protocol, be formal, don't be rude.

Use all your time. When you do perfect timing, it means you have practiced and prepared well enough, so I take it into account.

It is hard to make decisions if both teams have good performance and are competitive. If you win: you had a little extra something that I thought was important, so congratulations...if you do not win the round (YOU WON EXPERIENCE!!!): you may be disappointed, but please: learn and reflect from it, keep working hard, never quit or stop doing your best because in life sometimes you win or sometimes you don't.

Last but not least, remember to take this as a learning experience... SO HAVE FUN!

I am a former debater and I've been coaching debate for 6 years. I'm a more traditional judge, in that I generally dislike super progressive arguements. I would describe myself as a flow judge at heart, though and I am always careful to make sure that the round is fair and my decision is unbiased.

I co-coached a strong south Florida team and have judged PF for 2 years going on 3. I have coached my team to many victories and have a lot of experience on how PF works. I am a medical professional who has a love of beagles and is in the process of opening a beagle rescue. I flow on my laptop and take note of cross. If I look confused I probably am, take note of that.

I am considerably lay but my two kids (debated for 2 years going on 3 and 1 year going on 2) have taught me a lot on the topics and the general PF debate style alone. Most of my preferences are based on them (in general)

I am not one to make a quick vote on lives. In order for me to consider it on my flow, I need to hear a two world analysis between the sides and weighing along with it.

General preferences-

1. I am okay with speaking speed but warn me before you start. If you are doing spreading, be prepared to give me a copy of your case. I can keep up for the most part but will not penalize your for you speed.

2. I do not disclose in round (unless mandated by the tournament) but will give generous feedback if asked about the round. I know the topics to a degree due to previous judging but as a debater it is your job to convince me. I will not vote off of previous knowledge.

3. I do ask that all crossfire be for the purposing of furthering case not combative only. Issues in cross need to be mentioned in a speech for me to evaluate them. Dominance in cross, especially in grand cross, does not mean cutting off your opponents.

4. You have a five (5) second grace period past speeches and anything said after that will not be taken into consideration. When it comes to cross, as long as the question is asked before the time, an answer is permitted.

Tournaments judged + many more...

Blue Key (2017 & 2018)

Blake (2017 & 2018)

Sunvite (2018 & 2019)

The Tradition at Cypress

Harvard (2018 & 2019)

Nova Titan 2018, TOC 2018, UK Season Opener, and many more (locals and such)

If you have specific questions that aren't answered here, please don't hesitate to ask.

*If you can logically work in how you save a beagles life in one of your speeches, you can have guaranteed 29 speaks. Does NOT need to be extended throughout the round*

(See top of paradigm for my reasoning to the above statement)

I debated national circuit PF for 4 years. 

Speed: I can follow basically anything as long as it's not straight spreading, but it probably won't advantage you if you don't emphasize anything. 

Off time road maps: if it helps you be clear, yes

Weighing: Don't go for a million issues-- I always hate when judges have super specific preferences, but for me and everyone else it definitely helps you to go for 2 issues max and WEIGH

Defense:

In summary: I often find that how I view the round doesn't change after summary. So if you need defense in summary to feel like you're winning the round, extend it. If you can win without defense and just with weighing, go for it. If you change your mind in FF and decide you want to extend defense (not turns) that has been cold dropped, you can do that whether you speak first or second.

In rebuttal: If you don't frontline terminal defense put on in rebuttal, I can't evaluate your argument. I still encourage teams to extend important pieces of defense into summary and final focus because if i were you i wouldn't trust a judge to (a) remember to look back to see your responses and (b) make sure I know why that defense is terminal/matters.

Tl;dr: If you don't signpost, weigh, or frontline, I can't guarantee you'll be happy with my decision.

I am a Debate coach and an AP Lang & Comp teacher. I'm looking for logical arguments supported by credible sources and fair play.

I judge favorably for:

- Giving clear background

- Explaining things using simple language (as if I'm a 6th grader)

- Speaking calmly and slowly

- Highlighting major points/themes

- Signposting

I detract for:

- Too many details that are hard to follow

- Using abbreviations or terminology without explanation

- Speaking too quickly as if you're trying to jam as many points in there as possible

- Raising your voice, screaming, etc.

I describe myself as a "flay" judge. I flow a round but I rarely base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighing. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.

I ABSOLUTELY DEMAND CIVILITY IN CROSSFIRES! Ask your question then allow the other side to answer COMPLETELY before you respond further. Hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. Outright snarkiness or rudeness could result in a 0 for speaker points. Purposely misconstruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. Though I award very few 30s on speaker points, I very much appreciate clear, eloquent speech, which will make your case more persuasive.

I have seen a trend to turn summaries into second rebuttals. I HATE THIS. A summary should extend key offense from case and key defense from rebuttal then weigh impacts. You cannot do this in only two minutes if you burn up more than a minute trying to frontline. If I don't hear something from case in summary you will lose most definitely. Contrary to growing belief, the point of this event is NOT TO WIN ON THE FLOW. The point is to research and put forth the best warrants and evidence possible that stand up to rebuttal.

When calling cards, avoid distracting "dumps" aimed at preoccupying the other side and preventing them from prepping. In recent tournaments I have seen a rise in the inability of a team to produce a requested card QUICKLY. I will give you a couple of minutes at most then we will move on and your evidence likely will be dropped from the flow. The point is to have your key cards at the ready, preferably in PDF form. I have also seen a recent increase in badly misconstrued data or horrifically out of date data. The rules say full citation plus the date must be given. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.

The bottom line is: Use your well-organized data and logic to win the debate, not cynical tactics aimed at distraction or clock dominance.

About Me: I am a parent judge with my first experience starting in 2019. Since then I have judged 30 rounds as of end of 2020. I have primarily judged Public Forum for high school students but have also a few rounds of Parliamentary debate for middle school.

Why Debate Matters To Me: As Scott Fitzgerald wrote, "“the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” To me, debate is one of the best real life arenas where this gets tested. I believe in debate as a forum for highlighting the strength of narrative, expression and persuasion that is based on a foundation of research and thoughtful insights and sharpened by intellect. I see it as a dynamic mix of strategy and tactics that is an essential life skill in any professional or social setting.

Procedural Preferences: A limited list of things that I like to emphasize to help debaters present their case, and for me to do justice in understanding your arguments:

(i) Please minimize spreading - this is not a speed-reading contest. If I as a judge cannot clearly follow your argument, I will have limited basis to judge you on the merits of your contentions and overall case

(ii) Signposting is important - both while setting up your contentions and when rebutting your opponent's contentions, evidence or impact. It helps me establish your case and cross-reference it to the rebuttals

(iii) Identify yourself - at the start. I will ask for this explicitly to ensure that I get your names and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points

(iv) Time yourself - I will not be validating or judging you by how many seconds under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized. I am less impressed when you wrap up 20-30 seconds before your allotted time.

(iv) Be polite - to your opponents. We are not at war. Similarly, the judge is not here to put you down - relax!

Evaluation Criteria: My evaluation criteria goes with the flow. What that means is that, as you progress through the flow, I expect you to build on your contentions, cite the impact of your evidences, de-emphasize your opponents' arguments and rebuttals, and finally summarize the progression in the Final Focus.

With that context here are a few guidelines of my evaluation -

1. Case building will be evaluated on the depth of your research that truly emphasize your contention(s). Great contentions with weakly supported evidences and impact will not get you high points - but, and this is important, I will not unilaterally evaluate the merit of your contention, if your opponent team does not clearly highlight the weaknesses

2. Evidence is important, but your support of that evidence to reinforce your contention and weightage is far more important. Simply citing a source as the truth is not enough, it has to be proven by facts and supported by analysis. Just because a publication or a source says something, does not make it true

3. Cover all of your opponents contentions and evidences in your rebuttals. Leaving a point un-responded, essentially means that you have not been able to find a good contrary argument and evidence and hence strengthens the opposing team's argument

4. Weightage is important, but not just by stating it. It has to be accompanied by reasons why your weighting framework is better than your opponents'

5. Speaker points are provided on 3 specific criteria - presentation, quality of argumentation, and strategic choices. The strategic choices are your extemporaneous evaluation of your opponent's case and how you choose to re-position your case and work through your research to analytically de-emphasize your opponent's key contentions, evidences and impact

That's it. Good Luck to one and all!

Rakesh Purohit

Go read Ye Joo Han's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

Paraphrasing is ok

I am a lay judge, who has been judging in the New England area for the last three years. I have debated in my high school and college days some 25 years ago, and by no means was that structured the way debates run today. I have picked up some of the PF debating jargon, but am definitely not at expert level yet. So, please do not assume I'm familiar with debating jargon and don't assume that I'm familiar with arguments, just because they've been common on this year's topic.

I'm not logistically challenged, so please feel free to find a comfortable spot that works best for you and makes you feel confident. This is about you not me.

Public Forum (PF) is supposed to appeal to a lay audience. Be very clear with arguments and thorough with your rebuttals. All I require is that I can understand the argument. Clarity is more important than speed for me, so please DO NOT SPREAD. I value quality over quantity. It is extremely difficult to listen, digest and take notes, when the debater speaks too fast! I often say, if you can't reach me, you have already lost the round!

Provide and agree on definitions, so that everyone including your opponents and the judges are the same page. Provide citations and be sure to explain how the cited information supports or refutes a point. I'm not big on statistics for the sake of statistics. Please remember numbers and arguments can be twisted any which way to support or refute a hypothesis. So, analysis and interpretation needs to be logical, reasonable, and believable. Please don't resort to doomsday soothsaying. It doesn't grab my attention, unless you can prove your impacts with the right evidence and logic!

I place a premium on well-supported "real-world" links, but this doesn't mean you throw a bunch of stats/ or jargon at me, you'll definitely lose me. Instead warrant/ impact your arguments logically to their full conclusion, make sure there is ACTUAL CLASH and possible vote. It is best to show me that your evidence presents a coherent story with both warrants and resulting conclusions that support your argument. Consistency with historical precedence/ the world we live in is very important for me. I'm open to hypothetical/ theoretical/ creative argumentation, as long as you can support your argument with logical reasoning, specific evidence/ statistics and/or historical antecedents from around the global. Remember, history doesn't belong only to the United States. Research global historical events and use them to your advantage.

In conclusion, my ballot often depends more on link credibility than on impact magnitude. Outline the case, restate and/or carry your main points into the summaries and final focus. Do not introduce new arguments after the first summary and do not forget to extend your case. Crystallize your case for me. DO NOT make me do the analysis and conclusions for you! I may get it completely wrong and you may not like the result!

Please don't make morally reprehensible arguments. For more detailed feelings about specific arguments, feel free to ask me before the round. During crossX, please be inquisitive, investigative and probing, but not contentious or disrespectful. CAMARADERIE and HUMOR are always a PLUS! Most importantly, have fun debating and learn from each of these amazing experiences. Enjoy!

I’ve been judging PF for a number of years and I do practice flowing, HOWEVER, Flow is not at the top of my list for winning the arguments. Rather I consider your ability to persuade me as a typical everyday citizen. Your ability to do that is unique. I am expected to come into the Debate room without any previous opinion and with a clean slate, in order to keep my own personal opinion from influencing how I choose the outcome. In exchange I expect the debaters to assume that I do not know anything more about the topic than an ordinary person. It is therefore each debaters responsibility to define acronyms and define anything that an ordinary person would not commonly know.

I’ve been judging PF for a number of years and I do practice flowing however my decisions are determined more on persuasion than flow. I believe that it is extremely important therefore to know your judge and ask the appropriate questions to make sure that what you are saying and how you’re saying is catered to the listener because even if you know what you’re saying but the judge is not able to understand it or appreciate the logic behind it then you are at a loss. In short, KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. Feel free to ask me as many questions as needed before the round begins to clarify further. Best of luck and remember to have fun!

Background Experience

Competed in PFD for 4 years @ Nova High School. 2012-2016

Now coach @ Ransom Everglades

How I Evaluate The Round

As the great Kyle Chong once said, "I first evaluate the framework debate, then I vote based on who generates the most offense off of the winning framework."

How I Evaluate Arguments

Use your warrants, please. I can't evaluate an argument that I cannot understand, and I cannot understand arguments that are not fully explained. Note, empirics are worthless without logical backing. I respect great logic far more than I do what some random study found. Here's why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

This is a human activity. Craft your narrative! Make pretty speeches.

Timber Creek HS '17, Boston University '21

I did PF for all 4 years of high school and was captain of my high school debate team, qualified for the Tournament of Champions in PF, placed 10th at NCFL Nationals, current member of the Boston University Debate Society, and have judged PF at many tournaments.

I have no tolerance for blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic, bigoted, etc, arguments of any form on any resolution. If that's a problem, strike me and re-evaluate how you debate.

In terms of the way I evaluate a round, in order for a team to clearly win a round, the team must:

-Engage in framework debate (if applicable) and demonstrate why and how they win under their framework and/or the opponent's framework better

-Effectively weigh your arguments against your opponents and paint an extremely clear picture of why and how your arguments are more important (have more of an impact, are more/less likely to happen, etc). Failure to do so will result in me doing weighing of many arguments at the end of the round most likely in a way you won't like.

-For rebuttals, I believe the most effective and persuasive method is line by line responses with indicts of specific cards or refutations of particular warrants within the opponent's argument to be embedded throughout the rebuttal speech. Obviously also use a sufficient amount of evidence

Specific things:

-Speed is acceptable, however clarity is a necessity.

-Terminal offense must be in summary speech in order for me to consider it and evaluate it in final focus, make sure you and your partner are extending the same main warrants and delivering a clear narrative.

-If you suspect your opponents of severely misconstruing or misusing a card and want me to call for it, literally tell me to call for it and stress that the card is important in the round because they are incorrectly using it. Nevertheless, you must also explain how they are misusing it and what the card actually says and why that makes their argument fall apart or at least minimizes their impacts. If you don't do that, I will make my own judgement on the card and it might not be the same as your own. Overall, if a card that the round is being staked on is being completely falsified, I will drop the team that falsified it, regardless of other things in the round.

-Being funny in crossfire will get you extra speaker points, being unnecessarily rude or shouting in crossfire will get you fewer speaker points.

I am a parent judge, and this is my third year judging JV Lincoln Douglas and JV Public Forum. I did not debate in HS or College and have enjoyed judging as an adult. I'm a Licensed Customs Broker with a Masters in International Business. The past 20+ years of my career in International Logistics (Imports and Exports) and Global Trade Compliance.

My paradigm is simple, follow the rules of debate and present your argument based on the resolve. Articulate your argument clearly, if you are speaking at a fast pace and are not enunciating your words I may miss what you are trying to say while I flow. Do your best to provide a convincing argument that proves your philosophy is better than your opponent's.

Most importantly...breathe. You got this!

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.

Flow Judge - If it is not on my flow it does not exist in the round.

Speed is fine. Enjoy technically proficient debaters. Poor time allocation is a pet peeve of mine.

Will doc speakers for uncivil/ungracious opponents.

Coach (LD/PF)

Former LD/Policy/PF Debater

I am a parent, who has been judging for many years. While I flow, my kid calls me a “flay” judge. Please be civil and respectful and do not yell over each other in crossfire. That doesn’t help you win. You are responsible for keeping your own time. I will vote on anything as long as it is warranted and supported with evidence. I will only call for cards if it is disputed by both teams. You need to weigh without jargon because I will not intervene as a judge. Please give roadmaps.

Updated for April 2023.

Tabroom has the option to specify pronouns for a reason. If a debater specifies certain pronouns by which they identify in a live update, ensure you know them. I have ZERO tolerance for deliberate misgendering because it makes the round unsafe. If you object to this, strike me.

A note on content warnings: I have seen the proliferation of potentially triggering arguments being tagged with content warnings before rounds. This is great. If someone doesn't read such a warning, I would be extremely receptive to claims about why that should mean I drop the debater immediately. However, I notice the execution of such warnings leaves much to be desired in some cases. A CW should have three components:

A. A clear indication of the general topic which will be discussed and whether it is graphic or not.

B. A google form wherein the competitors and judges in the round can anonymously indicate discomfort. Do not ask for someone to say whether the content is triggering or not aloud, it is extremely traumatizing and difficult for survivors of trauma to have to out themselves for the sake of your debate argument. Asking for this is immoral and at best will be met by me tanking your speaks and at worst lead to me dropping you immediately.

C. If someone does indicate discomfort, simply say you understand and will read a different argument. Do not pressure or guilt trip anyone for being unwilling to discuss these arguments. Regardless of how important these issues are to debate discourse, safety is definitely more important.

Put me on the email chain: rubinmai@gmail.com.

If there's any way I can make the round more accessible, feel free to email me before the round and I will do my best.

TL;DR: Tech>truth, first speaking summary doesn't have to extend defense unless it's frontlined by second speaking rebuttal, in which case you have to respond to frontlines if you wanna go for it in FF. Second rebuttal does not have to frontline defense, but does have to frontline turns or disads. Defense isn't terminal unless you tell me why. I've been scarcely involved in debate for a few years and am rusty, adapt accordingly. Don't be more tech than you are. See point 5 if you're reading an anticapitalist argument.

Hello. I did PF for three years at Boca Raton High School ('17) and currently coach/judge circuit PF. I went to FSU until spring 2021 and am currently a third year law student at ASU. I’ve been around the national circuit, so I’ve seen my fair share of debating.

I have been much less involved in debate since 2021, however. Take all of the components of this paradigm with the caveat that I might have issues keeping up with overwhelmingly tech rounds due to being rusty.

I disclose, so if you have any questions about the round, be it the specifics of the flow or your performance as a speaker, feel free to ask me either during the disclosure or after the round if time permits on my part. If you have any questions about my paradigm or an RFD, feel free to ask before or after round (tournament permitting).

As for the paradigm:

1. Debate is a game (unless you compellingly argue otherwise in-round), call me tech>truth. I'll vote on any warranted argument insofar as it isn't unambiguously, maliciously offensive. In the latter case, you'll get an L0-20. I think intervention assassinates pedagogy and fairness because the round is decided by factors outside the control of debaters. To minimize intervention, I will presume the status quo in a scenario in a policy topic where: A. no one is accessing offense, or B. both teams are accessing offense without literally any analysis as to which args are more important and it is impossible for me to resolve the debate without intervening. In short, I presume in pretty much any scenario where it is impossible for me to resolve the round without having to introduce any of my own analysis that wasn’t in it. DO NOT ABUSE THAT. I presume first on non-policy resolutions. On that note, I believe defense is NOT terminal unless you tell me it is and why. I presume defense is mitigatory by default, and give very little weight to it if it is not implicated. This ensures people don't lose the round on presumption because of one piece of mitigation that was dropped and lacked implication.

2. First speaking summary doesn't have to extend defense, unless that defense is covered in second rebuttal, in which case, it must be frontlined in first summary and extended if you intend to go for it in FF. Likewise, if you're second speaking and frontline in second rebuttal and your opponents drop the frontline in first summary, you can extend the frontline straight to final focus without mentioning it in summary. I do not require second rebuttal frontlining for defense, but it is required for turns. However, it is probably strategic to do because defense is a lot harder to access if frontlined early. Beyond that, no new in the two. That includes new weighing in the 2FF, unless there was no prior weighing. Any argument must be responded to in the speech after it is introduced or else it is conceded, with the exception of first rebuttal defense that is not frontlined in second rebuttal. However, I do believe.

3. Regarding new applications of certain args, the way I handle them is that the part of the arg itself that was read before cannot be responded to if dropped. However, the new application can be responded to because it was never read before in the round and the other team had no way of knowing they needed to frontline. Too many teams keep pulling this super sus strat of reading entirely new applications of frontlines or defense to dropped args in the backhalf and reading entirely new implications that weren't in rebuttal. This is effectively a new argument because this articulation of the argument wasn't earlier in the round and the other team couldn't respond to it. There are two exceptions. Those are if 1FF is answering new arguments from second summary and/or if 2FF is refuting those answers. Second, if you're making a theoretical argument about some abuse committed late in the round. If it's the latter, you better spend a VERY significant chunk of your FF on the argument and warranting why the level of abuse is big enough to outweigh the fairness skew of an arg that is new in the two.

4. The only new frameworks that I feel comfortable with being introduced after summary, absent some argument telling me otherwise, are voters and reasons to prefer/weighing frameworks. Clarity of link weighing is fake news 99% of the time, I am not fooled by new attempts to read defense in FF.

5. Cool w/ progressive arguments if done properly and am tangentially familiar with stock K lit. I notice a lot of judges try to ascribe specific purposes to these types of args, like only being for checking back abuse. I think this is intervention. YOU decide and argue in round what the role of a progressive arg is and how that affects the round's outcome. Also, tell me why your args/standards are voters, especially for theory/T. Disclaimer: I have a college policy background, but a limited one, and I was also bad at it. If you're someone reading these types of args, I suggest dumbing them down by spending more time explaining/implicating them.

(NEW AS OF APRIL 2023) As an addition to the above, I have become more versed in anticapitalist literature since taking some distance from debate. With this, I have also grown disillusioned with how a lot of PFers read arguments based on that literature such as capitalism kritiks. Saying I should reject something solely because "it perpetuates capitalism" is oftentimes meaningless in the greater scheme of things within anticapitalist theory. That's not to say I won't vote on those args, because I will if they are accessed and weighed. But it is to say that I have an unavoidable internal bias against that variant of anticapitalist argumentation. However, I love capitalism arguments in PF when they're accompanied by rock solid uniqueness (i.e. reasons why capitalism is gonna collapse and the aff prevents/delays that, or reasons why the aff causes capitalism to collapse). I will do my best to restrain this bias, but it is there, and it is fair you be made aware of it.

6. Good w/ speed but notify me if you're gonna outright spread so I can flow on laptop. Send speech docs if spreading or I will not be happy. Slow on tags/authors/analytics. I will clear you.

7. Issues in CX need to be mentioned in a speech for me to evaluate them.

8. If a link turn links to a different impact than the argument it's turning, that impact MUST be weighed for me to evaluate it because these types of arguments don't inherently prevent or hijack impacts, meaning it doesn't function as defense either. Treat it like an impact from case.

9. If a card is disputed throughout the round or has something in it that spikes/responds to another arg, please extend the card name in summary and FF for clarity and signposting.

10. Please warrant new cards/arguments in summary, don't just read a claim that only ever gets warranted in FF.

11. Please weigh because it makes the round clearer and easier for me to judge. Line-by-line is important, but weighing is absolutely necessary. Most teams I've judged haven't weighed, or done so poorly. Weighing doesn't just entail saying why your link/impact is big. Tell me why it's comparatively greater than everything else in the round. Arg interaction is key. Clarity of impact/link weighing is fake news 90% of the time just because people throw those buzzwords at me and just say “we outweigh because our arg is true.” Just saying you outweigh because you access an arg is not weighing. Strength of link is fine with very good COMPARATIVE warranting rather than being a poorly veiled attempt to read new defense in FF.

12. Absent being told otherwise, I default to evaluating the round on several levels. In descending order: framework, comparative weighing, weighing, offense access. I'm open to some theoretical alternative to evaluating the round if it's proposed to me, I.e. procedural args like theory coming first.

13. If you plan on conceding an arg for strategic purposes, I like that because it’s smart. That said, such can be abusive if used at a point where it is nigh impossible for the other team to respond. I do not wanna intervene on this issue, so: it is fair to make strategic concessions, but only in the speech immediately after those args are made. For example, if someone reads terminal link defense alongside a ton of link turns in first rebuttal, your concession should be in second rebuttal. I won’t take this into account by default. This only comes into play if you argue why it’s abusive. If this happens and you do not make an arg about it, I evaluate it normally. I am VERY receptive to theory arguments on this issue, even in the final focus if and ONLY IF the abuse in question happened right before it.

14. As an extension of the above, I don't enter the round with any preconceptions about certain args being abusive. There are no abusive args unless you: A. tell me why the arg is abusive (most people are blippy on this), and B. why that means I shouldn't evaluate them, preferably grounded by some standard like education or fairness (often entirely absent). Or you could read theory, which is fine by me.

15. I tend to evaluate evidence as arguments, unless some arg in round is made that I should eval them otherwise or there is REALLY excessive abuse. That means a few things:

A. Just as I only evaluate arguments as you present them to me, I only eval ev as you present it to me. This means that the claim you present from the ev is how I eval it, and if I call the card and see some other application of the ev that wasn't articulated in round, I'm not gonna consider it.

B. I prefer not to call for cards unless I am told to. In fact, I ABSOLUTELY HATE having to do evidence comparison myself. Please do it for me, it likely won't end well for you if it comes down to this. There are exceptions to this rule for cards I deem important enough to call, and I will admit that metric is somewhat arbitrary. I think, however, that most would agree that such arbitrariness is fine if it leads to accountability. If I call your ev due to an indict, and the specific parts of the ev in question are problematic, my default response is to just drop the ev to minimize intervention. This, of course, can change if your opponents make some argument as to why this should impact the outcome of the round. I also might just call cards for clarification.

C. The only occasion in which I drop a team with the lowest speaks tab will allow for misrepresenting ev is if it is REALLY terrible and malicious, and the abuse is obviously super extreme, i.e. fabricating ev, distortion, or obvious clipping. I haven't had to do this in a round I myself have judged yet, so my threshold for this is very high, don't be alarmed.

16. The Jan 2019 topic has taught me that there are some parts of economics that I do not understand. Explain economics to me in round like I'm five, for both our sakes.

17. I evaluate embedded clash to an extremely limited extent in the absence of analysis/implication in the round itself, and I only do this when it has to be done to resolve the round. My standard for evalling embedded clash is that if the analysis/extension you read is 100% there and just not signposted in its application or is on the wrong part of the flow, I eval it. By 100% there, I mean I could literally cut and paste that verbatim statement on to the arg it clashes with and have zero issue. If I can't literally just add the phrase "On this argument..." to the analysis/extension that's there, I won't eval embedded clash in the absence of analysis. PLEASE do the analysis properly, I hate evalling embedded clash and your speaks will suffer.

18. In terms of theory, I default to competing interps, no RVI, and drop the debater, open to otherwise if argued in round. Likewise, if you read a theory shell instead of a PF-y argument about why a certain thing is abusive and shouldn't be evaluated, I will hold it to the standard of a theory shell. Extend the interp verbatim. The shell line-by-line doesn't need to be extended in rebuttal.

Speaker Points

To me, speaks aren't about presentation. I tend to give speaks based on one's strategic decisionmaking and argumentation in the context of a round. Cool strategic moves and good efficiency (especially in the backhalf) are the key to my heart. I’m not a fan of giving speaks based off stylistic performance, mostly because those tend to be informed by some pretty bad norms that disadvantage non-cishet white men. If your strategy is good, I don’t care how you speak, I will give you good speaks.

Here’s the breakdown:

30: You made the best possible strategic decisions and arguments in the context of the round.

29-29.5: You made smart strategic decisions and arguments. Only a few things you could have done better.

28-28.5: Solid argumentation and middle of the line strategic decisionmaking. What I give to the majority of decent rounds I judge.

27-27.5: Passable argumentation with several mistakes, and a noticeable absence of strategic decisionmaking. Round was way more unclear than it should be, and improvements are definitely needed.

26-26.5: Below average. Major mistakes or problems with the debate, definitely needs immediate improvement.

25-25.5: Very below average. Completely mishandled the round. Significant work needed on how the debate is handled.

<25: You probably said something quite offensive or tried to spread cards without sending a speech doc.

Experience: 3 years PF for Bard High School Early College Manhattan, majority local, some national. I debated APDA and BP at Wellesley College and the London School of Economics for 4 years. I coached APDA at Wellesley College and middle school policy as a volunteer for the Washington Urban Debate League each for one year. During the 2023-2024 school year, I'm working full-time as a PF coach in Taiwan on theFulbright Debate Coach/Trainer award.

You can contact me and add me to the email chain using this email: maya.rubin56@gmail.com.

If you want a more complete paradigm that goes into far more technical specifics, this is a good one that pretty much reflects my judging philosophy (expansion here).

Some things about my general approach to PF debate (non-specific):

The vast majority of my coaching experience has been with novices. Most of that experience has also been with people who are structurally excluded from many debate spaces including and especially circuit/bid tournaments. What this should tell you about me as a judge is that I believe that debate -- especially PF debate -- should be a fundamentally accessible and public-facing activity. Organization is important; evidence integrity is important; making arguments that are comprehensible to laypeople is important, even in front of a more flow-y judge. I do not think that you should condescend to laypeople or assume that because someone isn't well-versed in the intricacies of debate theory they will be unable to follow complicated arguments: if you are not explaining the argument in a way laypeople can follow, you're probably not making it very well. Additionally, I am very sensitive -- as I hope most judges are -- to the exploitation of inequities or resource imbalances by teams. In other words, do not run theory arguments on novices because you know they won't understand theory; don't use language on an ESL team that you could reasonably predict will be inaccessible to them; always be respectful of your opponents, no matter where they come from or their skill level. Always win, lose, and compete with grace and compassion.

Some specific things about my preferences and paradigm:

• Go as fast as you want, but be clear. I can keep up with pretty much any speed. That said, make sure your speed is accessible to your opponents. Do not spread on people who you think won't understand it.
• I am fine with theory arguments, but as with the above, only run these on people who will be able to understand and debate them in a productive way. Regarding theory, because most of my experience is with novices and because I did not frequently debate on the national circuit when I was in high school, I am not familiar with the cutting edge of PF theory. That said, my lack of recent and specific experience should not imply that I am incapable of judging theory: I am very familiar with theory arguments in Parliamentary debate formats and I am someone who has spent enough time in debate (and enough time studying academic philosophy) that I feel comfortable evaluating technical and theory arguments even when I haven't heard them before. Finally, as is the case with any argument in PF, even theory arguments should be presented and explained in a way that is comprehensible to laypeople. TLDR: I will not drop you for theory and you should assume I can understand and evaluate it, but run it only when it is appropriate and fair to do so.
• I will flow everything you say. However, I have a more "lay" approach to debating for all the reasons discussed above. Assume I won't miss things and don't rely on pure presentation to win, but make sure your arguments are clear, accessible, and explained.
• Do all the normal good-debater things: warrant, signpost, weigh, be clear about referring to arguments and cards. Evidence integrity is important, so make sure you're not clipping cards or fabricating stuff or citing outdated/disproven stuff.
• No new responses past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary. Defense isn't sticky, offense is.
• I will evaluate the round based on the magnitude of impacts and the strength of each team's link to them. E.g., what is the biggest impact in the round? Who best accesses it?
• I try, as much as one can, to be tabula rasa. Framework arguments are fine; in their absence I default to util. Consider my paradigm to be "how I judge in absence of a clear directive of how to judge otherwise." If you tell me why I should view the round differently, I will view it that way.
• Obligatory "don't be racist, sexist, and any other -ist" note. If you do, I'll tank your speaks and probably drop you.

I did PF all 4 years of high school, so I am comfortable with speed and debate jargon. First summary doesn't need to extend defense, and second rebuttal should respond to some of the defense in first rebuttal.

Not a fan of off-time roadmaps, you should signpost clearly enough for me to know where you are.

In terms of what I will vote for, strong warranting and weighing is a requirement for me to vote for you. I need you to set up a good comparison in terms of what you and your opponents are arguing and why to prefer you. Don't just list weighing mechanisms, but tell me why your impacts outweigh their impacts. You also must(!) engage with your oppponent's warranting and any claim you make in a round must have some kind of warranting to back it up.

If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you and dock speaker points. If you have a question about something that isn't covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

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.

I debated PF for Stuyvesant and have a good amount of experience in the national circuit. Don't speak fast at the cost of enunciation. Extend warrants with impacts and weigh, please!

I reward speaker points for quality of argumentation as well as delivery, but I value substance over flourish

A couple of specifics:

— Keep evidence tags consistent, it helps me on the flow and makes extending easier

— Don’t introduce new evidence in second summary, I won’t evaluate it (first summary is fine)

Feel free to ask me any questions before round.

Max Wu’s paradigm is pretty much what I follow so you can check it out for more specifics.

I am a traditional judge. Please don't include LD jargon in your cases. I am a Public Forum purist. I value clear and concise arguments that include compelling evidence coupled with strong analytical reasoning. Since this is real world debate, at the end of the round I decide what kind of world I want to live in - pro or con. Paint the picture for me. Be persuasive. Be competent. Be kind.

Just a couple of things to keep in mind:

1. Make sure you take advantage of crossfire. Although I am not going to vote from your crossfire, this is a time where I want to see clash of arguments and engage with warrants. You should not be repeating what you just read in case but rather tell me how your argument works and finding/pointing out flaws from your opponent's arguments.

2. If your opponents are asking for a piece of evidence make sure you are able to provide it within a reasonable amount of time or I will run your prep time. You should be prepared.

3. If you are using framework in case, make sure it is warranted/carded. Also do not read framework and then drop it after the constructive and never bring it up again in round. There should be a clear purpose when using framework.

4. Please weigh! This is important for nearly every speech but especially the final focus as close rounds tend to be decided in the very last speech of the debate! Tell me why I should prefer your argument over your opponent's! Impact analysis please! I know in the final focus you might want to go for nearly every argument in the end but you only have 2 minutes. Make sure you pick and choose the most important arguments in the round and tell me why I should vote for you!

5. For my second speakers: I know you might want to read tons of different arguments and "flood" the flow but it is not necessary. It is better to read 3 or 4 solid well warranted responses per argument rather than 6 or more blippy responses that are not developed at all. Also remember to use up your entire time! Take advantage of it! If you have time to defend in your rebuttal speech, address important turns on your case but only if you think you have completely attacked your opponent's case.

These are just a couple of things to keep in mind. I am pretty laid back so if you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts. Don't hesitate to ask! Good luck!

I debated PF for four years at Delbarton in NJ. I broke at Nationals, TOC, and NCFLs. I'll tell you anything I want you to know, but ask me any questions you may have about the round.

One of the teams I judged thought it'd be nice for me to put this on my paradigm, so here's an article I wrote for a speech-and-debate non-profit.

*Last updated 11/7/19*

Background:

Schools Attended: Boca '16, FSU '20

Teams Coaching/Coached: Capitol, Boca

Competitive History: 4 years of PF in high school, 2 years of JV policy and 2 years of NPDA and Civic Debate in college

Public Forum Paradigm:

TL;DR: You do you.

General:

1) Tech > Truth. If you have strong warrants and links and can argue well, I'll vote off of anything. Dropped arguments are presumed true arguments. I'm open to anything as long as you do your job to construct the argument properly.

2) The first speaking team in the round needs to make sure that all offense that you want me to vote on must be in the summary and final focus. Defense in the rebuttal does not need to be extended, I will buy it as long as your opponents don't respond and it is extended in the final focus. The second speaking team needs to respond to turns in rebuttal and extend all offense and defense you want me to vote on in BOTH the summary and the final focus.

3) If you start weighing arguments in rebuttal or summary it will make your arguments a lot more convincing. Easiest way to my ballot is to warrant your weighing and tell me why your arguments are the most important and why they mean you win the round.

4) I don't vote on anything that wasn't brought up in final focus.

Framework:

Frameworks need clear warrants and reasons to prefer. Make sure to contextualize how the framework functions with the rest of the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I will listen to any theory arguments as long as a real abuse is present. Don't just use theory as a cheap way to win, give me strong warrants and label the shell clearly and it will be a voter if the violation is clear. Also, if you're going to ask me to reject the team you better give me a really good reason.

If you are running theory, such as disclosure theory, and you want it to be a voter, you need to bring it up for a fair amount of time.

Kritiks:

I was primarily a K debater when I competed in policy in college, so I am familiar with how they function in round. However, I don't know all the different K lit out there so make sure you can clearly explain and contextualize.

Offense v. Defense:

I find myself voting for a risk of offense more often than I vote on defense. If you have really strong terminal impact defense or link defense, I can still be persuaded to vote neg on presumption.

Weighing:

I hate being in a position where I have to do work to vote for a team. Tell me why your argument is better/more important than your opponents and why that means I should vote for you. Strength of link and/or impact calc is encouraged and appreciated.

Evidence Standard:

I will only call for cards if it is necessary for me to resolve a point of clash or when a team tells me to.

Speaks:

- If I find you offensive/rude I will drop your speaks relative to the severity of the offense.

- I take everything into consideration when giving speaks.

- The easier you make my decision, the more likely you are to get high speaks.

Misc:

- I'm fine with speed, but if you're going to spread send out speech docs.

- Keep your own time.

- I will disclose if the tournament allows me, and feel free to ask me any questions after my RFD.

- I only vote off of things brought up in speeches.

Bottom line: Debate is supposed to be fun! Run what you want just run it well.

If you have any questions email me at joshschulsterdebate@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

Do not lie about or manipulate evidence. All arguments and rebuttals must be across my flow throughout the round. Do not make a point in rebuttal and drop it in summary and final. You must weight and you must link to impacts. I appreciate good speakers but will award low point wins in any round where the better speakers fail to cover the flow, weigh, link to impacts or address framework (when applicable).

Background:

I have been judging debate tournaments for the past two to three years. I do this as my hobby and passion.

Things I like:

- Presentation skills

- Confidence in your speech and delivery

- Well constructed speech along with your introduction and brief about the speech

- Provide proper arguments and evidence/background of your speech

- Be creative with your arguments and speech

Things I don't like:

- I don't like when you speak too fast. You can speak fast but need to ensure that others can make sense of it.

- Can't show up with the evidence when asked for it

- Not able to answer clearly to the point on a question asked you

I debated PF for three years at Acton-Boxborough. Treat me as your normal flow judge – signpost, collapse, weigh, etc.

Important things about me:

• I will evaluate any argument as long as it is well warranted. But if the argument is extremely jank and/or abusive, my threshold for responses goes significantly down.
• I have little to no experience with theory, Ks, or most other forms of progressive argumentation. That being said, I'm not opposed to it and I'll evaluate it if I understand it, I guess. lol.
• I would prefer that second speaking teams address responses from the first rebuttal in the second rebuttal. Allocate time however you wish. That being said, I don’t require defense in first summary, unless it has been frontlined in second rebuttal.
• I am not a huge fan of long offensive overviews, especially in second rebuttal. I find it unfair for the first speaking team to have to respond to an entirely new contention in summary, along with the rest of it. Read me a nice weighing overview though.
• Collapse/Crystallize. Don't go for every argument on the flow. It just makes both of our jobs extremely tedious. :( Commit to an issue or two and tell me why it’s the most important in the context of the debate.
• Warrant. I will most definitely always buy the logical reasoning behind your argument over a sus piece of evidence that just claims that something is true.
• WEIGH. Please!! You would probably benefit more if you explained to me why your argument is more important than your opponents', rather than having me do it for you. Also, weighing turns in rebuttal is nice.
• Please don’t spread. <3
• Preflow before you walk into your round. I don’t wanna wait.

Something to keep in mind: I will probably tank your speaks if you 1) act offensively and 2) lie about your evidence.

This isn't very thorough, so please ask me before your round if you have any questions! Good luck!!!

also, don't shake my hand lol.

I am a lay judge, but I am on my second debater kid, so I do know a little bit about PF, just don’t go too fast. I'm an estate tax attorney in my day job. I like appeals to philosophy but only if you get it right.

In terms of style I like weighing and frameworks so I know what's important upfront.

If there is anything that I should know about you, anything I should accommodate, please let me know.

**Updated October 2022**

Hi, I'm Ellie (she/her)! I have experience competing and judging in PF and WS. For four years I competed mostly in APDA for Yale. I coached for Blake after my high school graduation. I have judged many rounds over time, but not recently, so be aware of that. 

Feel free to message me for feedback (if I forget you can nudge me), if you have questions about APDA, for moral support, or anything else. I'm happy to help!

Please put debate.ellie@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain if you make one!

This paradigm is for PF, though some things apply across events (eg: the decorum section).

The Split

Everyone frontlines now. That's nice.

Speed

I can flow speed, but proceed at your own risk. You can "clear" your opponents but do this sparingly. I don't use speech docs to fill in things I could not catch/understand.

Types of arguments

You are the debater and I want you to enjoy debating things that interest you. There are few things I refuse to hear.

Progressive arguments are important. I'll do my best to evaluate them fairly. I am not super well versed in K lit so while I will try and understand whatever you read, there's a risk I just miss something.

I really don't like when teams run squirrelly arguments just to throw off their opponents. Your points may suffer even if I vote for you and my threshold for responses will be lower.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring.

I am not amenable to speaks theory.

The only other args I refuse to listen to are linguistic and moral skep – I have yet to hear them in PF, but don't even try lol

Dates

read them lol

Evidence

I very strongly prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked. Do not cut cards in round.

Bracketing is bad. No debater math pls.

Summary and Final Focus

Extend defense. Don't go for everything. Args needs to be in summary to be counted in FF. Also, weigh.

~~Decorum~~

Being funny or witty is fine as long as it isn't mean. I am not afraid to tank your speaks if you are rude.

Prep

keep track of it i won't

Misc

sIgNpOsT!!!!!!!!

don't delink your own case to escape turns just frontline them

You can enter the room and flip before I get there (when we're back in person that is).

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/wear pajamas, go ahead!

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, strike me. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27.5-29 range.

Former Policy Debater, 2.5 years with Brooklyn Tech as Nov and JV (Varsity on regional circuits), 1.5 years with the CUNY Policy Team. I ran stock issues for roughly 2-3 novice tournaments before converting over entirely to K debating.

I have been coaching Public Forum for roughly 4 years.

Speed is fine by me, just be clear. Flow judge for the most part.

To put it simply, win the framework, the impact calculus, and the solvency debate. Big fan of turns, make use of them and be sure to explain and impact them adequately.

Every argument should have claim, warrant, and impact.

Pro teams, take time to explain the inherent need for your plan and your solvency.

Feel free to run whatever con strategy you want, be it on-case, DA's, or a combo of both. I prefer if you had your own counter-interpretation and voters, but if your strategy entails ceding to the pro's F/W then you better win it.

I have been judging Debate for 7 years. Coaching for 4. So consider me new-ish/old-ish.

Flow

I consider myself a “semi-flow” judge. Watch your speed, if you are too fast I won’t bother to write. Makes the decision a lot more challenging, for you. Make contentions and sub contentions clear.

Evidence

Include at the minimum the year of the evidence in your case. Paraphrasing is okay, but please do not misrepresent the evidence. If your opponent calls for a card it should say what you say it does. Further, if they call for a card, you should be able to find it quickly. It is your evidence, isn’t it?

Summary and Final Focus

Be clear in why you “won”. Make the voting issues clear and concise. If something important isn't in the summary, I'm not voting on it in final focus. Also, weighing is probably a good idea as well.

Cross

I will not be judging cross so if it's important bring it up in your speech. Speak up for yourself in cross. Do NOT take over the questioning it should be a back and forth.

Aggressive Debate does NOT equal Obnoxious Debate

Be aggressive, but not obnoxious. Be firm in your contentions and the entire case have passion in your voice but don’t be mean or rude. Do not roll your eyes at, talk down to, be rude to, or personally attack your opponent.

Prep TIME

USE IT ALL!

I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:

1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well-developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.

2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.

3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.

4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing are important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.

5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or the website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.

6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.

7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.

8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving to the other side of the flow or weighing.

9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

10. References - any well-executed Biggy, Kendrick, J. Cole, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.

11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.

Harvard 2020 Paradigm:

I am a former PF debater from Eagan High School (three years out), now I am an architecture student at Northeastern. This year I am judging Congressional for Eagan. In past years I have judged speech and PF. I did a small amount of congress in high school but would not consider myself experienced in congressional debate specifically.

As a former debater who has been out of the game for a while, I am looking for good quality arguments that are well-composed and add to the discussion in the chamber. I want you to thoughtfully introduce new points, carefully deconstruct your opponents' points, or build substantially on arguments previously made (not just rehashing a point that was made earlier in the debate). I have a strong appreciation for good cross-examination. I hope to see solid leadership from the presiding officer to make sure the debate runs smoothly and students have a fair chance to speak and ask questions.

Speak well, make it interesting, and have some fun.

I was a speech competitor in the '80s and for the last 8 years have been advising/assisting a team of self-directed debaters some of whom attend camps/private coaching. For the past 8 years I've stepped in to judge PF as the team has grown. I'm fine with "speed speaking" as long as enunciation is not compromised. While not new to PF debate, I am not immersed in it regularly, so I suggest not using a lot of jargon/and or acronyms without a one time explanation.

I definitely value quality and substance over quantity. I would rather hear several strong contentions and well constructed responses in a four minute period than speed-reading 20-30 of them from your laptop/notebook. Speaking at a moderate pace with good hand gestures and eye contact will help me absorb and believe what you say.

As a judge, I will adapt to you too. Do what you do best!

That said, I am a pretty standard PF tech judge, with a couple of specific preferences, outlined below:

(1) I only vote off offense that is in both summary and final focus – if it’s in one but not the other, I probably won’t consider it in my decision. If you’re the first speaking team, defensive responses to your opponent’s case do not need to be in summary – I’ll still evaluate them if they’re in final focus. Turns that you want to win off of must be in 1st summary. If you’re the second speaking team, defensive responses need to be in both summary/final focus for me to evaluate them. If you have questions on this, please ask!

(2) If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time. I hope this encourages y’all to collapse, develop, and weigh arguments instead of going for like 4 different voters (unless you weigh all four of them :) ).

(3) I care very little about what your cards say. I care a lot more about the warranting behind them. I will never vote on the idea that something is just "empirically true," although empirics do help when you're doing warrant comparisons/maybe a probability weighing analysis.

(4) I rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round. I strongly dislike disclosure theory. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.

(5) In case it's helpful, I did nat circuit PF 2013-2017.

- and don't forget to have fun!

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

2) Arguments must be extended in each speech. This idea of "sticky defense" and not answering arguments in the second rebuttal doesn't understand how debate works. A debater can only make strategic choices about their speech if they base it on what was said in the speech previous to them.

3) Read evidence. I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.

4) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce it in about 60 seconds. At two minutes or so, I'm going to just say the evidence doesn't count in the round because you can't produce it. If I say the card doesn't count then the card doesn't count in the round. If you say you can't produce the card then you risk losing. That is called fabrication to cite evidence and then not be able to produce it. If I ask for a card after the round and you can't produce it, again you risk losing the round. Good evidence practices are critical if this format is to rely on citing authorities.

5) I tend to be a policymaker. If there is no offense against trying a new policy then I suggest we try the new policy as it can't hurt to try. Offense is important for both sides.

6) Use voting issues format in summary and final focus. Learn that this allows a clear story and weighing. A voting issue format includes links, impacts, and weighing and provides clarity to just "our case/their case". You are still doing the voting issues on "their flow" or "our flow".

7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"

8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

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 am a parent of a high school debater. I do not have a technical background in debate. I have judged at about 6 tournaments in the past two years.

I can't flow as quickly as the debaters. Therefore I prefer that debaters speak at a moderate, conversational pace so that I can understand their arguments and how those arguments relate to what has been said previously in the round.

I prefer that debaters are respectful to each other, including during cross-ex. Questions and responses should be concise.

I prefer that debaters avoid using the phrase "you must vote ..." Instead, organize and explain your arguments clearly and allow the judge to make a well-informed decision.

I enjoy judging rounds when it's clear that the debaters are enjoying their experience as well.

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.

Lay judge who votes on quality and weighing of arguments.

Don't go tech, but I can deal with complex arguments if explained well.

Be polite to you opponents. Snide or disparaging remarks are not appreciated. Debating is more than arguing.

I will call cards myself if something sounds wrong. If you deliberately misuse evidence, it will undermine your credibility overall with me in the round.

I am a parent of a debate student. Please speak slowly, clearly and be respectful toward your opponent. Presentation and delivery of your argument is important to me.

I did PF for Delbarton, competing on the national circuit for 4 years.

Speed: I'm fine if you speak fast, but I hate spreading. You should be clear and persuasive, and you should never sacrifice the quality of your arguments for the quantity. If you're speaking too fast, I'll let you know.

Evidence: I typically flow the last name of authors, and that is the easiest way for me to extend your arguments. I won't call for evidence unless told to do so multiple times. I'm fine if you ask to see your opponents' cards- just make sure you're able to provide them quickly. If you misuse or falsify evidence, you'll be dropped.

Arguments: I love hearing unique arguments. Very open to all interpretations/perspectives. If you have evidence that something is true, I'll believe it unless your opponents can refute it. I leave all of my personal beliefs outside of the round. That being said, if you have poorly warranted/dumb arguments, it'll be very easy to drop you. DO NOT run any type of discriminatory argument. You'll be dropped and reported.

K's/Theory: I think these are very risky. I never used these as a debater myself, and I have no policy background. If you run a K, I probably won't understand and I'll drop you. I think theory should be used in very specific circumstances of abuse. Ask me beforehand (or even in round) if you can run theory and I'll answer.

Weighing: This is VERY important. Winning your arguments doesn't matter if you don't weigh. Simply tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponents'. Please try to avoid random buzzwords like magnitude, scope, etc. They are lazy and most people use them incorrectly. Don't just use random statistics- tell me how your arguments affects actual people and what that means. *Paint a narrative* It is very hard for me to evaluate a X% decrease in the economy or whatever.

Frameworks: Open to all different frameworks- but you need to warrant them. If there is no framework given, I'll default to util and prioritize lives.

Signpost: This is huge. If you want me to properly flow your responses/arguments, you have to tell me where you are on the flow.

Rebuttals: *I love turns* In first rebuttal, your only burden is defense, and I'm open to disads. In second rebuttal, you should get back to your own case. I'm less inclined to vote off a disad because your opponent's only time to respond is in summary. I think the burden in second rebuttal is defense on your opponents' case, and responding to turns/disads from their rebuttal.

Summaries: PLEASE collapse on arguments. Two voting issues max. Extend the warrants and impacts, respond to defense, and WEIGH. If you want to extend it in FF, it needs to be in summary. For first summary, you do not need to extend defense on their arguments that they have not yet responded to in their rebuttal. Respond to turns. For second summary, you should extend your defense on what they went for in their summary.

FF: Simplify the round. Extend only what you need to. *Remind me if they dropped a response* Weigh! Again, tell me how your arguments impact people

Tips: I make very obvious facial expressions. If I look confused, it probably means that I'm confused. Use this to your advantage to see what arguments I like/dislike so you can move on. Be funny in round... I don't want to be bored. Be nice- if you are mean to your opponents, I'll dislike you. Also, I hate the term "terminal defense."

Speaker Points: I'll probably start at a 28.5 for average and go up or down depending on the round. Extra points if you bring me an iced coffee with almond milk.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

I judge mainly based on content and quality of arguments. I am open to all styles of debate with the caveat that I need to be able to understand you enough to flow your speeches. I love hearing voting issues and will often use them to decide the round when they are clearly provided to me. Make sure to impact everything everything back to the resolution and any framework that you use. Let me know if you have any questions. Best of luck!

summary and final focus should be consistent

signpost and weigh

defense in first summary not required

frontlines in second rebuttal not required but nice to have

tell me to call evidence and i will call it

Updated for Princeton 2018

Email: paveldtemkin@gmail.com

Debated for:

PF: Princeton HS, NJ (2012-14)
APDA: Rutgers University, NJ (2015-2018)

Coached for:

PF: Stuyvesant HS, NY (2014-15)
PF: Bergen County Debate Club, NJ (2018-present)
APDA: Johns Hopkins University, MD (2018-present)

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

I'll be as non-interventionist as I physically can be, sometimes to the point of mind-boggling obstinacy. If you explain every step in the link-chain I will be happy, if you don't you won't be happy.

Speed: Moderate. May ask you to CC me on the email chain.

Framework/Theory/Kritiks/T/DAs: Fine. Please be clear, especially in the very first links and the very last impacts.

Philosophy: I studied analytic philosophy, so I'll be very familiar with that literature, in particular metaethics and epistemology. I have read some continental/critical stuff, but have less familiarity.

Literally do not care what you do in a round.

Public Forum paradigm

A few remarks:

1. If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
1. Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
2. If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
2. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
3. Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
4. If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
5. Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.

I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:

1. You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
2. Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
3. You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.

In all cases, I will call for the evidence and decide for myself. I will sometimes call for evidence in round, after a team asks to see it during prep; do not be alarmed, I'm doing it to discourage abusive misquoting.

Speaker Points

I tend to be fairly low-speaking. What matters, in rough order of importance:

• Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
• The presence of weighing/narrative.
• Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
• Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
• Appealing rhetorical style.
• In-round courtesy and professionalism.

Lets make the best of today - We all had other options to spend our weekend. We are here by choice. So put your best foot forward!

Yes, I am a lay judge or rather a term I prefer - "citizen judge". FWIW: I have been judging PF for last 4+ years.

I enjoy judging and come to the table with open mind. I leave my pre-conceived notions outside, and do not check your record prior to the round.

So what do I value:

* If I can't understand you, I can't flow for you, so please speak slowly, clearly and loudly. No spreading, please.

* Simplicity of thought and explanation, BUT focus on specifics. Especially, during cross-X, I love when team not just "ask for the card" but know the weaknesses of the research and exploit it.

* It helps me to flow your speech if you give me an off time roadmap, so please do so. If you have any questions, ask me before the round starts.

* Its an intellectual fight. Dont shy from it. But the best team are those who don't "spike the ball" after scoring touchdown. Lets be civil.

* I will NOT do your job - I m here to judge, not debate. If an opponent does not point a flaw in argument, I will accept it.

* PL do not - appear dismissive (leave your eyerolls outside) or rude. Its distracting and unprofessional. I will ding u points, but not the outcome (so ironic).

* I know things like theory and kritiks are starting to show up in PF, but I am not the right judge for that kind of argument. I will only vote on the substance of the resolution.

PS - Sorry if I said your name incorrectly, or used wrong pronouns. Please correct me.

10+ Year Coach and 500+ Round Judge

Traditional LD Judge

HS LD Debater

---

I enjoy a substantive framework with well-supported contentions that clearly link.

I will consider off-case positions but am reluctant to vote off of them.

Don't spread. If I don't flow it, I won't evaluate it. Be clear throughout the round.

Don't make new arguments/applications in final speeches. I will only consider original lines of arguments/turns.

Be passionate and believe in your arguments. I will reward you with speaker points.

Be respectful. Don't insult your opponent at any point.

---

Frameworks: Choose ones that respect human worth. I'm not tabula rasa. Human extinction is not good.

Arguments: I like specific examples, real-world comparisons, and solvency. Statistics can be spurious so make sure you know the studies for your arguments to survive (what they measured, time-frame, methodology).

Critiques: Not likely to vote off them, but read clearly we'll see.

Counterplans: Be specific, have solvency examples.

DAs: Link them to some framework or else.

Did PF for a while, judged PF for a while, remain unconvinced that detailed judge paradigms are good for the event. The short version is this: I will judge your arguments as a reasonable person with little background knowledge, no opinions, and normal powers of reason. Arguments should be coherent, well-supported, and clearly tied to the resolution; rebuttals should be logical and used strategically; summaries should explain clearly why one should vote a certain way, rather than just describe the flow.

I will flow all speeches, but will reasonably assume that arguments rarely mentioned are not that important. If you want to speak particularly quickly, I will understand you, but I've rarely seen that help someone win a round. I *might* understand you if you use debate jargon (it keeps changing over the years, which is a good sign that it's not useful), but I have never seen that help someone win a round. If you try to use Cross-Ex to bully your opponents rather than ask helpful questions, I will only take that out of your speaker points, and it will not affect my decision. However, I've never seen that help someone win a round.

I look at sources extremely rarely; if you suspect your opponents have deliberately misrepresented their evidence, take it up with Tabroom and get them disqualified, but disputing sources generally has not, in my experience, helped someone win a round. Sometimes, debaters will ask me to do things, such as make their opponents answer a question, or tell me that I have no choice but to vote for their side, and I've never seen that help someone win a round.

Hi, I'm a parent judge from Westborough. I'm gonna be your typical lay judge. I don't know about the topic and speed is not okay.

I will dock your speaks if you decide to go too fast. I will also dock speaks if you decide to be too toxic in cross ex.

I will vote off my "flow", but I do pay attention to cross ex and how well you can sustain your argument. Consider the arguments you can't defend in cross ex as good as gone.

My speaks default to a 27, don't expect too much.

In ff, write the ballot for me. Collapse, weigh, and make sure I know which argument will be winning the round. Do that, and my round will be yours. The only thing I want to hear from anyone after round is general feedback, don't grill me for the result. I'm not going to tell you anything.

Make jokes and don't yell. I appreciate it. Overall, just have fun. You aren't a professional debater, this is a fun activity, so treat it as such.

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters take on very complex ideas/arguments in PF and the time limits for that event make it very difficult for debaters to fully explain these complex ideas.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pronouns: he/him

I started judging PF in 2016. Prior to that I judged middle school parli for 5 years.

I was a policy debater in high school and college 30 years ago, so I am comfortable flowing, can deal with real speed etc. For context, I have never heard a PF debater spread faster than I can flow. Ha! However, I am not deep on any on any technical aspects of PF---still learning :-)

Some pointers on me:

1.) Please signpost. I like to flow so I am annoyed when you do not signpost.

2.) I like evidence so I will sometimes ask to see it after the round. Don't over-represent what it says as that undermines your credibility. However, this does not mean that I don't value analysis. The best strategy involves excellent analysis backed by strong evidence.

3.) No new arguments in Final Focus.

4.) As I am a civilian judge, you should assume I know very little about the topic, i.e. what a college educated adult would know from 10 minutes of NYT reading per day. The only exception to this is business/technology as I work at a tech company on the business side. You should assume I am deep on those issues.

5.) I am lazy. I won't do anything that you don't instruct me to do. If you assume that I will connect things without you explicitly saying so, you do so at your peril.

6.) Humor is important. You get bonus points for having a sense of humor. I am kind so it counts even if you just try to have a sense of humor and aren't actually funny :-)

On a personal note, debate is the only thing I learned in high school that I have used at work every day for the past 25+ years. So great to see all of you competing!

Hi everyone,

Son here. Hopefully I am able to explain his preferences in terms you can probably understand.

Speaking is key. He values slow, clear, and concise speaking very highly, which shouldn't be surprising. As your speed goes up, so does your chances of losing. He won't choose a winner based on who speaks prettier, but better speaking means a better chance of winning. He'll probably give speaks somewhere in the range of 28-29.5.

He flows decently. He'll get the tag lines and will remember your arguments if they're well-warranted and make sense to him. Don't worry about him missing an entire contention or something, but if you're reading a lot of very nuanced links, maybe cut down on those.

Limit debate jargon. Instead of saying "delink," "uniqueness," "defense," or something along those lines, explain what the response/weighing is and use good evidence. The name of the response/weighing shouldn't represent any important content that he would miss out on if he didn't understand the jargon.

Good luck!

Hello! I am a third-year judge for public forum high school debates. I look forward to hearing you debate!

For each person, I score your two speeches and crossfire on scale of 25-30. Then I average these 3 scores and deduct any decorum penalties. Here’s what I’m looking for:
a. Construction: Present your case = succinct organization, sound reasoning, credible evidence, and clear delivery.
b. Rebuttal: Refute opposing side's arguments. Do not use Rebuttal to cram in more arguments.
c. Summary: Crystallize your case, in light of everything that has happened.
d. Final Focus: Frame with clarity why your team won the debate.
e. Crossfire: Dig into other side’s arguments during CX rounds to find and expose weaknesses.
f. Decorum: I expect professional decorum at all times. I penalize anything less.

My hope is this approach will give you more insight into the areas where you are strong, and where you can improve.

Do not "spread," or speed read (more than ~150 words per minute). You should lay out a few clear arguments supported by your strongest evidence, and clearly articulate the impact of each argument. Quality, not quantity. Less is more. You will not earn points if I can't understand you, or process what you say.

Be reasonable about requesting evidence. Request evidence you don’t believe or you feel is misrepresented. But don’t request evidence you already know to be true. And make sure your evidence is well organized and available offline to maximize efficiency in case a team calls for your evidence.

In scoring each speech and crossfire, I ask myself 3 questions:
1. Did you focus on the task at hand?
2. Did I understand the argument?
3. Was the argument persuasive?

Speaker #1 score = [Construction + Summary + Crossfire] / 3 - Decorum Penalties.
Speaker #2 score = [Rebuttal + Final Focus + Crossfire ] / 3 - Decorum Penalties.

The final score for each person will be: [24] bad decorum. [25-26] below average. [27-28] average. [29-30] above average.

The team with the most points wins the debate. In the case of a tie, I decide based on which side I found more persuasive.

Good luck!

Hello! I am a second-year judge for novice-level public forum high school debates. I judge based on these criteria:
1. Displays solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis.
2. Utilizes evidence without being driven by it.
3. Presents a clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments of opposing team (rebuttal).
4. Communicates ideas with clarity, organization, eloquence, and professional decorum.

I do not encourage "spreading," or speed reading. You should lay out a few clear arguments supported by your strongest evidence, and clearly articulate the impact of each argument. Quality, not quantity. Less is more.

I expect debaters to refute the opposing side's arguments during the Rebuttal phase. Do not use the Rebuttal phase to cram in more arguments, and then use the Crossfire phases for rebuttals.

Good luck!

I debated PF for four years at Acton-Boxborough, meaning you can treat me like your normal flow judge—signpost, collapse, weigh, etc. However, I don't coach, so don't expect me to have any prior topic knowledge.

I don't require second rebuttal to cover case (but I think you should do it—I just won't penalize you if you don't). First summary should extend defense to whatever was frontlined (if anything) in second rebuttal. If you want higher speaks, give me a clear link story/narrative and comparative weighing.

Some other things about me: I hate overly aggressive/rude crossfires but love funny debates, I'm not familiar with progressive argumentation (but will evaluate it if necessary), and when I competed, I never really liked having to shake the judge's hand (so please don't shake mine lol).

Have fun debating and good luck! Feel free to ask me any other questions.

I am a lay judge who's been judging for 4 years. I take notes during the round and I'll try my best to give good feedback after rounds. Make sure to have fun!

Hello! I am writing this paradigm for my dad and below are the items you should know if he is your judge.

Speed is ok. As long as you are not spreading, speak as fast as you would like.

No debate jargon please. He knows some but I would not recommend it.

He takes notes. I would not call it flowing but it is pretty thorough, usually he just writes each speech in a different column.

No shenanigans please. Please refrain from hand-waving, blatantly misconstrued arguments or pretty rhetoric, my dad usually sees right through it and he will be pretty annoyed, which is not great for your ballot.

Non-stock arguments are ok (as long as they are logical, so maybe no extinction scenarios). After a couple of rounds, my dad will get very bored of the common arguments so having a unique case will give you a boost.

Overall, treat him like a 75% flay, 25% lay judge and you will be fine. Good luck!

I prefer clear concise persuasive arguments. I anticipate that debaters will display appropriate demeanor and decorum. This includes respecting the time allotment provided.

Hi. I am a flay judge for pf (all other events, treat me as a VERY lay judge) , but don't spread, run prog, or run silly args. Still a truth > tech judge except that I can flow and vote based off that.

I understand basic stuff like basic weighing terms (magnitude, probability, scope, timeframe), but definitely not K's, theory, trix, framework, etc. My daughter did debate from her freshmen year to senior year, and now is in college. My son is currently debating as well.

I value clarity over speed. However, please don't spread, even if you are very clear. I can't understand it that well, and can't flow that fast. I also WILL NOT acceptspeech docs.

Don't run 20 contentions. Focus on a good amount. (Quality > Quantity!)

An argument/contention is claim, warrant, impact. No impact, no warrant, no claim -> no argument.

Be nice. Not doing so might impact speak point if that's in the tournament I'm judging.

PLEASE WEIGH AND EXTEND!
Or else, what am I going to vote based off of?

If I'm interested, I might ask for cards after the debate is over. If you miscut it or powertag it, I might drop you.

No matter how good this paradigm is at english, my first language is not english. Please don't use too superflouous words (get what I did there)? I understand stuff like card, contention, block, but not turn, nonunique, delink, or stuff like that.

P. S. This was edited by his son because his previous one was 28 words. In round, his english might not be this great, and he definitely won't make puns. Don't expect your RFD or comments to be this great either. Use the following example to see his paradigm expressed by him alone.

His previous paradigm was:
The following is what I will consider more valuable in the debate: clarity over speed, quality over quantity, argument = claim with warrant, attitude=nice to others

I am a parent judge with three years of judging experience.

Some preferences:

- Cases should be well structured; evidence and arguments should be laid out cohesively

- Students should be firm and polite without being rude

- Both sides should track their own time

- I will not evaluate new arguments made in final focus

- Cross should focus on the important arguments in the debate round

- I prefer reasoning backed by evidence over analysis without evidence

- Please don't speak too fast

The Guide to Public Forum Debate stresses remarkably that speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. I really resonate to this statement thus have my preferences below.

Normal speed: Please don't speak too fast. If you believe you have to speak fast or you cannot complete your messages in time, you need to cut your contents to make your messages concise.

Straightforward：Please express yourself in natural way to be understood.

Clear structure: Please integrate all of your points and keep them consistent through the entire session.

Have a fun!

( I am a lay judge.)

I am a parent judge, and indeed judging at NSDA Quals on Feb. 1, 2019 will be (I am writing this on Jan. 31, 2019 so it will be "was" after that date) my first time to get involved in a tournament. But I hope to get more involved. I went to Harvard Law School and now practice law a corporate lawyer. I value clarity of thinking, on point communication, and persuasive delivery. You can speak fast, but you need to be clear and on point, not rambling or unnecessarily wordy. I also value a good demeanor, especially during crossfire. You got to not interrupt your opponents and also let them answer the questions you ask.

I take notes, but I will focus on substantive arguments. You can rely on some authority, but the key is to articulate the arguments you can extrapolate from such authority, instead of just mentioning about those names.

The side with logical coherence, clarity, persuasiveness and substance is the one I vote for in the end. Focus on making arguments logically sound. Pay attention to the flow of arguments.

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'm the coach at Boston Latin School, and I've been coaching at the high school and college level for about the last 15 years. I've done most forms of debate at one time or another, including Policy, Parli, LD, and even Congress and Worlds. I'm generally fairly well versed in the topic area, but it doesn't hurt to define unusual acronyms the first time you use them. Also, just because I can follow technical debate it doesn't mean that you need to be a spewtron with a million cards to impress me. Especially in PF I tend to appreciate a slower, more well reasoned case over a ton of carded claims any day.

Specific things to know for me as a judge:

1. Be honest about the flow and extend arguments by tag, not by citation. I like to think I can generally flow decently well. Repeatedly telling me your opponents dropped something that they actually had multiple responses to it tends to annoy me and degrade your credibility (and speaker points) pretty quickly. That said - don't assume I've snagged every card citation you blitzed in your constructive. When you extend carded arguments, extend via the tag - not via the citation. Even if I do have the cite for that specific card it's going to take me longer to find it that way and while I'm doing that I'm paying less attention to what you're saying.

2. Don't be a [jerk]. I don't generally flow CX, though I do listen and may jot down relevant things. DON'T BE A JERK IN CX (or elsewhere). Like many people, I tend to have a bit of a subconscious bias to see kinder and more respectful people as more reasonable and more likely to be correct. So even if you're not interested in kindness for its own sake (which I hope you would be), consider it a competitively useful trait to develop if you're stuck with me as a judge : )

3. Warrants really matter. I generally care much more about warrants than I do about citations. That means that putting a citation behind a claim without actually explaining why it makes logical sense won't do you a ton of good. There are a fair number of teams that cut cards for claims rather than the warranting behind them, and that practice won't go very far against any opponent who can explain the logical problems behind your assertion.

4. Extend Offense in Summary, Defense extensions are optional there. What it says. Any offense that isn't in the Summary generally doesn't exist for me in the Final Focus. Extending your offense though ink also doesn't do much - make sure to answer the rebuttal args against whatever offense you want to carry though. On the flip-side, If you have a really important defensive argument from Rebuttal that you want to hi-light, it certainly doesn't hurt to flag that in the Summary, though I will assume those arguments are still live unless they're responded to by your opponents

5. Explicitly weigh impacts. Every judge always tells you to weigh stuff, and I'll do the same, but what I mean specifically is: "tell me why the arguments you win are more important than the arguments you might lose." At the end of the vast majority of rounds each side is winning some stuff. If you don't directly compare the issues that are still alive at the end of the round, you force me to do it, and that means you lose a lot of control over the outcome. As a follow up (especially as the first speaker) make sure to compare your impacts against the best impacts they could reasonably claim, not the weakest.

6. Collapse down. I respect strategic concession - make choices and focus on where you're most likely to win. By the Summary you should have an idea where you're likely to win and where you're likely to lose. If you try to go for everything in the last two speeches you are unlikely to have enough explanation on anything to be persuasive.

If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to ask.

Good luck, have fun, and learn things.

I am the coach at William T. Dwyer High School in Palm Beach Gardens, FL. I have judged on the local circuit extensively and judged at Harvard, State's, and Natl's. Although I'm not big on spreading, I will allow it in most circumstances. Even though I feel this skill would never be used in the real world. Your job is to debate the issue, build and defend your case clearly, with evidence, logic, and confidence. Speaking fast is acceptable if it is understandable and I can flow the material.

Lincoln Douglas: I prefer a clear understandable argument on the topic at hand. I will take notes & make my decision after reviewing them, so if I miss something when taking notes it will most likely; not factor into my decision. The value, criterion and contentions must be clearly stated by both sides. Therefore, the debater that upholds their value and criteria with the strongest contentions will receive the higher points, thus (generally) the win. PLEASE..Slow down on the Tags; Be clear with your value and criteria, and clearly state your contention!

Public Forum: Cross X should not be used to verify what you should have taken notes on during your opponents speech. It should be used to get to the details of your opponents case and to gain insight as to how you can attack that case. Tell me your Value, Value Criterion that will be used to measure how you achieve the value. Tie your case back to the framework as often as you can. Clearly tell me Contention 1, 2, 3 etc (and give me the tag line) and use meaningful quotes, evidence and logic to solidify that contention.

Good luck to all Debaters!

Howdy, I am a former PF debater, current college student.

I'm experienced in PF, and very familiar with jargon and technique, but ultimately I tend to judge more on the lay side. That being said, I do flow, so I will follow your arguments throughout the round.

Things that are important:

- Don't spread.

Speaking fast is fine.

- Road mapping

Debate is confusing. Please make debate less confusing and tell me what you'll be saying before your rebuttals, summary, and final focus. Also please make sure to clearly state which contention you’re relying to.

- Framework

If you don't have a framework you have to argue your case in line with the opponents framework. In the case where both teams have frameworks, argue for which one I should vote on.

- Crossfires

I don’t flow crossfire, bring up anything relevant in your later speeches.

- Summary and Final Focus

These are some of the most important speeches to me so please take advantage and crystallize your arguments and weighing mechanisms to give me an easier time deciding the winner.

- Professionalism in rounds

Take a moment to compose yourself prior to the round beginning, shoelaces and ties will not win or lose you the round, but will distract me and possibly dock you speaker points.

- Respect to your opponents

I will not stand for teams who call out other team's time, this is rude and distracting to the other team.

Speaker Points Breakdown -- Shamelessly Stolen from Mollie Clark's Paradigm:

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

As a reward for putting out the effort to read my paradigm I will reward .5 speaker points to pro teams who use the term "protention" and con teams who refer to the pro's contentions as "protentions".

Please speak slowly so I can clearly understand you. Please focus on / reemphasize your main points and rebut other side’s main arguments instead of flooding me with information about everything. Depth than breadth. Sometimes less is more :)

I am a research scientist. I prefer using facts and logic to support your opinions.

Another point is the clarity. State your point with a right speed for you so that others can understand you clearly.

Hi I am a parent, and I do not have much experience. Here’s some advice from my daughter.

1. She’s your generic parent/lay judge, so keep the speed low and don’t use debate jargon.

2. My mom is a very logical person, so explain all claims and numbers because otherwise they’re just random statements that she has no reason to believe.

3. Be polite to each other (including your partner) even if you think they’re outrageously wrong. Yelling at them will not get you anywhere and it makes her dislike you more.

Please just be respectful and appreciative in general, she really tries her best to fairly judge the round!

*seating: Pro on her left side, Con on the right and please have the first speaker of each team seated closer to her, this will help in organization and to ensure you get the correct comments.

I am a fairly new parent judge. PLEASE speak slowly- in fact, slower than you probably think you need to. If I don't understand what you're saying because you are talking too fast, I will not vote for you. I am completely unfamiliar with debate jargon, so it would be preferable that you don't use it. I look a lot at presentation- debate is supposed to be a persuasive activity, so I will vote off of which team is able to persuade me more. I am a doctor, so my area of expertise is within the medical field. If the topic is one that doesn't fall into my area of expertise, expect me to not have any/much background knowledge of it. Please don't be snarky, and remember to have fun!

Hello! When pref'ing, please keep in mind that this is my first judging experience ever. If you're trying to go for speed or any technical terms, don't pref me high. I want a clean and clear debate with strong logical weighing (don't just say "I outweigh on magnitude") with clear link chains in the last speeches as to who should win. Strong weighing ensures that my decision isn't so nebulous and possibly infuriating to one of you.

in any case, just have fun! I look forward to judging you.

I am a parent judge. I have some previous experience, but not a lot.

speak clearly, not too fast

be confident, use facts and logic

i vote for the team that convinced me more

I did 4 years of PF and Speech with Unionville and graduated in 2010, and have judged national circuit regularly since. Most recently, I judged PF at Yale 2021.

I appreciate evidence, but value argument structure and critical thinking/logic more. Cards should be used as support for, and not in place of contentions. Please set up a weighing mechanism for the round as early as possible; I will expect the round to be distilled into voting issues by the time we get to Summary and Final Focus.

If frameworks/definitions are a crucial part of your case, I expect it to come up in the first constructive and reiterated throughout the round.

Likewise, key contentions and responses must come within constructives/rebuttals. Summaries and Final Focus are for refining arguments, not for raising entirely new points your opponents have no time to respond to.

If you do not extend your arguments, I will generally not include them in the final weighing. If you do not quantify your impacts, i will have to use a judgement call to decide what each one is worth.

Cross fire will not be flowed, but will be evaluated in speaker points. If you make a point in Cross fire that is important, please include it in the next speech.

The round will be flowed, and I'm generally ok with speed, but if you spread to the point where I can no longer flow, I will stop flowing.

Calling for evidence is fine, but I expect you to have your cards organized and accessible enough that locating them when called for is straightforward. If it takes an excessive amount of time for you to find the card, I will drop it from the flow.

Being professional/not condescending means I won't slash your speaks.

shubo.yin@aya.yale.edu

Flow judge. Clean rounds are nice. Please have evidence. Please display critical thinking.

Parent Judge - Lay Judge

Experience - 5 Local Touranments in PF

No Speed (I do flow! - Use an appropriate speed for me to get your arguments down.)

Be polite to your opponents.

Weighing is important. Be clear in FF with voters.

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing.

I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech when it comes to policy debate. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.

I'm an assistant PF coach at Charlotte Latin and a graduate student at the University of Alabama. My email is dmzell@crimson.ua.edu

Strake RR Paradigm

1. Anything on the ballot must be in final focus, and anything besides weighing in final focus must be in summary.

2. Please weigh. Tell me why your argument justifies a vote for you even if your opponent’s arguments are true.

3. I'm generally sympathetic to the first speaking team. Defense is not necessary in first summary, and new evidence should not be in the second. While you don't have to frontline everything, the second rebuttal needs to answer all offense.

4. If you are going to concede your opponent’s argument, it must be in the speech immediately after it was made.

5. Please be respectful. Avoid overly-aggressive crossfires and rudeness.

6. Evidence ethics matter a great deal to me. I don't care if it’s called for or contested, I will not vote on a miscut card. Lying about evidence is too easy and too common in this activity, and I have decided that intervening is worth it to stop cheating. If a card sounds sketchy to me, I will call for it, and if the card is severely miscut, drop the team. Please know that I understand evidence mixups can happen, as well as the "power tagging effect", where a card gets a bit exaggerated as the round progresses. There's a difference between that and fabricating, clipping, or grossly misrepresenting your evidence. The former might cause me to lower speaks, but the latter will be an L 20.

In General

I am a fan of speed and tech debate, but I'm out of practice--particularly with flowing. Just keep in mind that the faster you go the more likely it is I miss something. If you want to spread, try to reduce the risk of this by slowing down for key parts of arguments/cards and signposting well.

I will listen to pretty much any argument, but I may not know what to do with it. If you're going to make progressive arguments, make sure you're clear on how you want it evaluated and why.

Tech > Truth in the sense that dropped argument are true ones

Truth > Tech in the sense that I'm more than happy to listen to uncarded analysis if it's good.

If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I'll presume for the first speaking team, not neg. The structure of PF makes such an outcome much easier for the second speaking team to avoid.

Rapid speaking and excessive technical language may hinder your performance. It's acceptable to speak quickly as long as you remain clear. But if speed affects your clarity, it's better to slow down.

I won't share my decision post-round to ensure the tournament progresses smoothly and to uphold fairness in all debates. The decision will solely be reflected in the ballot.

Hi, I’m a parent judge with a daughter on her third year doing speech. I started my judging in 2017.

Before you take the floor, I’d recommend trying your best to adapt to the following things:

1. Structure, organize, and stick with your logic

2. Always respect your opponents and partner

3. I can flow well

4. Be passionate and spiritual. Enjoy it. Always aim to bring the art of speech to the level above your current one

Updated 1/7/2020:

In evaluating a debate round, there is the choice of evaluating strength of the arguments vs evaluating debate techniques. Of course one could argue that better techniques lead to stronger arguments, so they are pretty closely related. However, sometimes good techniques are deployed precisely to disguise a shaky argument. I vote based on strength of arguments as they transpire in the round.

I realize that given modern technology whatever case a team is running, pretty soon it is known to the entire circuit and every team starts running similar arguments. How do you judge when almost all teams on pro (or con) run similar arguments without being prejudiced towards one side? My focus is on how well a team responds and counter responds to opponent's arguments and counter arguments.

The following are some ways you can strengthen your case.

A) Logical link. Establish clear link(s) for your argument that opponent could not effectively overturn. Please note that merely saying there is a link between A and B or A implies B is not enough. It is up to you to establish and explain the strength of the link, based on logic, scientific theory, statistical inference or common sense. Offer clear logical explanation why opponent's links are weak.

B) Evidence. All pieces of evidence are not equal. It is up to you to explain why your evidence is strong and supportive of whatever you claim, and why your opponent' evidence is weak and non-supportive of whatever they claim. Evidence without clear explanation and context is not effective evidence.

C) Impact. You should weight impact whenever possible. I like numbers but will take them with a grain of salt, especially when you refer to large numbers of lives or huge sums of money, until you explain their plausibility. The better you explain how you arrive at the numbers and in general the better you explain the plausibility of your predicted impact, the more favorable your argument would look to me.

D) Abundant words and last words do not win the round by themselves. However, repetition does help me remember things so please feel free to repeat your key points (don't overdo it), especially in Summary and Final Focus.

More info from earlier version:

I have been judging Public Forum debate for a few years. I have a background in economics. Consider me a rigorous lay judge if that makes sense to you. Some general principles I vote on:

1. Soundness of your logic. If your logic is not clear, your evidence is likely not being used correctly.

2. Evidence. We are not talking about laws of nature. Social outcomes are rarely inevitable just because they seem logical, at least not along a predicted path. Good evidence makes their occurrences seem more likely or reasonable. Please cite your evidence clearly: who said what where and when. Explain how the evidence supports your argument.

3. Weighting impacts. To weight impacts, it often seems like you need to compare apples with oranges. It is your job to find criteria that help me compare apples with oranges. As an example, if you convince me we should only care about sweetness and nutrition of these fruits and oranges are both sweeter and more nutritious than apples, then I will accept that oranges are better than apples. Look hard for common characteristics of different impacts.

Style. It is hard for me to appreciate style if your logic is flawed or your evidence is misused. Having said that, doing somethings right will help you get more speaker points:

a. Be polite. Don’t shout. Don’t try to shut the other team down.

b. Keep your time and opponents’ time well.

c. Keep your cool and remain calm.

d. Humor can be a powerful argument…at the right moment.

Doing the opposite of a, b, c will reduce your speaker points.

Hello!

I did PF and International Extemp for four years for Miramonte High School both on my local circuit and on the national circuit. If my paradigm doesn't cover something, please feel free to message me on Facebook, email me (kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com), or ask me before the round.

IF YOU SAY THINGS THAT ARE SEXIST, RACIST, ABLEIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, EXTREMELY RUDE, ETC. I WILL DROP YOU AND GIVE YOU THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS. If some form of abuse or violence occurs in round and I don't immediately react, please feel free to FB PM me or email me kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com. [I say this because as a cis het woman, I may not be able to pick up on certain types of violence and I believe debaters should determine their level of safety and/or comfort

General Stuff:

- You should read trigger warnings if you have the slightest inclination your argument could trigger someone

- use people's pronouns or gender neutral language in the case pronouns aren't disclosed

- Signpost. Please. If I don't know where you are I'll have a really hard time following you.

- I'm not a fan of offensive overviews in second rebuttal

- If you're speaking second, you should frontline first rebuttal. At the very least, you should respond to turns. I find making new responses to turns in second summary abusive

- Be nice

- Preflow before the round (I will be really annoyed if you don't, especially if you're flight 2)

- I don't flow cross so if something really incredible happens make sure you tell me in the next speech.

- If you need accommodations, I am happy to accommodate you. Feel free to FB message me before the round, come up to me privately, or email me kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com

Summary/ FF:

- Summary and FF should mirror each other

- Defense that is frontlined in second rebuttal needs to be responded to first summary now (it always should've been), but defense that is unresponded to doesn't need to be extended into first summary. First summary should frontline turns

- Make sure you extend both warrants and impacts

- If you don't adequately weigh, I will do my own weighing and things might get a little wonky if I do that. On that note, please, please, please weigh! Judging becomes so much harder when you don't.

Speed:

Feel free to go pretty fast as long as you enunciate well. That being said, please speak at a pace at which your opponents can understand you. If your opponents obviously can't understand you (regardless of whether or not they yell clear) your speaks will likely take a hit. I'll yell clear if I really need to. But even if I don't, pick up on non-verbal cues that I can't follow you (not writing, looking confused, etc.).

Evidence:

I will call for evidence if: 1) you tell me to, 2) the evidence is key to my decision

Progressive Argumentation:

I did not do policy or LD in high school and I do not consider myself a technical debater in the slightest. I quite honestly do not really understand theory or Ks, but if some form of abuse occurs in round or you feel unsafe, please feel free to use these forms of argumentation. Just explain your argument well. But PLEASE try to save theory/ K's for when it's absolutely necessary (hint: probably don't read disclosure theory). This does not mean I will not vote on theory or a K.

Overall, I'm here for a fun time and I hope you have a good time too!

Brown '21 | Lincoln East '17 | Email remaining questions to: a.a.zhu24@gmail.com

I will disclose and give oral feedback at the end of the round, just give me time to complete my ballot.

General notes:

- Be nice. I have no patience for people who are jerks. I will drop you, report you for being abusive, tell you in my oral critique, tattle to your coach, and take whatever other means I have available to me to ensure you're never rude in round again. Oh, and your speaks will be as low as they can possibly be.

- Debate how you normally debate. I'm open to everything, as there's a reason you got to where you are. I will never drop a debater or a team because I don't like their style of argument. I believe debate is an educational activity, not only for the students, but for judges as well. That means that we also need to continue to learn and adapt.

PF:

- I do not flow author names, rather, I flow card content. If you want to extend something, tell me what the card says too, don't just "Extend McDonald '18"

- Framework/Observations/Definitions: Don't run them unless it's absolutely necessary. Don't make the debate about the framework/definitions/whatever fluff you have at the beginning, this isn't what PF should be about. I will not vote on a framework just because it is there and is not utilized with your case. If the framework does come into play, however, I will reluctantly consider it. Finally, if both teams propose a framework, give me a good reason to prefer yours over your opponents'.

- Speed doesn't really matter, so long as your opponents and I can both understand you. To this point, if I can't understand what you're saying because of speed, I'll yell "Clear" at you. If I don't understand what you're saying because I don't think it makes sense, I'll look very puzzled at you and not be flowing for an extended period of time.

- I understand that debate is a game, but if you speak second and take prep after your opponents read their case, I reserve the right to deduct your speaks, or in out-rounds, pay less attention to your constructive.

- First rebuttal: don't go back to your own case and re-read what's in it. Feel free to weigh their case against yours, or make new analyses and even sub arguments, but do not simply reread what's already in the case that I heard the first time again. If you're done, end early. Rehashing what I already heard without giving your opponent a chance to respond to it isn't fair or strategic, and this will be reflected in your speaker points.

- I think it's extremely difficult for the second speaking team to win if they don't go back to their own case, but I have seen extremely talented teams pull it off. If the second speaker doesn't do some defense in rebuttal, that leaves the second summary speaker with 10 minutes of speeches to cover in just 2 minutes. If you want to go for this strategy, be my guest, just know that the path to winning on my ballot is paper thin in this scenario, and your summary speaker had better give the best speech of their lives.

- Please do some analysis and impact your cards, don't just throw cards/numbers/stats around. Impact calculus is important. I don't care if you tell me that this program will cost the U.S. $50,000 if you don't tell me what that means in the wider context of things. Will healthcare funding also go down? Will taxpayers have to pay extra? Will we have to cut other government programs? Tell me what is going to happen as a result of the numbers you tell me.

- I prefer big picture summaries. Start trying to narrow down the round into a few main arguments. If you must, fine, I'll try to evaluate "down their flow then down ours", but if you can cut a few arguments out that you deem unimportant, you'll only look better in my eyes.

Last updated: 2/2019

LD Paradigm

Add me to the email chain - catherine_zhu@icloud.com

I’m not super familiar with the differences between LD and policy, so most of this paradigm is telling you things/preferences I had there and you can take that how you will. The TLDR is that I’m probably like 70% policy and 30% lay/parliamentary judge right now.

Don’t make offensive arguments (I will drop you immediately), be nice to your opponents. (This includes overcompensating when you’re hitting a lay kid or being passive aggressive in round. I will dock your speaks.)

If you use a lot of buzzwords, you’re leaving it up to me to interpret what they mean from a policy debater standpoint - since it’s been a while since i’ve debated, I might not have the most clear idea of what those words mean anyways. When in doubt, do a little explaining - I tended to make a lot of arguments when I debated without using the actual buzzwords so I can probably follow. I probably fall on truth over tech, but I’m not lay enough to ignore massive amounts of dropped arguments and such. I don’t weigh arguments based on their existence/quantity, but based on degree of explanation. It’s up to you to point out powertagged args, but I will give ev much less weight if you prove that it doesn’t say what the tag says it does.

General Thoughts

-The end of the debate should be framed in terms of impacts with comparison between the two sides

- CX can be important for persuasiveness of an arg, but please carry any arguments made over into speeches.

-I will not evaluate arguments just because they exist!! If you're like 'they dropped this' and repeat the tagline you leave it up to me what that evidence means.

-I'm straight up not the best evaluator of T debates and theory, and generally have a pretty high threshold. If its your winning strat, go for it. But in close and messy debates, it probably won't go the way you want it to. Update: I will not vote on theory unless there is abuse or you can prove there is significant potential for abuse. I treat theory and T as a-priori, top level issues that come before the substance of the round.

-If you don’t explain your performance, I will just evaluate it as a cool piece of art

-Messy debates are annoying. I’m much less inclined to untangle all the threads and probably going to take an easier way out presented by a debater.

-Framing is where I go to first. Make sure your frameworks/ROBs interact.

-unless you want your k to be evaluated as a DA and you tell me so, the alt needs to actually do something. reasonably high threshold for k's, esp on link work.

-No clue what tricks are. Yikes?

-In the event of graphic descriptions of traumatic/sensitive issues, please inform everyone in the round. If your opponent expresses discomfort before the round, you had best have another strategy. In the event a round becomes uncomfortable for a debater, the round will stop and we will decide what to do.

-I will usually read evidence when its contested. I think that if you read evidence, the burden is on you to know it and have it say what you want to say. I give a good amount of weight to evidence indicts because I think there's a lot of poor quality evidence that internally contradicts.

hi - i debated three years for Davis, and currently am a sophomore at Johns Hopkins

IMPORTANT: after round 7 at the toc, i now request that you read at moderate speed. i'm fine with understanding what you're saying (it's okay if you're reading full cut card), but i think pf kids often misconstrue this is being able to sacrifice the analytical argumentation in favor of extending literally everything. otherwise, you're gonna get mad at me post-round for not understanding your analysis/explanation and i'm not gonna know what to tell you

run any argument you want, just don't be a bad person (the only time i'll intervene is if i hear a bigoted argument). i'll pretty clearly understand most theory arguments but if you're running anything more complicated than that, you may have to slow down and explain it a little bit more

please email me a speech doc if you're gonna read a lot

i will vote for the team that generates the most offense of the winning framework

everything needs to be in summary with the exception of first summary defense (which is still encouraged if you have time and/or you think it's important)

when extending, always extend the evidence AND the argument. if you don't have time, extending the argument is more important than the piece of evidence.

collapse, weigh, and sign post please. you should begin weighing in summary if not earlier

i love clean line-by-line rebuttals- please dump as many responses as you can without sacrificing the warrant analysis. your speaks will significantly lower if you card dump w/o fleshed out warrants. i also prefer summary to be on the line by line

be aggressive in crossfire, your speaks will bump up the more soul-crushing you are. if you manage to make grand crossfire entertaining, i will raise your speaks. i do not flow crossfire

i will not call for evidence unless you tell me to call for it or unless the round hinges on it

i will not independently evaluate abuse, so run theory if you think something in the round is abusive

in the case of an absolute tie, i will presume to the first speaking team because of the time skew

flex prep is ok

have fun and don't take yourself too seriously!

feel free to shoot me an email at pzhu222@gmail.com or ask before the round if you have any specific questions. don't be afraid to ask!

Hi! I did PF for 5 years and graduated in 2018.

***Harvard 2020 - bring me food and drink please ***

Things that make me weird

1) Preflow before round

2) I'll call for whatever evidence I'm told to in addition to what I want. If you misconstrue evidence I will intervene and drop the evidence AND maybe the entire argument if the entire link chain is misconstrued

3) ima give you a common sense amount of time to pull up cards before I start running your prep. have your cards available!

4) I'm an absolute FIEND for some warrant/link comparison instead of impact comparison. Also comparison of weighing mechanisms is the path to my heart

5) postround me idrc - just be considerate of both of our time and recognize that at a certain point we may just disagree about the debate

Other than that, please refer to Ryan Zhu's paradigm and imagine it was 3 years older. Tech > truth just do your thing

Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round, through Facebook Messenger, or email me at richardzhu64@gmail.com.

Important note for in-person tournaments only: I am disabled and use a trained service dog. If you’re in a room with me, there will be a dog quietly laying under my chair. The dog will not touch you, get close to you, or acknowledge your existence at all.

That being said, IF YOU HAVE A FEAR OF DOGS SO BAD YOU CANNOT BE IN A ROOM WITH ONE, please tell someone so they can assign you a different judge.

——

Current Affiliation: Boston Debate League

Background: Debated PF in Eastern Europe for seven years, been judging policy and PF in Boston for seven more.

Rounds judged this year: n/a

_____

Background:

- I'm a pretty standard tab judge. I'm happy to vote on any sort of issue as long as as there is decent weighing and impact analysis explaining to me why I should vote for it.

- That being said, I will drop arguments that are clearly offensive (racist/ableist/homophobic/etc.)

- It is important to me that you extend your arguments if you want me to vote on them: I very strongly tend towards the flow and voting on positions that have been present throughout the debate.

- Jargon and spreading are totally fine with me. I do flow much better if you help me out with good organization - signposting and roadmaps are always fantastic. 

- I strongly prefer being presented with a framework: I strongly dislike brining my own values into a debate. It makes the round very hard to adjudicate.

____

Subjective preferences:

(I try not to vote on these, but I do want to acknowledge my personal biases!)

- The kind of round I like listening to best sticks very closely to the topic: stock issues, disadvantages, counterplans, counterwarrants, topicality, etc.

- I'm more inclined to vote on a Kritik if you relate them to what is currently happening in the room (or at least explain why they're relevant)

- I can and will vote on theory if the need arises, I just personally find it tedious and I won't enjoy the round as much.

____

Stylistic notes and speaker points:

- I prefer you use variation in your tone in order to highlight important issues. This will have a positive effect on your speaks.

- Overly hostile behavior is unpleasant. Talking over each other in cross-ex, raising your voice in an attempt to threaten or silence, or making rude comments about your opponents themselves rather than their arguments will lower your speaks the more you do them.

- While jargon and spreading is good ***with me***, I do ask that you clear it with everyone in the room first and offer accommodations if anyone needs them.

Peter Zopes
Speech and Debate Coach, Chelmsford High School

I participated in Policy Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking in high school (in the late 70s), though mostly Extemp. I teach US History, Speech and Debate, and Government. I’m in my fourteenth year of coaching Speech and Debate. I think formal debate and argumentation has real value; it drives public discourse and helps society progress. I am very interested in what I see going on in the debate community, though not all do I agree. That being said, here is my judging paradigm that outlines my position on debate.

The Resolution. I prefer substantive debate that focuses on the resolution. There is a reason we have a resolution, debate that! Be clear, concise, and clash. Be topical. Debate the contentions, the evidence, the link, warrant, etc. Don’t waste time on frameworks or arguing about debate! I’m not a fan of theory or kritiks. (They smack of deconstructionist word play!) Be professional, speak to the judge (me!) not your paper or laptop, and address your opponent with respect. Stand during the round. Dress professionally. (Yes, imagine that!) I can flow most things that comes my way, however, speed and volume (not loudness, but the amount of information put forth) do not necessarily further the debate.

Case and Evidence. This is key. In LD, debate is value based, you must demonstrate how your case is constructed to achieve the value and value criterion you identified. If not, this will negatively affect my judgment on the round. In PF show strong case development in support of your side of the resolution, with strong claims, evidence, and warrants. Arguments need to be developed and elaborated upon, not just with vague statements, but with supportive evidence (statistics, analogies, statements, data, etc, from philosophical, legal, theological, historic, and news sources). This should be used both in case development and rebuttal (when appropriate). Evidence used should be clearly identified in the reading of the card in terms of both author and source. (Name of author, title of article, and if needed title of publication and date) During rebuttal explain how you or your opponent did or did not support their side of the resolution via claim, evidence or warrant. Specifically identify voting issues raised, defended or dropped.

Speaker Points. Be professional, polite, articulate, strategic, and clear. This is the basis for determining speaker points. DON'T Spread or even try to talk really fast. All words have a clear beginning and end. I need to hear them. IF YOU SPREAD, YOU LOSE. Your case should be presented in a manner that is not over flowing with debate jargon or nomenclature.

Something to keep this in mind: In the original debates, if either Lincoln or Douglas conducted their debates in the manner modern debaters do, neither would have won. The audiences would have walked away. Modern LD and Policy debate may provide you with some great learning experiences, however, constructing and delivering a case in the manner I hear today is not one of them. All you are learning is how to deliver to a narrow, self-selected audience. I hope and will do what I can to prevent PF from proceeding down that path. Further, too often debaters dismiss parent judges for not knowing enough about debate. That is the wrong mindset. It is not the parent judges' job to become an expert in your type of debate or the resolution. Your job is to educate them on the resolution and your case, and convince them your position is correct. You need to adjust your delivery to reach them. The number one consideration for any debater or speaker is reaching their audience. If you lose the audience, you lose the debate. Simple. The supposed "cool" judges who let you do whatever you want are not helping you develop your skills beyond the narrow world of debate. Selecting judges with widely different judging paradigms does! Good luck!

Update. I prefer a narrative presentation of the arguments. Telling me you are "frontlining' this, "extending" that, is overtly technical and undermines the rhetorical nature of the event which we chose to engage. Avoid the nomenclature of debate - identifying the structure various parts of or the process of argument, but explain to me, in clear concise language, what arguments you are advancing in the round and why they have impact compared to your opponents' arguments. Good speaking, like good writing, is precise and concise, avoids jargon and uses common, proscribed vernacular.