I am a parent judge. Assume I know nothing. Please be clear and slow down a little. Thank you.

just have a good time and don't be a big meanie head. Jojo reference for 30.

Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.

I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.

I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.

My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.

I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.

Please ask in-round if interested, happy to answer any questions! :)

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. I am unlikely to vote on a K. I like hearing Ks, I think they're cool, I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, I'm learning about them, but evaluating them as a voting issue is outside my comfort zone as a judge and I don't have the experience and confidence to evaluate Ks in a way that is consistent and fair.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

experience on nat circuit

weighing and clash give you higher speaker points

i prefer lay but will judge tech need be

Please don't say anything you know to be objectively and/or blatantly false. The more convincing side wins.

1. You lose .5 speaker points for every off-time road map. I'm not kidding.

2. Use both logic and evidence – but it should be evidence backing up your reasoning, not the other way around. I want logical arguments that are supported by evidence. Don't just yell "5 million lives that's Buckels 18!", please actually know what you're talking about, and use sources to back that up.

3. Don't just go for the big impacts, make sure you prove that they are within the realm of possibility.

4. Speak understandably. Presentation matters. If I can't understand you because you're speaking as fast as humanly possible, you are probably going to lose.

1. Speak clearly and confidently, this goes a long way in making it easier to flow. If I can't understand or hear it, I can't write it down. Try not to spread.

2. I appreciate framing of impacts.

3. I don't judge Cross, but if concessions from cross are mentioned in speech I'll judge those.

4. I won't ask you to stop speaking but I'll stop flowing 5 seconds over the allotted speech time.

5. Know your case. There's nothing more disappointing than watching a team debate when they don't understand their own case.

6. Be respectful of your opponents. This includes the language you use in cross and speeches.

Don't stress and have fun with it. If you want more specifics ask me before the round.

Mom what is the Netflix password

Hello!

I did PF for four years at Bronx, so I am good with flow stuff but fine either way. I'm good with speed and jargon, but don't use either to be obnoxious to your opponents.

Please please please weigh everything in the round, or if you drop something, tell me why so I don't have to do that myself!

Puns are always appreciated.

This was super general, so if you have any more specific questions feel free to ask before round, I didn't really know what stylistic things to specify here but am happy to answer more specific questions.

Hi all! 

I did in PF at Scarsdale for 4 years and do Mock Trial at Columbia now, so I have ~some experience~ with the cult that is debate. 

If I'm judging your round, I suggest you read below: 

I flow a round but I do not 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 weighting. 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.

Please be civil during crossfires. I love drama, but I like to watch it exclusively on the Real Housewives. If you start attacking the opposing team, I'll stop listening. 

Also, hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. 

Purposely miscontruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. 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: although your cases/contentions are important, I think what distinguishes PF from other forms of debate is your ability to think on the spot, use coherent logic, and WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH.

Let's have fun children. 

i did 4 years of pf (2016-20)

my paradigm is essentially the same as danny's

my understanding of the round will trade off with speed. if you plan on spreading send a speech doc to greenicamilla@gmail.com

i attended 1 progressive argumentation lecture at ndf in 2019. that is the extent of my understanding of theory

My name is Jack Greenspan, I'm a Scarsdale High School alumni, and I currently attend Trinity College Dublin in Dublin, Ireland. I did Public Forum all four years in high school, and I know that it's a challenging event, so good for you for debating. The following is how I analyze each round:

Weighing

Weighing is an absolutely necessary part of each round. You need to do this by telling us which arguments outweigh which arguments, and WHY that's the case. The best cards to weigh on either have a high magnitude (effect) or high probability. I'll accept cards that speak in generalities when weighing, but I'll prioritize hard numbers. An examination of the two different worlds that would happen is a good way to help me visualize the impacts.

For Novice debate, rounds essentially come down to Weighing, Weighing, Weighing. If you do a good job weighing, you'll have won the round 95% of the time.

Collapsing

Upon the summary, the round should be focused on one or two points of contention, and your summaries and final focuses should address these. I will still flow through other arguments, but when considering the round, I'll be more favorable to the team that wins on these main points.

Rebuttals

Try to address every point that your opponent has made. If it is not addressed, then it will be flowed through on. your opponent's flow if your opponent simply mentions it in their next speech. Additionally, even if there's a point that seems obvious, if you haven't linked it into your argument, I can't just assume that it's there -- I need clear links.

If you can explain your arguments in a clear, logical manner, you'll make the most sense to me, and I'll be most likely to vote for you. Having stellar links between claims, evidence, and impacts are very important.

Cross Examination

I won't judge off of this, but it's good for you to ask clarifying points about your opponents case and to explore holes in their argument. Honestly, I'm fine with skipping cross if you all are. If you see me on my phone or doing homework during cross, don't take it personally.

Summary and Final Focus

To flow an argument through, I need it mentioned in either your case or your rebuttal AND either your summary and final focus. The sooner you bring up a point, the better, and key evidence should appear early in the round. If you opponent hasn't addressed the contention, just a mere mention ("My opponent has not addressed our ____ argument") will be sufficient enough for me. If it's an argument with more clash, I expect to see more time spent on it (see "Collapsing" above).

Presentation

As long as I can understand you, I don't care about the strength of your presentation (eye contact, body language, etc.), and will not be using it to create a decision.

Preferences

I don't need an off-time road map, but if you choose to give me one, that's fine. Please try to time yourselves. Additionally- and this is very important- SIGN POSTING is vital. This is where you reference specific arguments and cards before you address them. This makes it a lot easier for the judge, and if you make my job easier, I'll be more likely to vote for you.

I like to start rounds early, so try to be early if you can.

Finally, I do disclose and give feedback at the end of the round. Best of luck!

speak slow and weigh

Parent of a PF debater and new to judging. Some familiarity with tech terms, but please don't overuse them.

Off-time roadmaps are fine, PLEASE signpost.

Please speak slowly and weigh.

Be respectful to your opponents or expect low speaks.

I have been coaching and judging debate rounds since 1987.

I expect each kind of debate to resemble its intended design.

I will flow the debate. I will stop flowing the debate when time is up. I will not listen to anything once the time has elapsed.

I do not want to read all of your evidence at the end of the round; I want to be able to hear it the first time you articulate it clearly.

You should tell me “where I am voting.”

You should tell me “how I can vote for you there.”

You should tell me “why I am voting there and not somewhere else.”

This means I am not doing this for you; you weigh the round for me. I want to hear a clear narrative that has some resemblance of a clear framework, which deals with terms and concepts fairly.

In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense rather than doing weighing for you. (this means things that were dropped and clearly extended)

I debated Public Forum for the Bronx High School of Science for four years and was co-captain of my the team during my senior year.

I will vote off of the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact. If you don't weigh, I'll be forced to intervene based on what I personally value most. I will only vote off of *full* extensions that clearly explain the warranting on both the link and the impact.

I believe Public Forum was made to be an accessible activity, so I prefer a more conversational pace that covers the entire flow. Personally, I think that word economy is preferable to spreading a bunch of fluff. However, I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will hurt your speaks.

Please sign-post and give me a brief off-time road map to tell me what you'll be covering on the flow (e.g. "It's going to be my case then their case.")

Mitigatory defense is sticky but terminal defense is not.

I love frontlining; I hate extending through ink.

Please treat your opponents with respect. We are all here to learn and have a fun time. If you run bigoted arguments or say bigoted things, I will drop you. If you lie about evidence, I will drop you. Please give trigger warnings if you ware running sensitive content.

Please feel free to ask me about any questions or concerns you may have before the round begins.

If you convince me you are right, I will vote for you.

1. dazzle me!
2. if you call me "your honor," i'll boost your speaks
3. if you flip first, i'll boost your speaks. you confident thang!
4. :)

Anything that doesn't violate the rules of PF or the rules of being a decent person is generally fine by me. If you don't have time to read this long paradigm, just ask in round!

Hi there! I am a former PF debater from Edgemont NY and graduated in 2020, and I currently attend Cornell University studying Industrial and Labor Relations. I'm a relatively traditional Northeast flow judge if that means anything to you (I am kinda flay but vote on the flow, big emphasis on warrants). Specifics:

- Don't be blippy because I'm not excellent at flowing and therefore might not catch something; I highly value good warrants. The less intuitive the argument, the more warranting is necessary

- I prefer you to have your camera on, if possible

- I'm tech > truth as long as there are warrants (however I will tell you if I think something is ridiculous, but it won't affect my decision)

- Bad strategic oopsies probably cap you at a 28.5

- I prefer you to speak at a pace where a speech doc shouldn't be necessary, my understanding of the round/ability to flow trades off with how fast you speak. The way you read your case/speech docs matters and contributes to your speaks

- I'm really really receptive to unconventional and creative arguments that are strategic and effectively run, high magnitude/low probability impacts are cool as well-- but use risk of offense weighing

- Also a really big fan of crafty & weird in-round strategy if executed well. I will reward with high speaks

- Terminalize all your impacts and extend all your warrants/the entire argument especially in the last speeches. Full warranting is essential to extensions-- literally pretend I've never heard the argument before.

- It's hard to vote off things I don't understand

- If your opponent's extension is bad, point it out or i will evaluate it

- Concede delinks in the speech right after to kick out of turns

- Second rebuttal doesn't have to frontline anything

- You can't delink yourself to kick out of turns if your opponents didn't read the delinks

- Offensive overview type stuff is fine in rebuttal if implicated in some way against the opponent's case

- I don't flow card names

- I may or may not pay attention in cross

- Defense is sticky through first summary (if unresponded to, terminal defense can be extended from rebuttal to first final focus. I think it's uneducational for debaters to win while extending through ink)

- Ten second grace period after time

- I don't have a very good understanding of progressive argumentation, nor am I very comfortable evaluating it. I'm unlikely to vote for theory unless there's abuse. ex: paraphrasing/not disclosing/the like do NOT qualify as abuse, but lack of content warning qualifies as abuse (please utilize content warnings). If anything, don't read a shell, just explain the abuse in paragraph form. I prefer substance debates, but if the round isn't that I'll do my best to evaluate everything fairly

- New weighing is fine in final focuses, but preferably earlier

- Weighing is only substantive to my ballot if it would actually sway a policy decision: ex: short circuit and magnitude weighing is substantive, "clarity of link," "timeframe," and certain theoretical "prerequisites" are not substantive unless justified to be substantive (this is a confusing point so please ask if you need clarification)

- Won't call for evidence unless asked to and my decision depends on it, and on that note, no evidence > bad evidence

- If there's no visible offense at the end of the round then I default to whoever lost the coin flip. Or, if I cannot find a way to vote on the flow I will vote with an arbitrary lay rfd, or vote for whoever I think debated better. That being said, while I intend to be tabula rasa, I will always try my best to resolve a muddled situation even if it requires some sort of minimal intervention. With that, I encourage risk of offense weighing when a situation is muddled!

- I generally have a pretty similar debate philosophy to my former coach Caspar

- Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm/decision/message me on facebook!

debate well and good luck! :))

This is Public Forum Debate. Look over what the description of PF is:

In contrast to policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate, there is little focus on extreme speed or arcane debate jargon or argumentation theory; instead, successful public forum debaters must make persuasive and logical arguments in a manner that is accessible to a wide variety of audiences. Public forum debate also focuses on not only logical, but research based arguments.

If you want me to look at evidence, tell me, but don't overdue it.

Rudeness will be penalized. Doing things in PF that are not supposed to be done in PF will be penalized.

I debated PF for four years in New York. I have seen debate devolve from an activity that promotes public speaking and nuance to a competition that rewards some bad habits (spreading, packing in of evidence, alternative arguments).

I am very tough on speaker points and will be thorough on my ballot.

My preferred pronouns are he/them, either is fine.

My first rule is to have fun! Don't be too tense. Debate to the best of your ability and enjoy it.

I vote off the flow, but also on how persuasive you are. Sell me a narrative - tell me very clearly why you win and why your "world" is better. Don't make grand cross into a screaming match, but some speaker points may come your way if you can politely fit in some puns or light sarcasm in your speeches.

If you have any questions on how I judge, ask before the round!! I disclose. Good luck!!!

Treat me like a lay.

If you're reading this paradigm, chances are that I'll be judging your upcoming round (or perhaps you're just curious - that's okay too). I will do what I can to make the round a good experience for everyone involved. I am willing to offer feedback if asked for it but I won't always disclose. Usually, if I don't disclose, I don't actually know who won the round and I have to go over the flow again.

Public Forum:

Perhaps the most important part of this paradigm is a somewhat a subjective point (some judges are more lenient), but if you don't bring a point up during the summary, you won't win on it in final focus. This is the only way both teams can have an equal view of the round heading into final (speaking second should not offer an insurmountable advantage to one side). You may extend defense that was brought up in rebuttal, but any offense must be in both summary and final focus.

Comments that are blatantly racist, sexist, or homophobic are grounds for an immediate end to the round, me contacting your coach, and your opponents winning (even if all of your arguments were better). Everyone deserves respect. Show some basic human decency and you'll be fine.

Oh, and given that train of thought, no morally reprehensible arguments. An alarmingly common one: I know humans have had negative effects on the environment but that does not give you a good enough reason to advocate for genocide or similar.

Please weigh your arguments! This is a crucial element of debate. Explain why you are right, don't just list a bunch of potential reasons. If there is absolutely no weighing in a round, I'll do it as I see fit, but it'll probably cost you in speaker points. In a similar vein, if you have evidence that conflicts, explain why I should believe you and not your opponents; do not say "Well, I have a study that says ___, so my opponent's study is wrong" without explaining that your study is more recent, has a larger sample size, is from a less biased source (be careful about that one, though, as bias doesn't inherently indicate falsehood), etc.

I'm comfortable up to about a varsity Lincoln-Douglas level of speed but that is the case if and only if you speak clearly. If I can't understand you, I will say "Clear" once. If no improvement is made, I will put my pen down until I hear something intelligible. If you see me put down my pen during your speech, you need to change something.

Keep crossfire civil. It's a time to ask questions and clarify points in the round, not a time to argue with your opponent. I'll be more impressed by coherent explanations and intelligent questions than by one team being louder than the other. I usually flow crossfires (although I won't do so if it devolves into a shouting match, which would hurt speaker points anyway) but if you want me to weigh a point brought up in cross, you have to inform me of this in your next speech.

Signposting is appreciated. Let me know what points you are responding to or are extending and where they are in the case. I'm only human and I do make mistakes, so telling me what you're addressing will give me a better chance to follow your argument on the flow. That being said, it's not explicitly required by me as I understand that you might have time constraints. Of course, if you jump all over the flow with no indication of what you're addressing, I probably won't get it all down so do so at your own peril.

Cards! Yes, those magnificent things you're citing as evidence. There's a lot to say about these but I'll try to keep it brief. First is that deliberately misconstruing cards is very far from okay. Omit that all-important "not" in your quote by substituting in an ellipses? Falsify data or sources? I will feel no guilt as I inform your coach, tab, etc. and give your opponents the round. I understand that mistakes can be made and I certainly won't hold them against you (though if you fail to produce challenged evidence upon request and your opponents ask me to drop it from the flow, I will) but there's no excuse for evidence that the distortion is deliberate and not just a matter of perception/interpretation. Anyone can call for cards between speeches and prep time starts when the team who requested it gets the evidence. While the team searches, no talking between the members of the requesting team will be allowed; calling for cards should not be a tactic to get more prep time.

Lincoln-Douglas:

My experience with LD in practice is somewhat more limited than with PF. However, I am familiar with much of the literature and my background with the theory is quite solid, though perhaps not to the same extent as someone who has been debating LD for many years.

If you're going to run a K, you'll probably want to offer at least some explanation, though the ones and philosophers I'm most comfortable with are Cap K's, queer theory, Deleuze and Guattari, Spanos, Nietzsche, and feminist jurisprudence. I have a passing familiarity with Lacan, biopower, Baudrillard (more so with the nuclear ones than the ecology bits), and probably a few others I'm forgetting. Whatever you run, though, I'll be more impressed by a clear articulation of what it means and why I should care than by a hastily spouted tagline and a proclamation that, because X said something, you win.

Theory is fun, somewhat topical debate is better. I'll only vote on fairness/abuse if you spell out the clear link AND explain why the issue means you should have my vote... if one side provides clear and topical analysis, philosophy, etc. and the other just says "that's unfair" without offering any meaning to the imbalance, I have no reason to go for the fairness argument. Now, if you try to explain the purpose of debate and how me voting against an unfair or abusive argument helps serve that purpose, we might have a round on our hands.

I'm fine with spreading but I will ask you to email me the document or have a flash drive ready. If you don't, it's pretty unlikely I'll manage to flow everything or even remember all that you're trying to convey. If I can't understand you, I'll yell (or somewhat loudly say) "clear" a few times but eventually, if no change is made, I give up and try to follow along as best I can. If you make me do this, you'll probably lose some speaker points.

Everyone:

The general gist of all this is to be decent human beings and clearly explain why your arguments matter. Do both of those and chances are you'll be fine.

If you have questions about anything on here (or about anything I've omitted), please feel free to ask before the round.

Most importantly, though, debate is a learning experience for everyone, so make the most of it. Good luck and enjoy the tournament!

Director of Debate at Riverdale Country School.

Participated in policy debate

HS- late 90s

College 2000-2018

Coached Public Forum

2000-now

Open to most arguments.

Please ask questions.

Yes. I do flow.

Yes. I do vote on Theory or T.

Yes. I do vote on Kritiks.

.

Please try to keep this round cordial. I like evidence, but it is far more important that you explain your links. A fully logical case with a few pieces of good evidence is super convincing to me. Please remember to give an overview of what's important and unclear in summary; make sure to emphasize impacts with some warranting in FF. Also, try to have fun!

I am a lawyer and Executive Director of the NYCUDL.

I have judged PF for the last 6+ years, over 100 rounds and run many judge trianings.

I will judge based on a combination of the flow, general logic and common sense.

Speed-don't do it. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for it.

If you want me to vote on an issue please include it in both summary and final focus.

Write my RFD for me in final focus.

Only call for evidence if there is a real need (context, integrity).

In general, be nice. I believe in debate access for all so I will cut your speaks if you create an environment where other people don't want to participate in the activity.

Good luck and have fun!

I'll disclose at the end.

Please weigh! I cannot stress this enough, I've had so many rounds where no team gives me tangible impacts and then I have nothing left to judge off of (just saying the word "weighing" is not enough, I want numbers! Or at least logical and clear links that you can prove are good or bad)

You can ask me for speaker points after the round. I'll start at 26 and add from there.

No theory beyond absolute minimums, no spreading. If I can't understand you, I'm not considering your points.

Please signpost and be clear, but I don't need long off-time road maps. Be nice, relax, enjoy yourselves a little.

I'd like you to finish your cross question/answer, even if time expires (but please don't take it as an invitation to start testifying endlessly).

I trust you all to time your prep yourselves, so please do.

Ask me if you have any questions.

I am a lay (I know some of you will think lame) judge. Seriously though, I do not appreciate speed, and I value presentation and convincing arguments. If I can't understand you or your points then I will not be able to evaluate the round effectively.

Debate is love

Debate is life

Debate is Joe O'Neill

Debate is my Computer Password

Hello! I’m Ben and I debated for four years at the Bronx High School of Science. The biggest of shoutouts goes to Mr. Huth and the whole Bronx Science team. I am probably best viewed as a pretty traditional flow judge. If you want the details:

I don’t believe that defense needs to be in first summary to answer any argument that was not frontlined in second rebuttal. If it was frontlined, then you need to answer it in summary. Turns should be extended in first summary if you want me to evaluate them as offense. Don’t extend through ink.

You do NOT have to frontline defense in second rebuttal. I personally rarely did so and I often believe it is unstrategic to do so. That being said, take whatever strategy you believe is most strategic for your team in the round.

Weighing is very important to me. I think it is important to weigh early (preferably rebuttal but no later than summary) and have consistent weighing throughout the round. Try to explain your weighing instead of just repeating it. Saying you outweigh on scope, timeframe, magnitude, etc without explaining why doesn’t mean anything. I look to weighing first when I evaluate my ballot -- if you are winning the weighing I will look to your arguments first. I personally believe that probability is often the strongest form of weighing as no matter how large your impacts -- if you don’t win your links they can’t materialize. Focus on winning your links and explaining how you access them better than your opponents. I am a technical judge but I care a lot about truth value, and my threshold for a response to a high-magnitude low-probability argument is pretty low.

If you don’t weigh, I will be forced to intervene which is very sad.

I default to looking at impacts globally. I will drop America First framing in a heartbeat.

I care about your overall cohesion in your speeches. Having a single narrative that you defend over the course of the round is more persuasive to me than a set of many arguments that change with each speech.

I believe that theory is only justified in instances of significant abuse where there is no other mechanism to check back against the abuse. I will try my best to evaluate any argument presented to me on the flow, but I am not good at evaluating progressive argumentation including theory and Ks. I am inclined to believe that they are bad for Public Forum, but that’s just my opinion. I always want the round to be a safe space for all debaters.

I can handle speed. I debated fast and I can handle fast debate. That being said, don’t sacrifice quality for quantity and don’t speak so quickly that your words are not clear. Don’t spread.

I will only call for evidence if I believe it is both a) important to my overall decision in the round and b) was cast into doubt by the opposing team.

Don’t shake my hand. Virtually or in person. Yes, virtual handshakes are a thing.

You will get 30 speaker points if you find an earthworm (or any worm for that matter) and place it on the head of Adriana Kim at a tournament. Please show me photographic proof before the round.

Good luck :) Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round.

Speak clearly, don’t be rude, win round off of a strong summary, weighing, and clear arguments/voting issues. Big bonus speaker points for signposting. Does not look good when you extend through ink, so please frontline and then extend.

Unique arguments appreciated!

I was a PF debater. I will flow everything but cross. Be clear, weigh, and interact with your opponents' arguments. Also, humor and unique arguments appreciated. NO new arguments/cards in FF.

For LD treat me as a lay judge, NO spreading.

Make me laugh = ^speaks

third-year out coach for Walt Whitman. debated for Edgemont PF for 5 years.

flow judge, tabula rasa with an exception for accessibility 

1. I don't care what your style of debate is in the first half--> just be non-blippy and non-messy in the back half, and you will make me happy.

2. Feel free to go wild with args and collapses. Win the round, and you win my ballot but do it with style and you'll win my heart (and a 30).

3. If both teams agree, I'll judge based on a different paradigm so long as I have the ability to. Literally, go wild.

4. my speaks are based on how strategically good your speech was.

5. speed is good if ur clear, and not blippy. 

6. most things are up for debate--> I drop speaks, not the ballot for things I consider bad debate... eg: 2nd rebuttal disads w/out an implication, or clarity of impact weighing without warrants

7. I have a low threshold for extensions, so make an argument that I should drop unwarranted extensions (e.g. your opponents extend a claim but not the warrant). 

8. theory/kritiks- be accessible, I like shell theory over paragraph theory, I'll evaluate anything. I'll drop speaks if I can tell you are purposefully not being accessible 

9. don't be discriminatory, read content warnings for sensitive topics, and respect pronouns provided by tab. 

10. The only rule for fairness besides accessibility that I default is no new in 2nd ff. Otherwise, warrant out WHY certain rules in debate are unfair (not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal, new responses in 1st summary, etc) and what I should do with it (drop it). 

be a nice debater

don't be annoying

Put Me on the Email Chain: Cjaswill23@gmail.com

Experience: I debated in College policy debate team (Louisville WY) at the University of Louisville, went to the quarterfinals of the NDT 2018 , coached and judged high school and college highly competitive teams.

Policy Preferences: Debate is a game that is implicated by the people who play it. Just like any other game rules can be negotiated and agreed upon. Soooooo with that being said, I won't tell you how to play, just make sure I can clearly understand you and the rules you've negotiated(I ran spreading inaccessible arguments but am somewhat trained in evaluating debaters that spread) and I also ask that you are not being disrespectful to any parties involved. With that being said, I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make sure there is a clear impact calculus, clearly telling me what the voters are/how to write my ballot. Im also queer black woman poet, so those strats often excite me, but will not automatically provide you with a ballot. You also are not limited to those args especially if you don't identify with them in any capacity. I advise you to say how I’m evaluating the debate via Role Of the Judge because I will default to the arguments that I have on my flow and how they "objectively" interact with the arguments of your opponent. I like narratives, but I will default to the line by line if there is not effective weighing. Create a story of what the aff world looks like and the same with the neg. I'm not likely to vote for presumption arguments, it makes the game dull. I think debate is a useful tool for learning despite the game-structure. So teach me something and take my ballot.

Other Forms of Debate: cross-apply above preferences

I'm Bill, a varsity PF debater & novice PF judge. I look forward to having you in my round. Here are some things I expect from a quality round of debate.

General Stuff About Me

I flow and I vote based on the flow. This flow does not include anything said during crossfire. If you want something in my flow, it better be in a speech.

Keep track of your own prep time. When time is up in a speech, finish your sentence, and that's it. If you continue to speak I'll deduct speaker points.

I will give oral feedback, time permitting. I will usually disclose, unless I actually do not know who won the round. I always write up a comprehensive and (hopefully) helpful RFD. Read the RFD even if you won, because there's always room to improve.

Don't be sexist, homophobic, etc. This goes without saying.

Finally, extensions are key. You will lose if you do not extend cards, no matter how strong your argument.

Cases

I like logically structured cases. Don't try to smush three contentions into one, and don't try to expand one argument into different subpoints. Break the case up where it's logical and easier to flow.

I really like niche and unique arguments, but you can easily win on a stock argument if you argue it well. This means lots of evidence to corroborate your claims, and clear links leading to an explicit terminal impact.

Please read cases with authority and confidence. Spread, and I'll drop you as fast as you're speaking. Public forum is pointless if most of the public wouldn't be able to understand half of what you're saying. I like appropriate emphasis and good eye contact. You're not just reading from a script, you're trying to convince me.

Rebuttal

I prefer an organized rebuttal that goes straight down the opponent's case. If you're doing something peculiar, that's fine, but please warn me before hand. Don't jump around their case unless you make it completely clear where you are in the case.

If I'm not able to get something down on my flow, it's as if you never said it. This means you need to signpost. I want to know a) which contention you're on and b) what specific claim, statistic, or argument that you're responding to.

Please don't be redundant. If you don't have enough substance to fill four minutes, then don't fill four minutes. If I stop typing, that means you should move on to your next point. The best rebuttals are those that keep me typing for all four minutes.

Know when a logical rebuttal is appropriate and when evidence and statistics are necessary. For example, some arguments can be completely shut down by a post hoc (correlation isn't causation) argument. For other arguments, you need to present contrary evidence, and explain why your evidence is better than theirs.

Summary

Ah, summary. I believe summary is by far the hardest speech in the round. A good summary does not address every point in rebuttal. A good summary PRIORITIZES certain arguments, EXPLAINS that prioritization, and then ARGUES. In other words, you need to establish your framework and explain the most important points in the round. Then, you need to argue that you've won that point.

Generally, after addressing framework, pick one main point of contention from their case and one point of contention from your case. Finally weigh impacts. If you don't weigh then I have to weigh for you, and I don't like doing that because then I feel like neither team deserves a win, because I have to complete the argument for you.

In other words, explaining why your evidence or impact is more valid than theirs is just as important as actually articulating your evidence. If both teams present opposing evidence, it is YOUR job to explain why your evidence is better than your opponents'.

The first speaking team may bring up new responses in their summary but not entirely new arguments. The second team may not bring up new responses (or arguments), because it does not leave enough time to the other team to respond.

Please extend any evidence that you want me to vote on. Extending evidence implicitly is fine, but it's less convincing than re-explaining the card.

Final Focus

FF is an updated summary. If you do voters in summary, do voters in final. If you go contention by contention in summary, go contention by contention in FF. I want the same general structure.

That said, your final focus must be responsive to your opponents' summary (or final focus). This means that you need to RE-PRIORITIZE the round and WEIGH (see below for how to weigh and how I like weighing done).

I like emphasis and clarity, but not redundancy. If you think you have not explained yourself clearly enough, feel free to re-explain and elaborate.

I will only consider arguments that are mentioned in your final focus. If it's not there, I'm not considering it when I decide who wins. If you are the second speaking team, please do not mention anything that you did not extend in summary. If you are the first speaking team, please do not mention anything you did not extend in rebuttal.

How do I weigh?

There are multiple ways to weigh. You can weigh on probability, scope, magnitude, and other quantities. If you can do probability analysis or multiply scope by magnitude in your head (correctly), you bet that your speaker points are going to be sky high.

I like probability analysis the most.

Anyway, point is, please weigh. It makes my job infinitely easier and it actually makes me want to vote for you! If you make me want to vote for you, you're doing something right, and your speaker points will reflect that.

Parent judge. I will take notes, but speak slowly. I am relatively knowledgeable about the topic, but I will not intervene. Final focus should write my ballot for me. Being rude or disrespectful will lower your speaks BIG TIME.

I understand how stressful debate can be, so here are some tips and some of my preferences:

-I know it can be hard, but try to stay calm and speak loudly and clearly

-Use off-time roadmaps or sign-posting to keep your speeches organized

-Make sure you clearly explain your claims (I.E. always tell me a clear logical flow for why/how something happens)

-Be respectful to the opposing team, do not speak over them or interrupt during crossfire

Email chain: syangedgemont@gmail.com

Debated PF at Edgemont HS in NY for 4 years, currently a first year out.

Basics:

As long as you are willing to risk me missing a response/argument, go at any speed you’d like as long as you are clear, but don’t spread. Tech > truth. If an argument is dropped, the link is true for the purposes of the round. Walk me throughout the entire link story to win the argument. COLLAPSE and WEIGH. I may actively call for evidence at the end of the round to discourage any misconstruing of evidence. If it's not in the final focus, it won't be in my ballot either. I look for the easiest path - the cleanest link with the most important impact. The cleaner the link, the more of the impact/weighing that I grant you. This means that winning the link debate should be your highest priority with me (ofc don't forget to do comparative weighing if both sides end up with offense).

Specifics:

- I’ll say "clear" if you are going too quickly/I can’t understand you. If you can't understand your opponents, you should also shout "clear." I will expect both teams to accommodate the speed/comfort level of both me and the other team.

- I've never had any experience with theory or Ks. Don’t run any progressive arguments in front of me.

- Tech over truth. If you have good warrants and good evidence, I'll buy just about anything. It is YOUR responsibility to call the other team out on BS arguments. That being said, the crazier the argument, the more my threshold for responses will decrease. Debate is educational, and I should be hearing arguments that are primarily realistic. I try to be as noninterventionist as possible - even if someone is reading an abusive argument you have to call them out on it.

- Signposting is important to help me keep my place on the flow. I like numbered responses.

- Extensions: I don't evaluate things that aren’t extended in both summary and FF. People are super lazy with their internal warrant extensions. Every single link in the argument must be extended. If both teams don't have a completely extended argument after FF - I will default which argument has a more "complete story"

- Terminal defense is sticky if not frontlined in summary for both sides. Turns that aren't extended in summary but in FF act as terminal defense

- 2nd rebuttal needs to be at the very least a 1-3 split. There needs to be time spent frontlining. 2nd speaking advantage is so large that I prefer a 2-2 split. Turns must be responded to in 2nd rebuttal or they’ll be conceded.

- If something is conceded or you want to bring up an important point from cross, blow it up in a speech.

- if both teams want to skip grand cross that's good with me

- wear whatever you want to online rounds

Evidence:

- I HATE misconstrued evidence. I will tank your speaks if you read intentionally misconstrued evidence (e.g. One team I judged literally added in a word to change the meaning of the evidence). This may also result in an entire argument being dropped – meaning it could cost you the round.

- While I am noninterventionist in big picture argumentation, I may call for multiple pieces of evidence. This is to encourage educational debate that is built on actual research and discourage mishandling of what qualified authors say. This is not to say that evidence is more important than warrants, but evidence is used to magnify the claims you make and make the argument much more convincing. Misconstruing evidence attempts to circumvent actual argumentation. No, this doesn't mean throw cards at me in rebuttal - I still value responses that are logical.

- Warranted evidence > warrants > unwarranted evidence > assertions

- I’ll boost your speaks by 0.5 points if you read non-paraphrased cases. Just show me beforehand.

- I call for evidence in a couple scenarios:

o Someone tells me to read it during a speech

o There is substantial time spent in the round over what it says

o Something sounds super fishy

o The way you portray the evidence seems to shift as the round progresses

- You have one minute to pull up evidence your opponent calls for

Lastly, remember to have fun and don't stress! I'm a chill judge, and you'll be fine if you screw up a little bit. Let me know if you have questions after round and you can shoot me an email at syangedgemont@gmail.com or message me on FB.

- Please signpost in every speech

- I want to see offense in summary align with offense in ff (parallelism)

- I won't call for cards for you

- Don't simply say the word extend

don’t be mean :(

i did pf at bronx. i now go to uchicago

general round wise:

- i'm flow, but not super techy. i will know your jargon, but give you an exasperated look if you use too much of it.

- i have the fine motor skills of an elementary schooler. This means i cannot write or type super fast, so I do not flow things like card names. If you extend just a card name I will be confused (so please avoid saying stuff like "extend Johnson '15" with no clarification of what Johnson says).

- if you try to run some progressive tomfoolery, i will be hesitant to vote for you. By no means does this guarantee a loss, but you are putting yourself at a disadvantage cause I am from the northeast and my eyes will probably glaze over if you say the word theory.

- on evidence: tech> truth. by using sketchy cards you are running a risk. if you indict evidence, you gotta warrant your indictment. if evidence is indicted in the round and a team extends it into ff, i will wanna see it before my rfd (if i forget this feel free to remind me). but never fear! if you are using sketchy evidence ill only evaluate it with the warrant provided, so run it with the hope they dont call ya out too good.

- if you wanna email me stuff send it to zerof@uchicago.edu. I am not big on recreational literacy, so unless you ask me to read something in round I will not read it.