Hello,

My name is David Appelbaum and I became interested in judging when my son entered high school in 2016. I have a masters in education from Temple University in Philadelphia but left teaching to work full time in technology in 2005. Currently, I am the director of strategic partnerships for an IT support and cybersecurity company and live in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

I am not a coach, but have judged both regional and national events for the last few years and feel my experience in public speaking and policymaking has contributed to my ability to judge fairly and constructively. If you speak clearly, give plenty of citations, follow procedures, and say smart things, the likelihood is you'll be ranked. Say dumb, racist, sexist, stuff, and I will drop you and report such activities to Tab and or your coach.

Your ranking will depend on making a strong argument. I could care less how crazy the argument is as long as you show me the links. Use quantified evidence and support your arguments with well thought out analysis and impact.

Other than that, speak well and most importantly, have fun. Seriousness can ruin what is supposed to be a fun and educational activity. So don't be a jerk, loosen up, and have a good time.

-David

A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

I prefer clear, coherent introductions to bills and to arguments. Rhetorical openings are fine, but not at the expense of the bill or the framework of the argument.

Please do not approach the bill or the floor ironically - debaters who argue in favor of things like genocide or dictatorship to be cute will be dropped. Clash honestly and with detailed flow. Be awake and aware of the debate; rehash is the Devil.

My name is Gabrielle Cabeza and I am a junior at UPenn. I competed on the national circuit in Congressional Debate during high school. I believe that Congressional Debate is a beautiful hybrid of substantive debate and eloquent speaking. As such, I look for very strong argumentation with solid warrants and strong impacts as well as strong performance through pacing, tonal variation, and emotion. Be professional, courteous, and argumentative without being overly aggressive.

Speak pretty, be smart, take names.

I was an active member of my high school speech & debate team, under an amazing coach, Ms. Croley, who instilled in us the true joy of forensics and its deeper impact on the larger community.

I have been judging high school students, for several years at the local, district, regional and national circuit tournaments and TOC. I have judged various categories and have great admiration for students who invest their efforts in the category selected. I started serving as a volunteer coach for younger students, from my teens, in part due to the legacy left by my late Coach.

In Congress -

I value substance and substantiation, and overall active involvement in the Chamber, through an organized presentation and active questioning.

Regardless of my own stance on a bill, I welcome convincing arguments with reliable sources.

Drama, unnecessary questions simply to garner attention and loudness, does not make a good legislator.

As competitors, I expect proper and thorough preparation prior to the session.

I expect the PO to be fair, respectful to all in the Chamber, with knowledge of proper procedures.

Hey! I did CX, PF, LD, and Congress in high school, and I've been debating parli at UC Berkeley for the past two years. I'm willing to hear out a spectrum of argumentation, as long as it's well-researched and well-qualified. You're welcome to spread if you really think it'll do you the most good, but please flash me your case if you choose to do so. Please don't say anything racist/homophobic/transphobic because I would hate to drop a team automatically. I'll also be looking for continuity in flow and consistent clash—make things spicy!

Willing to judge all speech, congress, parli/world schools, PF, and LD. I also love serving as a parliamentarian in Congress. I strongly prefer Speech, Congress, and impromptu-style debate events over all other events. PF is sometimes fun; LD is fine if you need me. I would not consider myself qualified to judge policy, but I am willing to give it a shot in a time of complete desperation. I love tabbing and always prefer it over judging, so feel free to pull me if needed.

I’m an assistant coach/judge/person from Dallastown Area High School in PA. I graduated from college in May 2021 and now work full time, but I try to stay involved with Forensics as much as I can! I competed in several different events in High School, but as an alum I’ve continued to learn a lot more about everything Forensics has to offer, so when I travel with the team, I judge where I’m needed. That said, here’s what to expect from a round with me:

VIRTUAL TOURNAMENT NOTES:

Note that I have two very sweet but disruptive cats-- if this might become distracting to you, please let me know and I will keep my camera off. The same applies if you have wifi/other issues that make video chats difficult-- if it will be a bandwidth/connectivity issue, let me know if you'd like me to keep my camera off.

OVERALL TOURNAMENT NOTES:

SPREADING-- I’m still working on keeping up with this. Admittedly, I have a hard time catching important arguments when debaters spread. However, I’m okay with you spreading as long as you email your case to me right before the round begins. [red.forensics@gmail.com]. Please also do the same for your opponent. That said, please try to slow down during your rebuttal speeches (or anything else that isn’t pre-written) so that I can catch everything that needs to be on the flow. This especially applies for any sort of Theory/Ks/Plans/etc. I also ask that you slow down for any major parts of your case (Contentions, Value, VC, subpoints) so that I can get the tagline/topic down.

CASES— It’s only fair to warn you that I don’t have a lot of exposure to Theory, Ks, Plans, etc. However, what I've seen of Ks, I like. I'm open to disruption and anything that feels less like a round I've seen before. So I'm open to seeing more and learning more. Just let me know before the round begins that you plan to run one so that there’s no question of what’s going on. Articulate very clearly why your strategy is important + why I should vote for it rather than your opponent’s case-- and explain what the role of my ballot should be as a judge. What hypothetically happens when I vote for you? Also, don’t assume I already know about all theories that you’ll introduce into the debate. Even just a brief, simple explanation would be great so that I know we’re on the same page.

DISCLOSURE— I tend to take a few minutes after the round has concluded to make my decision. I like to look over my notes and my flow to ensure that I’m being fair in my decision and providing you with good comments. Therefore, I don’t like to give my verbal critiques or RFD immediately after the round. I’d rather you leave the room until I’m done with my ballots and then find me later. After I’ve turned in my ballots, I’d be more than happy to talk to you about the round as long as it does not go against tournament rules and as long as I am not actively engaged in another activity that would be difficult to multitask with— i.e., helping one of my students with an emergency, napping, etc. You can also feel free to email me at [red.forensics@gmail.com]

IMPROMPTU SPEAKING-- In Congress, I STRONGLY prefer a crappy impromptu speech on an under-debated side over a perfect prepared speech that rehashes the last several speeches we just listened to. In other words-- please don't make me listen to more than 2 speeches on the same side in a row. I'll have MASSIVE respect for anyone who switches sides at the last minute for the purposes of keeping debate interesting. I've ranked students up for this before, and I'll do it again. Impromptu speaking is a lifelong skill....get that experience!

ETIQUETTE—

Sitting or standing for speech and cross-ex is fine with me. Whatever makes you comfortable.

Sometimes it’s necessary for me to eat during rounds-- I try very hard to avoid it, but if I have no choice but to eat during your round, I’ll do so in a way that is minimally disruptive. Virtual tournament note-- if I do eat during your (virtual) round, I will likely turn my camera off, or you can feel free to request that I do so.

I’m young, so not a lot of people immediately realize that I’m a judge and not a competitor who hasn’t advanced. Just as a general rule, act respectfully out of round too. I hear things, and I pick up on falseness very easily. More than anything, be nice and fair to your opponent before, during, and after the round; or I guarantee I’ll lose a lot of respect for you.

Along those lines— I’m your judge. I know I’m young, I’m still learning, and I may not know as much about your event as you do, but I’m still your judge. Please be respectful of the fact that I’m not perfect; I’m human. I do my best to be a fair judge and give every competitor their best experience possible, but that said, not every call I make will make everyone happy. At the end of the day, even if I miss something or am more enthralled by one argument over another, remember that it’s your responsibility as the debater to convince all kinds of judges. It’s not my fault if you lose, and I promise that I took my decision in your round very seriously.

“DEAL BREAKERS”

1-- Aggression. I know, this is a competitive activity. It’s literally formal arguing. But there’s a difference between smart and impactful debating and straight-up aggression. I understand that there’s a certain amount of aggressiveness required to be an effective debater, but there’s a line. Therefore, any excessive aggression will not be tolerated in my rounds. I know you’re here to win, but you’re also here to learn, and it’s hard to learn or have any sort of effective discourse when your opponent, judge, or audience is uncomfortable. I don’t care how good of a debater you are, if you are unnecessarily aggressive, I will vote you down.

2-- Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, hate of ANY KIND will not be tolerated. Again, there is no reason to make your opponent, judge, or audience uncomfortable or unsafe in what is supposed to be a safe, educational environment. Leave the hate at home...or better yet, re-evaluate it.

3-- Remember that your audience can be anyone, and sometimes members of your round may be part of the very communities you are insulting or judging. When it comes to talking about issues that impact minorities, don't speak for them. Use your platform to elevate the voices of those who are directly impacted by the topic at hand. You don't decide what's best for a group that you're not a member of!

4-- (Mainly for Congress, but elsewhere if it applies:) If I hear anything resembling COERCION in my Congress chamber, I will rank you lower or not at all. Do NOT pressure other competitors to "let" you PO or "let" you speak before them. Let recency and the rules fall where they may. This is a competition, I get it, but be fair and be mature. In all events, fairness is the supreme goal of each round.

ABOVE ALL, I am a true believer in the power of Forensics as an activity. It changed my life, and it has the ability to do a lot of good. Therefore, the integrity of each round and the experience of each participant is very important to me. Not everyone will leave with a trophy, but everyone has the opportunity to leave with valuable life experience, great ideas, and unique friendships.

TL;DR, I’m cool with whatever you want to do in round as long as it doesn’t jeopardize those components of Forensics competition.

NCFL 2024 LINCOLN DOUGLAS QUICK NOTE

I came to watch a debate about the resolution. I am very traditional. Please keep all K's and theories for only the most egregious of rules/tradition/norm breaking behavior, otherwise I'm not going to flow it. Just as a reference, the only K I've ever found engaging was a student of color arguing it was unfair to have them defend White Supremacy when the Aff argued such. If your level of perceived unfairness is not at the level of that, please don't throw theory at me, and stay topical.

Student Congress/ Congressional Debate

I really, really, really love judging Congress. I particularly enjoy being a Parliamentarian at larger tournaments. Not only do I really care about the rules being followed, but it's much nicer to watch one group of competitors the entire day as opposed to jumping around.

With that said, the norms of congress have changed a lot since I started competing 10 years ago - and I have some thoughts about them closer to the bottom of the Congress section of this paradigm.

What I'm looking for: Congressional Debate is neither a full speech event nor a full debate event. The entire event begins as speech and increasingly becomes a debate event with each passing cycle. What that means for you, as competitors, is that you need to modulate how and to what you're speaking based on where we are in the round.

Regardless of where you are in the round however, I request the following finer points:
1. Clear Signposting - Call it a thesis statement, call it a statement of intent, call it a summary. The end of your intro should be a description of what you will be talking about. "Pass this bill because of FIRST, Economic Impacts, SECOND, effects on marginalized communities, and THIRD, U.S. Hegemony." Doing that helps everyone in the room keep their notes together - and it will help you get some name callouts later during clash.

2. Sourcing - There are some facts that even someone walking in off the street would know - such stuff need not be cited. Any other claim MUST be cited for me to consider it. As an example, in a recent round regarding a carbon tax, a student was spouting off factoids about the effects of Canada's carbon tax in the past. I flowed none of it because there was no source.

3. Direct callouts - Obviously, first and foremost, be polite - but it is a very big pet peeve of mine when competitors just refer to 'the aff world' or 'a previous senator' when clashing or extending - everyone in the room has a name and likely has a placard, please use them.

4. Impacts - I am judging a debate, which means I need to have items on my flow. It is not enough to just tell me that "Solar Power should replace Fossil Fuels", you need to spoonfeed me the next steps of "Because Solar Power is renewable, which could lead to less pollution, which leads to a healthier constituency, which leads to......" ad infinitum. If you stop the argument too soon, it's going to fall pretty quickly once clash starts.

5. Effective techniques - Being an effective speaker is not just having the words written down. I expect competitors to make eye contact, correctly intonate, use volume to their advantage, and generally use all of those rhetorically effective devices that every great speaker in history has used.

Constructives - Constructive speeches make up the early section of a round. Cycles 1 and 2 are entirely (or almost entirely) constructive, and set the table for what the debate should be about. I expect these speeches to be well rehearsed and be the full 3-minute timer. By cycle 3, I expect clash and/or extension alongside constructive notions. By the beginning of cycle 5, constructions should be saved ONLY for arguments that are new and necessary to the chamber's understanding of the debate. Rehash of earlier arguments without proper extension (discussed below) will cause ballot point loss.

Extensions - Extension speeches aim to take existing arguments from your side and fortify them. They can occur as early as cycle 2, and notions of extension can occur as late as the final speech. As such, competitors should avoid using too much time on restating, and should try to instead add more impacts or context to the argument. As a very simple example, imagine a competitor says that a bill will cause water pollution, which is bad because it will affect drinking water and have negative health impacts. Your extension could quantify those negative health impacts (this is what I would describe as a direct extension), or even say that beside Senator X's drinking water point, that it could harm the environment and cause a lack of biodiversity (this is what I would describe as an indirect extension). I humbly insist that during extension portions of your speeches, you call out fellow senators by name.

Clash-This is where I find a lot of recent tournaments lacking. This is the most debate heavy part of Congress (go figure), and for many is the hardest thing to pull off effectively. Clash can occur as early as the second speech, and as late as the final one. A clash speech (what I lovingly refer to as a destructive), should call out a fellow senator by name, describe their point briefly, and then explain why their point may be incorrect or misleading. As a hypothetical - "Senator X tells you that switching to a flat tax will save the average American money on their tax bill. That may be true on just their tax bill, but according to the CBO, they will end up paying more out of pocket for the loss of governmental services that the flat tax incurs - what this means is that on balance, this bill harms our constituents." At no point should this devolve into name-calling, and should always remain polite. It is not enough to tell me that another senator is wrong, but to explain why (95% of the time this will require a source on top of an explanation).

Crystals-I find that Crystals are sometimes difficult to explain to those who haven't seen a really good one or haven't competed in other debate events. A crystallization speech aims to take the key points of debate over the round, and boil them down to a 3 minute speech that generally weighs one against the other. These speeches should really only happen during the last cycle of debate on a bill, but I will accept it in the penultimate cycle as well. A good crystal will explain that why on each of the main points of the round (i.e. Economic benefits, Protection of minority groups, Human Rights Abuses, etc), your side wins. By the end of a crystal, I should be able to boil down the debate to a post-it note, with the most salient arguments filling that paper. These speeches do not have to extend or clash at all, and in fact, some of the best ones do no such thing - they act as a round narrator, explaining to the judges and the room why a given side should win out. Of course, these can include clash and extension, but students should be careful to remember their main goal when speaking so late.

Questions/Cross-X -I would say that on average, 15% of my weighing of a student goes into how they do during questioning - and such weighing can be the tiebreakers when rounds are close.

I expect everyone to be polite during Cross-x. It doesn't necessarily have to be kind, but it must be respectful.

I expect questioners to keep their questions brief, and answers to get to the point. Lecturing, or otherwise getting on a soapbox, will affect your ballot.

That all said, I think there is a skill of knowing how and when to talk over your fellow competitors. Something like "Excuse me, I'm still speaking" or "Is the answer yes or no?" when things are getting contentious are difficult-to-pull-off but extremely memorable maneuvers.

I expect questions to be strategic, and not just be a way to cleverly have your argument heard before your speech.

A note for my Presiding Officers

I'll start with the most important thing - If I am your judge, and you PO, and do a mediocre job, you can generally expect a rank of at worst 5. If you do a great job, expect that rank to be higher. If you do a bad job, maybe you don't get ranked at all, but I want to be clear that I think a passable PO deserves to break out of any given PRELIM round.

If I am your parliamentarian, and you PO one session and fervently compete the other sessions, you can generally expect high ranks on your end-of-day ballot. At multiple tournaments I've parli-ed my PO's have ranked number 1 on my end of day ballot, but generally expect a top 4 finish - provided you're doing a job that is commensurate with the skill level of the room.

I think throughout my career I presided for more rounds than I spoke. The job of presiding is more important than the job of any other competitor in the room. You are the one who makes sure the round happens, makes sure it's fair, and ensures that rules are followed.

I expect my PO's to have a more-than-working-knowledge of the rules of order, this includes edge case rules like amendments that rarely come up. I expect my PO's to be able to run the room without my intervention should I be their Parli. But most importantly, I expect my PO's to be ready to rule things out of order when necessary. If all but one Senator has spoken on a bill, and somebody motions for previous question - a PO who asks that last speaker if they were planning to speak before getting seconds on the motion will, to me, shine as a competitor and a person.

As a note, however there are many situations that require my input as a parliamentarian, these include but are not limited to:
- Assessing amendments as germane or dilatory
- Dealing with non-competition emergencies (Medical, technological, etc)

And I will note, that there is nothing wrong with not knowing a rule. If a PO is expecting something to come up soon and asks me, as a Parliamentarian BEFORE any delays can result from their not knowing, they get some extra brownie points for their foresight.

I abhor this new norm of base-x gentleperson's agreements. You are first and foremost, at a COMPETITION, and should want to speak. Speaking more gives the judges more data points to make informed decisions. Everyone only speaking once actively harms the best prepared competitors, and lets those who haven't prepped well enough slide by without regressing to the mean. I find it absolutely disrespectful to my time and the other judges' time for students to hamstring themselves, and then end rounds 20+ minutes early because there was some asinine agreement to speak once each. And secondarily, you are roleplaying as Congresspeople - and any Congressperson worth their salt would love the screen time for more floor speeches, so to give that up is a travesty. And what I find the most infuriating is to watch a student get put down or told not to speak a second time by the rest of the chamber because of some non-enforceable Base-X agreement. It is not that student's fault that the rest of the chamber didn't prep or is unwilling to speak a second time.

And I know there's an argument of 'unfairness' in Congress, that some people may get to speak more than others without some agreement. My honest response is that it's actually more unfair to have these base-x agreements. I judge rounds to see lively debate, and lively debate cannot happen if only a handful of Senators are speaking per bill. If lively debate doesn't happen, students don't learn the skills necessary to thrive past the third cycle of speeches.

I do my best to judge as fairly and with as little bias as possible. Speaking fewer times than other competitors is not a death sentence, and actively having to game the recency chart I think is its own little strategic metagame that doesn't detract from Student Congress, but adds to it.

The Long and Short of it is this - Any competitor trying to dissuade others from competing to the best of their ability will be losing points on their ballot. Any competitor who starts a discussion on base-X agreements that delays the beginning of a round I am a part of will also be losing points on their ballot. If students want to have these agreements, fine, but do not delay the round or try to force everyone else to follow it.

A note on taking splits - I know that actively prepping both sides of a bill takes arguably twice as long as prepping only one. So I do understand the value in taking splits, insofar as it is likely that some competitors are only able to speak on one side. Taking splits should take less than a minute, and should not be a discussion that eats into debate time. However, students who go into the breach for the sake of the chamber and give a speech they were otherwise unprepared to do will get some extra points on their ballot from me for helping the chamber move along.

That said, I would prefer my competitors have everything prepped and be able to speak at any point in the round - Constructive, rebuttal, extension, or crystal.

Public Forum

I don't have much to say about PF, as judging is pretty streamlined. I heavily take framework and definitions into account, and I do not flow crossfire if you don't bring it back up in a speech. At the end of day, I want you to treat me like I know absolutely nothing. If you walk me through your arguments in a coherent fashion I am much more likely to give you the win.

When it comes to speed - I don't do well with it. I struggle to flow effectively when someone is speaking too fast. So if you spread or go too quickly I will struggle to completely flow your case and that could hurt you on my flow.

I think I would define myself as a hybrid judge. My view of Public Forum is that someone who knows absolutely nothing should be able to walk into the room and understand what's happening. What this means is that if you do run K's or theory or anything to that effect, it needs to be outright explained in a way that even a complete stranger could understand. However, I do generally believe that argumentation on the resolution and topic is more valuable to the round and your case than a K or a theory shell.

If you happen to share your case with your opponents, feel free to add me in on the chain at nicholasduca51@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

I would like to watch a debate about the resolution, its impacts, and other implications - all theory and K's should be saved for only the most dire of circumstances. I've spectated and/or judged a number of LD rounds across my career and I have only ever thought one K was strategically correct to run. Two students of color were debating, and one student was effectively tasked with proving white supremacy was good. Not only is this uncomfortable for everyone involved, it's likely harmful to both student-competitors. I agreed with this point and dropped that from the flow entirely. If I am watching a round and you are considering a K and your situation doesn't meet the unfairness-bar of a BIPOC student having to defend white supremacy, do not run it.

Other than that, keep spreading to a minimum, please project, and everything else should fall into place.

I am currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania. I competed on my high school's varsity debate. I was elected co-captain my senior year and was one of the highest-ranked debate duos in the Philadelphia public league. I do not have much experience with Public Forum debate, but I have done some research on the style and conventions.

I value respectful and factual debating. It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, don't interrupt or talk over your opponents during any part of the debate. I prefer coherent and clear speeches over speeches that are fast and attempt to fit in as many words as possible in the allocated time. I tend to reject false dichotomies and logical fallacies. Keep your arguments straightforward, if you can focus on one central argument and really support it throughout the entire debate, that will serve you better than half-supporting several different arguments.

I don't usually keep track of time, but with the new online format we can play it by ear.

While I enjoy judging a variety of events and encourage students to have fun with competing, I do take judging events very seriously. I have been coaching a small, yet quickly growing team for almost three years and have been a middle and high school judge for almost six years. I judge consistently on both the local and national circuits, including the TOC and NSDA championships.

I strive to remain objective regardless of personal opinions and have often ranked students debating on the side of an argument I may not agree with personally because they were the most convincing or were able to poke holes in the arguments presented on other sides. I believe that as a coach and a judge it is my job to provide detailed critiques and solid feedback to all students, even those I rank highly, to best serve the hardworking students competing at these tournaments.

in general, my paradigms include strong evidence to back up claims, well-constructed and organized speeches and assertive, yet not too aggressive questioning. I expect courteous, respectful behavior at all times, both in and out of sessions, and frown upon negative facial expressions, comments, hand gestures and the like.

Specifically regarding Public Forum debate, I want the participants to be able to show me why the team won the round and each speech after the first constructive should have clash. That said, I am not a fan of spreading and look for a combination of persuasion, argumentation and reasoning in each round.

Regarding delivery, I will not mark down for speaking quickly, as long as I am able to follow what is being said. I look for debaters who make eye contact and are not simply reading a well-written speech. While voice projection and inflection are in no way valued over content and argumentation, they do go a long way with impact and keeping the attention of listeners.

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 am a parent/volunteer. This is my second year to judge this tournament and my third judging experience. I have no personal experience debating outside the high school classroom. I am an attorney and have experience in jury and bench trials, appellate brief writing, appellate oral arguments, and preparing cases to present before administrative law judges. I currently manage labor campaigns (management side), which requires persuasion of voters.

I’m becoming more familiar with arguments that are run in LD debate. My best advice, however, is that you should debate the way you like to debate. My professional training and background lends me to favor logic and clarity. A few well developed, organized, well-articulated arguments with good flow and connectivity are often more appealing to me than a trifecta wheel (as many arguments/bets as one can cram in during the allocated period). Quality over quantity. I don’t favor the mudslinger approach of arguments, where one throws a lot of mud and hopes something will stick on the wall, although a little witty mudslinging in clash can be fun, interesting, and is encouraged. Clash should be exciting and productive - talk about your opponent’s argument and pin them down – I am not interested in a repeat of your main points (if you articulated clearly, I got them the first time). As with most attorneys, clash is not personal to me and should not be to debaters; in fact, it makes you tougher in the real world.

Mostly, I favor common sense arguments that make or could make sense (or do not make sense) in the real world and show a thorough understanding of the debated topic. As much as possible, show me what the world looks like on each side with real world scenarios, examples, and impacts. I will go for pure theoretical though if you convince me it is better. I weight the entire round of all components. Simply, convince me and you are the winner (absent violated rules or huge errors). I am rational and put all personal opinions aside, judging you on your case’s merits and your presentation of your case. Big picture examination with logical examples used to illustrate are effective with me.

I prefer persuasive pretense with passion and conviction that, in my opinion, is best delivered at a moderate pace and speed. Rapid-speed and/or brute-force delivery is unpleasant for me to listen to and I find it a monotonous and unpersuasive speaking style. I have no idea how this helps someone in the real world unless you are reading a disclaimer on a radio commercial. If you have to offer me your presentation in writing or electronically for me to follow along, because I might not keep up with your rapid-fire speed, we have a problem. If I do not understand you, I cannot judge your arguments. I like a speaker who talks “with” me and not “at” me.

I appreciate a speaker qualifying authors they are citing to support their arguments. Smart, sophisticated arguments about the quality of competing pieces of evidence will catch my attention and will be all the more powerful if you verbalize these qualifications when the evidence was initially presented. Evidence that is unqualified or proven unreliable may be discarded by me in considering the merits of your argument. Once qualified, extend ideas on cards, not by the author’s name. For instance, “Extend the card where I say ____” so I recognize the source by subject (easier for me than remembering a name).

Line by line refutation is desired; tell me where you’re attacking before you spring please.

I am not familiar with Kritiks at all. If you want to run one, I suggest avoiding all the jargon and explaining very clearly how the Kritiks affects the round. I have no bias against this, but I’m possibly going to mishandle it.

If you want brief oral critique before you leave the room, ask me. I also have no problem with disclosing; I own my decisions well (it is optional in this tournament).

A former coach of mine, Chase Williams, has developed a paradigm that he uses that I have always used for PF as well. It is as follows:

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate.

I won't vote for theory. Don't try it - it has no place in PF. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, I'll listen - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my belief first - or striking me.

About Me:

My name is Erin and I am comfortable with any and all pronouns. I competed primarily in Congressional Debate in high school and competed in American parliamentary debate at the beginning of my time in college (pre-Covid). I am also the Assistant Coach at my old high school, primarily in charge of all things Debate :)

Congress:

I firmly believe that the event is very much a mixture of both speech and debate - do not be afraid to be more performative while speaking, after all, you are a member of congress!! But this does not mean that you should sacrifice good argumentation and the content of your speech for the sake of putting on a show!! If you are able to combine the two in a cohesive, smooth way you are off to a good start!

Speeches: I (like most judges) primarily look for strong argumentation, unique impacts, and strong, relevant rhetoric. Your argumentation should be solid and easy to follow along (no gaps in the link chains!) and should have clear structure. After the first round of speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect there to be some clash and/or extensions on what the previous debaters have stated. But please watch out for rehash!! Show me you are paying attention to your fellow speakers in your speech, but avoid repeating their contentions (unless you are running a solid extension). In terms of types of speeches, each round of congress should follow a similar flow style, going from constructive to rebuttals and then crystals. Do not be worried about how speaking towards the end of a bill will affect your placing!!! Sometimes a good, strong crystallization speech is worth a lot more than a copy-paste constructive speech! (It shows you are paying attention to everything being said in the round as well as shows you can think quickly on your feet - which is very impressive!) The use of meaningful and relevant rhetoric to help break up and break down the arguments is greatly appreciated and highly recommended! The one case where rhetoric is not appreciated is in the instance where canned rhetoric is used - try to come up with more original sayings rather than use generic ones that have been around since before I was competing…

Sourcing: I have no real preference when it comes to what sources you use in your speech. News sources are fine but don’t cite news sources with known bias or an insane amount of editorialization and op-ed writing. When citing your sources please include at least a last name, year, and publication; you do not need to provide qualifications but they are a bonus if you use them!

Questioning: This is very important!! Being active in the chamber can really help boost your overall ranking by helping you stand out, especially if you are nervous about being marked down for only speaking once due to poor recency. Good questions and answers can be the tiebreaker in situations where I am conflicted between two speakers of similar caliber. That being said - please don’t ask trap questions!! If you are competing you should have enough know-how and evidence to ask fair questions and use that information given to help talk about it in a later speech. Forcing questions is smart, but forcing answers is abusive. Last but not least - QUALITY over QUANTITY always!!

Speaking + Speed: Spreading in rounds is totally cool, so long as you are clear and concise!! If the competitors and/or judges can’t understand what you are saying, it makes it difficult for your arguments to be used in the round. The need for speed is okay (trust me I was the same way I understand completely) but sometimes less is more!! Do not try to speak faster just to fit in more arguments - instead, prioritize what you think is important and use your time wisely.

PO: I greatly appreciate the role of the PO, and as long as you do not mess up royally you are guaranteed a rank! POs should be able to control the room without having to be loud or forceful. A great PO is one who understands how the event works - makes no procedural errors, runs a quick and efficient chamber, and most importantly, is FAIR to all competitors in the room. I’ve been around long enough to be able to get a feel of who knows who in a chamber within the first few minutes. Any obvious favoritism towards certain speakers when picking questioners and speakers will not go unnoticed or unpunished. If I am your parliamentarian and you have a procedural or general question in round, do not be afraid to ask!! I would much rather you ask and get it correct than guess and make a mistake. Make sure to keep a clear chart for keeping track of precedence and recency, as a judge (and more so as a parli) I tend to keep one of my own as it helps me keep track of competitors, so I will know if you make a mistake!

Above everything else, everyone should respect one another. If you are acting a fool and putting others down incessantly both in or outside of the chamber, I will not rank you no matter how good you are. Talent does not excuse poor behavior, and therefore will not be unpunished. I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are all smart enough to know better, and the usage of anything to this level will not be tolerated (it does not matter if you do not believe it- you should not need to use it to make a point). Be respectful of one another and it will be a great day!

When I am acting as parliamentarian at state and national level tournaments - my critiques on tabroom will be more general based and directed to the whole chamber. If you would like a copy of your own specific critiques and/or have any questions as to why I said what I said - feel free to send me an email (erincnmohr@gmail.com) with your name, speaker code, and what round I judged and I will get back to you after the tournament is over!

Also if you recognize me from the internet no you don't <3 /j

Some background on myself - My experience in debate historically has been with congressional debate. However, I have coached PF before and have familiarity with the structure and find it to be a particularly exciting style of debate to watch and judge!

PUBLIC FORUM

There is no value in a debate where I cannot understand either debater.

Please speak so that the average listener can understand you. That does not mean you have to speak slowly. You just need to be clear. Slowing down to emphasize clear points/sub-points is always a good idea throughout your speech. 

I flow. I attempt to be non-interventionist. I will likely only call a card if the interpretation of that card is at significant dispute during the round. I advise debaters to read their cards carefully - many times, a debate can be lost because a team inaccurately cites evidence that is crucial to their argument. Including the year and source for evidence is necessary for me to accept them as credible.  

Having a framework is always helpful. By the end of the constructive speeches, I do not want to hear any new arguments raised. Impacts need to logically flow from the warrants. Do not exaggerate them. 

It is important to try and rebut all arguments, but prioritize the most crucial ones. A weak argument that is dropped is less likely to be a convincing voting issue than a strong argument that went dropped. However, do not spend too much time on a single argument if your opponent mentioned multiple other ones. Also, try to extend your arguments and do some basic weighing here as well, but do not do so at the expense of rebuttal.

As the debate progresses, it crucial that you weigh and summarize the main voting issues, or reasons that I should vote for or against a particular side. In the summary speech, convince me why you won or your opponent lost the round. If an argument is not weighed by either side, I will not consider it. The summary speech is not for new arguments.

A final focus should not include any argument not referenced in the summary speech. I do not flow the final focus - I just listen. Normally, that speech can make or break a close round.

In crossfire, I listen and you can persuade me. However, crossfire is not flowed, so you need to incorporate any findings from crossfire into your speeches for me to consider it. It is more likely that you can exploit flaws in an opponent's argument during crossfire than it is likely for you to advance your own argument. That is true for your opponent as well. Therefore, it would likely be unnecessary to incorporate entirely new cards into your cross questions/responses. Do not interrupt one another or engage in a screaming match. Again, there is no value in a debate where I cannot understand either debater.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I have developed a rubric that clearly outlines my paradigm for judging Congressional Debate. Granted, not all speeches or rounds can be categorized the same. Consider this paradigm, therefore, a general, albeit not perfect, guide for how I approach Congressional Debate rounds when judging:

Speakers will be considerably penalized for speaking on less bills than they should given the allotted time of the session. Usually sessions allow for two speeches. Depending on size and time this could differ.

If a speaker intended to speak on the bills but was unable to due to poor recency, they will NOT be penalized under this system.

----NOTE: If the chamber comes to a base-x bill agreement, I frown upon those who agree to it before the debate starts, and then proceed to abuse it. This activity was not intended to encourage deceptive legislative tactics. Such an action is not, however, against the formal NSDA rules. Thus, I will hear the speech with no penalty, but may deduct Parliamentary Points for poor legislative practice.

NOTE ABOUT RUBRIC – failure to execute criterion effectively counts as having not done it at all

e.g. – an impact that does not make sense based on the argument provided is as good as a failure to provide an impact

TOC-SPECIFIC NOTE – all morning session speeches on local issues will be treated in my system as authorships.

ORIGINALITY OF THOUGHT

8 –

AUTHORSHIP - the speaker focuses their speech on introducing the Congress to a specific serious problem and its impacts, and explains how their bill effectively solves that problem…the speaker discusses the entire scope of the bill accurately…the speaker introduces arguments so impactful that the negation must refute effectively in order to win the debate

1STNEG - the speaker focuses the speech on how Congress could make a specific problem worse, not solve the problem at all or create other net harms not related to the problems (ideally, this should refer to the authorship speech) … the speaker discusses troubling elements of the bill in a way that is specific and compelling… the speaker introduces arguments so impactful that the affirmation must refute in order to win the debate, as they have muddied the foundation of debate set by the authorship

REFUTATION – the speaker discusses the strongest arguments that came up on the opposing side of debate, correctly mentions all who brought up that argument and effectively refutes them, advancing the debate, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context…the speaker presents strong impacts in extension of their claims

EXTENSION – the speaker expands upon old arguments by presenting new evidence, logic and, most importantly, new impacts that strengthen preexisting claims from speakers on the side of that speaker and accurately frames how the point has been been discussed before by the senators who stated that point (the specific names of senators who used these arguments should be mentioned in the speech) …they should be able to clearly explain how their information made the claim stronger or establish new/stronger impacts about that claim

CRYSTALLIZATION – the speaker weighs the debate, stating the main arguments of the affirmation AND negation and clearly explaining why a particular side won without adding new points…the speaker explains what voting issues the congressional representatives should consider in their vote, and why based on those issues and the information presented in the debate, their side wins…the speaker presents strong impacts in extension of their claims

6 –

AUTHORSHIP – the speaker effectively explains the net benefits of the legislation…the speaker discusses the most important portions of the bill accurately, but alludes to the bill rather than referring to specific sections… the speaker introduces arguments with few strong impacts

1STNEG – the speaker focuses the speech on the bad elements of the bill, but fails to weigh those impacts against those in the authorship effectively…the speaker discusses troubling elements of the bill in a way that is general and accurate… the speaker introduces arguments with few strong impacts

REFUTATION – the speaker discusses some of the strongest arguments that came up on the opposing side of debate, correctly mentions all who brought up that argument and effectively refutes them, advancing the debate, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context...the speaker presents few strong impacts in extension of their claims

(5 – the speaker refutes to one strong argument in the debate and effectively refutes it, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context)

EXTENSION – the speaker expands upon old arguments by presenting new evidence and logic strengthen preexisting claims from speakers on the side of that speaker and accurately frames how the point has been discussed before by the senators who stated that point (the specific names of senators who used these arguments should be mentioned in the speech) … they should have at least few strong impacts, even if they are not completely different but should be explained more effectively/clearly than prior speakers

(5 – all of the criteria above, but lacks strong impacts)

CRYSTALLIZATION – the speaker weighs the debate, stating the main arguments of the affirmation AND negation and explains why a particular side won the debate …the speaker presents few strong impacts in extension of their claims

4 –

AUTHORSHIP – the speaker refers to the net benefits of legislation that acts similarly to the one in question, but does not consider the specific details of the legislation being debated…the speaker talks about the bill generally, rather than what the specific legislation does… the speaker provides no strong impacts

1STNEG – the speaker refers to the net harms of legislation that acts similarly to the one in question, but does not consider the specific details of the legislation being debated…the speaker refers to what bills similar to the one in question do, rather than what it does specifically… the speaker provides no strong impacts

REFUTATION - the speaker discusses some of the arguments that came up on the opposing side of debate, correctly mentions all who brought up that argument and effectively refutes them, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context…the speaker provides no strong impacts

(3 – the speaker refers to the strongest arguments in the debate and attempts to refute them, but fails to do so effectively, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context…a speaker earning this score may give strong refutation points, but fails to successfully and effectively clash with what was said in the room)

EXTENSION – the speaker tries to expand upon old arguments by presenting new evidence and logic strengthen preexisting claims from speakers on the side of that speaker and accurately frames how the point has been discussed before by the senators who stated that point (the specific names of senators who used these arguments should be mentioned in the speech) … no strong impacts are given and the speaker fails to explain how their new information strengthen the debate

(3 – the speaker provides new evidence and logic but it fails to truly enhance the debate, or is only tangentially related to the claims of the speakers being referenced…a speaker may give a strong extension speech…a speaker earning this score may give strong extension points, but fails to successfully and effectively clash with what was said in the room)

CRYSTALLIZATION – the speaker attempts to weigh the debate, and while they may be able to explain compelling net benefits or harms brought up by their side, they fail to effectively

2 –

AUTHORSHIP – the speaker refers to an unclear problem OR the solutions of the speaker weakly works towards solving a problem… the speaker talks about the bill as if they only read the title and seems unaware of the bill’s specifics… none of the speaker’s arguments advance debate

1STNEG – the speaker refers to unclear net harms OR does not sufficiently explain how it makes the problem worse… the speaker talks about the bill as if they only read the title and seems unaware of the bill’s specifics… none of the speaker’s arguments advance debate

REFUTATION - the speaker discusses the weaker arguments or just tries to debate the rhetoric that came up on the opposing side of debate and does so ineffectively, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context

(1 – rehash of other speakers’ refutation arguments without providing new logic/impacts that change the debate)

EXPANSION – the speaker primarily rehashes old arguments, but there are moments of the speech in which they successfully add some new interesting evidence, logic or impacts to the debate, but not enough to constitute a successful expansion speech…

(1 – the speaker rehashes, rather than expands, old arguments…they add no new information to the debate)

DELIVERY

8 - the speaker demands the attention of the room through using effective eye contact and vocal variation...the speech is clear and delivered with compelling and demanding authority/confidence

6 - the speaker speaks clearly and makes sufficient eye contact with the audience

4 - the speaker makes poor eye contact with the audience but doesn’t look at their pad excessively ...the speaker uses no vocal variety, is purely monotone

2 - the speaker looks at their pad a bit too much...the speaker’s rate of speech at times is difficult to follow...the speaker stumbles so much that it disrupts the flow of their speech at times
1 - the speaker only looks at the pad...the speakers rate of speech is impossible to follow...the speaker stumbles so much that the flow of the speech is nonexistent (if a speaker receives this score, they can never rank in a room - this score reflects an inability on my part to understand the speaker

EVIDENCE AND LOGIC
8 - the speaker uses logic to support their claims that is clear, compelling, well organized and most importantly valid...the reasoning considerably sways the debate to strengthen the side of the speaker...all claims requiring additional support (which is not all but probably most) should have strong well-sourced evidence defending them

6 - the speaker used logic to support their claims that is mostly valid...all claims requiring additional support (which is not all but probably most) should have strong well-sourced evidence defending them

4 - the speaker indirectly connects all claims with prerequisite evidence or strands of logic that support it, even if they fail to connect them clearly...all claims requiring additional support have some evidence defending them, but possibly not enough to really support the claim

2 - the speaker makes considerable logical flaws in defending their claims...the speaker fails to use evidence to defend their claims that require support
1 - the speaker provides no component of logic that adds to the debate in a way that is compelling

ORGANIZATION
8 - the speaker organizes their speech with an interesting intro that introduces the audience to the overarching themes/arguments of their speech, body consisting of usually at least two well-developed arguments (this can be in the form of introducing new arguments, refutations, extensions, or crystallizations -just don’t rest your entire argument on one contention unless you can definitively prove that it’s impacts alone are enough to sway the debate), and a conclusion that cleverly ties into the intro...the transitions are natural, allow the speech to make sense as a cohesive whole and each element of the speech works in combination with each other

6 - he speaker organizes their speech with an interesting intro that introduces the audience to the overarching themes/arguments of their speech and a body consisting of usually at least two well-developed arguments (this can be in the form of introducing new arguments, refutations, extensions, or crystallizations -just don’t rest your entire argument on one contention unless you can definitively prove that it’s impacts alone are enough to sway the debate)...the speaker has clear, albeit boring, transitions between the various aspects of their speech

4 - a body consisting of usually at least two well-developed arguments (this can be in the form of introducing new arguments, refutations, extensions, or crystallizations -just don’t rest your entire argument on one contention unless you can definitively prove that it’s impacts alone are enough to sway the debate)...the speaker has boring and at times unclear transitions between the various aspects of their speech

2 - the speaker presents a speech that is all over the place and difficult to follow...the speaker presents two arguments in their body but the organization of the logic makes it tough to follow their argument...the speaker lacks transitions between the various aspects of their speech causing the speech to lack cohesion

[NOTE – three points will be deducted from this category for speeches that go less than 15 seconds before the speech’s time limit or more than 10 seconds over the time limit…e.g. standard 3:00 speeches should be between 2:45-3:10]

ANSWERING QUESTIONS
4 - the speaker answers questions with clarity and confidence...the speaker stays on message and prevents questioners from deterring them
2 - the speaker answers at least half of their questions with clarity and confidence...the speaker stays on message and prevents questioners from deterring them for at least half of the questions
0 - the speaker answers no questions with clarity and confidence...the questioners successfully point out major holes in the arguments of the speaker

Presiding Officers will be addressed on a similar scale based on different criteria…this ensures they can be ranked as high as any speaker in the room – PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE (the explanation, knowledge and effective execution of parliamentary procedures); RECOGNITION (fair and efficient in recognizing speakers – follows speaker precedence and recency and avoids implicit/explicit bias based on race, gender, school, preexisting relationships, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.); CONTROL (leads in difficult situations, maintains decorum of delegates in chamber, uses good judgment in evaluating motions to ensure chamber efficiency); COMMUNICATION (explains rulings concisely and clearly); DECORUM (maintains a respectful precense in the room – this is only ranked on the scale of 0-4, but, as is the case for speakers, exceptionally bad decorum will result in reduction of Parliamentary Points)

To assess the abilities of competitors of legislators I have a category in my system called Parliamentary Points. These are usually 0-1 points that I either add or detract at a time based on how well legislators participate in the chamber outside of their designated speaking time through solving problems in the chamber, raising motions and asking questions.

t.shertzer@columbia.edu

Background

Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts '16

Columbia '20

I competed in LD and PF in Louisiana for 6 years in MS and HS and have been judging MS and HS PF, LD, and Policy for 4 years while at Columbia. Louisiana is primarily more of a traditional / lay circuit and most of what I ran was on the more traditional side of LD, but I'm more than open to any type of argumentation as long as you explain and impact it well.

Summary:

Run whatever you want short of being blatantly offensive (e.g. "racism good") as long as you explain and impact clearly. You need to provide some sort of weighing mechanism and explain why that mechanism is superior to your opponent's and how you're winning under that mechanism. Have some sort of clear offense and extend your offensive arguments throughout the round while weighing your offense against your opponent's. Clear framing and comparative weighing is important. If you're reading something conceptually complex you must explain how its relevant to the round and clearly articulate the impacts of your arguments. I'll be flowing on paper and am down to vote for some wacky complex stuff (I'm 100% not a layjudge) but am not up to date on the hip debate lit and newer progressive argumentation styles so please be especially clear (I'm an engineering major so am unfamiliar with a lot of the lit/philosophy that gets read-- pls explain). Signpost, signpost, signpost.

Framework

Having some flavor of framework in LD is important to me. If you don't provide anything I'll evaluate under a util-ish lens by default. Winning framework is a big part of the debate, but winning framework ≠ winning the debate. Framework established the mechanism for weighing your impacts.

Theory

I never ran theory and am not super familiar with a lot of the lit but don't have anything against it. As with any type of argument, explain and impact well and you can run whatever you want barring anything morally reprehensible (i.e. if you're making the debate environment uncomfortable or hostile for someone else).

Update after judging a couple theory-heavy rounds: Please be especially clear how the theory you're running interacts with the ballot and how it contributes to you winning the debate / why I should care about it. Be advised that you'll really have to convince me that I should prioritize the theory over anything else if you want me to vote for it over something more grounded in framework / a clearer weighing mechanism.

K Debate

Again, never dabbled too much into Ks myself and while I'm a little more familiar with some of the common K lit you need to make sure you're explaining and impacting clearly.

Speed

Probably take things down a couple notches from your top speed, but as long as you're clear speed is fine. Slow down for tags, authors, and analysis. Speeding through cards isn't an issue given your opponent has access to your evidence (flash it, email it, print it, whatever).

Misc.

*If you're clearly more experienced than your opponent don't beat them into the ground-- it's not a good look.

*Presentation style <<< clarity of arguments

*Flex prep is cool as long as your opponent is down

*Speaks start at ~28 and go up or down

*I have very minimal experience with performance debate and if you're a performance debater you need to clearly explain how your performance relates to the ballot and clashes with your opponent.

*Good evidence >>> more evidence

*Have fun!! Tasteful jokes warmly encouraged