I am a parent judge. My daughter has been participating in Public Forum Debate for three years now. I would consider myself knowledgeable about debate, but I would like to be treated the same as any other parent.

I have a few basic preferences for all rounds.

First, please speak at a reasonable rate so that you can articulate your arguments clearly. I do not appreciate "spreading" as it is not the way debate should be done.

Second, please be polite to each other in all aspects of the round. I don't care how strong your arguments are. If you're a jerk, it will affect my opinion and your speaker points.

Third, try to indicate where you are when you are giving your speeches so that I can understand how your arguments are interacting. I do take careful notes and try to flow as best I can.

Fourth, I expect all arguments to be backed by both evidence and logic equally. Also, I expect debaters to have a basic knowledge of the underlying economic, political, and social forces affecting your case. Be organized or you look less competent. And, don't expect your evidence to do all the work. Logically lead me to how your evidence makes your case.

Fifth, please be prompt when evidence is called in pulling up your cards. If your opponent asks for evidence, you need to be able to produce it almost instantaneously.

Lastly, and most importantly, I want you all to have fun! Debate is a great educational experience and I have the most fun judging rounds where the debaters are enjoying themselves as well!

P.S.

If you bring me Takis or Coke, I will give you +.5 speaks. If you bring both, I will give you +1 speaks.

hi im will i debated for whitman for 3 years. I stole this paradigm entirely from Azraf Khan, I am so much less cool in real life.

important stuff

1) be nice. please be nice. i am way more likely to want to vote for you if you are almost absurdly nice. obviously anything blatantly offensive will mean u get dropped. being mean or dismissive to your opponents will make me not want to vote for you sorry not sorry.

2) you can wear whatever you want and makes you feel the most comfortable to debate. crocs! sweatshirts! flats! sneakers! ive debated so i know how generally stressful it is and i dont want to add to ur stress or discomfort in any way!

3) debate the way you want to debate! have some fun.

round stuff

1. if offense isn't extended (warrant and all) in summary AND ff, its not in my ballot. that means full scale warrant extensions. links with no impacts > impacts with no links

2. i'll evaluate weighing first, then who links into that weighing best. if you want my ballot, you best be weighing.

3. please, please frontline. you HAVE to respond to your opponents rebuttal/case/arguments in general. if u dont do that you aren't debating, you're just saying things

4. im only slightly tech over truth - if you're saying stuff that is factually incorrect the response can literally be "that's false, google blank" and i will google it. if you have ur own real evidence, even better!

5. debate is a weird and sometimes really fun game. read weird arguments, i loved them when i debated. do fun strategy. have fun with the game and it'll be worth it. yay fun tech debate!

6. card dumping is like whatever but really annoying lol. however, the more responses u read, the less good the responses to them have to be. also, if you don't warrant your responses, "this isn't warranted" is an acceptable response.

If you do a hand motion while you're speaking that I've never seen before, I'll boost your speaks.

ALSO: The last time I judged was Harvard, so two major important other things.

1. This is my first time doing NSDA campus/online judging, so keep that in mind. I do know how to use computers however, so I don't think there will be any technical issues.

2. I have no familiarity with the topic whatsoever. The normal thing that people do in front of flow judges where they skim over stock blocks/args because they know the judge understands how the arg works will not work on me, because I do not know how any of these arguments work.

email is wdboct12@gmail.com if you have any questions or want to be pen pals

I debated public forum for 4 years in high school. I won toc 4 years in a row.

I go with the ~flow~ (but actually though, I heavily rely on my flow to make decisions)

Here is what I need you to do in round:

1. signpost everything so I know where to flow your arguments

2. all arguments you want me to evaluate must be in summary AND final focus

3. don't speak too fast, I'm not a speed writer. I won't be able flow if you spread

4. #techovertruth (for the most part)

5. be respectful

I debated PF for 4 years at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland and am now going into my second year at Northwestern University.

Weighing is the easiest path to my ballot. The earlier you weigh, the better (I strongly recommend starting in rebuttal). Make sure you are being comparative and explain WHY specific weighing mechanisms apply.

If neither team weighs, I will try to default to the most well-warranted argument — but you shouldn't leave the decision of which links I buy up to me.

Some other preferences:

1) I am not a big fan of reading a bunch of disads in second rebuttal. Quality > quantity of arguments

2) Don't skimp on warrants. If you explain why what you are saying is true, it will hold a lot more weight on my flow.

3) Don’t go for your whole case. Go in-depth on one or two arguments where you’re ahead.

4) You need to extend and weigh a turn for me to vote on it (just like any other argument).

5) Defense is needed in first summary only if the other team frontlines in second rebuttal.

6) Please do not spread. I would prefer that you do not get close to spreading either.

7) I will be receptive to progressive arguments.

Please keep the debate respectful. If you cross a line, I will dock your speaks and potentially drop you.

Most importantly, have fun! I love when debaters have a genuinely good time. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out before/after the round.

Email is zkaufmann24@gmail.com if you have any questions or want to be pen pals. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to make a round better for you!

Some general notes:

* Make strategic decisions!

* Please, for the love of all that is holy, put a warrant in everything you say. If your argument lacks a warrant, it's not an argument. I don't feel comfortable voting on things which I would be unable to explain to the opposing team as part of an RFD. Good logic > decontextualized quantitative evidence.

* Please, please weigh. Make fewer arguments and weigh them more. Please explain explicitly how your arguments interact and do weighing that is good, nuanced, and makes sense within the context of the round. Quality > quantity.

* Rebuttal should answer turns on case and include weighing; generally I think that you should respond to offensive arguments in the next speech, case obviously excepted. You need to extend defense in every speech, conditional on your opponents' having answered it.

* If you want me to vote on something, it needs to be cleanly extended in both summary and final focus (i.e. link, warrant, impact, even for dropped arguments). Extend turns in first summary if you’re gonna hinge your whole round strat on it, basically. If I don’t know what I’m voting for, I’ll be sad and your speaks will suffer.

* Debating the way you want to debate and having fun is great, because otherwise there’s no reason for any of us to be here.

* I appreciate non-util framing and making arguments that you actually care about.

* If you feel comfortable, add your pronouns on tab.

Things I am Fine With:

* I am okay-ish with speed. I'll say "clear" if I can't understand you, but if you want me to flow important analysis or author names you should slow down.

* I'm fine with theory which checks back for actual abuse and which is articulated more like a traditional PF argument (i.e. paragraph form, which I find much easier to evaluate. If you start spreading, I will have no idea what is going on). I don’t know a ton about theory/Ks/etc, so if you want to do this explain it clearly and a little slower than usual and you should be fine.

In the words of Harry Bagenstos: "I think it is probably possible to debate nontraditional PF arguments such that even an opponent who has no prior familiarity with the style can understand and make technically valid responses to them, and I think you should try to do that rather than presuming the existence of highly-developed theoretical principles imported from other events." In general, just debate how you want to debate, but make a good-faith effort to include your opponents.

Specific Things Which I Dislike:

* Bad evidence ethics. Good logic beats bad evidence. If you want me to call evidence, tell me.

* Card dumping with no warrants. Also, extensions with no warrants. Basically anything without warranting. If you don't warrant something, "this isn't warranted" is an acceptable response.

* Exclusion generally. Debate fails if it’s not accessible to everyone. If you’re spreading to make sure your opponents can't flow or reading arguments that exclude the other debaters in the round, I will not be happy. This also means that I am open to progressive arguments if they check back for this.

* Debaters not treating other debaters like real human beings. Joking around and being snarky is great, but anything blatantly offensive/ mean/ dismissive will get your speaks tanked and you possibly dropped. I debated as a female second speaker with a male partner and I encourage everyone—especially male debaters and those on all-male teams—to consider how "perceptual dominance" or humor can come across as demeaning.

* Co opting issues for a strategy. Care about the issue and make the debate productive for everyone. Consider content warnings and flexing contentions if someone objects--sensitive topics don't exist in a vacuum and can affect the people around you, so be conscious and you should be fine. IF YOU DO NOT READ A CONTENT WARNING ON A SENSITIVE ARGUMENT AND YOUR OPPONENTS OBJECT IN ANY WAY, I WILL DROP YOU. IF ARE RACIST, SEXIST, CLASSIST, ABLEIST, ETC, I WILL DROP YOU. I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO TELL YOU THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE COMPASSION FOR OTHER PEOPLE. If you don't know how to run a content warning, you can ask me before the round starts.

Things I Do Not Care About:

* What you’re wearing, how you're sitting, etc... Debate is stressful and you should be comfy.

hi! im azraf i debated for whitman for 4 years.

as a judge, i care the most about warrant extensions. please extend why the resolution leads to your impact in both the summary and final focus. my ballot is determined by this in every round i judge and is the thing i say the most in my rfd.

important stuff

1) be nice. please be nice. i am way more likely to want to vote for you if you are almost absurdly nice. obviously anything blatantly offensive will mean u get dropped. being mean or dismissive to your opponents will make me not want to vote for you sorry.

2) you can and should wear whatever you want and makes you feel the most comfortable to debate. crocs! sweatshirts! flats! sneakers! ive debated so i know how generally stressful it is and i dont want to add to ur stress or discomfort in any way! similarly, if you would prefer to sit/stand, just do it!

3) debate the way you want to debate! have some fun. i generally think the best rounds are when you are debating in the most you way possible regardless of paradigm.

4) i do not care about perceptual dominance and we all shouldnt either

round stuff

1. if offense isn't extended (warrant and all) in summary AND ff, its not in my ballot. that means full scale warrant extensions. links with no impacts > impacts with no links. please please please extend your solvency too!!!!!!!

2. i'll evaluate weighing first, then who links into that weighing best.

3. please, please frontline. you HAVE to respond to your opponents rebuttal/case/arguments in general. if u dont do that you aren't debating, you're just saying things fast

email is azrafkkhan@gmail.com if you have any questions or want to be pen pals

I was a policy debater back in the 70's, but in recent years have judged countless PF rounds on the national circuit.

I want to see strong arguments supported with strong evidence. I will not buy just any random argument you manage to come up with unless it is warranted with cards from reputable sources.

As you can tell, evidence is very important to me. If you misconstrue evidence, I WILL drop you. If you read a card but cannot find it when it is called for, I WILL drop you. When teams read contradictory pieces of evidence, I prefer the more recent card, and as such it is critical that all of your evidence is up to date.

I have been known to spend a longer period of time calling for cards after the round ends than the actual debate itself lasted. I am very thorough, and can (and probably will) read every card you bring up in the round in full (close reading, not skimming).

Since I'm a bit of a geriatric I'm not hip to all of these pop culture references judges nowadays are requesting. If you want high speaks from me, have good evidence ethics. If you don't, I WILL drop you and give you 5 speaks.

Thank you have a nice day

Hello everyone!

A little about me: I was born and raised in Minneapolis and I debated public forum all 4 years of high school.

As for my preferences, please BE NICE in round. There's a difference between being sassy and being condescending. Say/do something rude and your speaker points will show :)

Second speaking teams MUST frontline in rebuttal (I like a 2-2 split) and all arguments must be extended cleanly through each speech in order to be considered at the end.

Summary and final focus should be consistent and reiterate the same main points.

Please, please, PLEASE weigh. Tell me why your arguments are more important. Give me the easiest path to the ballot.

While I am a flow judge and can handle some speed, please don't spread. In all honesty, it just makes you look dumb.

Speak clearly and make sure your arguments are easy to understand. I will buy logic that is well explained over a card that is not. Explain why something is true rather than asserting it is because "this author said so." I love me some good warrants.

Jokes and puns are GREATLY appreciated and will help your speaker points. As will Spaceball references :)

Ive been judging at debate tournaments for 3 years following my son Nate Olson. At this point I think I am a pretty flow judge. I know what uniqueness is (not to flex), so you can tell I know about debating.

I can take notes fast enough but try to speak slowly. Debate should be a conversation, not a race. I also cant flow very fast.

Any references to the Romanian TV Show “Rose in the Heather” will get you a 30.

Hello debaters,

I have both debated in and judged PF tournaments before, but it has been awhile. I am best able to follow when you speak slowly and clearly. If you would like me to consider an argument or defense in my decision, make sure to bring it up again in final focus

Hello.

My name is ethan and it appears as if i am your judge. a little about me: freshman at UCLA, did PF for 4 years in highschool (kind of a tank (TOC semis junior and senior year)). I flow well but i will be doing it on the computer because I am lazy. dont be a jerk to your opponents or i will drop your speaks significantly.

specific stuff:

- if you do not weight i will be so pissed. someone needs to tell me whose argument is better so i dont have to do it myself. if youre really feeling it weighing should start in rebuttal (i will be so happy)

- first summary does not* need to cover defense

*(you must cover turns and really important things)

- second rebuttal should frontline

- each reference to arrested development will be +1 speaker point

- speed is fine but if i cant hear you then that is not my problem

- i do not, nor will ever, understand/want to understand weird arguments, so unless you feel like it is absolutely necessary i would not run a K or any other type of weird arg on me

- if an argument is so bad that it literally does not make any sense i will not vote for it even if the responses are meh

- i will be making faces that represent my opinion of your arguments so i would use that as a guide (you should realize if i find something dumb)

- IF ITS NOT IN FINAL FOCUS IT WILL NOT BE IN MY RFD

goodbye thanks for coming to my ted talk

Hello fellow appreciators of organized discourse!

While I have not been a high school debater myself, my decades of legal experience as a lawyer has definitely prepared me well for judging.

Here are a few pointers to guide you in your rounds with me:

1. I highly value eloquent communication of your arguments and buzz words can help me follow along. Don’t forget that you are trying to persuade me!

2. Don’t be afraid to call your opponents out for anything blatantly incorrect, offensive, etc. but DO NOT be rude about it.

3. Please don’t be robotic while you debate! Persuasion is done best when you seem more personally attached to the topic.

4. Speak loudly and clearly. I need to be able to hear what you’re saying to be able to vote off of it.

5. Trust me, it’s pretty clear for me to tell when what you’re saying is not actually true. I WILL call for your evidence at the end of the round if this seems to be the case.

6. I am more easily persuaded when given chicken nuggets.

+1 speaker points for every natural reference to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

My 2 most important preferences:

1. Please, please slow down. I suggest 1 to 1.5x conversational speed; I think ideal case length is 680-700 words. If you could imagine someone asking for a speech doc, SLOW down! Implications for you:

-- If your speed means I miss something important, it’s like it never existed. I’m not gonna be like, “Hmm, maybe I heard something kinda like that” when you extend it. It’s goodbye

-- If your opponent cannot understand and asks you to slow down (do this by loudly saying “clear”), you must do so. Within reason; I will intervene in obvious cases of abuse

-- This preference is also reflected in speaks. Selective vision >>> brute force coverage. Extreme speed = low speaks

2. I place a strong emphasis on warranting. Implications:

-- If you and your opponent disagree on something, I prioritize your comparisons in this order: 1. Warrant comparison 2. Warranted evidence comparison 3. Evidence comparison that is just: “dates”

-- If an arg is not warranted and your opponent mentions this, I won’t let you bring in new warranting. Don’t go for something that wasn’t warranted in case and expect me to vote off it. Only exception is commonly intuitive statements

Notes on the flow

--Theory/K's/progressive args: I consider them a barrier to entry in PF and probably won't vote on them. 99% odds I won’t buy theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, paraphrasing, etc. If you do it in combination with extreme speed, consider it an auto-drop. If it's something you're genuinely concerned about, you impact it convincingly, and you make it accessible, you can give it a try. I seriously and strongly recommend against it, but you can

--I’m not super picky about extensions (e.g. if you extend a paraphrased version of your impact in summary and one specific impact card in FF, that’s fine). But ofc any argument in FF should be in summary

--1st FF can extend defense from rebuttal if it isn’t frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. But I’d still recommend extending a couple of your favorite responses in summary

--2nd rebuttal doesn’t need to frontline their voters, though it must frontline major turns/ offensive overviews

--2nd rebuttal shouldn’t go overboard with disads; > 1 minute on them is too much. If a ton of your speech is disads and it feels abusive I may drop you. Even if I don’t, the speaks will suffer and I’ll allow blippier responses in 1st summary

--if there’s no offense in the round that I can see, I default first speaking team. (I realize this is unusual, I personally think it's fairer)

Please be kind to each other. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me at beginning of round. Good luck!

I only flow final focus--it's impacts or bust for daddy Villani. Please give me food, it will lead not only to higher speaks but to a greater chance that I'll flow your speeches. ,

IF YOU'RE READING THIS BRING ME GOGO SQUEEZ

>>>Click here for good luck<<<

Hey Public Forum,

Debater background: I debated for my final three years in high school and I have done research on the current topic a while back.

1. Build me a narrative starting in rebuttal! Start as early as possible and outline my ballot for me.

2. Weigh. Weigh! Weigh; Weigh: WEIGH :')

3. Speed is no problemo but the faster you go, the more incoherent your responses will become... 101% GUARANTEED.

4. The worse an argument is, the lower my threshold is for responses.

Overall, remember to comparatively weigh meaning pretend for a moment that both you and your opponent gain access to your respective arguments and tell me why your impacts still matter a trillion times more.

+1 Speaker points for obscure GoT references but no spoilers for gosh sake

+.50 Speaker points per 2 mainstream vine references (only in cross)

+.50 Speaker Points for declaring whether you're team Tati or team James. {team Edward or team Jacob are acceptable answers }

****You can earn up to one extra speaker point total