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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Hello,

I have over 7 years of debate experience as a competitor and private tutor. My experience includes DX, Oratory, Policy, PF, Congress, and LD. I have multiple state and national qualifications, and competed in the competitive Houston circuit. In addition, I am an award-winning speaker.

Debate is cool, but to me public speaking is king. Therefore, I care about your speaking. Good fluency will give you good speaker points. In terms of winning the actual debate, I want your arguments to be easy to understand. I can understand complex debate as a hired judge, but you will not always be able to have former debaters hear you argue. You will win by proving to me that your case has a bigger impact than your opponents. Show me the numbers and show me the facts. Prove to me that your side of the case is better. Also, solvency is a big factor in my decisions.

This all holds true whether I am judging you in congress, LD, PF, or policy. In addition, I am a pretty friendly guy and hate to see debates get heated. I need both sides to remain cordial with each other, I will dock speaker points if you are being rude to your opponents. Debate is won on arguments, not intimidation.

Good luck and feel free to ask me any questions!

Hypothesis Tester.

I debated for Churchill for two years, competing in PF and extemp. I vote based on the persuasiveness of your argument- that is to say, I prefer the technicality of the debate and who answered and won arguments over the truth of the arguments. I think PF should be judged based on persuasiveness and your ability to convince me of your arguments. I value arguments that are well-composed and can hold their own during clash.

I prefer direct argumentation during crossfire. Address your opponents points and show me why yours are better. During crossfire, please be polite. I dock points for rudeness, condescension, and aggressiveness. Blatant sexism, racism, etc. will not be tolerated. Remember that the debate also consists of your body language and how you compose yourself.

I understand that you have many things to say and points to address, but please do not spread. I haven’t debated in a while and I prefer you clearly articulate your arguments, especially tags. Especially in the final focus and summary, pick the arguments that are the most strong and be concise in telling me why they are better than your opponent’s and why I should vote for you.

I was a PF debater and I have no experience in CX or LD. I was taught pretty traditionally in terms of PF and that is how I judge. I was never taught things such as kritiks or theories, so please do not use them in your arguments.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Boyd%2C+Megan

For email chains and/or any questions: mvboyd@sbcglobal.net

Public Forum

I am open to both traditional and progressive styles. My only preference is that you debate the style that is most comfortable for you.

Framing: Please give me lens through which to view the round. If you don't give me any framing, I'm either going to vote based off your opponent's framing, or worst case scenario something completely arbitrary. It's incredibly difficult to judge a debate with two entirely different impacts and zero weighing mechanism. Please, please, please don't waste your time reading me definitions for literally every single word in the resolution.

Theory: This is public forum, I truly believe you have no time to read incredibly progressive and complex arguments here. If you want to, I will listen. However, keep in mind I am now four years out and have not kept up with the literature. With that being said, basic arguments relating to topicality, reasonability, and competing interps are always welcome.

CP/K/Aff Advocacy: Sure. I personally think the time constraints of PF make it hard to do any of these things, but that doesn't mean you can't pull it off in an abbreviated sense.

Flow: Now for what you all really came here for, I do not expect the second speaking team to extend offense in the first rebuttal. If you have time to extend offense, more power to you. I understand that four minutes is an incredibly short amount of time to attack your opponent's case then literally defend against all their attacks. This was literally never an issue when I debated and don't know who decided the second speaking team has to work twice as hard to win the round. If you actually want to waste your breath calling out your opponent in your two minute speech for not extending offense I will literally sit there and stare at you until you actually say something worthwhile. Your summary is your second, and final rebuttal. I expect you to take 1 or 2 (3 if you're fast) of the round's biggest arguments at this point. The final focus is not meant for line by line debate. At this point, hand me clear voters and call it a day.

Speed: Chances are if you are spreading in PF you're literally just doing it for clout points you won't get. Mind you, I'm not saying you cannot speak fast. I understand how short four minutes is to get through a lot of information. Speak as fast as you'd like, but I will tell you to stop if I nobody can discern a word you're saying.

Speaker Points: I don't hand out 29s or 30s. If you're looking for presentation points, I suggest you go ahead and strike me right now. If you have a pretty voice, but terrible argumentation skills I'm not your girl. A 29 from me is rare, but very possible. My range is generally 27.25-29.25. I don't tolerate racism, sexism, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, the list goes on. I will dock your speaks for those issues. If your opponent calls you out, you might even lose the round. If it's utterly abhorrent I will stop the round.

Lastly, I will not do any work for you. I'm not here to babysit you, or connect any dots that you may have missed. It is your job, and your job alone, to tell me why I should vote for you.

I am an English teacher and former IE competitor.

While judging, I focus on rhetoric and your ability to effectively persuade.

I appreciate being able to understand your arguments, so spreading and speeding are discouraged.

My pronouns are they/them/theirs. Please do not call me ma’am. I know it's a southern respect thing but it's icky to me. If you need a title for me, I unironically like being called judge, Judge Contreras is fine, just Contreras works too. My students call me Coach, and that's also fine. Teens, please don't call me El (that's one southernism I stand by!)

Affiliations:

Head Coach and social studies teacher at L.C. Anderson High School in Austin, TX since 2022.

San Marcos High School- I competed all four years in high school, I did extemp, congress, and UIL Policy.

Speech people!!!!

I will not rank a triggering performance first. I just won’t do that. There’s no need for you to vividly reenact violence and suffering at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning (or like, ever). Triggering performances without trigger warnings will have their rank reflect the performance. Use your talent to tell a story, not to exploit pain. Also, normalize giving content and trigger warnings before your performance!! Give people a chance to take care of themselves. If I'm judging your round and another competitor triggers you, you are welcome to quietly get up and walk out during their performance. I will not dock or punish you for this, your mental health is the most important. Please take care of yourself and each other!! I'm in a "you should do a different piece" mindset on this issue and if you can't reenact that narrative without exploiting suffering, something is wrong.

Debate comments (PF, LD, CX, World Schools)

Just disclose. I know LD's norm is sending 30 minutes before round, I think that's a great norm.

In PF, send case docs. Don't be secretive with your cards. Your opponents should not have to disclose a disability in order to get you to send docs. I also think sending a speech doc for rebuttal and summary is a good norm. This is not (necessarily) something I'll down you for but it could be, if you're intentionally being harmful.

I will evaluate anything as long as it's warranted and extended. I won't make arguments for you, tell me why and how you're winning. I'll vote tech over truth unless the truth overwhelms the tech. Sticky defense is so fake, extend your arguments if you want to win them. Unextended = dropped. Proper extensions, tag and cite, claim, warrant, impact!!

Both partners need to participate in grand cross. PF is a partner event! No, you can't skip grand cross. I'm listening to cross and waiting to hear the questions from cross brought into round.

Please do a www.speechdrop.net room, it is a fantastic site, and I will definitely pop in and read cards and cases if you have the speechdrop room set up. Always send case, always send speech docs. I am #notsponsored, just a fan! My email is down below.

Spell out all the abbreviations you use in round. Don’t assume I know what you’re talking about. People know what the UN is, the EU, etc, people may not know BRI, any random trade agreement, etc.

speed: You don't have to go at a conversational pace but nobody should be full-on-spreading in PF. When you're off the doc, you have to go slower. I try not to flow off the doc but I will use it as support if you're faster than I can follow. I'm not in a debate round to read off your case doc, I'm in round to hear YOU. Slow down on taglines, analytics, authors- basically anything you think is vital to my decision.

PF-specific comments:

• I'll vote on anything, not a huge fan of theory, not the best judge to evaluate theory
• i love frameworks! they should be well-developed. blippy frameworks don't win framework debates
• extensions are not just saying "Extend my contention 2", you must extend the card tag/cite and the claim, warrant, and impact! Let me hear the link chain again!!
• speaker points- these national tournaments keep giving me a rubric to use and I'm trying to apply that to all the realms I judge in. Points start at 28 and I adjust from there. Points will only be below a 27 if you did something harmful or rules/norms were horribly broken.
• PFers, please read cards with actual taglines. "furthermore", "and", are not taglines. A tag is the thesis of the card, it is the summary of the content. I've been seeing a lot of that lately- it's lazy and bad practice.

LD-specific:

• I don't judge LD often, not as comfortable with LD speeds but I'll use the doc
• I will evaluate k's, as long as they're well-developed and defended. i know theory is normative in LD and I'll do my best to evaluate it fairly and wisely. probably not the best judge for your theory debates
• consider me pretty lay, generally pretty trad. Read me a standard, read me a value, slow it down!!
• I know this event is generally more technical but again, don't assume I know what you're talking about!! spell out all your abbreviations, provide definitions (especially if you're reading a K), do your best to make the round and the space more accessible!
• pref me slightly better than a lay judge
• I come from pf so arguments such as kritiks and theory will make less sense to me butI’lltry my best to evaluate them

email- theedebatecoach@gmail.com

and

docs.anderson@gmail.com

please <3

This message is specifically for competitors in debate events; I value respect in the round. Please don’t be rude in front of me. It doesn’t make me laugh, it reminds me of uncomfortable/unpleasant rounds where my competitors were rude to me or my partner. That has no business in a debate space, please don’t bring that energy into a round. This goes double for people in privileged positions who make women and gender/racial minorities uncomfortable or unsafe in the debate space. Not only will I chew you out and tank your speaks, but I will also let your coach know about the harmful practices. it's on all of us to make the debate space inclusive and equitable.

TLDR- be nice, be kind, and be self-aware.

Congress comments:

I did congressional debate all four years I competed in high school, I really enjoyed it and love watching a good Congress round. I have a lot of respect for a strong PO and usually reward that with a higher ranking. POs that struggle with precedence, maintaining decorum, and Robert's rules of order will have that reflected in their rank.

Clash, clash, clash! Put the debate into congressional debate.

There's a line between sassy and rude. Tread it carefully.

General comments:

something that I genuinely appreciate in every event is a trigger warning before potentially triggering performances and speeches. controversially, I care about all of your experiences in a round and would like to give everyone an opportunity to opt out. If you’re a spectator or a competitor in a speech room, you deserve the opportunity to step out. If you’re competing in a debate round, you have every right to ask your competitors to read a version of their case that excludes the triggering material. As a judge, I reserve the right to step out/turn off my camera for a moment before you give your performance.

In a debate round, I’d appreciate that triggering material cut out. I don’t think intense/graphic depictions of human suffering add much to your overall case anyway, I’d rather you extend cards in that time or frontline or do anything besides exploit human suffering.

If I correct your pronunciation of a word in my ballot, it’s genuinely to educate you. It’s hard to know how to pronounce a word you’ve never heard aloud, just read (looking at you, Reuters!)

I have a degree in history, with a focus on Latin American history. Keep that in mind when discussing issues focused on Latin America. Feel free to ask me for a reading list to better understand conflicts, revolutions, and government suppression (including US intervention) in Guatemala, Argentina, Honduras, El Salvador, and more.

If you are spectating an event and are fully texting in front of me or attempting to talk to/distract a competitor, I’m going to ask you to leave. I will not warn you once, I have a zero-tolerance policy for disrespecting competitors or interfering with competition in that way.

In round what makes a great performer or speaker to me is someone that can effectively control the room as well as truly understands the meaning behind there words and the power they have. Please reach out to me if you have questions about ballots or are interested in competing on the college level of forensics. Below is are a few of my competitive accomplishments just for reference if curious.

If you get me in LD/CX I am very traditional I understand allot of the arguments but I will not have the background you are wanting for very meta things. So if you do run theory, a K or anything else you will have to do extra work in justifying it to me in round.

My ballots tend to have more critiques and or suggestions than glowing responses. I do apologize if my ballot comes off rude I do my best to not come off rude, but I like to give an in-depth ballot that you can walk away with that can be used to help develop your cases and or performance that isn't just "Great performance, tough round!".

Currently I coach the IE portion of the University of North Texas’s team. I compted at UNT for 2 years. Prior I competed at San Antonio Community college. Email: Aarondelgado@my.unt.edu

Clash please. Okay with speed. Fine with anything, just make me buy it. Please, please, do impact weighing.

I used to have a really long paradigm but honestly I don't even know if that's that helpful so here are some key things, ask me questions in round if you want to know about specifics:

- Don't be mean to each other (or me), please. Literally this is fun we should all be having fun!

- Don't just give me blippy one liners; every argument should have a clear warrant

- Please give me some kind of ballot story. I don't want to have to do any weighing or any work for y'all at the end of the round. I generally prefer final speeches to have some kind of crystalizing.

- I would prefer y'all go a little slower because I haven't been judging a ton since COVID started. However, you don't have to be at like, a conversational pace. Just slow down on taglines. Also, if we're doing email chains, speed isn't as much of a problem for cases.

- For LD, I'm generally a better K judge than a techy policy judge. I love critical theory; I read a bunch of it. I'm writing my senior thesis about queer/disabled utopian thought and its relationship to HIV/AIDS.

- For PF, I'm open to whatever fun experimental, progressive args you want to run. I don't think the event needs to stick to some model of what "correct" PF looks like--read Ks, theory, do performances, etc, have fun with it.

For email chains: glasscockbrett@gmail.com

I'll flow but it has been a while since I debated so keep that in mind.

I debated PF until I graduated in 2017. I am cool with any arguments however you need to really explain K's and Theory to me for me to vote on it (only because I don't remember how they operate not because I have anything against them).

FAQ:

Defense is sticky

Offense needs to be in every speech including floating offense like turns

2nd rebuttal does not need to defend

I'm good with speed but on this zoom platform it can be hard to hear so keep that in mind

Speaker points: I know some people ask how to get high speaks so I'll throw this in here. I base my speaks on strategy. If you come in with a plan on how you want to win the round and execute that plan I'll reward you.

I know this does not cover everything so ask me anything you want.

About Me:

Private Coach (2018-Current)

Klein HS Competitor [TFA, NSDA, TOC; Congress, Extemp, OO/Info, PF] (2014-2018)

Meme (1999-Current)

Paradigms:

I've attached the links below to my paradigms. Don't be afraid to ask me anything if you have any questions before the round begins, I won't bite unless I don't get my fix of coffee/green tea.

Public Forum Debate Paradigm

Congressional Debate Paradigm

World Schools Debate Paradigm

Lincoln Douglas / Cross Examination (Policy) Paradigm (If you have to read this then I'm VERY sorry. tl;dr default to my PF paradigm & ask before the round starts for specifics, i'm pretty amenable)

Brownie Points:

Now if you really do want brownie points from me, here's my Starbucks order:

Venti Blonde French Vanilla Latte w/ Toffee Nut & Whipped Cream
- OR -
Venti Hot Green Tea Latte w/ Whipped Cream

If I'm hangry, some salmon nigiri or a nice triple cheeseburger would calm me down. Even more bonus points for the stack shack from shake shack.

My pronouns are she/her.

Email: olivia.hardage3@gmail.com

I did PF at Westlake and I currently coach there.

You only need to extend defense in first summary if it has been frontlined otherwise, it sticks.

I think 2nd rebuttal needs to at least frontline offense and preferably defense as well. I won't automatically down you if you don't do this but I prefer it and I think it's more strategic.

If you want to concede a de-link to kick out of a turn you can't just say that phrase, you need to explain why the particular arguments allow you to do that. If you only say "we concede the de-link so we kick out of the turn" and move on and your opponent extends the turn, I will grant them the turn.

I will vote on the least mitigated link chain leading to the most weighed impact. I will vote for a team with a fleshed-out link chain and a poorly extended impact over a team that does the opposite.

I give speaks mainly based on presentation or if I think a team should be in out rounds. However, if you want a 30 from me focus on speaking clearly and having good round etiquette.

I'll evaluate any arguments like theory/Ks but I don't have pervasive knowledge of how they traditionally function in rounds so make sure everything is explained thoroughly.

I'm good with speed to an extent, anything getting close to spreading I probably can't follow.

The most important thing in debate is weighing! If you don't weigh, I am forced to decide what I think is the most important argument.

If you want more specifics, feel free to ask me questions!

Hey, I'm Callum and I'm a freshman at UT Austin. I competed all four years of high school at Anderson High School in Austin. I qualified to the TOC my senior year, went to the state tournament my final 3 years of high school, and have significant out round experience at some big tournaments.

In high school I would say I debated pretty flow so I have a tendency to prefer these kinds of debates / debaters. This doesn't mean, however, that I want you to make super progressive arguments in PF. For a public forum debater I would say I have a decent knowledge of these arguments but I DO NOT want you to make them in round. If the other team is being abusive in round just give a reasonable explanation of how they are doing so and that will suffice.

You don't need to respond to the first rebuttal in the second rebuttal.

You don't need to extend defense in first summary.

With that being said, presentation is still very important to me so make sure you emphasize that. Don't go fast if you can't speak clear. Try your hardest to be a good speaker because that is really important!

Pronouns: she/her/hers

My background is not in PF but I have spent the last year and a half judging those events so I am fairly familiar with them but by no means an expert. I'm down for most things as long as you fully explain what you're doing and why. Make your argument easy to follow. Your arg should be compelling and maintain the heart of the resolution. If you're creative and know what you're talking about, by all means, run it.

Presentation/speed: If you're going to use speed and jargon please slow down for taglines and provide summaries for your cards after you read them. Racism, sexism, ableism, antisemitism, islamophobia, homophobia, classism, etc, will get you docked in speaks. Period. ALWAYS signpost, I want to be able to follow the structure of your arguments accurately. If you're reading super nuanced theory I ask that you please slow down, I've been out of the game for a while.

how I vote: (pragmatic) impact calculus and clash. hit all of their points and show me how yours are better.

If y'all are doing email chains please add me vhenrett@trinity.edu

Please feel free to ask more specific questions before the round.

I am a lay judge. Do not speak fast: I vote on quality of evidence and persuasion.

4 year PF debater. Public forum is a separate event from CX and LD for a reason. Any arguments you make should be explained clearly enough that almost anyone could judge the round. If you speak too fast, I'll tell you. Public speaking skills are a major part of this event, so if you aren't convincing, you won't get my ballot.

I competed for three years on the local Illinois circuit as well as the national circuit attending tournaments such as Blake, Dowling, Harvard, etc. I was a public forum debater. I have no problem with either a more technical style or a more lay-oriented style. However, I vote mostly on arguments as opposed to speaking ability, I believe that is what speaker points are for. If an argument is dropped then I will regard as true if a team makes this clear. I will try my best to keep my own personal biases out of the debate round and try to judge based solely on what happens in round. That said, I do have a few things I will not tolerate, namely any argument that is racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, or in any way oppressive. I will vote down a team for making such an argument. Other than those, I don't really have any strong preferences. Please feel free to ask questions!

Public Forum:

I know how debate works and have watched numerous PF debate rounds. That being said, although I will flow and can follow the arguments on it, treat me as a lay judge. I value clash, warrants, and clearly extended impacts. Please do the weighing for me and tell me why to value your impacts over your opponents. I also don't evaluate cross, bring it in speech if it is that important. I default to a cross benefit analysis unless another framework is provided in the round. Please do not run progressive arguments, I will not evaluate them. I do not think they belong in PF.

Speaker Points:

Do not worry about speaker points, everyone will do fine. Just speak well and don't say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I also appreciate humor and sarcasm when used appropriately in cross.

Background:

HS competitor at Van High School (TX) from 2010-2014

Attended The University of Texas at Tyler, BA in communication and political science

College competitor (Parli) 2015-2018

Director of Forensics at Lake Travis HS (2018-2019)

Current MA student in communication (UTT)

Assistant Coach at The University of Texas at Tyler (2019-Present)

.

Judging philosophy

TLDR: Be nice and debate the way you feel most comfortable.

If I am not on an email chain PLEASE repeat all important texts (alt, ROB, interpretations, etc.). I want to have them on my flow word for word.

I don't really care what style the debate round takes as long as there are warranted arguments. I want you to weigh arguments for me at the end of the round. I base speaker points mainly on the arguments made in the round rather than actual speaking style bc speaks are ableist, sexist, racist, etc.. Be kind to each other in rounds. The easiest way to get bad speaker points from me is to be rude in CX, make ad hominem attacks, or be offensive. I can keep up with most speed and I am fine with it. I will clear/loud/slow you twice before I stop flowing. Off case in LD is cool with me but if your opponent is running a more "traditional" case don't assume you just win - their args are still valid and will very much be weighed.

T/framework: I don't like voting on unnecessary theory, show me proven abuse. I have a pretty high threshold here. Also, args that theory is problematic are totally valid, make them if they are applicable to the situation.

CP ground: CPs are fine, advantage CPs are my fav. PICs are probably cheating? I don't know, this is probably an instance where a super tight theory debate would persuade me but obviously I'll still flow it and vote there if I need to.

DAs:

Don't assume I will fill in the blanks for you on the typical impact scenarios, you still need to explain it. We have all heard that extinction scenario a million times so one more won't hurt. Make sure the link story makes sense and isn't super far fetched, I'm a sucker for probability.

Ks:

Cool, love them, but don't assume I know every phil argument ever. Be prepared to thoroughly explain it to me and your opponent. If you are unwilling or unable to answer questions about it in cross then I will probably grant your opponents quite a bit of wiggle room here. Ks without an alt operate as a DA in my mind, don't be afraid to kick the alt if that's the right strat. I hate generic links. I also hate generic alts - don't just "alt- reject".

Performance:

I was primarily a performance/ID politics debater in college so I am here for this, speak your truth. Remember to tell me why the ballot is important to you.

Parli specific:

I don't know if this is considered old fashioned now or whatever but first and last minute of the speech is protected time - let her speak!

All points of order should be assumed under consideration. Please don't just sit there and argue. Make the point and the response and move on, I promise I'm flowing.

If you have time to write me a copy of important texts that would be super. If not, repeat them slowly please.

.

Feel free to ask questions before the round. I disclose when I can but not every tournament is cool with that/I respect the schedule.

Argumentation:

In all honesty, I'm a pretty traditional judge. I love to hear evidence that is empirical and quantifiable. I also like to see competitors who are genuinely debating, not just being an advocate for some author and reading evidence the whole round. I want to know why you're making the world a better place. I mainly vote on impacts.

Presentation:

I understand you have to speak faster than normal to get through your case, but please, don't spread. I also love to see competitors who are impassioned and genuinely look like they care about what they're debating. Also, remember that presentation is something that includes body language, facial expressions, gestures, etc.

A note on PF:

The way that I was taught, PF at its core is in its name, public forum. Which means it's an event that is accessible to everyone. This is not LD & CX so any plans won't be flowed.

I debated LD for Winston Churchill HS in San Antonio for 3 years with two state quals. I was a traditionalist in my approach to LD, although I experimented with policy argumentation. I have estranged myself from the world of debate since graduation so i am not 100% the debater I once was (which wasn't a whole lot tbh :P) so best bet is to assume you are better than I am and make your arguments simple to digest.

If you want good speaks, do/don't do this:

-Speak with clarity and articulation. (i can handle speed if you aren't mumbling, gasping, or just generally hard to understand)

- Be non-confrontational toward your opponent. (Basically don't be a sarcastic ass)

- Logical argument progression with good signposting, i don't want to have to flip back and forth flows or have to guess where you want me to flow your arguments.

- Don't extend arguments in diminutive, insignificant blips. Explain how or why your argument addresses your opponent's, because if I don't understand what the connection is, you might as well have just skipped the argument and saved the time.

- Don't make your strat an obvious attempt to gimp your opponent (EX: don't run multiple policy arguments agains every AFF just because you think they are edgy and hard to understand)

Things That I Will Straight Up Ask You To Stop Speaking And Then Drop You For:
-Sexism, racism, homophobia, and any general offensive comments or behavior
-Impact turning oppression arguments (I will never vote on oppression good. Sorry not sorry.)
-Doing anything explicit that makes your opponent, myself, or anyone else in the room feel unsafe

Theory/T:

- Not my favorite kind of round to arbitrate to be perfectly honest. Frivolous theory is among my greatest pet peeves. This is not to say that you can not run theory in front of me, especially if you and I notice obvious abuse from the opposing debater, but keep it relevant to the round and try not to just drop all substantive topic focused debate on a dime because theory was introduced.

Final note: If you consider yourself a skilled debater, or your strategy for debating is one that appeals to more complex rounds, air on the side of caution, and if it helps, treat me like a lay judge. Lets all remember that this is an activity that we engage in (hopefully) for enjoyment and enrichment, so don't debate like you have a chip on your shoulder. Relax and have FUN!

I am a parent but have judged at multiple tournaments.

My background: Bachelors in economics from Rice and Masters in public policy from Harvard.

I make my decisions based on the weight of the impacts and a clear narrative. I expect you to come back to your own case in second rebuttal.

Speaks:

-speak clearly and not too fast

-weighing impacts

-getting heated in cross is normal, but avoid outright rudeness

I think that public forum is, at its core, the melding of sound argumentation and solid speaking. You should present not only well-structured, rational, strongly warranted arguments, but you should also do so in a way that can be relatable to whomever is in the back of the round.

That being said, I don't mind some speed - but be sure you are articulate and clear, especially with tags and authors. Sacrificing quality for quantity is a poor choice if you cannot handle (or your judge cannot handle) the speed. Make wise choices.

In terms of 'atypical' arguments. I think that it is very hard to run a K argument well in PF. I don't believe that it cannot be done, just that it is very rare. If you are running theory, then you better have extremely solid warrants and you should have it explained to the level of access of understanding fitting to this style of debate. DO NOT just read cards that you got from your Policy friends/teammates and call it a day. ALSO...YOUR ADVOCACY SHOULD MATCH YOUR ACTIONS. Do NOT use theory arguments as a cheap tool to surprise unwitting opponents and get the ballot when you have engaged in no actions that match the advocacy of your theory arguments. If you are running disclosure theory, there better be a history of you disclosing at EVERY round and you engaged in multiple forums, workshops, discussion boards where you are ACTIVELY engaged in increasing disclosure in a way that promotes education and fairness. If you get up and read disclosure in front of me and do not have this, it will be an automatic loss. I am not joking.

I think that framework is a solid strategy - if there is a purpose. Frequently teams have f/w just to have it and then don't touch it for the rest of the round. If it is there, then you should extend.

On the issue of extensions, be sure that your arguments are carried through the debate. Do not read at the beginning and then bring back up in the final focus and expect me to grant them to you.

Finally, there should be a clear advocacy in the round - and a clash between teams. I hate debates that are like ships passing in the night - no clash.

Earl Warren High School '17

Norwich University '21

Email: nicolenavarro38@gmail.com

Debated for Earl Warren High School,competing in Extemporaneous Speaking, Original Oratory and Congressional Debate at both the local and state level.

Currently debate on the collegiate level in the New England region!

- I prefer that you read and speak at a conversational pace. Some speed is okay however, I can only evaluate the arguments that I am able to understand and flow.

- When it comes to evidence I don't have any preference just make sure it comes from a qualified source .

- Using evidence and examples and real-world applications help your argument sound more cohesive.

-Use jargon at your own risk.

-I am open to critical arguments however, I want them to be presented in a clear and straightforward manner with minimal jargon.

- When addressing your opponents abusive practices I prefer you do it in a straightforward manner rather than in theory or shell format.

- Speaker points are given based on clear arguments that I can understand and any sort of speech impediments won't factor in my evaluation of speaker points.

-Take advantage of this Debate activity have fun and be creative!

-If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Make everything clear

I do flow :-)

Traditional/Framework oriented. Carry contentions throughout the flow, and make sure to address this in the final speech. Okay with fast speech but make sure its clear to understand what you are saying.

I am an experienced coach and judge. I have competed, coached and judged in all areas of speech & debate.

I am a 'tabula rasa' judge, which for me means that I will listen to any reasonable argument. I am always interested in hearing creative approaches to any resolution. However, I fully support the format, style and philosophy of each debate and speech event.

I am not adverse to rapid speaking, because debate time is limited. BUT I will not condone 'spreading' as a tactic. If you insist you win because the opponent did not address all of your issues, I may or may not accept your premise.

Evidence is primary to any good argument. You should be able to coherently present your evidence with citation in every instance. Referencing 'cards' in a case is ambiguous, since I will not have your case in front of me.

In all Cross Ex portions, LISTEN to your opponent. Address their concerns and their rationale for opposing you. Be civil and understand they have as much a right to be here as you do.

I will not make your case for you. I may be very familiar with the resolution, strategy and line of reasoning you are using, but I will not assume you even know what you are talking about. You have to know your case and be able to defend it.

In Congress, competitors must listen to the line of argument and offer unique and relevant arguments. Repeating points or delivering a prepared speech that does not advance the debate is poor practice and means you do not know the bill. Logic and analysis are fine, but a warrantless argument will not have a very big impact.

I do not rank POs particularly high. A competent PO will score near the middle of a typical Congress round.

In Extemp, I want to learn new things, hear unique ideas and understand my world better.

In LD, I am neither a traditionalist or progressive; I want to hear a values-based argument founded on a good philosophical framework. Values are precursors to behaviors, so there is no solving of problems or plans of action.

please include on email chain srthomas@alumni.berklee.edu

I did not competitively debate during my scholastic career, but have participated in moot courts and have been part of deliberative bodies.

I have strong background in history and Political science as well as many of the modern political theories and philosophies.

That said I put value on logical reasoning and command of your argument above all else. Quality if your argument over quantity of arguments or points made. Speak clearly and try to keep jargon to a minimum.

I value those whose arguments are well composed and logically structured and can control clash.

Caution on K, it has a place but not in some events. I look quite dimly at Ks in LD that fail to link to the resolution.

Also be nice, if you try to intimidate or otherwise game opponents I will take a dim view on it . Be courteous, and don't try to steal prep, I will not look favorably on that. Be ready to act or announce prep as soon previous speaker ends or cross is complete.

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters take on very complex ideas/arguments in PF and the time limits for that event make it very difficult for debaters to fully explain these complex ideas.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pronouns: he/him

Email is wwatson.debate@gmail.com

I hate paraphrasing and believe it is the cause of bad debate.

World schools peeps- speak with passion and give a clear delivery. Order/signposting is your friend.

No matter what event you are in I expect disclosure once you break a case... if you read disclosure theory I want your case on the wiki even if this is first time breaking

I vote on an offense defense paradigm for the most part- I am a past PF/CX debater from Colleyville Heritage. My first two years I did CX so I will most likely default to stock issues unless someone reads a framework. I enjoy weighing. The easiest way to get my ballot in any event is to pick one argument then weigh it against your opponent's arguments. If you pick one or two arguments to go for in final focus or the rebuttals in policy, I am likely to vote for you, especially if your opponent decides to go for everything.

Recent update- weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh.weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. Literally, start your rebuttal with "regardless of responses, our case outweighs their case because ______"

Also- please please please please please tell me the why. Explain why things happen.

Theory/topicality

I hate theory/topicality being read as a time-suck. I will default to reasonability so if you read T be sure to give me a reason not to. Unfair observations and burdens will most likely get you low speaks, especially if I feel that you are trying to win in a cheap way. Run these at your own risk...

Speaker Points

I will go on a scale between 27-30, with a 28 being average. High Speaks are given to people who keep track of time, speak well, show up early, and are relatively nice. I am cool with sarcasm when appropriate, just don't be rude. Being early to round will get you higher speaks. If I am on a panel with a parent and you have to adapt to them I will understand.

Event Specific

Policy Specific/LD: Flashing doesn't count as prep, I'm down for reasonable theory, and open CX is fine. If you give me a speech doc and then spread through it tell me where to mark the card and which ones to skip. Slow down on taglines and anything else you want me to flow...

PF Specific: I want the second speaking team to try to answer the first rebuttal. New in the 2 gets lower speaks instantly for both partners AND I won't vote on it. If you want high speaks be clear, weigh, and have the FF mirror the summary.

Remember this is a game and y'all want to do this. Act accordingly. BTW I will yell clear!!!

hi, i am cassie (they/she).

background: i competed for four years at Claudia Taylor Johnson HS in San Antonio (c/o 2017). my primary events were congress and extemp, but i competed in world schools debate at the national level in my junior and senior years. i currently am a sociology, rhetoric & writing, and lgbtq studies student at UT Austin, and i while i primarily judge congress, extemp, and pf, i particularly love judging WSD because of how unique the event is.

argumentation: another unique thing about WSD is the way it's firmly grounded in a practical worldview; therefore, arguments should be based in reality. you are fighting on behalf of your respective worlds, so the debate should rest in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. that being said, i like progressivism + theory if it's compelling and still maintains the heart of the resolution (i.e. no squirreling the motion). like, if you're creative and know what you're talking about, by all means, run it.

presentation/speed: please keep all jargon within the realm of WSD terms (i.e. proposition, opposition, motion, etc.). my favorite part of WSD is the dynamic of the team, and i think the best rounds consist of teams that are cohesive and support each other. please watch your speed; this event is more of a battle of logics than anything else so there isn't any real reason for spreading. if for nothing else, please slow down for taglines and ALWAYS signpost, i want to be able to follow the structure of your arguments accurately. if you're reading super nuanced theory i ask that you please slow down, i've been out of the game for a while (if this is even a thing in WSD, it wasn't when i competed). bigotry or nastiness of any kind will get you docked; this is a learning environment, so act like it.

how I vote: (pragmatic) impact calculus and clash-- WSD is an event of practicality, after all. show me which of your worlds is more likely and/or better, and how it will be actualized in a big-picture way.

thanks and good luck :)

I'm a lay judge and a mother to a second year public forum debater.

I have basic knowledge on how rounds work. I have judged before, but not often.

I will flow but only because my son taught me how, treat me like a lay judge still. I flow to help understand where the arguments are and which responses work with each argument. With that in mind, please signpost (onto their first argument about ...) or I won't know what you are responding to. Read reasonably slow, it allows me to understand the arguments and increases the chance of me voting for it. It also allows me to understand each response better.

Time yourselves. I don't take into account cross fire. Don't treat me like a moron, but I have general knowledge on the topic. Even so, you arguments need to be cohesive and explained to me clearly. If you 'drop' and argument that's fine, at some points it would be easier so the round is cleaner.

You will win if by the end of the round I understand your argument, you have told me why to vote for you, and why your responses make it so I cannot vote for your opponents.