I’m a Junior at Nueva and a fairly experienced PF debater.

I’ve debated for about a year and a half. The tl;dr is: I should be an average tech judge (my skill as a judge is up to you though, since I don’t think I can evaluate my own judging skill), but please make sure you collapse, engage with warrants, and weigh.

On Ks or theory: I’m a PF debater so I have little experience with these arguments. I don’t know how to properly evaluate them, so I’m inclined not to vote for it unless it is really clear. If you’re reading these arguments, treat me like a lay judge.

Also, have fun! There’s no point in doing debate if you don’t enjoy it, so have fun, and if there’s anything I can do to make you more comfortable or anything please let me know.

If you want like detailed information about my expectations for the debate, I’ve included this below. (To be honest, all this says is “debate,” but like in case you want it here it is).

1. Extend links and impacts. Teams often don’t extend their impacts or the links into their impacts in summary or final focus. If you want me to evaluate an argument, you need to extend all the relevant parts of it in BOTH summary AND final focus.
2. Warrant everything. I would rather hear well founded, logical points than “our card says that xyz happens” without providing any reason as to why that happens. Warrants are more important than card names
3. Be consistent with Summary and Final Focus. I talked about this earlier, but if you want me to evaluate an offensive argument, you need to talk about it in both Summary and Final Focus. I don’t mind if you drop something between summary and final focus, but everything in final focus should be in summary.
4. Collapse. If you’re trying to extend a 4 minute case and a 4 minute rebuttal into a 2 minute summary or final focus, you’re going to be incomprehensible. Pick and chose the most important offensive and defensive arguments and only talk about those in late speeches.
5. Engage with warrants. If someone reads defense to your case and you respond with “but we have evidence that says so,” I’m going to extend their defense. Your opponent must provide warrants for everything they read, so engage with the warrant and provide some logical reason why your argument is still true. You can use your evidence for this, but you don’t have to (depending on the circumstance; you can’t assert facts without evidence), and you have to go further than saying “our evidence says so.”
6. Weigh. Tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents, Chances are your opponents will have some offense left by the end of the round, so tell me why your impacts are bigger, more likely, or more important in some way.
7. Signpost. When you’re in rebuttal and beyond, always tell me what response or part of your opponent’s case that you’re responding to, so I know what you’re talking about and don’t get confused.
8. Don’t say “can’t quantify.” My biggest pet peeve in debate is the idea that “my opponents can’t give you a number for how big their impact is, so it isn’t true.” Any response related to “they can’t quantify” I will ignore completely. Give a substantive response as to why your impacts are more important.
9. Speech Specific. I don’t expect frontlining in second rebuttal or extending defense in first summary. Unresponded to defense is the one thing that can go straight from rebuttal to final focus.
10. Don’t be rude. I dislike people who are rude and I’ll give low speaks to any debater who is really rude. Additionally, if you make any sort of problematic argument (sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.), I’ll ignore it. As long as you respect your opponents, you should be fine.

Edit for SFSU: Since it seems like there's a lot of confusion on this point, I'm going to clarify it really quick. When I mean I don't like "can't quantify," all I mean is that I think that it's unsuitable as a weighing mechanism.

Like to stay in the current state of affairs and like public forum debates given the relevance. Been judging PF style debates for over a year across several tournaments

School Affiliations: DVHS

I’ve been judging various different Speech and Debate events for about 4 years.

“What you say” is as important as “how you say it”. I award points based on arguments you make to support your points, logical flow and clarity of your speech, as well as how you deliver it.

What influences my decision making at the end of the debate is: Logical reasoning, clarity of speech, effective delivery, overall being civil and not being rude.

I take notes for each speaker/team, keeping track of the main arguments and more importantly what I liked in the speech vs areas of improvement. I don’t look for random facts here and there. Rather, I look for strong evidence that supports your arguments and adds to your points.

Effective cross examination for me means bringing out valid points to challenge the other team and not being rude or overly aggressive.

Make sure your arguments and evidence is true, but use your debate skills to put those points across in a way that can influence the audience/judge.

Hi there! I debated PF for Harker for 4 years and currently am a junior at Columbia.

1) I'd prefer if you speak slowly, but I'm ok with some speed if you enunciate well. That said, spreading in PF decreases the format's accessibility to lay judges and novice debaters in my opinion.

2) Please understand (or at least make me think you understand) your warrants. I will almost never call for evidence unless there's blatant abuse/misuse of it; it's your responsibility to effectively weigh your warrants.

3) I don't flow cross-x, but I'll listen to it (and hopefully be entertained).

4) Signpost! Tell me where you are going down the flow.

5) I have a very rudimentary understanding of theory, but if you run it you must be explicit in how I should evaluate it.

6) Weigh your arguments in summary/FF (heck, you can even start in rebuttal sometimes). Don't just repeat the warrants of offensive arguments; tell me why your arguments (or their warrants/link-chains) outweigh the opponents' on timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc. In final focus, extend necessary defense and give me your offensive voters/weigh them.

Have fun, and feel free to ask me any questions you have before/after round!

Hey Everyone,

I debated on the nat circuit in Public Forum for three years at College Preparatory School.

Qualified to Silver TOC 3 times.

I'm not opposed to you running any sort of theory, but I don't have much experience with it so make sure you explain well.

Be respectful to each other please.

Please weigh your impacts, it makes my job so much easier.

If you have any more specific questions, feel free to ask before the round!

Senior Executive at Payments & Blockchain startup in Santa Clara.

As a parent judge, have been judging Congress and Public Forum for last few years.

Few pointers for teams:

Do not portray anger during cross-fire; act professionally.

Macro facts are very important but personal experience or arguments at micro level enhances you claim.

Lastly make sure you shake hands with your opponents at the end of the round.

update for toc: i haven't done much research on the topic, so please don't use assume I know anything.

harker 20 ->wellesley 24 and did pf in hs

set up an email chain before round and add me: amandakcheung@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

Voting:

- everything extended in final focus must be in summary

- weigh impacts: i don't want to do the work for you cuz it probably won't work out in your favor

- tech > truth

- COLLAPSE!!! (if u don't collapse starting in second summary (though preferably you start first summary), i give you a max of 28 speaks)

- implicate turns

- if you read something progressive, tell me the role it should play in my ballot (if its like Theory or a K explain it really clearly and expect me to evaluate it as a parent judge would)

- if its like disclosure theory and your opponents seem confused/ don't know how to debate it, i think its extremely uneducational for the round and will not vote for it/ drop u

General Preferences:

- i will give u < 25 if you are condescending, rude, or making the round unsafe (misgendering anyone's pronouns, being sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist etc)

- speak as fast as you want as long as you're clear (i will stop flowing if you are too unclear). if you think you might be too fast or unclear (zoom quality etc) send a speech doc before your speech or ill just go off of whatever i could understand which will probably hurt you

- second rebuttal should frontline defense from the argument(s) that you are collapsing on and all offense

- second flight should preflow before the round

- ill give u up to a minute to look for evidence (more flexible if there's a lot called) and after that, it comes out of ur prep. also please send CUT CARDS not paraphrases or links to articles

- if you read a TW, please provide an anonymous out (google form etc) for your opponents and anyone in the room. if you don't do this, i will say that i feel uncomfortable regardless of the argument and make you read something else.

most importantly, debate's a safe space; if there's anything i can do to make the round more accessible, pls lmk!!

feel free to pm me with any questions u have on fb or amandakcheung@gmail.com

4 Year PF debater for College Prep. Freshman at Emory University.

• I'm flow, I can take some speed but would prefer if you went at flay speed.
• Jargon is fine, especially when weighing.
• Please extend, terminalize, warrant, and weigh arguments. If you sign-post while doing so, even better.
• All evidence must be warranted, if it's not and the other team points that out, I won't consider it.
• You can frontline or not frontline in 2nd rebuttal, just extend defense the speech after its frontlined.
• Extending through ink is an easy way to have an argument dropped.
• If you want to run theory or a K you better have a good reason, outside of just winning the debate.
• I will call for evidence if you tell me to in a speech. If you misconstrued evidence, I won't consider it in the round. If you repeatedly lie about your evidence, I may drop you.
• In the end, I'm going to vote off of summary and final focus, rebuttal and constructive just exist to set up these speeches. If something is in your FF and you expect me to vote off it, it has to be in summary.

I have 5 years of debate experience. I did two years of policy and two years of public forum, and I now do British parliamentary at the University of Laverne. If you make me laugh or smile, I'll be more willing to give you better speaks, but don't fish for votes, make it natural.

I'm good with speed

If you're debating policy try to have some original thoughts, I think the activity becomes boring when all you do is read other people's stuff.

If you have any questions, my email is: colin.coppock@laverne.edu

3 Year PF debater for College Prep.

• Warning: My topic knowledge is limited. I have not debated the March topic, so I do not know the arguments that are being run. Please take this into account when giving your speeches, especially rounds earlier in the day as I will not have heard any of the arguments beforehand.
• I'm flow, I can take some speed but would prefer if you went at flay speed.
• Please extend, terminalize, warrant, and weigh arguments. If you sign-post while doing so, even better.
• All evidence must be warranted, if it's not and the other team points that out, I won't consider it.
• I will call for evidence if you tell me to in a speech. If you misconstrued evidence I won't consider it in the round. If you repeatedly lie about your evidence, I may drop you.
• In the end, I'm going to vote off of summary and final focus, rebuttal and constructive just exist to set up these speeches. If something is in your FF and you expect me to vote off it, it has to be in summary. In these speeches, please tell me your impacts (aka why do u win), it makes my life, and yours, easier.
• Cross is a mess. I will listen, but not flow. If there is a grand revelation during cross, mention it in the next speech and it'll be put on my flow. During cross, I will also look for composure. Remaining calm and speaking to me (the judge) and not your opponents will reflect well on you as a speaker.

PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND PLEASE

I did pf for 4 years completed on the national circuit.

Warrant every argument you make, and don’t expect your opponents/judge to take it at face value.

Weigh the round so I don’t have to, by the end of the second final focus it should be pretty clear who I am voting for because the debaters evaluated the round and condensed it for me. You don’t want to be in the position where I am left at the end of the round weighing arguments for you and putting the decision in my hands.

If you’re gonna spend 30+ seconds of your speech on framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what u gain/opponents lose. Speeches in public forum are too short for you to waste your time debating framework if winning it makes no difference on the overall decision.

Debate style: I am open to anything. If you’re going to talk fast you need to be clear and sign post properly or it will work against you. Be respectful to one another, you can be assertive and make points without being rude.

My name is Narender Enduri. I prefer candidates speaking slowly, clearly. They should respect each other during cross examination and don't take anything personal. I would like everyone to present proper evidence to back up any of their arguments, and the arguments should be logical and explained thoroughly. If you have any doubts before the round begins, feel free to ask me any questions.

I am a parent judge new to the activity.

Hi! I debated PF for ~4 years at Harker, and now I'm a student at Columbia University.

Pronouns: she/they

Email: ellenguo6@gmail.com

tldr: tech>truth but I never get enough sleep so treat me like a flay judge :))))

For online tournaments: please set up the email chain/Google Doc before the round starts, and share me on it too! My email is above.

Voting

- If it's not in both summary and final focus I won't be considering it at the end of the round.

- WEIGH. I'm lazy, so please do the weighing for me, and be strategic about it. Know when you are losing arguments and instead of just repeating the same non-responsive thing over and over again, tell me why their argument is insignificant (in the context of the round) even if they win it. If you don't weigh, I'll have to weigh for myself and it's probably not going to be in your favor (it also tends to be more truth>tech).

- COLLAPSE. If second summary (and any speeches afterward) are line-by-lines I will cry on the inside.

Technical Details

- Second rebuttal and first summary need to frontline all offense that you plan to collapse on and respond to any turns; frontlining in second summary is way too late. And by frontlining I mean that you actually need to interact with their rebuttals, not just repeat your case back at me.

- Defense is sticky through summary (if it isn't responded to), but if it's on a main voter please reiterate the defense in final focus.

- No offensive overviews in second rebuttal.

- If you're going to run a framework, make sure it actually gives you offense in the round (I don't care for net benefit or util frameworks, since that's basically the default in PF already). Also, responses to opponents' frameworks need to happen in rebuttal, or else I'm flowing them through and evaluating the round under them.

- I'm grudgingly open to theories and Ks, but I have very little experience with them so a) my threshold is rather high and b) you're going to have to explain them to me very well. As a side note, if your opponent is actually being abusive, you don't need theory to point that out.

- I don't flow or vote on anything that happens in cross, though I will listen. If you want it to be important in the debate, you need to bring it up again in a speech.

- Don't extend through ink; give me warrants not just author names.

Speaks

- Don't be rude. I am b e g g i n g you

- If you make racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, classist, xenophobic or generally bigoted/discriminatory/hateful statements, I'll drop your speaks to 25 and you'll most likely not win the round. Same goes for repeated misgendering absent apology (especially if it's pointed out).

Miscellaneous

- I will be disclosing and giving an RFD unless the tournament explicitly bans it.

- If your opponent calls for ev and you can't find it after ~2 minutes, I'm striking it.

- Speed is okay as long it's clear; if you're going to spread, email me the speech doc (ellenguo6@gmail.com). However, I've noticed that moving online has caused a vast majority of debaters to become less clear (re: audio quality, internet inconsistencies, etc.), so please err on the side of caution—go slower, or send a speech doc even if you aren't quite spreading; otherwise, I'll only flow what I hear, and it probably won't be in your favor :(

- If you're reading cases about sensitive topics, please do include a trigger warning and some forum through which someone could anonymously disclose that they don't want to engage in such a topic (Google Forms comes to mind). If you don't provide the latter, I will always ask that you read an alternative case.

- lol this is probably obsolete now because of online tournaments buT if you're flight 2 and both teams are waiting outside the room, please do the coin toss and tell me the results when you come in.

In general, if the round is fun, educational, and cooperative, that'll work out in everyone's favor :) If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask before the round!

4 year varsity debater from College Prep. Graduated in 2020.

I evaluate the flow first, tech over truth.

I can handle speed - would much rather prefer a slower, clear speech to a faster, garbled speech (esp with the online format)

Terminalize your impacts!

Weigh the debate for me so I don't have to and you don't get mad when I "do it wrong".

Everything that's in Final Focus should have been in summary (unless it's responding to something new from second summary (which also shouldn't happen)

You'll get good speaks from me unless you really mess up.

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

I welcome any questions about my decision after the round.

email: gupta.abhimanyu@gmail.com

As a parent judge for over a year, I am easy going and focus on your debating skills rather than the content of your debate.

I ratings and decision are influenced by:

1. How you communicate your contentions - Clarity comes when you are not trying to pack in a lot of words in the time allotted but presenting your high points in clear and understandable tone

2. How well you present yourself as well-reasoned - Arguments in the debate must be logical, relevant, competent and well-explained.

3. Passion through persuasiveness - Show that you genuinely believe your case and that you are interested in hearing the other side.

4. How orderly you are - Keep track of your time. Be respectful of opinions. Please make sure to be courteous during cross otherwise your speaker points will reflect that.

5. Dynamics - Debate is a team effort and I would like to see communication and interaction and not a solo performance.

Just keep it simple. Be yourself, have fun listening and reacting!

Hello,

I am a parent judge since 2018, judging PF Novice and Varsity tournaments.

* I try to take notes as much as I can on the content, facts, rebuttal and reasoning. However, if the speaker presents too fast, then I may not be able to comprehend. So, try to pace it at a medium to fast speed.

* I typically judge on how clear and effective the speaker is, and the facts that are presented to prove their contention

* I like when facts are juxtaposed compared to the opponent, not only numbers but reasoning as well

* I like to hear cross examination, to see how you defend you case and respond to opponents in an effective way

Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun debating!

- Stuti

Made some edits for novice nats lol. I've competed on this topic and probably know the args ur reading. I've competed for about 2 years on nat circ, no real creds tho.

IMPORTANT: Win and weigh the links before the impact scenarios. Take time to break down warrant level clash. Second rebuttal at the very least needs to address turns. Collapse the debate in summary.

Extensions: links + impacts must be in both final focus and summary. Signpost and gimme an off-time roadmap.

Speed: I can handle speed to a certain extent, but it runs the risk of me missing something on the flow. If the round gets too fast for me, I'll clear.

Speaks: Everyone starts at a 28 and then goes up or down. Depends on the concision and strat decisions made in summary and ff.

Homophobic/racist/sexist= tanked speaks and auto dropped ballot

Rude=tanked speaks

Wear what u want, I hate heels too.

Crossfire: idrc put it in a speech

Evidence: The time cap on searching for evidence is 2 minutes. If it isn't found by then I'm striking the card on my flow. If I call for a card, a couple things could have happened

1) Someone in Summary/ff directly asked me to call for it, and it was crucial to the ballot. If I read the evidence and decide it's bad, (misconstrued but not doctored) I won't evaluate it or the argument it made on the flow

2) I'm stealing the card

3) The card is sketch, I'm calling to see if it's doctored. If there's no violation look at 2). If there is a violation (the card's clipped) I'm dropping you and your speaks. PF already has terrible evidence ethics, please don't be a part of that problem.

I am a former high school policy/LD debater. I also competed in many individual events. Now, I am a trial lawyer. I seek to reward the speaking that connects most directly with the professional and personal activities that high school debaters will be performing in just a few short years.

For policy debaters: Debate is a game. And, in my opinion, policy is a place where (almost) anything goes. You can spread, you can run K, you can read a poem. If you've signed up for policy, you know the world you have signed up for. But, note the following: If I can't understand you or write/type/think fast enough, I might miss your brilliant argument. The stranger or more counterintuitive your argument is, the more proof I will need for it. Style and persuasion still mean something to me in policy debate, so if you can spread while being persuasive (yelling is not persuasive), you will have an advantage. Those who abandon speed altogether AND who make a good argument for why they should win even if they can't cover everything -- those people might very well win. As I say, debate is a game.

Public forum: If (almost) anything goes in policy debate, then public forum is its more constrained, conversational, and accessible cousin. My understanding is that it was created as an alternative to what policy has become, and therefore I am less receptive to spreading and absurdist styles in PF. As a result, I will not necessarily vote on dropped arguments. Two minutes is simply not enough time to cover everything in a debate, so it is entirely possible to pick an argument to the exclusion of others and win -- just tell me if that is what you're doing, and tell me why that argument is the winner. Please consider whether your tone, your speed, and your use of jargon are at all applicable to: a class presentation, a conversation with a professor, an informal discussion with friends or colleagues, a courtroom, a pitch to a boss, etc. These are the places in which your debate skills will be applicable.

For all debaters: If you are rude in any way (prematurely cutting opponents off in crossfire, ad homs in speeches, gesturing from your chair while others speak), you will lose speaker points, and possibly the round. Aggressiveness is fine, but I can't abide jerks.

My paradigm as a public forum debate judge is based on the following criteria:

1. Clarity: I value debaters who are able to articulate their arguments in a clear and concise manner. I expect debaters to explain their arguments thoroughly and avoid overly complex language or jargon.

2. Evidence: I value debaters who use relevant and credible evidence to support their arguments. I will evaluate the quality and relevance of evidence presented and consider how well it supports the argument being made.

3. Clash: I value debaters who engage in substantive back-and-forth argumentation with their opponents. I will evaluate the quality and depth of the debaters' responses to the arguments presented by the other team.

4. Persuasiveness: Ultimately, I will decide which team has persuaded me that their arguments are the most compelling. I will evaluate how well debaters have made their case and used evidence to support their position.

5. Rules: I expect debaters to comply with the rules of the debate, including time limits, cross-examination rules, and other procedures. I may deduct points or disqualify a team for violations of the rules.

6. Decorum: I expect debaters to maintain a professional and respectful demeanor throughout the debate. I may deduct points for disrespectful or uncivil behavior.

I will use these criteria to evaluate the arguments presented by each team and make a decision on which team has won the debate. I encourage debaters to ask questions before or after the debate if they have any concerns about my paradigm or the criteria I will be using to judge the debate.

I am a parent judge, and my recent judging experience is limited to Lincoln Douglas last year. Prior to that, many years ago, I judged strictly policy debate. My personal debate experience consists of policy debate throughout high school and parliamentary debate in college. Likely many former debaters, I honestly believe that I learned more in debate than in any other aspect of my formal education.

If I am judging you, you should know the following about my preferences:

-You can speak fast, but you do need to speak clearly and with sufficient volume. Ultimately, debate is about communicating an argument. If I can't hear you or understand you, then that really isn't communication.

-Don't drop arguments. If an argument is patently illogical, please simply point that out.

-If an argument is specious, and if logic is sufficient to demonstrate the fallacy of the argument, then a coherent counter argument without evidence is superior to presenting evidence without logic.

-Quality of your arguments will almost always trump quantity.

-Since this is my first year judging PF, and I have no personal experience doing PF, I am fairly open minded about technical aspects of debate.

-I do have a pet peeve. This should go without saying, if you are using someone else's case or briefs, please make sure you know how to correctly pronounce the words that you are saying and please make sure that you do understand what you are saying.

Please realize that I value debate, and I truly enjoy judging debate rounds. I am not judging because I need to fulfill a judging obligation, and when I will am judging you, I will be having fun listening to you debate regardless of what my face says. I also respect that you are spending your weekends debating, because I know that there are plenty of other things you could be doing instead.

I run a software consulting firm here in Bay area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and have judged in the past 2 years at a few tournaments in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Speech, and Congress as well.

Things I would be judging will be based on the following criteria

- Make an complete argument (claim, warrant, and impact).

- Topic grounded strategies/demonstration of research and topic knowledge are good for speaks.

- I am the numbers guy and like to hear solid numbers or quantitative data for your arguments.

- Quality always trumps quantity.

- Evidence matters, but your explanation matters more. Great cards that are explained terribly won't get maximal weight.

- Clarity over speed

- Get to the point: focus on the core issues of the debate

- I have researched the topic to some extent but do not understand very nuanced arguments.

- I like when two teams have clash on their cases, but don't be overly aggressive or rude when pointing it out.

- Insults, rudeness, and swearing are not good and will be looked down upon .

- Respect your competitors, partner and the time everyone in the room puts into this activity.

- I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place. That is my very Important criteria for judging of debate rounds

Finally make the debate fun. Being nice is good. Smile and have fun. Winning and losing is a part of life so have fun and enjoy and do your best.

(he/him)

- For PF, you can use my partners paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=saad&search_last=jamal

- Competed in PF for 4 years at Dougherty Valley

- I have minimal experience with any type of argument not traditionally run in PF (Ks, theory, etc.).

email: kiranshreyas29@berkeley.edu

About me:

I mostly end up judging PuFo, so my paradigm is for that.

Judging style: Team

I like civility in the room. Be respectful and gain respect.

You don't need to change your style of speaking for me, I can follow fast speech, if I miss something, I do ask for cards mentioned.

Don't use too much technical stuff, if you do - explain it in short. Otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I have a daughter who does policy and LD and she has explained me what it is and how to evaluate it. Feel free to run it with me.

I give a lot of weight to impacts and mostly award points based on that.

Do not bring in a controversial topic in the debate unless it is absolutely necessary (eg: terrorism, 9/11, etc)

I do take notes so don't try to pull fast ones, chances are I will catch it (Not all the time though)

I like off time roadmap. Helps me be organized.

Judging style: Individual Speaker:

I award points based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc, you will be marked down to the lowest.

Let your opponent complete their thought in cross before interrupting.

General:

Do not try to shake hands.

If you need any clarity on paradigms, more than welcome to ask me before debate on a 1-1 basis or anyways.

I have been judging for close to 5 years at several local and state tournaments in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. I judged Public Forum, LD mostly, at Novice JV and Varisty levels.

I am open to any arguments, but the arguments where impacts are shown carry more weightage. Impacts should be significant: that affect big population, health impacts, economy impacts, impacts to human values, safety, etc. The more the evidences is better, extrapolating what happened in the past to the future is ok, as long as it is explained logically.

No offensive comments or remarks during the debates. I like the offline roadmaps before start of each speech. It is good to repeat/summarize what you think is your key point. Please feel free to remind judge what you think is most important to you.

I will be happy to answer any questions before the round starts about my preferences.

This is just a basic overall paradigm, feel free to ask me more specific questions during a round.

I have experience competing in college for the last few years in Parli and LD and I.E's. I've judged for the last few years of high school policy, LD, PF, Congress, some I.E's, and Parli.

I'd like to consider myself a flow judge meaning that I will examine every argument and evaluate the debate based on what is on the flow.

That being said I usually follow the rules of each syle of events whenever I'm judging unless I'm told otherwise in the debate as for examples why rules are bad.

In terms of speed/spreading, I'm ok with it since I can keep up with it. That being said I care more about accessibility into the round, meaning if you're going too fast for your opponents and they try clearing you or telling you to slow down, it is probably a good idea to try and adjust your speed in those situations.

I'm open to any type of argument. My only preference is that arguments are impacted out in the round. I'm a lazy person by nature and like to do the minimum amount of work, meaning I prefer when teams tell me exactly where and what to vote for on my flow. Don't assume I know which arguments you are going for at the end of the debate. I also tend to protect against new arguments in the final speeches. Additionally, treat me as someone who has no sense of direction and needs to be given clear instructions to any destinations that you need me to go to.

And finally, don't be jerks to your opponents.

So the bottom line is to do whatever you'd like to do, have fun and throw in a joke or 2, even make references to anime, European football, or anything for that matter.

I am a lay, parent judge.

Please talk clearly and slowly (no spreading). Please debate a PF round (no kritiks or theory or counter plan). Please be polite, especially in crossfire. I like signposting and please make each response clear.

Looking forward to the debate.

No need for defense in first summary unless it was frontlined in second rebuttal. If a turn isn't frontlined in second rebuttal it cant be responded to later (you can weigh against it but no new responses). Any argument in final focus that wasn't in summary won’t matter on my ballot (unless its weighing).

Hello,

* I'm an experienced parent judge with 2 years of experience with public forum events.

* Make sure that you present cases, contentions, impact(s) clearly.

* Often I read topic analysis before judging the topic. Definitions are optional for me unless you want to make them clear to the opposite team.

* Evidence-based argumentation, logic, and reasoning are key elements to determine the winner in PF debate.

* Quality is more important than quantity. It's important to have a few quality cases than a high number of cases.

* I'm not a big supporter of "spreading" aka speed reading in PF. For speakers: I look for a speed of fewer than 220 words per minute. This speed enables me to take notes and weigh your arguments against the other team.

* A good framework is important for the public forum event.

* Be respectful with other teams.

* Do not bring in new arguments/cases or new data points at the final focus or summary.

* Crossfire sections are for Q & A. Do not use this time to reinforce your cases again and again. In other words, do not take away 2.5 minutes out of 3 min grand-crossfire section - just to re-emphasize your points

* Wish you the best! Enjoy your journey!

Debated PF 4 years at College Prep on the national circuit, currently debate APDA at Yale.

tech> truth, ask me specifics before round

I probably won’t call for cards unless I’m told to do so (I guess at eTOC I'm gonna look at them all because they'll be emailed to me whether I want to see them or not).

If you don’t weigh, you’ll probably be sad after RFD.

Pet peeves:

1. Don’t talk fast if you don't have a lot to say.

2. Don’t talk too slow or I’ll fall asleep.

3. Don’t debate during prep time.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

I am a lay judge with 3 yrs of judging experience. I would like participants to speak loud and clear. Also, would be great if they can keep the camera on their face while talking. Sometimes I see their heads only and hard to figure out what they are saying.

I have judged Varsity PF for 2 years. I don't have many pet peeves but do make sure to be respectful of each other. I focus on presentation and arguments made. Make sure to explain all arguments thoroughly with evidence as that is what I vote off of. Speed is fine as long as you talk clearly.

I prefer that you speak loudly and clearly to get your points across effectively. Please debate civilized.

Did nat circuit PF and Extemp at Dougherty Valley

I evaluate tabula rasa which means you can read whatever you want and I will evaluate any argument as long as it is WELL WARRANTED. Warranted evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence. TECH > TRUTH (again only if it is warranted well). Don't speak way too fast as you risk me missing things and lowering your speaker points, particularly in the back half of the round.

I won't flow cross so if something important happens bring it up in a speech.

Make sure to have clear SIGNPOSTING of your arguments in rebuttal, summary, and final focus. When doing extensions don't just extend last name and year, actually extend the warranting behind the argument as well. I would say overall I have a high threshold for off case args.

Anything you want evaluated in final focus needs to be in SUMMARY.

Exchanges of evidence between teams are fine as long as they take less than two minutes. I may call for evidence if it ends up being critical in round or if I am asked to call for it. I am unlikely to time speeches and prep time but I expect both teams to keep each other accountable.

To minimize intervention please remember to WEIGH your impacts and/or links against those of your opponents in final focus (or even earlier speeches).

If you are too rude or aggressive to your opponents I will drop your speaks. Please don't say my opponents drop this the whole round if they clearly didn't drop something, expect low speaker points if you do that. I will only drop a team if they clip/severely powertag evidence or act sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

I don’t like to shake hands. I don't care if you sit or stand and wear whatever you want. Try to preflow before the round.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round or message me on facebook messenger, or email me at shaheer.sandhu@berkeley.edu

I am an old policy debater from high school and college. A very successful one at that, although that was a long time ago (yes, I too went to TOC and yes, they had it back then). I do flow and will do my best to render my decision solely on the arguments presented in the round. I have no preconceived biases for or against any position on the topic. It should be your job as debaters to tell my why your evidence is superior or why your position outweighs at the end of the round. If you have a framework, you should use it in rebuttals and/or final focus to frame why it means you should win. If both teams offer frameworks, there should be some clash to explain why I should choose one framework over the other.

I have a strong opinion about evidence: I have been told that the minimum standard for citing evidence in rounds is author's last name and date; if you don't have that much, it isn't treated as evidence, it is just you speaking your mind. If you want something considered as evidence in a round, you have to *read it in the round.* You can't just say "we have a card which says..." and somehow assume that now counts as evidence.

A note on jargon: there are a few terms of art that I have heard a few times in Public Forum and they are not very clear. Frontlining, for example, is used by some people to basically mean what we used to call "preempts" meaning an argument made before the opponent in the expectation that the opponent will make that argument. Like "they will get up here and say sunlight is good but here are 3 reasons why that is wrong." Coaches have told me this is the correct usage. Other teams have used it synonymously with "response" as in "I am going to frontline their case then go to my case." That is apparently the incorrect usage, but if you are going to use the word, explain what you mean by it. Offense and defense are also super overused since your offense is their defense and vice versa so asserting that I "shouldn't give them any offense on this" ends up being confusing. Just tell me why they are losing an argument - if they have lost the argument it is irrelevant whether it is an offensive argument or a defensive argument and for which team; they have lost it. Unless you are punting (granting) something, in which case just tell me why that argument doesn't matter (e.g. outweighed, de-linked elsewhere, irrelevant according to the framework I should be using, etc.). Saying I shouldn't give them any "offense" on that argument is just extra words - you have already explained why it doesn't matter so I can figure out for myself that that means...well, it doesn't matter. Terminal defense - I have heard this a couple of times and nobody has/can explain what it is supposed to mean, including the head of the judges room at Stanford. If you say this, tell me what you think it means!

I don't really judge anymore. If you are a debater and want to see my paradigm for some reason, email me firstname dot lastname at gmail.

Paradigm for Harker Intramural: 

1. Use solid evidence and good persuasion techniques. Make sure you follow the evidence standard if you read a card. 

2. Make sure to weigh the arguments, do impact calculations, and tell me why you should win the debate. 

3. Respond to your opponent's arguments during the rebuttal. 

2. Email your opponent(s) and me. 19riyas@students.harker.org

3. Be respectful during the debate! 

I am a former high school debater- I did Policy debate for 4 years and I loved it. I have been judging at debate tournaments since 2012. I have judged Policy rounds, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Parli and Congress.

I flow my rounds, and therefore, I appreciate offtime roadmaps. I am comfortable with spreading. However, I do not like the trend where Public Forum and LD are morphing into Policy debate in terms of speed. That being said, if you wish to speak fast, it's up to you to be understandable and to speak clearly. If I didn't hear your argument, then I can't count it in my evaluation/RFD.

I look for good clash in a round, but this is not to be confused with overly aggressive behavior, as explained below. There is a difference between aggression and hostility. I hope debaters can tell the difference.

I come into every debate with an open mind, as if I know nothing about the topic and have not judged this topic before. However, I do know HOW to debate, so I am looking for the technical aspects of debate. This is to your advantage because if you can make an argument (however outlandish) and support it, and your opponents cannot refute it effectively, then you win that argument. I look for dropped arguments, but I also need the debaters to recognize when an argument has been dropped by the opposing team and to acknowledge it. For Varsity debaters, I expect that your arguments will consolidate down to whatever you think are your most important, win-able arguments.

I look at frameworks and impacts, so I include a comparison of the "affirmative world" vs the "negative world" in my consideration of how to vote. I also need you to weigh your impacts for me- tell me why your arguments are more important than the other team's.

I believe in the value and significance of debate, and therefore, I expect debaters to conduct themselves in a mature and respectful manner. Please be respectful of each other. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer- do not cut them off. No name-calling or shaming (yes, I have seen this in rounds, and it is very disappointing). Do not try to intimidate your opponent or the judge. This hostile behavior is very obvious and it will show up in your lackluster speaker points.

I understand that debaters may be nervous, and I am very sensitive to that. I don't generally dock speaker points for nervousness, but I will dock points for hostile behavior and attitude.

I normally judge on the way the person speaks, how he supports his/her assertions with facts. It does not matter whether i agree with their opinion or not. I look for how clear they speak, convey their points clearly and if they are courteous.

This is my third year judging Public forum debates.

I like to see good source of reliable evidence during debate.

Please do not speak too fast and be courteous to other team.

I am currently a junior at Harker, and I have debated varsity pf for roughly 2 years now.

To preface this, please let me know if there is any way I can make this round more comfortable or accessible to you. Please don’t say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or otherwise just blatantly offensive, and don’t be abusive. The only thing I am voting on in round is your argument, not your appearance or anything else.

My judging philosophy is essentially that I want to do as little work as possible at the end of the round in order to make my decision. Pretty much everything I say after this can be summed up by that idea.

So that being said…

Arguments

1. I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible when it comes to arguments–I will buy pretty much anything you tell me in round unless it is contested (though if it isn’t logical analysis or general knowledge it should be carded). I honestly probably know very little about the topic to begin with, so I will generally vote tech > truth for the most part.
2. On that note, WEIGH your arguments. If you just tell me what your impact is, you’re leaving the work to me to then determine which impacts I deem most important or most applicable, which is basically just a 50/50 chance for you. So if you want better odds than that, you HAVE to tell my why your impacts matter at all but especially why they matter more than your opponents’. This definitely needs to happen in final focus but it should be prefaced in summary as well.
3. Don’t bring up an argument in final focus that you didn’t in summary. I won’t vote on it.
4. I will vote off the offense/impacts each side has left standing at the end of the round and how the impacts are weighed.
5. Don’t just extend cards; extend the entire warrant/argument you are making. If you just read a card name I don’t know what that is. Also don't just extend through ink. If there is a direct clash of cards, give me a reason to prefer one over the other–don’t just repeat your argument.
6. Use framework if it actually is giving you offense, or else you are just wasting your time. I don’t really know how to judge K’s, DA’s, CP’s, T, or anything like that so unless it’s REALLY GOOD don’t read them.
7. Don’t try to go for all your arguments at the end of the round. COLLAPSE instead onto what you are winning and what impacts you think are most important to the round.

Flow/Speaking

1. The cleaner the flow the happier I will be. I don’t expect an off-time roadmap but PLEASE SIGNPOST.
2. I will try to write down what I think it important but if you think something is crucial to the round, you should probably repeat it at least once in summary and final focus or tell me why it’s key.
3. I am fine with some speed but please do not spread. I personally do not enjoy listening to it and I’d rather there be a good debate where both teams have the chance to respond to arguments.

CrossFire

1. I won’t flow crossfire. I will try to listen, but I also might multitask and not pay too much attention.
2. However, DON’T BE RUDE. I cannot stress this enough. Asking a question or making an argument louder does not make it more convincing. I’m okay with politely cutting people off if they are rambling on to waste time, but be aware of your tone and how you are doing this. If you are yelling, I may take off speaker points as well.
3. If you want me to write down something from cross, bring it up again in the following speeches.

Cards

1. I will only call for a card if someone tells me to, but I probably won’t look at it unless it’s super important to the round.

My paradigm is pretty similar to this one: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=35843

*EXCEPTION* I will accept what the evidence says unless the other team asks enough questions that make it sound stupid. I will not vote for anything that sounds incredible or just completely dumb.

General:

1. Assume I'm bad at debate. I hate doing work.

2. If you read two cards correctly and they make sense, I will buy them instantly. (these are not specific for a reason)

• Guardian card that says 420.
• A card that says chance of civil war jumps to ~77.6%.

3. I don't know how to evaluate theory. Shoutout to Kyle Chong.

Speaks:

1. I don't often give 30s but if you make me laugh or make me cringe, I’ll give you a 30. Also, if you make a half decent pun with the topic, I’ll give you a 30.

2. If you go more than 5 seconds over time I’ll take off 0.5 speaks per second after.

3. I’ll take off a point every time a terrible analogy is used. (selling an apple for $5 is not comparable to international trade)

Evidence:

1. Make me call for it. I also hate reading a lot, so don't tell me to read it unless you think it’s critical.

2. If you read a card I know, you should hope you're not misrepresenting it.

Case read:

Speed is not an issue.

Cross-x:

1. You get first question if you speak first.

2. Don't be mean.

3. Refer to point 2.

4. Refer to point 2.

5. Point 2 is really important.

Summary/FF:

1. Anything works.

2. No new evidence in FF.

Argument stuff:

1. If you read a link turn and say "if you don't buy that", then proceed with an impact turn, you better explain why I can't evaluate your impact turn under your link turn. Otherwise, it's a double turn.

2. If you read anything diabetes or sugar related, I will not like the arg. Although it is important to recognize that whether I like the argument does not matter. If it’s well developed, I'll vote for it.

• all offense in final focus must be in summary
• with the 3 minute summaries, both summaries have to collapse on and extend defense
• 2nd rebuttal should split
• Weigh - try to establish weighing early in the round, no new weighing in 2nd FF unless there was no weighing at all in the round; if both teams weigh, weigh weighing mechanisms
• speed - don’t go too fast, be understandable, but i’m generally ok with speed
• please signpost in the 2nd half of the round
• anything from crossfire has to be in speech for me to evaluate it
• be nice in cross
• i’ll probably evaluate any argument in the round unless it’s racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.
• i’ll call for evidence usually only if someone tells me to call for it
• don’t run theory

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.