Public Forum paradigm

A few remarks:

1. If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
1. Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
2. If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
2. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
3. Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
4. If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
5. Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.

I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:

1. You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
2. Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
3. You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.

Speaker Points

What matters, in rough order of importance:

• Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
• The presence of weighing/narrative.
• Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
• Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
• Appealing rhetorical style.
• In-round courtesy and professionalism.

Affiliation: Capitol Debate (High school) and Liberty University (College)
Experience: I've been involved in debate for 12 years now. I debated competitively in Policy Debate primarily (I dabbled in LD and Congress in HS). I have coached Public Forum on the MS and HS level for the last 6 years.

Basic Philosophy: (Novice/Middle School)

As with anyone, I enjoy high quality debates. I find that this comes from students debating how THEY feel comfortable and not trying to appease my every desire in the round. I debated from strictly policy to performative/critical argumentation. I say all that to say that no matter what you do i'll probably be open to it. My below comments will be pretty vague as I judge/coach many types of debate

My Specific Preferences:

1) Impact and Link turns hold my heart. A well executed turn debate always grabs my attention and you will see that reflected in both my interest and your speaker points.

2) I'm lazy, Tell me what do do. At the end of the debate don't just say "They dropped X so we win the debate." Tell me why! What does it mean for the rest of the debate? How should I weigh this against the sea of other arguments at play.

3) I love evidence. I love debaters who explain their evidence and pull out the warrants even more.

4) If you decide to take a more critical/non-traditional route, don't assume I know your literature base. While I am open to hearing it doesn't mean I understand what you are saying. Make sure you explain things in-depth.

5) I am pretty expressive in debates. USE THIS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE! If I look like I don't get it...chances are I don't. If you say "They dropped X" and I am shaking my head no then chances are, on my flow, it's not dropped.

6) Don't be a jerk. I hate it and my expressions and your speaks will reflect it.

Advanced Philosophy(Varsity)

Topicality-- I default to competing interpretations . To make these debates even close to enjoyable for me this requires an explicit list of what specific cases your interpretation permits and why this is beneficial for the activity. As for "Kritiks of T": I tend not to view these as RVIs, but instead as counter-standards that privilege an alternate debate curriculum that is more important than traditional conceptions. Negatives that plan on defending T against these criticisms should not only maintain that the 1AC does not meet what they view as fair and educational debate, but also need to go into a more specific discussion that impacts why their vision of a fair and educational debate is good and why the negative's alternate curriculum is worse in comparison. In round abuse is key for me. It's what you do not what you justify

Theory-- pretty similar to T debates but the one difference is that I will default to "reject the argument, not the team" unless given a reason otherwise. I have been known to go for cheapshots, but these require fulfilling a high standard of execution (a fully warranted and impacted explanation of your cheapshot, and closing the doors on any cross-applications the aff can make from other flows). Stylistically speaking, slowing down in these debates will help me put more ink on your side of the flow--otherwise I may miss a part of your argument that you find important. Additionally, a well-thought out interpretation and 3 warranted arguments regarding why a particular practice in debate is bad is significantly stronger than a blippy, generic re-hashing of a 10-point block.

Straight-up Strategies-- My favorite strategies often involve more than one or more of the following: an advantage counterplan, topic specific DA(s), and a solid amount of time allocated to case turns/defense. I am obviously open to hear and evaluate more generic arguments like politics, dip cap, delay counterplans, and process counterplans if that is your thing, and you should obviously go for what you are winning.

K and Performance Strategies-- I enjoy philosophy and have spent a significant chunk of my free time reading/understanding K and performance arguments. My familiarity with this style of debating makes it a double-edged sword. I will be very impressed if you command significant knowledge about the theory at hand and are able to apply them to the case through examples from popular culture or empirical/historical situations. On the other hand, if you fail to explain basic theoretical ideas within the scope of the K or fail to engage particular points of contention presented by the affirmative, I will be thoroughly unimpressed. Similarly, when opposing a K or performance, I am much more interested in arguments (analytics and cards) that not only substantively engage the K but thoroughly defend why your theorization of politics and interaction with the social should be preferred, rather than a generic 50 point survey of claims that are made by positivist thinkers. This is not to say that generic "greatest hits" style arguments have no value, but they certainly need to be backed up with a defense of the conceptual framing of your 1AC (eg, if the negative wins that the kritik turns the case or a no v2l claim, I'm not sure what "predictions good" or "cede the political" does for the affirmative). In terms of a theory/framework debate, I am much less likely to be persuaded by generic "wrong forum" claims but will be more likely to be compelled by arguments pointing to abusive sections of the specific K that is being run (eg, the nature of the alt).

It's also important to defend your impacts thoroughly. My favorite straight up affirmatives to read when I debated had big hegemony advantages. My favorite K authors to read are Wilderson (Afro-Pessimism) and other forms of Black liberation startegies. As a result, I am unlikely be swayed or guilted into voting for you if the only argument you make is a moralizing reference to people suffering/dying. This is NOT to say that I won't vote for you if you choose a strategy that relies on these impacts. However if these impacts are challenged either through impact turns or comparisons, I will not hack for you; I require an adequate refutation of why their impact calculation or understanding of suffering/death is false/incomplete and reasons for why I should prefer your framing. In other words, if the opposing team says "hegemony good and outweighs your K" or alternatively, reads a "suffering/death good" style kritik and your only comeback is "you link to our arguments and people are oppressed" without much other refutation, you will lose. When your moral high ground is challenged, own up to it and refute their assumptions/explanations.

Speaks-- Largely subjective, but I will generally stick to what's outlined below (in the open division). Other things that may influence speaker points include (but are not limited to): clarity, stealing prep, being excessively mean, humor, the strength of your CX

< 25: You really got on my nerves and you deserve an equally obnoxious number on the 0-25 part of the scale 25: You showed up but didn't really make an argument past the 1AC/1NC, and didn't ever acknowledge the fact that there were opponents making arguments in your speech 26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents 27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims 28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers 28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish. 29: I feel like you will be in the late elims of the tournament that I am judging at 29.5: I feel like you are one of the top few debaters I've judged that year. 30: I feel that you are the best debater I've seen that year.

Name: Sarah Blanton

Email: essie3blanton@gmail.com. If there is a chain, I would like to be on it.

School Affiliation: George Mason University

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 2

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 1

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 3

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 6

Coaching Experience: I’ve coached Lincoln Douglas at Grafton High School for two years, but while I was competing/also a high schooler. I was the head lab leader for novice LD at Mason's camp summer 2019.

Occupation: Global Affairs major and second-year policy debater at George Mason, graduating 2021.

IN ROUND PREFERENCES:

Speed of Delivery: Whatever speed you prefer.

Format of Summary Speeches: I prefer line by line and detailed clash.

Role of the Final Focus: final speeches should conclude with impact calculus and offensive reasons to vote their way.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Because of my policy background, I am somewhat biased towards the policy mindset. I weigh arguments that appear in the final speech(es) much more heavily, and consider a dropped argument to be reasonably true, I understand there is limitations on extending EVERY argument you need in the final speech, but you should try to extend most of the arguments you plan to win the debate on in your final speech.

Topicality: I don’t have much experience judging PF topicality debates, so I will not be familiar with PF-specific conventions. That said, I have been in and judged several topicality policy debates, and I have no problem voting for it or structural issues with the argument.

Plans: Go for it. I’ve never judged a PF team that reads a plan, so I am not especially for or against one.

Kritiks: This is probably the area I am personally most familiar with since I have spent most of my college career doing K debate. I have a broad knowledge of many Ks, and I really enjoy judging clash debates. However, I do understand reading Ks in a topic which changes monthly creates preparation difficulties for the aff. For this reason, I will weigh prep-oriented arguments with a particular weight. I will not be sympathetic to policy arguments which glamorize exclusionary models of debate instead of focusing on the real challenges of being prepared for unconventional arguments on a monthly basis. In other words, in clash debates I will be more convinced by more personal impacts about the difficulties of preparation as opposed to interpretations which exclude critical literature or identity debate in their entirety.

Flowing/note-taking: I will flow on my laptop

Argument or style? I consider style heavily over argument when awarding speaker points, but otherwise I will only rarely use style as a tiebreaker between equally matched teams. Generally, I have a strong preference for arguments.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? YES.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? I will not vote for a new argument in the final speeches, and teams should also do their best to call out their opponents for making new arguments.

Important Final Note: I WILL drop speaks for excessive rudeness towards your partner or your opponents. I am especially conscious of sexism and other forms of discrimination in debate spaces based on personal experience and what I have observed about inclusivity in the debate community. I will not tolerate bigotry between debaters, and I really appreciate kindness and courtesy in round. Don't speak over others in cross-ex, avoid demeaning language, don't ever record without other's permission, and be respectful of your partner and the other team.

Good luck and have fun!

Hello! I'm a parent judge, I have years of business and technical leadership experience, working through debates and conflict resolution, but newer to the debate circuits. I am here to help you learn and to learn myself.

My expectations:

1. Be professional, be nice, and respectful to each other

2. You can present standing or seated, whatever is most comfortable

3. Keep abbreviations to the minimum. If I do not understand what you are saying - it will hurt your results

4. Be sure to cite your sources

5. Tech over truth - I'm not likely to be a subject matter expert in your topic and will not go digging for details, but if something is obviously false or doesn't have a logical connection - I will count it against you

6. Please try to speak clearly, slow down and annunciate. Volume of data at high speed is not necessarily persuasive

7. Analyze and weigh impact

8. Be prepared to time yourself. Your timer should be set to audible so everyone can hear

9. Have fun and learn!

I am a parent lay volunteer. I am reasonably experienced at this point in local and national tournaments (70+ rounds).

Here are a few insights on how I judge:

1. Speak at a reasonable, lay-person clip please.

2. Language - I haven't gone to debate camp and I don't hang out on the r/debate boards. I feel like I'm wasting my time when teams are throwing fragmented jargon at one another, like they're in a late-night side conversation. Your goal is not just to win the argument, but to win the audience. Articulate your ideas using real words that real people understand.

3. Be polite and respectful to each other. No condescension. No snark. I'll definitely take some humor, especially if it's self-deprecating, because this would ideally be fun for all of us.

4. I do take notes. I try to flow, but I'm sure not in ways you'd approve of. Let me know where you are in your arguments. I appreciate evidence, and I'll weigh it. I like clear, clean lines of logical thinking. I find that I weigh for plausibility. In other words, if one side is resting on something that has demonstrably happened or is based on past performance, it may tend to outweigh a hypothetical extreme-nightmare-megadeath scenario that I'm hard-pressed to believe will happen.

Extra credit: If you are participating in this debate, you are smart and brave. You are on your way to accomplishing great things. Debate can help develop critical thinking. It helps strengthen the foundation for civic engagement. But Public Forum is by design about the art of persuasion.

Where do the skills you hone in PF exhibit themselves in the adult world? Law...politics...policy...academia.

If you're a lawyer, you need to match wits with others deeply versed in the law. But you likely also need to convince people with little or no understanding of the law that you are right and the other side is wrong.

Same goes with politics. If you can't communicate to the average person effectively, you and your ideas are unlikely to win.

And the weaknesses in policy and academia are found when the ability and willingness to communicate to and persuade the average person is neglected.

High school debaters can too easily immerse themselves in the insular culture of debate. You're best served by focusing more in round on reaching and winning over your audience. Those are the toughest and most needed skills you can develop, in my view.

I am a parent of a public forum debater. This is my first time judging, but I have been instructed on the basics. Please speak clearly and not too quickly.

I am a parent judge, who has little experience with public forum debate. You can consider me a lay judge, and I will only be able to evaluate arguments that are clearly made (don't speak at an unreasonable pace). Evidence ethics is important, avoid paraphrasing sources. Remain respectful and remember that debate is a learning experience!

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

important stuff

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

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

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

round stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am the parent of a debater. Although I make my living crafting persuasive arguments, I am a lay judge, with limited knowledge of the technical rules of debate. I will try and give you the best judging experience I can. You can help me, and yourself, by clearly and concisely stating your position, explaining why sources support your argument, and politely pointing out the flaws in your opponent's claims.

I prefer truth over tech. Evidence ethics are paramount. If the cards I see do not say what you say they do, I will drop the argument from the round— and depending how egregious the ethics violation, I may drop you. I do not want to see your cut card, I want to see the article or source, with the portion you used highlighted. I have no tolerance for sexism, racism, and rudeness. Be civil, be kind. And try not to talk too fast- I can't give you credit for an argument I cannot understand.

For me it all comes down to Final Focus. Please make sure you include everything you want me to consider in those 2 minutes. Your job is to persuade me, through your research and arguments, that your position is right and I should vote for you. I am not well-versed on tech and the specific rules for extending arguments, however I will not credit any argument not in final focus. Signposts and numbering of arguments will be very helpful to me.

Last season, I thought debaters Anoosh Kumar, Nathaniel Yoon, Kevin Zeng, Maggie Mills, Sasha Haines (last year's Nats winners) and the Abbasi twins were excellent debaters.

Congrats to all you debaters. Your ability to articulate complex arguments and make them clear and simple is amazing. I am in awe of your ability to research, think on your feet, respond to some off the wall claims that are thrown at you without warning, and speak clearly and calmly with a skill well beyond your years.

I was a LD debater for four years in high school with experience on local and national circuits. I have also been a LD coach / judge. While my primary focus has been LD, I have also judged PF and been involved with Congressional debate and various speech activities.

I default to whatever the debater / speaker is most comfortable with in terms of speed and speaking style. In terms of argumentation, weighing and impact calculation is most important for me. Key arguments need to be extended and weighed in every speech, not just the final. I will flow whatever arguments you present but need to hear clear links / warrants / impacts. In general, I like to see clear, engaging, and interesting debate. I typically won't disclose after the round but will provide feedback if requested.

Thanks and good luck!

My dad doesn’t know how to update his paradigm so I am writing it on his behalf.

- Don’t talk fast, he won’t understand

- He is listening to crossfire (sorry)

- Truth > Tech

- He hates when evidence is cut wrong or misconstrued, so don’t do it

- Don’t be mean... no one likes it :( Barry will probably deduct speaks for that

- Have fun! Debate is stressful and it’s okay to make a joke or two

- Please don’t bully him into disclosing! He gets nervous. My dad will disclose if he wants to

Thanks for reading,

Zoe

Tabroom

Instagram

YouTube

Experience: Roughly a decade of debating and coaching.

I don't need an off-time road map beyond you telling me which side you're going to start on.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Aff gets some reasonable amount of durable fiat, but they will need to justify any other fiat not explicitly made clear in the wording of the resolution.

The first round of card calling happens after 2nd constructive, not after the 1st constructive. Please feel free to tell the other team my paradigm says this.

I don't want to hear the vast majority of theory/progressive arguments in PF. I understand their value, and I read them in college. That said:

(a) there are already 2 other categories where you can easily make these arguments. There's zero good reason to bring it to the world of PF.

(b) at least 50% of the time I hear such arguments they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community.

(c) there are still ample ways to be progressive or read theory in a PF style. Example: Reading a blanket (topical) contention about US regime change as a way of critiquing whether or not we should withdraw our military presence in the middle east. Example: Reading an observation for why a certain interpretation of the resolution is the most fair in round, while appealing to the norms and standards of PF.

Kritiks are of course not ok, nor are new arguments in the Final Focus, etc.

I don't think that the 2nd speaking team has a requirement to frontline in the rebuttal, nor do I think every last drop of an argument has to be perfectly extended through every speech for it to be evaluated in the Final Focus. However, I think the 1st Final Focus is allowed to make responses to the 2nd summary, and they should have had extra time to weigh in the prior speeches anyway, meaning that their Final Focus is not particularly hurt. Further, if (and only if) no frontlining is done in the 2nd rebuttal, 1st speaking team's defense is sticky so long as it's extended in the 1st Final Focus following the 2nd summary's frontlines. All of this being said, I still advise the 2nd speaking team to pursue some frontlining earlier, as I will take into consideration the ability for a team to respond to an argument in time when weighing the link strength and probability of an argument.

I will vote down teams for egregious evidence violations. This is probably the most "hands-on" aspect of my judging paradigm; my standard is lower than the NSDA's rulebook. I don't need to think you're lying for me to consider it an evidence violation. Here's my test:

(a) Does your evidence clearly say something different from what you claimed?

(b) Is that difference significant, or minor? (Example of minor: You read a card that says Arms Races increase the chance of war three-fold, but the evidence [Rider '11 for anyone interested] is more specific to mature state rivalries that begin an arms race. Example of major: you claim the Rider '11 card says that giving aid to Ukraine increases the chance of nuclear escalation by 300%).

(c) Is it integral to my RFD on the flow? If no, I'll probably just chuck the argument. If yes to all of the above, there's a good chance I'll look for any way I possibly can to vote for your opponent. All of this said, I'm not going to go out of my way to find evidence violations. If I did that, I'd be awarding a lot of double losses :P

Please free to tell me to call for cards, including your own in the event of a dispute. I will read them.

Experience: Purdue University, 1 year of debating NFA-LD (essentially, progressive college one-person policy following nearly the same NSDA-LD format), 1 year of coaching NFA-LD, a few years of judging traditional LD and HS policy (some circuit, some trad).

Flowing everything includes flowing arguments about how one debater excluded the other. If there's a component of my judging that is not tabs, then it's definitely this. About 50% of the time I hear fringe K's or disclosure theory, it feels like they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world or you found a cheap shot to take advantage of. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community. This doesn't mean I'm going to try to intervene, but...we all have biases. If you go for it, make sure you win it convincingly.

Similarly, I have recently become more "solidified", so to speak, in my opinions regarding the value of the style of intentionally technical, intentionally obtuse, and intentionally performative debate. To put that bluntly: I find most of the current K and games debate to be highly dubious in its educational value. AS a point of reference, if you watched the NDT 2023 Final Round, I found it to be a joke and an embarrassment to debate. I would be genuinely ashamed to show somebody not in debate that round. All of that said, and as hard as it may be to believe, don't construe this as me as a judge aiming to intervene or punish you for the choices you make in the debate. The only thing I dislike more than a totally gamified, pretend-philosophy 1NC is a judge who thinks their job is to be a debater. I will try very hard to avoid that. Put simply: I'll probably still vote for whatever the performative non-topical K is that you're winning, I'll just complain about it to myself later.

I have a BA in philosophy, so if you talk about a cool philosopher I'll be happy and can hopefully follow along pretty well.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Rapid speaking and excessive technical language may hinder your performance. It's acceptable to speak quickly as long as you remain clear. But if speed affects your clarity, it's better to slow down.

I won't share my decision post-round to ensure the tournament progresses smoothly and to uphold fairness in all debates. The decision will solely be reflected in the ballot.

Background:

I am a parent judge who has been judging for around 3 years and consider myself a flay judge. I'm trained as a scientist so logical argument supported by evidence is what I am looking for. I usually read up about the topic beforehand, so I have some knowledge about it.

Preferences:

I am more tech over truth but the argument needs to be believable for an easier win (I am a little more tech than you might imagine)

Please collapse and weigh your arguments against your opponents' arguments (Quality > Quantity)

I flow but I won’t flow if you’re too fast or hard to understand

I vote of the flow but good speaking always helps

I will call for cards usually if they are important for your case in the round. I take evidence very seriously and will drop you if I find it misconstrued.

Theory: I know nothing about theory or how to evaluate it. If you run it there is a high probability that I won't evaluate it.

Don’t be rude or offensive and don’t interrupt during cross or you’ll get dropped

I am a lay judge. Please do not assume I know any debate jargon. Please explain all abbreviations the first time you use them. Please be on time for your tournament.

*assume I don't know the topic or the literature/arguments surrounding the resolution*

Email: achoi07650@gmail.com

1. Tech v. Truth

- varies on a case-by-case basis but will mainly default to tech

- always assume I don't know anything

- generally not an interventionist judge

2. Positions

Disads - cool

Counterplans - cool except in PF

Kritiks - cool

Theory - cool, but run it for a legitimate reason and not as a time-suck or abusing someone who doesn't know how to respond (@ novices/middle schoolers)

Topicality - will rarely vote on it

3. Speed + Evidence

- any speeds fine but plz it's public forum shouldn't be spreading

- I probably won't call cards but you never know

- plz don't plagiarize + know the rules of evidence

4. Speaks

- will give high speaks for nice round :)

- if y'all chill expect 28+

- if y'all rude/disrespectful/purposely making someone feel uncomfortable expect nothing higher than a 25

5. Basic stuff

- please weigh

- I ain't tolerating problematic behavior in my rounds. You know what this means. Please be respectful, this event ain't life or death depending on a win.

- I beg, please don't excessively call for cards. I take the whole round into perspective and a card probably will not change my decision and if it will, I'll call for it myself. However, do what is in your best interest.

6. Digital stuff

- Usually tournaments say camera on (I believe) but if not I don't care whether or not your camera is on or off. I will keep my camera on unless something wild occurs.

- If you experience lag I may interrupt your speech for you to repeat something. Don't be flustered if I ask you to repeat something it is important for me to hear it :).

- Say if you need me to accommodate something. I'm fairly flexible as long as it is agreeable with everyone and the tournament staff/guidelines.

Aaron Clarke, former varsity debater at George Mason University (aaronclarke217@gmail.com, if you want feedback after the round and want to shoot me an email)

**HIGH SCHOOL/SPACE TOPIC: I haven't done any topic research for this topic so I'm not going to know any acronyms or anything like that.

Top-Level Stuff: I don't really care what you go for, but traditional policy debate was what I spent about 95% of my debate career doing. I typically went for traditional arguments but 1) I often read non-traditional arguments on the aff and neg AND 2) I want you to do what you want to do. Debate is only fun when you're doing what you like.If you want to go for a K, aff or neg, go for it.

T:

It's usually in the 1NCs my partner reads and I'll definitely vote on it. Reasonibility should not be your A strat when debating T. It does not make sense when there are competing interpretations. I'm also down to hear framework against K affs. That's usually my strat because I don't know too much K lit to read a K against it (more below).

Condo:

Condo is good up to two counter-advocacies. Once you hit three counter-advocacies, I'll start feeling heavy sympathy for the aff. That being said, if the neg drops condo, I'll vote on it. My stance on condo does not allow you to blow over it shallowly. I tend to reject the arg, not the team.

K's:

I'm gonna keep it real with you chief: I'm not the best judge for you on this. High theory lit is going to go over my head but other K lit I at least have a basic understanding of it.

CP's:

I'm down for most CPs. I'm split on counterplan theory like process CPs and consult CPs, but hey, it's debate. If you can convince me they're not abusive, okay. If you can convince me it is abusive, okay. I'll vote either way.

DAs:

I. Love. Disads. Being a former 2N, disads were my bread and butter. I love topic DAs and I love politics DAs. Once again, although I hold DAs close to my heart, if you lose a DA, you lose a DA. There can be zero risk of a link. I love impact turn debates as well.

Case:

This is my favorite debate as most of my 2NR's were DA and case.

Details of warrant extrapolation and depth in the 2NC are key. 2AC's tend to be blippy so take advantage.

Aff’s should choose and break down more in the 1AR. Choose your impact comparison to the DA or solvency deficit connected to an advantage in the 1AR. It is difficult when the 2ar breaks down and establishes a new lens such as time frame, of which there is no record for in the previous speeches and one the 2NR would likely have responded too.

Aff:

See "Top-Level Stuff" I'm open to listening to theory and will vote on it. If you do go for a K aff, make sure it relates to the topic. I'll lean neg on Framework if your aff has no relation to the topic.

Presumption:

It flips neg when they don't go for a CP or K. Flips aff when they go for a CP or K

Tech vs. Truth:

This is circumstantial. I generally reward technical concessions and try to hold a firm line on new arg's in rebuttals. Though, I also think a silly advantage or DA can be demolished in cross ex

Cross Ex:

Cross ex can be the best moment of a debate if deployed correctly. I reward speakers that have a strategy and use their time wisely in cross ex.

Other notes:

Don't be a jerk. I find myself in too many debates where people equate being a dick to having a lot of ethos. Not only will it piss off your opponents, it'll put you in poor position speaker point wise. I don't have a problem if you rip someone's arguments apart in cross-ex, but there is a respectable way to do it.

If you show a fairly large amount of knowledge about the topic, that goes a long way in terms of speaker points.

The timer for prep stops once you stop making changes to the doc. Don't try and take advantage of this by saying you're "saving" when really you're typing up more stuff

I wouldn't consider myself a point fairy, but I think I give out pretty good speaker points.

I coach beginners (elementary/ MS) debate, so I'm very familiar with PF, but I work on a very novice level, i.e. 3rd- 8th graders and we typically do more simple topics.

I have a basic understanding of jargon, but you're better off putting things in lay terms. I'm not good with speed, I'll zone out and not process anything you're saying, so I'd suggest speaking a smidge above conversational pace if you want me to truly take in your case. I get it if you want to speak fast to get a lot in, just be sure to repeat the main things you want me to take away to ensure I've got it. If you want to take the risk, that's up to you! :) I really don't recommend it.

I'm usually swayed by more compassionate, emotional arguments and will typically vote for the side that helps more people in a more tangible way. I like when you tell me specifically what to vote based off of.

I don't judge very often, so I definitely am not a perfect judge, but I'll do my best! PLEASE don't expect me to be a tech judge. I am not! I flow, but I miss things at times. I don't have rules about what needs to be in what speech, but obviously you can't bring up something new at the end.

I'm easily charmed by a good public speaker, and have noticed that if someone is a good speaker I'm more receptive to their arguments. I try to keep it to the content when picking a winner, but I've noticed this about myself and am not always conscious of it, so I figured it's beneficial for you to know if I'm your judge.

I always figure it's best to be polite and professional. I think it reflects better on you if you stand for your speeches and keep your own time. It's not a make or break, but you'll come off a lot better in my eyes if you do these things.

If you have a specific question, feel free to ask! :)

I competed in extemp for 6 years (3 in high school, 3 in college) along with doing Congress and some PF in HS and have since coached pretty much every speech event and world schools debate for the past 2 years. For reference, I'm a school-affiliated judge but work at a government contracting company doing work for the Marine Corps, so be warned that national security is my niche area of expertise.

WORLDS: I specifically look for students who use this style of debate to persuade (read: talk at a normal pace. Worlds was created to counter the trend of debates turning technical, and I'm going to try and uphold that as best I can).

PF: I look for logical consistency of arguments and general plausibility. Do not run Ks or anything else wild with me. I will not be persuaded by arguments like "because we use the word 'the' that means the world will end in nuclear war so vote pro" which I have seen run. Also, I can handle speed so long as you work up to it but I tend to deduct a few tenths of a speaker point for excessive speed since PF was never designed to be a technical debate event and I feel like that's going against the event standard as written by the NSDA. But if you want to spread then I will not automatically preclude you from winning the round and I will be perfectly capable of following along.

BOTH: Show me you care about your arguments, and show me why I should vote for you. I see plenty of debates where there's clash, but tell me why your side comes out on top at the end of the day. If both sides have the same position some clash will get declared a wash, and there's never a wash in debate because one side always does a better job fulfilling the value or criterion or impact better than the other side. Just saying you're winning an argument does not make it true, show me why you're winning and trace the progress of that clash for me. I do flow, but I'm not a fan of teams saying "extend contention ___" and then providing no reason why I should do that. Again, tell me why the opponent's response or lack thereof is sufficient to warrant extending something.

Other than that, have fun! I definitely notice when students are enjoying themselves and tend to give an extra style point (or speaker points in speech and PF) or two for that.

College Professor for English as a Second Language, and CISR Scholar for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals - not a "tabla rasa".

I prefer well-warranted mid-level impacts to logical leaps of bad faith to nuclear war every round ---> Weigh apocalyptic impacts with more than reading that one piece of evidence. Crossfire is the time to ask clear and pointed questions.

Instincts That Distort Perspective

The Gap Instinct. Our tendency to divide things into two distinct and often conflicting groups with an imagined gap between them (e.g. us and them).

The Negativity Instinct. Our tendency to notice the bad more than the good (e.g. believing that things are getting worse when things are actually getting better).

The Generalization Instinct. Our tendency to mistakenly group together things or people, or countries that are actually very different.

The Destiny Instinct. The idea that innate characteristics determine the destinies of people, countries, religions, or cultures; that things are as they are because of inescapable reasons.

The Single Perspective. Our tendency to focus on a single cause or perspective when it comes to understanding the world (e.g. forming your worldview by relying on the media, alone). (adapted from Factfulness by Hans Rosling)

I competed in CNDF and PF for four years in high school, and I have been coaching and judging debate since then.

Judging Criteria:

- Clear Organization (Signposting is preferred).

- Use evidence and logical analysis to support your arguments.

- Present clear impacts and weigh them.

- Have your evidence ready.

- Speak with clarity.

- Listen and respect your opponents.

General:

I am a lay judge. I do follow the flow, but I don't judge exclusively on that;

You may sit or stand to present but both teams will do the same. If the room is cramped, it’s better you stay in your seat;

If you are going to speak quickly, your elocution needs to be good enough for me to understand you;

I do not run a clock on time, track your own time and keep your opponents honest about theirs;

If you are relying on an electronic device to make your speeches and it goes down, I will run your prep time until it is corrected. If you run out of time, I expect you to continue without it. If you can’t, I will consider that a forfeit;

I have a thorough knowledge of statistics so making arguments that go off the deep end (speculative) or citing sources with a statistically insignificant sample size, or "cherry-picked" data or conclusions will diminish the impact of your card.

Misrepresenting cards will cost you, whether done intentionally or not;

You may use an off-time road map to state the sequence of your argument but do not use it to make your case.

About me:

I have an engineering background and work in the heavy construction industry. I am swayed by facts, data, logic, and reason and do my best to avoid emotion in decisions at it mostly leads to failure or disaster in the realm of the physical sciences where I work.

My hobbies include history, particularly military history, automobiles, woodworking, outdoor sports, and evolutionary behavior/genetics.

weigh

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

If you do not have an off case position, I will forget your off-time roadmap. Please tell me in your speech what argument you are addressing.

Read whatever (non-offensive/egregiously untrue) argument you want; I try to be flexible.

I will not evaluate theory arguments presented in the ABCD interp violation blah blah format. If you want to explain your theory argument in the (relatively) conversational language that you present all your other arguments in, then I will listen. https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

I reserve the right to be more persuaded by a team.

Arturo Féliz-Camilo

I studied and practice law, hold two law degrees and teach History. I'm familiar and like the economic/social/historical arguments. I've been coaching (mostly PF) since 2013 for New Horizons Bilingual School in the Dominican Republic.

I love debate, and the strategy game. I love to see a good clash of ideas and interesting/novel analysis. I'll buy any argument as long as you link, warrant, and support it with relevant evidence. Still, I think some arguments are just in bad taste. Allow me to further clarify this point. I am not going to buy any argument just because "there's a card". That's not enough for me. You have to persuade me, you have to warrant your claims.

I believe communication is key. If I can't understand it due to speed, I won't flow it. I won't ask you to slow down. I almost never intervene. Debate should not be about brute force your opponents into submission, but about a clash of ideas.

I really enjoy a civil CX. Ask for evidence if you must, but don't make the round an evidence match. If you call for evidence I hope you're planning to do something with it. I listen to CX but won't flow it. I'll note cool stuff in the hopes it makes it into your speech. I almost never review evidence, unless there's a claim by one of the teams, and then I must. I'll go with what's in my flow. I do admit that having the cases help me flow, but I mostly flow what you read.

It's ok to offer an off-time roadmap, just don't take a minute doing so. Quickly give it and move on. Don't ask. Just do it.

Once more. Explain, analyze, and warrant your case, don’t just read it. Weigh, impact, link, extend, boil down, crystallize. Feel free to sign-post/roadmap. Absent a framework and weighing I'll go with what stands in the end. Don't bring new arguments to summary. I won't flow them. Don't bring new arguments to final focus. I won't flow it.

I'm not in love with Ks or Theory. Run them at your own risk. I like to think that we should debate under the agreed upon rules. I will buy arguments on technical aspects of PF, as a matter of order and fairness. I think too many debaters are running disclosure in a dishonest way. All that said, I will buy anything that makes sense, including abusive behavior, bad faith misgendering, and anti-violence. I am not absolutely closed to theory, but I'll usually only buy it if it's run in good faith, and not as a strategy to win a round.

Pettiness will not win me over, but you gotta stand your ground. Sassiness is awesome, but the line between the two is just so thin. You want to win your round? Be smart, creative, fun, thoughtful, and strategic. Outweigh, outsmart, outperform, outclass your opponent.

If at the end of the round you want me to explain how I gave or not gave you the ballot, I will absolutely do it in good faith, but I will not debate you, or change my mind. Once I start disclosing, the ballot is already in, so trying to persuade me at that point is not productive.

Add me to your evidence chain arturo@arturofeliz.com

Updated for virtual debate in 2021-22.

Add me to the email chain: azgphoto@hotmail.com.

If providing / exchanging speech docs: Please email the text of your speech to me. I prefer this to a link to your doc in the cloud. If you also want to send a link, that is fine.

Time: Speeches and cross: Please state something like "my time starts now" or "time starts on my first word." Prep time: Say "starting prep now," "time starts when I get my partner's call," or hold your timer so that everyone can see it when you start prep. Also say "stopping prep, we used X" or "x remaining." This helps me and everyone in the round keep track.

Virtual evidence exchange: Teams must be able to pull up evidence and provide it promptly. Teams asking for evidence must keep both microphones on until the evidence is received in order to keep your prep time from starting. Any team asked for evidence that cannot provide it within 1 minute may lose prep time.

----

Experience: I am a former Bronx High School of Science policy debater where I debated all four years and competed regularly at national tournaments. This was a while back. Abraham Lincoln was the President. (Obviously joking.) This is my fifth year judging PF debate for what is now my son's former high school. See my judging record below.

Please read my full paradigm below.

Signposting. Please signpost all of your positions/arguments. This includes your warrants, impacts, links, as well as when you weigh the issues in each speech. Numbering with signposting is often helpful for me to make clear what you consider to be independent arguments. Without good signposting, I (like any judge) may miss part of an argument or not vote on what you believe is key to the round.

Speed is okay but you must be clear. I flow debates. If I can't understand you or feel like I am missing what you are saying, you will be able to tell by the look on my face in the round. Online debate adds another level of difficulty to this so if I can't understand enough of what you are saying, I will say "clear."

Warrant your arguments and weigh them (where it makes sense to do so). I do not want to do any analysis for you that you do not present in the round. Intelligent and thoughtful analysis can beat warrantless evidence.

Evidence. Know your sources and tell me precisely what your evidence says. The NSDA allows paraphrasing but I don't think it is worth the potential trouble that can result. Context is often very important. If a team is paraphrasing and the evidence is critical to the round, I encourage you to call for it and look for weaknesses in your opponents's characterizations. Also, consider the persuasiveness of the author. I won't necessarily know who the author of your evidence is. Consider telling me enough so that I can evaluate how persuasive the evidence is as well as explaining why your opponent's sources may be biased or untrustworthy. I may ask for evidence that becomes important in the round. All evidence must say what you claim that it does. If paraphrased text doesn’t say what you claim that it said, I will weigh that against you. I don't like to call for cards but if you think that someone's evidence doesn't say what is claimed in the round, ask me to call for it. (Don't tell me to call for evidence that is not at issue in the round and don't bother to ask me if I want to see evidence after the round. I will tell you if I want to see something.)

Cross: I may make notes during cross but if you want to make an argument or respond to one, it must be made during a speech in the round. You can refer back to an argument made in cross but make sure I understand how you are using it in the round.

Frameworks: If your opponent seeks to establish a voting framework for the entire round, address that framework directly. Tell me why I should reject it or why I should adopt an alternate framework. If you do not respond to your opponents framework directly, I will treat that as though you have accepted it.

By the end of your summary speeches, I should have a clear idea of exactly what you want me to vote on and why. (“We win the round on x is nowhere near as helpful as “We win the round on x because ...” Please address your opponents’ voting arguments head on.

Extend your key arguments into Final Focus. Extending an argument is not the same as repeating an argument. Know the difference. If you want me to vote on it, it must be there.

On a related note, don't drop your opponents’ voting arguments. If an argument is truly dropped and this is pointed out in the final focus, I will give the dropped argument to the team that made the argument. They may not win as a result but it could be easier to do so. DO NOT, however, claim that your opponents dropped one of your arguments when, in fact, they merely responded generally to it.

Timing. When time runs out, please stop speaking. If time runs and you are in mid sentence, you may complete the sentence but only if you can do so in no more than a few seconds. Arguments made or responses given after time is up are NOT "in the round."

I will disclose my decision after a round along with my RFD if the rules of a tournament allow me to do so.

Progressive arguments: I am not very familiar with progressive arguments / Ks, so run them at your own risk. That being said, I will evaluate any argument presented on the merits of the argument.

I'm a parent judge, former litigator, and currently a bank regulatory and policy attorney. I'm also a volunteer firefighter.

I'm fine with moderate speed, as long as it's clear and isn't spreading. Please frontline in 2nd Rebuttal, and weigh in Summary and Final Focus.

For the round, please time yourselves, and when time ends, then simply complete your sentence and defer.

Be respectful of your opponents, and during crossfire and grand crossfire please strive not to speak over your colleagues and remember to always ask questions (and not soapbox your contentions).

Best of luck!

Email for chain/questions: jonahlg20@gmail.com - if we can skip GCX and start the round asap, +0.5 to everyone. I have almost never seen anything important happen in GCX, and it probably shouldnt exist

i am flow. I will vote on the flow. I did HS PF and now college parli. run w/e you want but just don't be a dick. I have some experience with theory/Ks, but prob not enough for you to feel comfortable running them in front of me unless they are pretty intuitive (disclo, CWs, etc).

ANALYTICS ARE GOOD, PLEASE DO THEM. I WILL VALUE A VERY SMART ANALYTIC/LOGICAL RESPONSE AS MUCH AS I VALUE SOMETHING THAT IS CARDED WHEN THE WARRANT OF THE CARD IS NOT DEEPLY EXPLAINED. While I am tech > truth, I still need to hear the warrant behind the cards, and am receptive to the opposing teams calling out logical gaps in link chains. If you are reading a prepout on someone but cannot explain why your responses are true, I have a high propensity to drop your response, even if it might be dropped.

(stolen meme)

At a minimum, frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, and please collapse early for cleaner rounds.

If I need to presume for some reason because there is literally nothing for me to vote on, I will presume to the 1st speaking team, not neg. If the reason isn't obvious, feel free to ask me why.

Ask me before the round about any other prefs or about APDA debate in college after round. If u want more feedback you can FB message me or just ask me after round.

Speaks - 3 ways to get a 30 from me:

1. Read a purely analytics rebuttal through FF. If you don't use cards and win, you certainly deserve it. I strongly encourage you to try this with me if you are confident, since I have a stronger propensity to pick up analytics than most TOC judges

2. If you win so hard on the flow you don't even need to do any weighing bc you are winning everything. If you think this is the case then just mention this part of the paradigm in ur speech and if ur right ill give 30.

3. win the round while using 0 prep time as a team - literally be ready to speak right after the preceding person (obviously does not apply if you used 0 prep then lost lol)

I will give speaks based on who debated the best, not who spoke the best. Basically whoever gave the round-winning analysis should be #1 always even if the other team spoke pretty

derby ‘18

mason ‘22

grahanoa@gmail.com

i read a k aff for the last 3 years, before that i read a plan in kansas. read what makes you comfortable at a pace you can maintain. feel free to ask me any questions before the round. 

I am a parent judge.

Besides my subject matter expertise in Climate Change, Aviation, Unmanned Air Systems and Renewable energy, I closely follow geopolitics and current world affairs.

During judging, I carefully observed whether debate rules and regulations are being followed.

I emphasize a few points:

1. Speak clearly and slowly enough for the other team and judge to follow your position.

2. Do not speak over the heads and display any gestures.

3. Keep your own time and do not exceed the time limit allowed.

4. Use verifiable facts.

Andrew James Harding

Add me on the email chain: andrewjharding1@gmail.com

TL/DR Debate: Second-year college student/debater with nine years of debate experience. Tech>Truth. I'm okay with speed, but I need pen time for tags. Plans and K Affs are cool. Ks, CPs, DAs, T, and legitimate theory are cool. Tricks and non-basic phil are not cool. Performance args can be cool, but you'll have to make sure I fully understand the arg. AFF must have offense on case in the 2AR. I'll vote neg on presumption. I default to competing interps. I'll drop the debater. Fairness is an IL to education. CX is binding. CP texts are binding. I'll vote on condo if abuse is clearly shown.

TL/DR Speech: Second-year college student/debater with nine years of debate experience. I will judge at an NSDA/TOC standard.

Speaker Points (25-30 Scale):

30-29.5 - Excellent, late elims

29.4-29 - Great, mid elims

28.9-28.5 - Good, early elims

28.4-28 - Okay, might break

27.9-27.5 - Decent, won't break

27.4-27 - Bad, won't break

26.9-26 - Very bad, won't break

<25.9 - Disgraceful, you've engaged in inappropriate behavior, won't break

Background: I graduated from The Woodlands HS in Houston, TX. I'm currently an undergraduate student at the George Washington University double majoring in Asian Studies and International Affairs, as well as double minor in Political Science and History. I'm also a member of GW's Parliamentary Debate Society, ranking 18th in Novice of the Year Standings for the American Parliamentary Debate Association. I debated all four years in HS, competing in CX for 2.5 years as a 2A/1N and LD for 1.5 years. For other events, I competed in DX for 4 years and occasionally other IE events. I've qualified to TFA State for 3 years in CX, LD, and DX. I've qualified in DX to the TOC and NSDA Nationals twice. In CX and LD, I'm familiar with and have ran both policy and critical arguments, mainly based off of Antonio Gramsci's theory of hegemony during senior year.

General: I view debate as the ultimate game of strategy. That being said, debate is also a game of persuasion. It is your job to persuade me that I should prefer your arguments over your opponent. I expect ethical discourse and effective argumentation. An argument consists of a claim, warrant, and impact, so PLEASE include all three when extending and weighing arguments. Regardless of whatever argument you're going to run, it ought to be ran properly. I don't care about how you sit or dress, but make sure you're respectful of your opponent and listen to any request they may have to make the round better for everyone. I would prefer to see a good technical and strategic strategy that has been well prepared. I don't want you to just read the case and prep your teammate gave you. Don't assume I know what you're saying. My main focus has been on policy-type arguments, but I'm always open to new experiences and learning. I like to give long RFDs and many comments as I want people to be the best debaters they can be. Don't feel bad if you need to ask me to shut up so you can leave the round.

*** CX ***

General AFF: I shouldn't have to guess what the 1AC is about. I don't want to hear many new case cards, for I believe the 2AC should incorporate as much of the 1AC offense as possible. T can be a voter and should always be covered well. The 2AC should be: case, T, then the 1NC order. There should be something on the flow against every off case position. I want to see ADVs kicked as the debate moves along. The 1AR is tough, but coverage of all remaining off case is expected or there should be some arguments made that can address multiple off at once. 2AR MUST include heavy case analysis. If the case debate is lost or not warranted well, I'll presume neg.

Policy AFFs: Love them. I expect to hear inherency either on top of the 1AC or within each ADV. There needs to be an IL to every IPX. Solvency must explain what your specific plan solves your ADVs. If the USFG is your actor, then you must defend that USFG action is key and/or good. That doesn't mean you must justify EVERYTHING the government does, but you must defend the position that the government is the best actor to solve problems. Big stick impacts should probably o/w deontologist impacts if you want access to impact calc.

Middle of the road AFFs: I'm okay with them, but I'm not too familiar with them. For the most part, everything said about "Policy AFFs" above apply here. Frame impact calc however you desire, but I'm to suspect SV is the way to go here.

Critical AFFs: Love them. The AFF must be in direction of the resolution with evidence that links the two together. I must hear an advocacy statement, for I need to know what your AC calls for what I would be voting for. While I enjoy fancy taglines, I must be able to identify the purpose of each card. Impact framing and/or ROJ ought to be included. Don't assume I know your literature. There's a good chance I won't, but if you articulate well enough, there shouldn't be an issue. On T debates, you must give me reason why I should weigh case against T or I don't think you'll get my ballot.

General NEGs: The negative shouldn't walk into round without a skeleton of a strategy ready to go. I enjoy a good 1-off K debate as well as a 6-off policy debate. While I understand the strategical value of reading as many offs as possible (I've done the same), it's nice to read 3-4 off that allow for in-depth analysis in the negative block. The 1NC MUST address case. Not doing so will make me believe you're attempting to skirt away from actual clash and just hope to win on overloading on off case. Case turns are wonderful. However, a win is a win and while I won't like you, I'll listen to you. I should hear case in the block. Kicking arguments that don't advocate for a world outside the AC are totally fine and I expect it. The 2NR should only go for one off (or two if it's a CP with a DA for the NB) AS WELL as at least one case argument. Again, you do you at your own risk.

T: Love it. If you have a shell that the AC links well into, I want to hear this debate. I will listen to squirrelly shells, but I highly doubt I'll vote on them. There must be an interp, violation, standards and voters. Including "Drop the debater" is optional as you obviously want me to even if you don't read it. The block should answer the line-by-line effectively and show why the AC is skewing the debate. Don't read T with 8 other off and argue "wE hAve nO gRounD" as I'll probably buy 2AC defense easily, so pick your standards carefully. I need a TVA and caselist in the 2NC, even if they ask for one in cross as I won't flow cross. I default depth>breadth if there is no debate over the matter.

DA: Love them. I absolutely love politics DAs (base, political capital, midterms, elections, down-ballot, congress, courts, international affairs) as I know this area the best, but DAs in general are nice. A DA should include at least 4 cards (U, L, IL, IPX), but 3 is doable. I'm not a fan of 2 carded DAs. More than 4 are cool. Inherency/Uniqueness should be as recent as possible. If your U ev is from 2016 and the 2AC spreads through a N/U card from 2019, you're not winning the DA. The link should be as specific as possible as I'll believe the plan would trigger it, but I understand the use of generic links. However, there's a good chance I'll buy "AFF not k2" arguments if the link is generic. IL must connect to the IPX.

CP: I'm okay with them. I didn't run them often, but I understand how they function and will happily listen to them. 3 parts: text, solvency, NB. There must be a clearly defined CP text THAT IS BINDING. Meaning, if your text refers to granting parole to Syrian refugees, but the AC is about climate refugees, you better hope the AC let's you getting away with it as it's up to the AFF to call you out on it. If the 2AC doesn't test it, then they missed their chance and I suppose it's up to you to do as you please. It'll reflect in your speaks though. If you attempt to change the text after being called out on it, I will not only dock speaks as you're creating an unfair burden on the 2AC, but I will only consider the CP as what the text says it's doing. After the text, I need to hear a solvency advocate through a from of evidence. This evidence should explain why the CP will solve the issues of the AFF. A net benefit MUST be attached to the CP. While I'll expect a DA, you do you if you have another idea, but know it's a risk. Losing the NB means I no longer consider the CP. If you're going for the CP in the 2NR, you must also go for your NB.

K: Love them. I'm most familiar with critical literature addressing capitalism, hegemony, and biopower. With that being said, I understand the basic concepts on most kritiks. I'm not well-versed in postmodernist thought, but I will listen to the best of my ability. You'll have to do a lot of work in the overview to make sure I know what's going on. Kritiks needs a link, impact and alternative. I REALLY want framing (ROJ/IPX), but it isn't required to win. The more specific the link the better. However, there must be SOME relation to the AC. Meaning, I'll listen to state-bad links, but that would mean the AC defends the state. The block must include heavy link analysis. There must be a clearly defined alt. I'm not a fan of vague alts or reject alts. I want to be introduced to a new way of thinking or acting. If you're going for the K, I need very, very strong alt work. HOWEVER, I will buy the K as a linear DA with the link and impact if I'm told to. I want to know my role in the debate in order to influence how I weigh impacts.

Theory: I'm usually not a fan. The only theories I've ran as a 2A are: disclosure, 50 states fiat, condo bad and "generic links." I don't really enjoy theory debates as I believe they distract from debating the content of the debate at hand. However, I do believe theory can be necessary when there is legitimate concern over actions that have occurred during a round. This may be my LD experiences creeping in, but I believe the negative should only advocate for one conditional world. However, I doubt I will buy condo if there are two condo args. Three is pushing it, and four makes me heavily favor voting on condo bad. I don't like tricks debate as it completely distracts from debating the issues at hand. If you run theory, I need an interp, violation, standards and voters. Run theory at your own risk and only if there are legitimate concerns.

Performance: I'm okay with it, but I may not be the best to judge for these arguments. As a white, cis, heterosexual male, I will not able to fully understand performance if it is based off of personal experience due to the privilege society has presented to me. While this doesn't mean I won't fairly weigh the arguments, I can't promise that I'll either understand or analyze the argument as someone else could, but I will do the best I can. I would want an explanation for the performance so I can have a general idea of what to expect and to look for. Make sure I know how you want me to evaluate the argument, mainly through framing.

*** LD ***

General AFF: Same as CX. I think AC under-views/spikes are a waste of time. Can they strategically preempt NC offense? Sure. However, I'd like to imagine a good debater to just read arguments that don't violate any spikes. If that happens, you've wasted valuable time that could've generated additional arguments. Rather than reading an under-view, I would much rather hear an additional contention/advantage. This doesn't mean you can't read under-views/spikes, but I won't be too pleased. If you think you can get me to change my mind on this, go for it, for I love learning new arguments and strategy.

Traditional AFFs: You should use the entire 6 minutes. There must be a FW that includes, at least, a Value (V) and Value Criterion/Standard (VC) with evidence. Feel free to include other evidence or additional framing mechanisms. I'd like to hear, at least, two contentions with three being preferable. There should be, at least, three cards per contention with four being preferable. I would prefer depth over breadth.

Policy AFFs: Same as CX.

Middle of the road AFFs: Same as CX.

Critical AFFs: Same as CX.

General NEG: Same as CX. NR should collapse the flow. If you're running multiple off in the NC, I expect you to go for 1 in the NR (or CP+DA/NB). In the NR, I will only accept new arguments IN RESPONSE to any 1AR offense (ex: Perm ATs). There also shouldn't be many new cards read in the NR, if any at all.

Traditional NEGs: The NC case should take around 4-5 minutes to get through with 2-3 minutes left to do the line-by-line on the AC. There must be a FW that includes, at least, a V and VC with evidence. Feel free to include other evidence or additional framing mechanisms. If your FW is the same as the AC's or you want to weigh the debate under AC FW, make that clear so I know that not including your own FW is a strategical move. You should have at least 1 contention, preferably 2, with at least 2 cards per contention. While that isn't required (you could shotgun 7 contentions if you really want to), I would prefer more depth over breadth. When on the AC, there should be significant engagement with FW. I expect you to cover the flow. That doesn't mean have an answer for every card (Would be nice though), but there should be arguments made on every AC contention.

PHIL: I like phil, I just haven't been exposed to it well enough to fully comprehend and judge rounds focused on phil arguments. That being said, an argument is an argument and I'll flow it. If you're going for phil arguments in the NR, you REALLY need to explain and warrant the arguments. Assume I know nothing you're talking about, no matter how "basic" it could be. Same regards to weighing, extensions, and warrants apply here too.

T: Same as CX. TVA of the AFF should be in NC. I'm more likely to buy 1AR basic defense due to the timing allocation for the 1AR. However, if you go for T in the NR, I'll have a higher threshold for 2AR analysis. No need to make the "Drop the Debater" argument; I know you want me to.

DA: Same as CX.

CP: Same as CX.

K: Same as CX.

Theory: Same as CX. Please don't waste my time with frivolous theory. Sure, I'll flow it and you can win with it, but I will set a high threshold for you to win the shell and your speaks will reflect my displeasure. Any "tricks" fall under this category. While I don't like disclosure theory, I think the debate could be fair.

Performance: Same as CX.

*** PF ***

General: I did not compete in PF during my time in HS, but I've judged local PF tournaments at the MS and HS level. Just like in policy, weighing, clash, warranted extensions, line-by-line, and strategical arguments are expected and will be rewarded. If there is a specific framework you want me to value, make the argument. I'll default to util if no FW arguments are made. I don't care about speaking style, speed, or general presentation; I vote off arguments that you win on the flow. That doesn't mean you ought to be rude or ignore the value of persuasion, rather I'm making clear that arguments o/w presentation. I'd prefer for you to NOT read policy-type arguments, but do as you please. Cross-Fire periods should be respectful and fairly balanced; If, for whatever reason, I must intervene during Cross Fire to maintain order and/or the integrity of the event, both/all debaters will be given 25 speaks. I will presume CON if there is no extended and warranted PRO offense coming out of the Final Focus. Any framing arguments shape the round and I value them over contention level analysis. However, you WILL (probably) NOT win my ballot if you just win FW. You must apply the FW to the contention level debate so there can be 1) weighing and 2) world comparison. If no framing is given, the debate comes down to contention level. Arguments must be extended and warranted out for them to have a chance of appearing on my ballot. I expect weighing - please don't make me intervene on which impacts I prefer. Arguments should be reasonable, meaning there ought to either be an established and/or implied link to the resolution that makes logical sense. Don't assume I have background information about your arguments; it's your job to inform and persuade me. New arguments made in the rebuttals and/or final focus won't be flowed.

First Constructive: Establish the case. Include any framing arguments.

Second Constructive: I expect offense to be extended, warranted, and weighed. There should be good coverage of the flow with line-by-line coverage. While new offense is technically allowed, I'd prefer you to use evidence from the first constructive speeches to generate offense and/or defense.

Summary: Start collapsing the flow and focus heavily on weighing and world comparison. While line-by-line is always important, you should start crystallizing the main arguments in the world. Meaning, you don't need to win every single argument on the flow, but with whatever arguments you'e going for, you should always cover the line-by-line.

Final Focus: Voters. Weigh the arguments you're going for with what your opponents are going for. World comparison is expected. Line-by-line still matters; don't forget to balance time between offense AND defense with the arguments you're going for.

https://gph.is/2HThgly

I am an assistant coach at The Potomac School, and previously was the Director of Forensics at Des Moines Roosevelt. If you have any questions about Public Forum, Extemp, Congress, or Interp events, come chat! Otherwise you can feel free to email me at: quentinmaxwellh@gmail.com for any questions about events, the activity, or rounds I've judged.

I'm a flow judge that wants to be told how to feel. Ultimately, Public Forum is supposed to be persuasive--a 'winning' flow is not inherently persuasive. My speaker points are generally reflective of how easy I think you make my decisions.

Things to Remember…

0. The Debate Space: R E L A X. Have some fun. Breathe a little. Sit where you want, talk in the direction you want, live your BEST lives in my rounds. I'm not here to tell you what that looks like!

1. Framework: Cost/benefit unless otherwise determined.

2. Extensions: Links and impacts NEED to be in summary to be evaluated in final focus. Please don't just extend through ink--make an attempt to tell me why your arguments are comparatively more important than whatever they're saying.

3. Evidence: If you're bad at paraphrasing and do it anyway, that's a reasonable voter. See section on theory. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. I also prefer authors AND dates. I will not call for evidence unless suggested to in round.

4. Cross: If it's not in a speech it's not on my flow. HOWEVER: I want to pay attention to cross. Give me something to pay attention to. Just because I'm not flowing cross doesn't make it irrelevant--it's up to you to do something with the time.

5. Narrative: Narrow the 2nd half of the round down with how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. I like comparative analysis.

6. Theory: If an abuse happens, theory shells are an effective check. I think my role as an educator is to listen to the arguments as presented and make an evaluation based on what is argued.

Disclosure is good for debate. I think paraphrasing is good for public forum, but my opinion doesn't determine how I evaluate the paraphrasing shell. This is just to suggest that no one should feel intimidated by a paraphrasing shell in a round I am judging--make substantive responses in the line-by-line and it's ultimately just another argument I evaluate tabula rasa.

7. Critical positions: I'll evaluate Ks, but if you are speaking for someone else I need a good reason not to cap your speaks at 28.5.

8. Tech >< Truth: Make the arguments you want to make. If they aren't supported with SOME evidence my threshold for evaluating answers to them is, however, low.

9. Sign Post/Road Maps: Please.

**Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don’t know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that with some humor and panache.**

About Me

I'm a lay judge and the parent of a debater.

I generally can handle a good rate of speech but cannot follow you if you speak too fast.

General

I may or may not disclose right away.

I’m fine with people watching the round.

Please keep track of speech and prep time yourself.

Signpost and road-map help.

Off-time road maps are fine but please keep them short.

I will follow your points and sub-points (as much as I can) and keep track of whether they are refuted, and the effectiveness of their rebuttals.

Bad/nasty behaviors and hateful comments will not be tolerated.

What I vote for:

• Ability to reason and convince

• Ability to articulate

• Clarity and consistency of speeches

• Soundness in logic

• Weighing in rebuttal

• Credibility/quality of sources/evidences

• Good extension and linking (of your arguments) from summary to final focus

• Team cohesion and manner

I'll try my best to judge fairly. Good luck and have fun.

I am a parent judge, and I have judged for more than 3 years on the national circuit.

Preferences:

- Speak clearly at a conversational pace

- Have logical and well-explained arguments

- Avoid debate jargon

- Signpost clearly

- No Ks, Theory, etc.

- Be professional and civil

- Cross: I may not take notes but I pay attention

copied & pasted this from Asher Spector's paradigm - I agree with everything below. please also content warn arguments if necessary (and have a backup argument ready just in case)! if you're not sure how to content warn something, ask!!

--

As a judge, I will adapt to you too. Do what you do best!

That said, I am a pretty standard PF tech judge, with a couple of specific preferences, outlined below:

(1) I will do my best to only vote off offense that is in both summary and final focus – if it’s in one but not the other, I probably won’t consider it in my decision. If you’re the first speaking team, defensive responses to your opponent’s case do not need to be in summary – I’ll still evaluate them if they’re in final focus. Turns that you want to win off of must be in 1st summary. If you’re the second speaking team, defensive responses need to be in both summary/final focus for me to evaluate them. If you have questions on this, please feel free to ask me!

(2) If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time. I hope this encourages y’all to collapse, develop, and weigh arguments instead of going for like 4 different voters (unless you weigh all four of them :) ).

(3) I care very little about what your cards say. I care a lot more about the warranting behind them. I will never vote on the idea that something is just "empirically true," although empirics do help when you're doing warrant comparisons/maybe a probability weighing analysis.

(4) I rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round. I strongly dislike disclosure theory. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.

- and don't forget to have fun!

nickkdebate@gmail.com

I've been out of debate for two years and as an old washed up debater my opinions are probably less firmly held than they once were. I was a varsity policy debater for George Mason University. I did K debate for the last two years, mostly in the realm of ‘high theory’ Baudrillard, and Deleuzian surveillance, disability, and some feminist themes.

Don't let that dissuade you from reading policy, I'll listen to and vote for most anything if you win the debate. My degree is in international relations, my thesis was on the relationship between corruption and the proliferation of WMDs. I also interned for in Congress. I understand IR theory, its fine if you want to defend a big stick heg debate or any other policy techniche.

One thing that's definitely changed since I debated - please no handshakes

Philosophy:

01. Just Do It™
Don't start with what I want to hear. Do you. If you win the argument, my opinion is irrelevant. I'd much rather hear a good debate about what you want to talk about than a thousand bad rereadings of the things that I enjoy. Just do it well. I once called thinking "wonder" and convinced more than a hundred judges that it was a unique and revolutionary alternative. Nothing is impossible if you have arguments to back it up. Just keep your head up, you'll be alright.

02. "Gory, gory, What a hell of a way to die!"
Clash: Not doing it is the fastest way to make these rounds ugly real quick. Don't shy away from clash, embrace it, and fill it with warrants. The very tired line about two ships passing in the night has some value - If you don't clash I have essentially carte blanche to make a decision. You may not like that decision. Easy solution: don't make me do that calculus. Close doors.

03. A true thing poorly expressed is a lie
It doesn't matter what your argument is, if you can communicate it to me and the other team cannot then you are ahead. I don't care how fast you spread, its strategic up until you cannot communicate intelligible words while spreading, at which point I can't flow and you'll probably lose as a result. Speed is good, but clarity first always.

04. “Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!”
There are rules. Speeches have fixed times. Holding up one round holds up the whole tournament, I'm not doing that. I will always flow, and it will be the sole determinant of the ballot. This is non-negotiable.

05. “Tools! We need tools! Mechanical and philosophical instruments!”
I largely debated "high theory" in my own career. In practice, I find that I vote for framework more often than critiques because K teams mess up the "policy tricks" as much as policy teams do the reverse. Framework teams – I'll vote for you, but not just because the other team took away your DA's. I want to hear why you think whatever is making debate less predictable, fair, etc.. is important so that there can be a debate about whether or not those benefits outweigh or are outweighed. I approach all arguments introduced with extreme skepticism and suspicion.

06. Smile, smile, smile x infinity..
If you're about to pref me to talk over your opponents with some real edgy Baudrillard blocks you found online: I think the value in 'high theory' authors and arguments is lost when people overdetermine the difficulty and complexity of the arguments themselves and dwell in the cult of personality. Good high theory debating is the process of making complex arguments accessible to people not invested in the literature, and applying it through examples that apply to the round. I'm not going to assume your arguments fit the ivory tower stereotypes. In exchange I ask that you don't live up to them.

07.
I don't automatically vote down teams making arguments termed by others 'stupid' or 'offensive'. Evil seduces when labeled taboo and off-limits. Moreover, I'm uncomfortable voting for someone who can't articulate why something offensive, dangerous, or stupid should not be affirmed. That doesn't mean speaks won't be affected.

08.
Speaker points are an entirely subjective and arbitrary assessment, and 'ranges' are not an exact science. Act as you choose, my points will reflect my feelings on said actions. I only give exceptionally low speaks if you do something ethically messed up. If your tournament uses NDT/CEDA 30 point maximums, then my speaks are probably a little above that average. I would say use good judgement generally applies, however there are a few things that some people think are acceptable with which I disagree and will punish speaks. The primary two- I will not evaluate arguments comparing someone's arguments to sexual assault. I think those debates are anti-educational, and only risk harm to everyone involved. I also will not evaluate genocide denial, for similar reasons. If you decide to read either, expect to find your speaker points capped at 10% of the tournament max.

If you find any of these stipulations objectionable, I respectfully request the quiet dignity of your strike to the alternative.

- Lay Judge

- Debaters should speak at a moderate pace

- Each contention should have plenty of supporting evidence with maximum impact.

- Opponents' contentions should be negated or weighed to your advantage.

Judging Philosophy

-The winner of the debate is normally the team with the best arguments, not necessarily the best speakers (speaker points).

-However, keep in mind that a poor presentation can detract from the way the judge (me) might perceive the strength of your arguments. Likewise, even a weak argument can seem better if presented in a convincing manner.

-Fast-Talking ("spreading") is OK, but you'd better ensure that I can understand what you're saying. Also, speaking quickly in order to get a high number of specious arguments out there is counterproductive. If you've got a lot of strong points, by all means speak quickly so I can hear them all. But if you've got an array of weaker and stronger arguments, I don't need to hear the weak ones. If in doubt, err on the side of speaking more slowly.

-Be sure to answer your opponents' weak arguments. I am not going to judge arguments based on my own experience and knowledge; I am relying on YOU to do the research, to bring strong and supported arguments to the debate, and to point out your opponent's weak arguments. Even if an argument seems outlandish on its face, you need to at least mention it on rebuttal (and hopefully cite a card of your own that contradicts it). Of course, no need to cite a card to contradict obviously lousy arguments (certain things are contrary to common sense, i.e. the sun won't rise tomorrow).

-CIVILITY over ALL. I feel very strongly that public discourse across a wide range of fora (in academia, in politics, and just communicating with others in general) has been overtaken by an "us against them," tribal mindset that encourages ad hominem attacks that substitute for rational argument. Meaningful debate cannot occur when such conditions exist, and we cannot allow such practices in our competitions. I expect strong and honest airing of the best arguments for and against the resolution. However, if I feel a team has violated the standards of respectful, civil discourse, they will lose, no matter how strong the arguments.

A lay judge who's been judging for a few years now, I'm not a big fan of frameworks and I absolutely do not do Theory.

The main factor in my decision will be how convincing your arguments are. That being said, I am open to all arguments as long as they are not too extreme, well-explained and articulated, make sure that your arguments are fleshed out. Think twice if you want to run dedev, theory or kritiks.

Speaking:

- Please speak clearly and at an understandable pace.

- Always be courteous to your opponents (I will not tolerate rude behavior).

Content:

- Be clear about what argument you are talking about.

- All of your evidence needs to have a warrant - don't just say a piece of evidence - explain what it means and its implications in the round.

- If you have a problem with your opponent's evidence, call it and indict it in your speech.

- Weighing - tell me why your argument is more important.

- Impact - please don't exaggerate :)

Good luck and have fun!

Relatively new to debate

I am a parent judge

Please make your arguments clear and articulate

I will understand most arguments but sorry if my RFD is not too clear

I did pf an worlds in high school. Talk fast if you want, but I feel like most rounds are won from quality over quantity. Be respectful. Weigh.

I am a parent judge. I have been “coached” by my MS debater on the structure of the debate and main ideas of the topic. So, I am somewhat familiar with it.

I understand that in some cases you must speak fast to cover as much information about your case as possible. As far as it is organized and you give pointers throughout the speech that I can follow and connect, I am OK with speed.

I also understand that you are passionate about your arguments. Maintaining respect is very important.

I will be tracking each point in your case, how you defend them and how you negate your opponent’s case. As far as you do it convincingly, you should be good!

Best wishes!

Anju.

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: brian.manuel@uky.edu

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."

Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.

Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.

Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!

Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.

Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited, but must follow the rules.

I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.

Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta then you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, miscited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact-check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element, the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any single set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments from the participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and use it to get judges who will automatically check-in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. It's not about who wrote the best constructive only. It's about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result, I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is brian.manuel@uky.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered. Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate Facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era where students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasize the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must prove their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations, I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negative burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love to debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also, why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2-year-old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Sukhi and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability, not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; it's what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - it's rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This means they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your lifelong friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

An additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or it's won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and fewer sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. It's called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, a strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but it's unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely affected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full-time coach. Debate is my full-time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with, and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging, my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard-working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being run every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

Flow judge who appreciates civility, especially in cross, which should be used for asking and answering questions, not speech making. Generally, a question may be followed by a follow-up, after which it is the turn of the other side. Starting the first constructives with key definitional and framework arguments is a good idea, as is providing, in FF, your view on how the impacts should be weighed. Try to terminalize your impacts in terms of values, including human life, equity, the environment, etc. Debaters should keep their own time only, and provide their account of how much prep time remains after each instance in which they take some and reconcile it with me if I have a discrepancy. Evidence should be represented with scrupulous accuracy, and the source should be fully identified, including the credentials of the writer, the date, and the publication. If I call for a card and observe that the evidence is old and you didn't give a date, I'll be concerned. Likewise, if you use evidence in a way that's misleading, I won't be pleased, e.g. if you use it to make a general claim when it's talking about a specific instance that bears little relation to the contention it's being used to support. Evidentiary challenges should be presented to me immediately after the final speech. Stylistically, debaters should speak clearly and audibly, while avoiding shouting. Speed will always be an issue, and debaters are urged to pace themselves mindfully of their opponents and judge(s).

Policy Update

Please see the above, as applicable, especially as regards civility. I prefer that issues of framework, topicality, definition, and interpretation be dealt with up front. Creativity is fine, but it must be firmly grounded in the reasonable. New arguments should not be presented in the rebuttal speeches, although there's always a judgment call when they're coming in as blocks. Clash is good; clash nullification is problematic. Plans should be substantive and intended to further policy objectives, not trivial and intended simply to confound the opposition.

World Schools Debate Update

I suggest clarifying what is at stake in the debate early on, i.e. if the motion carries, what would be the implications beyond the specific impacts. For example, in a debate on restrictions on hate speech, there might be a lively debate about whether or not the Prop model would, say, have the impact of reducing bias-motivated violence, but I'd also be interested in a framework and definitional analysis of whether hate speech is an instance of free speech, and, more broadly what we'd be both gaining and giving up philosophically if the motion were to carry. Similarly, I'd be interested in hearing about what the standards would be to make a determination that speech was in a prohibited category and who would make these judgments. In other words, this discipline affords an opportunity both to consider PF-style impacts and also the broader, philosophical dimensions of the topic. I'm also interested in each team's thoughts on burdens, both the other side's and its own. What do you think you have to prove in order to win the round? What should your opponents be required to prove? Of course, examples are important, but often I need to know the context, what you're trying to prove, and how the example proves your point. In the example above, perhaps there's a country that has criminalized a certain category of speech. Is there a particular historical or cultural context that we need to know if we are to understand why they did so? Is the example generally applicable, i.e. would its example be desirable in many countries with different histories and cultures? I'm fine with your collapsing a round to your view of the fundamental clashes that should determine the outcome, but I suggest you not ignore an opponent's argument, even if you elect not to extend your analysis of it, i.e. point out why you're dropping it; otherwise, I might think you've overlooked it or are conceding it without showing why doing so is strategic. In terms of style, with eight minutes, there's no reason to talk rapidly or, heaven forfend, begin shouting, or go overtime. You can show your passion through the clarity and cogency of your argumentation, but try to remain calm. Ultimately, you win the debate by persuading me that your side of the motion's world is more desirable than your opponent's--for the reasons you have successfully argued. On POIs, my preference is that a debater signals a POI with their hand, whereupon the speaker, when they notice the signal, either takes the point or gently waves it down. Since the speaker now knows that the opponent has a point, it is not necessary for the opponent to resignal the original point or a different one; however, it's courteous for the speaker to pause before waiting too long to take the POIs they wish to recognize. I do tend to think that each speaker should take two per constructive. Having taken two, if the opponents wish to pose one or more additional points, the speaker may say that they will be taking no further points during that speech. Just a suggestion.

Justin Morgan Parmett
University of Vermont

Assistant debate coach, Lawrence Debate Union

I have been involved in Policy debate at many levels (high school, college, regional, national, novice, JV and varsity) since the mid 1990’s. I did a brief stint in NPDA/NPTE (parli debate) for a few years recently, and have been back at UVM coaching BP debate for the past 4 years. You will find me very open minded and above all I want people to have fun, be nice to each other and develop your arguments thoughtfully. I am competent flowing at high speed and will do my best to deliver a fair decision. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions you have prior to the round. Here is a bit more detail:

My judging philosophy seems to be contextual to the round that I am judging. You can run whatever type of argument that you want to in front of me, however, I do have my preferences and they tend to be more towards the critical side of debate. I am not so likely to vote on topicality or FW arguments that are based in the assumption that this is the wrong place for the argument unless you not only win that there is some ground abuse, but also demonstrate that this ground loss is important. Do not just say that you can’t run your agent CP or your politics DA without saying why that ground is important. Likewise, I am not so likely to vote on theory arguments that say that I should reject a team for running a particular argument, usually the K. Theory arguments can operate effectively as defense, but rarely as offense for you. I would generally prefer that people attempt to answer each other's arguments rather than trying to frame each other out of the round. I also prefer for debaters to be nice to each other in rounds as meanness will hurt your speaker points and your credibility. This does not mean that you will lose the debate, but if I have to do work at the end of the debate to figure out what is going on, this will come into play as to which side I do work for. Also, I am not likely to be persuaded if you tell me that I am a policy maker so I should not look at arguments that are philosophically based. This does not mean that I should not consider myself a policy maker, but that this role includes me questioning assumptions behind our actions. Basically, this means that I do not believe in the pre/post fiat distinction. I think that affirmatives have a right to frame the debate in a reasonable manner. You do not have to uphold some standard as to what the resolution is supposed to mean for everyone and I don’t see why it is productive for us all to be stuck to thinking exactly the same way about the topic. This being said, if you are going to talk about things that have nothing to do with the topic at all (I don’t know, maybe you want to talk about sports or music or something) you should have good reasons as to why you should do that. To be clear, proving that debate is structurally flawed is a good reason, but you should still ask me to vote on the argument you are making rather than the fact that debate is exclusionary. That is a start to your argument, but not the end. I could otherwise be persuaded to vote on a topicality arg in these cases. I think that this is enough to get an idea of where I stand. The debate is for you, but I also am going to be a part of it if I am watching the round. If there are any questions that you have, you should ask me at any time.

I am a lay judge.

Here are a few of my preferences.

1. Speak slowly

2. Explain your arguments well

3. Be polite and respectful

I will not disclose after a round, my feedback will be online.

I am a parent judge. My background is in business and kids media.

Please treat your opponents with respect and kindness.

Hey guys, it's the kid here. Good luck, you'll need it.

My dad is a fairly lay judge.

He flows Case and Rebuttal but then kinda stops.

He doesn't really like turns so you probably shouldn't read them.

Also he has a masters in business and understands economics so you don't have explain every little economic concept to him.

HE COUNTS DEFENSE AS OFFENSE: He really likes it when you just tear apart their case. He will pick you up on defense.

READ WARRANTS: He likes it when you put evidence in context.

DON'T SPREAD He likes to take notes so if he's writing something, he won't catch the things you say while he is writing.

Hi,

I am a parent and this is my first time judging.

I am unfamiliar with debate in general, but I have extensive knowledge on the topic.

I would appreciate if you don't speak very fast.

I value logical arguments, supported by evidence -- please make sure the evidence is not misconstrued.

Also, please limit debate jargon because I may not know what it means.

Good luck to all!

I debated in PF for three years in high school, and currently debate on the APDA Collegiate circuit at UVA. I am good with speed, unique arguments, or really whatever you are interested in trying during the round! Please be kind and respectful to all competitors, especially during CX. Feel free to ask my any other questions you have before the round.

I am your typical "lay" judge. I take the "Public Forum" concept literally, meaning your target audience is a member of the general public with a certain amount of knowledge and bias on the topic. I will try my best to consider only the evidence/arguments presented in the round. I believe truth matters, I vote mainly on the amount of knowledge you show on the topic and how convincing your arguments are.

Speaking:

- Speak clearly and slowly

- Be courteous to everyone in the round

- Humor and jokes will be rewarded

- Avoid too much debate lingo

Content:

- Signpost

- Weigh and weigh clearly, tell me why your argument is better

- A card can say whatever it says, but I don’t care unless you can logically warrant it

- If you have a problem with a piece of evidence, say it in one of your speeches.

- If you want to refer to something you said earlier, don’t just use the card name, explain the evidence again

- You are welcome to run non-conventional arguments, I will try my best to keep an open mind. However I am biased against them, see the first paragraph.

- Misc

Keep track of your own time, and your opponent's if you can.

Pretty typical flay judge.

If you believe that something in the round is important, tell me. It also better be in every speech possible.

I’m okay with some speed, but remember that speed has a tradeoff with clarity. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow you, thus I can’t vote for you.

Keep jargon at a minimum, Public Forum is meant to be accessible to the public. Using jargon does the opposite.

(parent) lay judge.

Please speak at a normal pace, if you speak too fast I may lose you. Please try to avoid debate jargon. If you are speaking fast with a lot of debate Jargon, I may not understand you, which may cost you the round.

Make sure to explain everything clearly.

Weighing is very important, weigh your arguments and impacts to convince me to vote for you.

Be respectful during the round.

Please do not bring up new arguments late in the round, that will cost you the round, especially if it is in the final focus.

I'm a parent judge. I am lay, very lay, very very lay!

If you'd like to share your case prior to the round to prevent connectivity or other issues: eweymarie@gmail.com.

I'm a law school student who debated in high school in Texas. I am familiar with all forms of debate but competed in PF, CX, and Congress along with many speech events.

I appreciate more traditional debate that is clear and polite. Speak to the judge and not your opponent - your opponent is not the one voting for you.

I'm fine with speed, but if you cannot speak both quickly and clearly it isn't worth it. If I can't understand you, I can't flow, and if I cannot flow I cannot vote for you.

I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:

1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well-developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.

2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.

3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.

4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing are important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.

5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or the website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.

6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.

7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.

8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving to the other side of the flow or weighing.

9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

10. References - any well-executed Biggy, Kendrick, J. Cole, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.

11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.

I have judged PF for a number of years, so i'm fine with any speed.

Explain your links, explain impacts, and be polite to each other during cross fire.

Make sure to address the framework throughout the round.

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

Hi! I am Selma Tabakovic (she/her pronouns) and I debated Public Forum in high school. I went to American University. Now I'm going to Brooklyn Law School. I am an external PF coach for American Heritage Palm Beach/Boca.

Generally: Debate in a way that will make you feel most comfortable and confident within the round! I will be able to adapt to you and your style. My paradigm below is just some specifics about my preferences, but you should feel free to compete in your own style.

I definitely look at the flow to decide who wins the round, but if I think that something is not handled effectively on the flow (ex: really under-covered argumentation in response to major points in the round), I will likely vote on the truth of an argument.

What I like to see in the round:

Comparative weighing in FF is key! Tell me why an argument matters more than another. Comparing worlds to each other will make the round more wholistic. If I have to decide which argument matters more than another, it is technically intervening and I would prefer if I didn't have to do that.

If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please extend the warrants for your arguments from case that you want to go for. Please frontline in second rebuttal and collapse on the argument you want to win on!

I love hearing unique arguments in PF! Feel free to run any argument about imperialism/colonialism/etc within the PF topic. I think engaging with these types of arguments within a round makes debate more educational, impactful, and interesting.

What isn't necessary in the round:

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap unless you are running theory. I will be able to follow your train of thought if you sign post!

Please do not ask "I am first speaker, so can I have first question?" Please just assume that first speaker in the round has first question.

Please do not spread! I would prefer if the round is slower so that I can fully understand the warranting of your contentions. I prefer slow, well warranted debates over fast, blippy debates.

Evidence Exchanges:

Please share me on the evidence exchanges -- selma.tabakovic@ahschool.com.

I do not like paraphrased evidence and would much rather prefer you read cut cards.

Progressive Debate Rounds:

I am happy to adjudicate progressive rounds, but I strongly prefer adjudicating rounds that engage on substance within the resolution. I will adjudicate progressive rounds purely off of the flow, so all responses must be on the flow. If you run theory please clearly explain your link. For Ks, please clearly explain how the alternative is worse and how voting pro solves.

My background is primarily in extemp. However, I have substantial experience in both PF and Congress.

In every round, my top priority is a clear explanation of the arguments and how they compare within the round. Successfully weighing your arguments is absolutely critical to winning my ballot. Technical and moral arguments are great but they need to be applied and explained to be effective within the round. Finally, when refuting another teams evidence please explain how your evidence conflicts and outweighs your opponents instead of just presenting two opposing cards.

Rudeness, Sexism, and Racism will not be tolerated and will be penalized with low speaker points, a conversation after the round, and when severe a lost ballot. This activity is meant to be inclusive and educational and we all have a collective responsibility to ensure it remains so.

If you have any additional questions please ask before the round

Hello!

I am a lay judge that looks at the team that speaks the most clearly. Speak slower as I value clarity over speed. As long as you explain your arguments in an understandable way, I will be able to take note of it. Teams that present themselves in a more confident and concise way will end up getting my vote.

read whatever you are most comfortable with I will adapt. I graduated from George Mason University as a qualifier of the 73rd NDT and a double octo-finalist at CEDA. I am most familiar with critical arguments specifically debility, setcol, cap (as everyone should be), and any PoMo stuff.

Also if I spell things wrong in this paradigm, if its disorganized, or if in the RFD/comments I make grammatical/spelling mistakes, I am sorry but I am dyslexic so just ask me to clarify if you are confused by me. I will not take offense to this, I understand that the way I think can be hard to follow. But also remember that this means I will require a high level of clarity in the speeches that are harder to follow/less formula based, most prominently 1AR/2NR/2AR. Really this just means slow down and explain your arguments.

UPDATE: Your 2NR/2AR should be how I write my RFD if I vote for you. Take me doing work out of the decision as much as possible, to me that is the best way to win a debate.

I know I say that I will judge anything and that is true...... but think about me like this, I am a former K debater that currently works in international human rights specifically with populations who are recovering from genocides and mass atrocities so when looking at a debate, yes nuclear war is scary but I think that the cyclical suffering of billions due to preventable structural factors is scarier... Anyone who says they arent bias are lying so i mention all of this to make it clear what my bias's are.

I have been out of debate for almost 3 year at this point. I have no knowledge of this topic and I am assuming that at CEDA I will not need any. With that being said, I debated on exec authority so I know NFU like the back of my hand lol.

Also please put me on the email chain: xmacknationx@gmail.com

I prefer a clear, evidenced-based debate.

Don't let my experience fool you into thinking I like fast, jargony debates.

Use an email chain - include me (lizannwood@hotmail.com) on it, and be honest about the evidence. Paraphrasing is one of my biggest pet peeves. (Post-rounding and making me wait for endless exchanges of evidence are the others).

I will leave my camera on, so you can see me. You can trust you have my full attention, and if connectivity issues affect any of the speeches, I'll audibly interrupt you and stop the timer till connections improve (within reason, of course).

If the timer is stopped, no one is prepping.

Avoid talking over each other online -it makes it impossible for your judges to hear either of you.

Don't be rude or condescending. You can be authoritative while also being polite.

Experience:

Mountain Brook Schools Director of Speech and Debate 2013 - current

Mountain Brook High School debate coach 2012-2013

Thompson High School policy debater 1991-1995

Hi. My name is Laura Worrel. I am very much a lay judge but have been judging public forum for a couple of years. I prefer organized speeches that I can understand. Please make it very clear why I should vote for you. I will try my best to flow and make an informed decision. Thanks!