I am a "lay judge."

Present arguments clearly and concisely, Speak loudly, and don't spread. Other than that the main things I look for are sportsmanship, body language, and overall argumentation. Defend your case and attack your opponent's, tell me why you should win in FF. Signposting and roadmaps are great too.

Thanks!

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not want to see a performance (deal-breaker)—I took policy debate extremely seriously, and I only want to see your creativity showcased through your strategy and your arguments; however, a relevant and cutesy pun here and there will be well-appreciated.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

I competed in LD for four years at Benjamin Franklin high school on the Louisiana local circuit.

As a debater I ran almost exclusively traditional constructives but had a lot of exposure to most types of progressive structures(K’s, theory, T, plans/counter-plans). As a judge I aim to vote mechanically from the flow. In order for me to flow an argument you have to present a warrant. I am willing to vote on pretty much anything. I will default to flowing cx unless you convince me that I shouldn’t. Absent any offense for either side I will presume neg unless neg reads advocacy other than the squo. You don’t need to extend the full claim warrant impact of every argument but I do expect the elements of an argument which you view as essential to voting to be covered in rebuttal. If you're going to spread please flash me everything you are going to read.

I haven't judged much LD and I cannot judge spreading. I need to understand the argument to vote on it, and I want to clearly see your defense. Also, I do not like theory - at all.

I am an experienced English teacher. I focus on rhetoric and overall persuasive appeal. I do not think spreading is the best plan of attack. I appreciate when debaters adapt to their competitor and the judge with focus on pace, information, and explanation.

I need to feel passion in your argument. Prioritize defense.

Truth over tech.

CX is binding.

PF is about public appeal; present yourself accordingly.

PF/LD: Speed not preferred. Debates should not lose sight of the main question. Diversions into extraneous topics or interpretations won't be awarded merely because one side outfoxed another in something irrelevant.

Most importantly, any claims made regarding consequences of a position must have a demonstrated causal link.

I am a lawyer by trade with 25 years litigation experience. My evaluation of an argument will come from that experience. I look for arguments that are clear, concise, logical, and persuasive . I do not appreciate speed.

brixztheflip@gmail.com

Former Assistant Coach at Baton Rouge Magnet, now I mostly work with Millard West and Village Debate

Honestly kind of a wildcard, I find myself voting in ways I never would’ve thought of quite often. At one point in time, I was a well-known policy debater, now I might as well be anyone they just picked up on the way to the tournament.

I’ve judged everything from the finals of CEDA Nationals to pf finals at NSDA. Debate and music pays my rent and puts food on my table, this is a job for me, so take that seriously when trying to make something relatable to me. I am a member of the Cherokee Nation, I grew up in a suburban Chicano/Filipino American Household… I say this because Debates that most capture my heart occur in a similar fashion to the arguments we make at the dinner table.

POLICY: There aren’t a lot of arguments I haven’t seen/heard/smelled… I like clear-cut offense in policy debates. It’s very rare that I vote for anything along the lines of “gotta have a plan” or Topicality in general. I’ve coached both high school and college teams on the explicit premise that the topic and or community engaging the topic is flawed in some way. Ideal debates for me will be more about performance and method, I’m more intrigued by what you did/do than the hypothetical. Even when doing fiat style debate, you need to defend it like it has benefits. If heg/cap is good you gotta sell me on a unique enough reason why in THIS instance I NEED/HAVE NO CHOICE OTHER THAN vote for you. Uniqueness absolutely determines the direction of the link for me in more traditional debates. Although I believe in my heart that conditionality is bad, it's hard for me to vote for condo bad when it is debated so nebulously, I generally believe that the negative should have access to everything under the sun to negate the affirmative.

LD: The best LD debates for me are not some mutant reproduction of old policy arguments and styles. I’m a great judge for you if you read a plan text and go multiple off, but in the back of my mind, I wish more LDers would push arguments against fiat, against this way of debating. My ideal form of debate is based on evaluating performance and method… I.e. I think what you do/did is more important than what could potentially happen if x hypothetical policy were passed. Also after judging a significant amount of y’all on the national circuit I’d like to know who is “we”…A lot of top-level LDers are getting away with regurgitating policy arguments to the point where they don’t even think or change up the blocks. I can’t be the only one slightly concerned at the implications of debaters mindlessly reading whatever is on the page right?

PF: I want a copy of your evidence so I can look at it for myself, preferably a speech doc too… other than that these debates are all about uniqueness and terminal impacts for me. I want a clear and cut disadvantage to your opponents' case… it can’t just be a “here’s our side, here’s their side” type of thing. Challenge sources, challenge privilege, and bias. Don’t be afraid to think outside of the box.

I will evaluate anything that is fleshed out and meaningfully impacted as a voter in the round. If someone correctly believes they can run something coherently, their only fear should be how well the opponents will refute it.

That said, if I was to comment on a bias or "preference," it wouldn't be about the content of an argument, but its delivery. In close matches, I often find myself voting for the team which does a better job keeping the flow clean and organized. Making transitions clear is much appreciated and a speech which is more easily flowed is more easily remembered and analyzed afterwards, when its time to decide who wins which line of the flow.

I consider myself a lay judge. I will follow the flow of the debate and make notes accordingly, though I may or may not follow everything in the round if the speed of the debate is too fast. I also value quality speaking in conjunction with good argumentation, but not in place of.

I teach physics at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching at the end of the 2014-2015 school year. I primarily coached public address speech events and some LD. In the fall semester of 2019-2020, I have not judged any rounds on any topic. You will need to explain topic-specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Below I’ve included some more detail concerning my philosophy.

Speed

Fast is fine, provided clarity does not suffer. However, debaters often go faster than they are physically capable of speaking, resulting in portions of arguments that cannot be reasonably understood by an actively-listening judge. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. It is my firmly-held belief that the responsibility of transferring the information from your brain into mine falls on you as the speaker, not on me as the judge.

Theory

Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. Argue abuse if it's obviously occurring. But make sure you tell me precisely WHY your think your ground is being violated. Be specific: what reasonable argument(s) are you unable to run because of what your opponent did? If it's clear that running theory is how you came into the round expecting to win, you'll probably not like the results. Theory is a Plan B, period. If your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative, I totally get it and won't punish you for addressing it, but reasonable people can always tell whether a theory position has real merit or is just BS. If it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Experience:

This is my third year judging Public Forum. However, I am a parent judge, not a professional judge. I take my role seriously and have done everything I can to prepare myself and ensure you and I both have successful rounds.

Preferences:

1. Please do not spread. I am a flow judge. Help walk me through it; use signposting and make sure I hear your arguments, evidence and rebuttals.

2. During rebuttal/final focus be specific with why you think you won and your opponent(s) lost.

3. Maintain good sportsmanship and be professional.

Good luck and I look forward to the upcoming rounds!

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE

I believe Public Forum debate to be exactly that- a public forum. I also appreciate and enjoy the intricacies of argumentation. In the end, my jurisdiction is the resolution, therefore I need to hear argumentation stemming from the given resolution.

Speaking quickly in a round is a must, but it should not be at the expense of communication. Throwing arguments around to see what sticks is not the best strategy with me. I also believe that there is rarely a "silver bullet" type of argument, and argument that is so good that it is irrefutable. Don't try to isolate your competition- instead, clash your arguments with theirs. Debate is about the clash. That is what makes it engaging and important. Create that clash.

Theory arguments rarely persuade me, although I have been known to vote for theory. I prefer to hear about the point of conflict within the resolution.

The best advice I can give is to connect the dots in the round. If you don't, that means if I have to connect arguments to impacts and evaluate both on my own, I may not make connections the way you would like Weigh the round, not just your impacts.

I've been hearing that nuclear war is going to happen since 1982. Just because something is said in a round does not make it true. Valid, reasonable positions and evidence are key. The impacts of arguments need to be sound and connected.

A dropped argument does not mean you win the debate. You need to tell me why.

In the end, debate is an exercise in discussion, discourse, rhetoric, argumentation and rebuttal. Logos, ethos and pathos are vital in the debate arena. Debate decisions are about who debates better in a given moment in time with a given situation. You've chosen a remarkable activity to participate in. If you are looking for a national circuit judge, probably best not to pref me.

I'm a parent judge but with experience previously judging public forum. I like rounds that don't get too technical but I'm open minded and willing to vote on most arguments. Make sure your arguments aren't offensive and you explain them well. I like to have clear 'voting issues' in the final focus that make it easy for me to write my ballot.

Greetings everyone! My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director of forensics at The Bronx High School of Science in New York City. I am excited to judge your round! Considering you want to spend the majority of time prepping from when pairings are released and not reading my treatise on debate, I hope you find this paradigm "cheat sheet" helpful in your preparation.

2023 TOC Congress Update

Congratulations on qualifying to the 2023 TOC! It's a big accomplishment to be here in this room and all of you are to be commended on your dedication and success. My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director at Bronx Science. I have judged congress a lot in the past, including two TOC final rounds, but I have found myself judging more PF and Policy in recent years. To help you prepare, here's what I would like to see in the round:

Early Speeches -- If you are the sponsor or early speaker, make sure that I know the key points that should be considered for the round. If you can set the parameters of the discourse of the debate, you will probably have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Middle Speeches -- Refute, advance the debate, and avoid rehash, obviously. However, this doesn't mean you can't bring up a point another debater has already said, just extend it and warrant your point with new evidence or with a new perspective. I often find these speeches truly interesting and you can have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Late speeches -- I think a good crystallization speech can be the best opportunity to give an amazing speech during the round. To me, a good crystal speech is one of the hardest speeches to give. This means that a student who can crystal effectively can often rank 1st or 2nd on my ballot. This is not always the case, of course, but it really is an impressive speech.

Better to speak early or late for your ballot? It really doesn't matter for me. Wherever you are selected to speak by the PO, do it well, and you will have a great chance of ranking on my ballot. One thing -- I think a student who can show diversity in their speaking ability is impressive. If you speak early on one bill, show me you can speak later on the next bill and the skill that requires.

What if I only get one speech? Will I have any chance to rank on your ballot? Sometimes during the course of a congress round, some students are not able to get a second speech or speak on every bill. I try my very best to evaluate the quality of a speech versus quantity. To me, there is nothing inherently better about speaking more or less in a round. However, when you get the chance to speak, question, or engage in the round, make the most of it. I have often ranked students with one speech over students who spoke twice, so don't get down. Sometimes knowing when not to speak is as strategic as knowing when to speak.

Questioning matters to me. Period. I am a big fan of engaging in the round by questioning. Respond to questions strongly after you speak and ask questions that elicit concessions from your fellow competitors. A student who gives great speeches but does not engage fully in questioning throughout the round stands little chance of ranking high on my ballot.

The best legislator should rank first. Congress is an event where the best legislator should rank first. This means that you have to do more than just speak well, or refute well, or crystal well, or question well. You have to engage in the "whole debate." To me, what this means is that you need to speak and question well, but also demonstrate your knowledge of the rules of order and parliamentary procedure. This is vital for the PO, but competitors who can also demonstrate this are positioning themselves to rank highly on my ballot.

Have fun! Remember, this activity is a transformative and life changing activity, but it's also fun! Enjoy the moment because you are at THE TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS! It's awesome to be here and don't forget to show the joy of the moment. Good luck to everyone!

2023 - Policy Debate Update

I have judged many debates across all events except for policy debate. You should consider me a newer policy judge and debate accordingly. Here are some general thoughts to consider as you prepare for the round:

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Non-Topical Arguments: I am unlikely to understand Ks or non-topical arguments. I DO NOT have an issue with these arguments on principle, but I will not be able to evaluate the round to the level you would expect or prefer.

Topicality: I am not experienced with topicality policy debates. If you decide to run these arguments, I cannot promise that I will make a decision you will be satisfied with, but I will do my best.

Line-by-line: Please move methodically through the flow and tell me the order before begin your speech.

Judge Instruction: In each rebuttal speech, please tell me how to evaluate your arguments and why I should be voting for you. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.

Speed: Please slow down substantially on tags and analytics. You can probably spread the body of the card but you must slow down on the tags and analytics in order for me to understand your arguments. Do not clip cards. I will know if you do.

PF Paradigm - Please see the following for my Public Forum paradigm.

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Cheat sheet:

General overview FOR PUBLIC FORUM

Experience: I've judged PF TOC finals-X------------------------------------------------- I've never judged

Tech over truth: Tech -------x------------------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with PF speed: Fast, like policy fast ---------x--------------------------------------- lay judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory ------x------------------------------ not receptive to theory

Some general PF thoughts from Crawford Leavoy, director of Durham Academy in North Carolina. I agree with the following very strongly:

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should be very good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

Now, back to my thoughts. Here is the impact calculus that I try to use in the round:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing x----------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----------x------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact -------------------------x----------------------- Not a severe impact

(One word about magnitude: I have a very low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts. Probability weighing really matters for my ballot)

Quick F.A.Q:

Defense in first summary? Depends if second rebuttal frontlines, if so, then yes, I would expect defense in first summary.

Offense? Any offense you want me to vote on should be in either case or rebuttal, then both summary and final focus.

Flow on paper or computer? I flow on paper, every time, to a fault. Take that for what you will. I can handle speed, but clarity is always more important than moving fast.

What matters most to get your ballot? Easy: comparative weighing. Plain and simple.

I think you do this by first collapsing in your later speeches. Boil it down to 2-3 main points. This allows for better comparative weighing. Tell me why your argument matters more than your opponents. The team that does this best will 99/100 times get my ballot. The earlier this starts to happen in your speeches, the better.

Overviews: Do it! I really like them. I think they provide a framework for why I should prefer your world over your opponent's world. Doing this with carded evidence is even better.

Signpost: It's very easy to get lost when competitors go wild through the flow. You must be very clear and systematic when you are moving through the flow. I firmly believe that if I miss something that you deem important, it's your fault, not mine. To help with this, tell me where you are on the flow. Say things like...

"Look to their second warrant on their first contention, we turn..."

Clearly state things like links, turns, extensions, basically everything! Tell me where you are on the flow.

Also, do not just extend tags, extend the ideas along with the tags. For example:

"Extend Michaels from the NYTimes that stated that a 1% increase in off shore drilling leads to a..."

Evidence: I like rigorous academic sources: academic journals and preeminent news sources (NYT, WashPo, etc.). You can paraphrase, but you should always tell me the source and year.

Theory in PF: I'm growing very receptive to it, but it really should be used to check back against abuse in round.

Pronouns: I prefer he/him/his and I kindly ask that you respect your opponents preferred gender pronoun.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds. This portion on speed is credited to Chetan Hertzig, head coach of Harrison High School (NY). I share very similar thoughts regarding speed and spreading.

Please treat me as a low flay/traditional PF judge.

I have no background in debate, but I know the very basics. I am a senior at Rice University. I will flow as best as I can on my computer and will base my decision on the analysis of your offensive and defensive arguments. Please note that since I don't keep up with debate, I probably won't have a ton of knowledge on the topic. And it's likely best not to read progressive arguments in front of me.

A couple of things to keep in mind -

1) No spreading. You can talk quickly so long as you are clear. But if you go too fast, then it's your fault if I don't get down your argument. I will yell out clear if it's starts to get too fast.

2) You must cite evidence but also use good analysis along with that piece of evidence. If I call for evidence, I want a cut card in full context or the source and exactly where you are pulling your quote from. I know what a card should look like.

3) All necessary offense and defense must be mentioned fully in summary (link + impact) in order to be considered during the final focus speeches (defense is not "sticky" it must be mentioned). Second rebuttal must do some analysis against the first rebuttal. You must have some weighing analysis in summary for me to consider as well. Team with the best analyzed and weighed offense will most likely win the round.

4) Keep track of your own time and be professional. And avoid complicated debate jargon.

For other basic debate paradigm questions, refer to Noah Mengisteab's paradigm but keep in mind I will still be very low flay/traditional.

Please include me on email chains when you distribute evidence.

J.C.LaReau@gmail.com

Before you consider all of my opinions on debate, please understand that I am a Tab judge. I will vote for the team that did the best job in the round.

CX can be open or closed. Just do not drown out your partner. I want to see a real understanding of your argument.

While I am a tab judge, the information below is how to impress me in a round.

Speed:

Please signpost and stay with your road-map. I will have you start at full speed, but know that if you’re unclear, I will need you to slow down. Always provide a road-map before you begin. I flow the entire round and so if you want to win, be clear in your execution of spreading.

K’s and K affs:

I have at least a passing familiarity with most of the literature bases, but please don’t assume I do. Use more than just buzzwords. It is important that you show a firm grasp on the literature base behind the K and explain how it functions in the context of the round. Your alt shouldn’t be an afterthought. You should articulate a clear idea of how my ballot fulfills it.

Framework:

Establish a coherent and strong narrative on why your framework must be evaluated before the round.

Topicality:

Put in the time if you want to win it.

Disads/Counterplans:

Slow down on CP text/perm text.

Theory:

Don’t just read blocks and move on. Explain it to me.

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

My name is Scout Malloy. I am more a lay judge than I am a tech judge, but I will flow the entire round, besides cross. As far as speed goes, spreading is fine, I am pretty good with speed, and do not mind it. Time management is KEY. I will drop you, if you get up to speak for 30 seconds and then sit back down. Be prepared walking into the round, and do not speak quietly. Speak with volume so I can hear you, otherwise you will be dropped. Ill go over paradigms prior to the round in person.

Background:

current affiliations: Delbarton School, NJ; NSU School, FL

Past affiliations: Delbarton School, NJ (Assistant Director -- 2020 - 2022); Duchesne Academy, TX (Head Coach -- 2017 - 2020)

Other: Summit Debate Senior Staff (2018-2022); NSDA PF Topic Committee (2020-Present)

Pronouns: he/him/his

Email Chains:

Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by the end of constructive. If your case is paraphrased, also send the case rhetoric. I cannot accept locked google docs; please send all text in the email chain.

Additionally, it would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)
.

Please add 1) greenwavedebate@delbarton.org 2) uschoolpf@gmail.com & 3) nmengisteab@gmail.com to the email chain.

Evidence:

Your choice if you want to paraphrase. However, I require you to cut cards for all evidence referenced in the round. These are properly cut cards. If you don't cut cards, you might want to consider striking me. Cut cards promote better research and debate ethics. No cut card = won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

1.) I look at the round through an offense/defense paradigm. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense.

2.) Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible).

3.) Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.

4.) I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything you have me flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).

5.) I will disclose and always allow accommodations for debaters.

Progressive PF:

Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Feminism, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche).

Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do* ... Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text) paraphrasing is bad, trigger warnings and anonymous opt-out when there are specific mentions of graphic depictions are good, and arguments with non-graphic depictions should have a content warning but still be debated.

*note -- if you read an excessive number of offs that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are without a doubt awful and annoying. I'll still evaluate it but run at your own risk.

Misc:

Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you go fast (please don't spread please), but will say clear if you go too fast and ask for a doc; speaker points usually range from 28.5-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

Parent Judge. Some minor experience judging at local tournaments with Speech and LD and PF. Make sure to be clear on your impacts and having a clearly written out "ballot" for me in the final focus. I'm excited to hear all the interesting arguments on this topic! And, please no spreading. If you spread, I may not get all your points in your arguments

Background: I am a 25 year AF veteran that has commanded at the squadron and group level. My career was based on achieving results through spirited debates to garner the necessary resources for my missions and to ensure that we were planning to achieve our outcomes in the most successful manner.

I am a blank slate and will judge each debate fairly on its merits and how well it is presented

That being said, I do have a few rules:

1) Treat everyone with dignity and respect

2) No Spreading

3) No Ks

Good luck!

I mostly work with middle school debaters but sometimes have to judge high school :-)

My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation.

I default to cost-benefit analysis unless told to do otherwise.

Time yourself (including prep) please.

I prefer clarity over speed.

DON'T BE RUDE

kplunkett@stmdhs.org for cases/cards

I see each round as a game: I start at 27 speaks, from there you win points for well-made arguments, good use of cards, and clear attacks and rebuttals and you lose points for dropped arguments, poorly sourced or clipped cards, and vaguely linked or unclear impacts. However, I won't flow dropped arguments to your side unless you call them out!

• The easiest way to earn speaks is to clarify the voting issues and prove how and why you outweigh. I'll weigh the round based on the criteria you give me, so be sure to give me a metaphorical rubric!
• I'm a tabula rasa, so I'll vote exactly how you tell me. Hit your framework/V/VCs early and often.
• I like to see claim-warrant-impact. I flow what you say, not what I think you mean.
• Spreading doesn't scare me and will not affect your speaks, but I prefer conversational speed and good delivery.
• Cards should be clearly cited and available for review should there be a conflict over source validity or context. Clipping will not be tolerated.
• Signpost - reference the contention # or subpoint in speeches and CX.
• CX is for questions, not rebuttals.

• LD: I prefer you not run a K or using theory shells, but if you do it won't lose you points unless you do not explain in great detail what it means, why it's the right move for the round, and why I should weigh it over your opponent.
• Policy:Not a policy coach, so run whatever you'd like, just explain it to me as you go.

* Quality of argumentation

* I don't like people getting angry, personal, or condescending during debate

The role of my position as a judge is to decide who did the better debating. My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation. I default to cost-benefit analysis unless told to do otherwise.

Speed and jargon are a no. Please don't immediately presume I know the intricacies of deep research on the resolution. The point of public forum debate is that you should be able to break down the debate on the resolution for anyone, and convince them why your side is right. Humor goes a long way with me in terms of ethos and speaker points. Being mean or a bully does the opposite.

Be sure to time your own speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.

I competed in high school PF debate for 4 years with a few brief times in LD. I'll keep my paradigm pretty short and straightforward.

I was very evidence heavy in high school and continue to believe that evidence is crucial for argumentation. If you are not going to provide evidence, its pretty doubtful it will be flowed across with much importance.

I can handle speed decently, but I'd prefer teams to not spread. I'm open to fairly abstract arguments (see dedev for example), but I prefer less outlandish argumentation. I understand the majority of debate jargon. I prefer to not vote off of theory without very evident and strong abuse. I am also not very fond of drop the debater arguments in theory.

I have been participating as a parent judge for two years. I expect well-reasoned debates focusing on the topic and not on any aspect of the opposing team's appearance. At all times, I expect the debaters to be civil and respect the dignity of their opponents throughout the debate. I will be open-minded and decide the ballot solely on what you present to me during your round.

I heavily weigh the debater’s ability to provide clear and concise arguments that are backed by quality research. Preference will be given to peer-reviewed journals, then to well-respected journalism. No weight will be given to opinions or pop-culture articles or media.

Debaters should feel free to express themselves at the pace at which they are comfortable. I am a flow-judge, however, I do not like spreading. If I cannot understand you, I will not be able to use those arguments when deciding the ballot. It is your job to convince me of your position, so be clear and support your contentions with good reasoning and valid research.

I do not allow off-time road maps or other remarks. Your remarks should be clear enough for me to follow and flow and will be counted in your time. I do expect signposting for your warrants, impacts, turns, links, weighing during your time to speak.

Experience:

I am somewhat new to judging debate. I performed in speech in high school and I am a performer so rhetoric and persuasive appeal does play a big role with me, please show me that you are confident about your case, even if you’re not. That being said, I do want to take the role seriously and I have done what I could to prepare for it in recognition of your hard work in preparation for debate. Of course I don’t need to tell you that good sportsmanship and professionalism are of the utmost importance.

Expectations:

1. Please do not spread. This just loses my attention in your debate and I will just vote for the person from whom I caught the most thoughts/ideas. Help walk me through your arguments and make sure I hear them: evidence and rebuttals. It would be helpful if you sent me your case: saylorw@gosaints.org

2. Avoid progressive arguments unless you are 100% comfortable and prepared to defend them.

3. During rebuttal/final focus be specific with why you think you won and your opponent lost. This really stands out to me.

I expect professional, respectful behavior throughout the rounds. Spreading is not encouraged. If I can not understand your content, I cannot adequately judge your arguments. I value credibly sourced evidence & logical presentation. Thank you. I look forward to judging.

I am a lay judge.

Please clash directly with your opponent's argument and tell me what is at stake and what I am weighing. I prefer "calm and fast" to a rapid- fire breathless diatribe. That said, I'm judging on the substance of the arguments ; it is just easier to follow your reasoning when I can take notes. If I am not writing during the constructives- you are going too fast.

I try to come to the debate as a blank slate and will consider anything, but I have heard few kritiks that impressed me; maybe I just don't get them. I am more open to topicality/ fairness because I am primarily interested in reasoned debate on the topic than in gamesmanship.

I like respectful debate, especially when the round is lopsided; you get points for graciousness. Kill with kindness and be ethical with your evidence and in stating what was/wasn't said/dropped by your opponent.

Hello Debaters! I have experience in the debate community judging since 2016! I debated PF at Grovetown High School from 2014-2016, and now teach English and Co-Coach debate at Riverwood High School!

I mostly judge PF as it is what I debated in high school so here are prefs:

1. Please do not spread as a tactic. It does not impress me.
2. Do not assume that I know all the lingo of the resolved. (ex: random treaties, random signed government documents) Please explain when something has been abbreviated.
3. Please do not give me an off-time road map. If you need to jot one down on your paper for your organizational purposes, cool, but it has no use to me as I am writing down literally everything you are saying, and do not need the order it goes in.
4. Do not give me the impact of POVERTY. Poverty is the reality of many inside and outside of the debate community, and you never know what someone is carrying into a round with on their back and in their past. I have seen this impact so over used and incorrectly used in the past years it has been harmful to me as a judge. This is a complex issue that 14-18 year old cannot solve, and only give really harmful exacerbated solutions to; so I no longer want to hear about it. (Coming from a second year military kid teacher :)
5. I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.
6. Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment.
7. Debate should be a fun, enjoyable and equitable experience for all parties involved. If I hear students making discriminatory comments towards other teams or arguments discriminating others I will report you to the tournament leader and your coach, and have you pulled from the tournament. You are representing your school, your community, and your family when you are at these events. This is bigger than you.

8. I do not need to be included on email chains. If I need to see a piece of evidence that is called into question, I will look at it for myself.

9. DO NOT CUT EACH OTHER OFF DURING CROSSFIRE. Let each other finish the question and talking. It's rude to treat your opposing team like that. Use your southern manners Y'all.
10. Stop summerizing your contentions in summary, I listened to the whole hour of debate too, tell me how your contentions still stand and WHY! Give me impacts of those contentions. WHY THEY MATTER!!

11. I disclose after every round because I hate typing because I type enough all day. :)

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at storyariel@gmail.com

See you out there! Happy Debating!

I am a judge who willingly judges PF, LD, and World Schools debate. I competed in Policy debate many years ago in both high school and college, finishing third in the nation in CEDA debate when that event was still popular. As a coach, I have moved away from Policy debate with it's emphasis on speed and evidence wars over well-reasoned arguments. This affects my view of other debate events as I am quite completely opposed to the infusion of policy debate techniques, such as critiques, into other forms of debate. I do recognize that Public Forum is often fast and evidence heavy and I have no concerns with either the speed or the amount evidence as long as it supports credible arguments. In LD, I am more of a tradionalist who expects value clash and strong case argumentation at a reasonable speed. I enjoy World Schools precisely because this style of debate also places a premium on organization, argumentation, and rhetoric.

As a critic, I am stricly Tabula Rasa when it comes to the arguments themselves; meaning I will only consider arguments the debaters make in round and will not interject my own philosophical or policy paradigms into a round. I am a flow judge who decides votes in favor of the debater(s) who do the best job on convincing me that their arguments should carry the round based on the relative strength of their evidence, reasoning, and argumentation. I NEVER award low point wins. If you didn't do the better job while debating, you will not win my ballot.

Three notes are worth mentioning on procedure. Most importantly, I am entirely opposed to the tendency of some TOC judges to dictate PF strategy by declaring frontlining and other optional techniques as requirements to earn their vote. There are other ways to structure your approach to the round and I encourage students to debate the style that best suits them! Second, I only allow evidence requests during CX/Crossfire. Evidence requests made during prep time will be discouraged. Third, please remember to be polite and try not talk over one another during Crossfire. All speakers deserve a chance to be heard.

Educational Background:

Georgia College and State University (2005-2008) - B.S. Biology

Medical College of Georgia (2009-2015) - Doctorate in Dental Medicine; Residency in Pediatric Dentistry

Judging Background:

I would best be described as a lay judge. While I've been judging debates on and off since 2012, I likely don't know your topic literature. It's incumbent upon you to explain your position clearly. I will listen and take notes. I vote for the team that won the most important arguments in the round.

Speed:

Since I don't hear debates often, I wouldn't recommending spreading in front of me. If I miss an argument you make because you are going fast, that is on you. Therefore, go fast at your own peril.