Public Forum is a debate category in name and in design intended to be accessible by the public forum. It was created to as a solution to the excessive technicality, esotericism, and unreasonableness that had grown systemic in Policy and Lincoln-Douglass categories by 2002 because of a win-at-all-costs mentality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_forum_debate

Remember that there are more important things than winning (thinking critically, communicating effectively, being civil, substantively engaging with very real policy questions, and being honest with yourself and others). The debate community (and the world) does not need another category where the desire to win tramples all other values.

I am a parent judge with experience judging for over a year.

I prefer traditional debate, where the debater signposts and speaks at a conversational speed.  Be clear and precise with your debate. I do not like kritiks. An argument must include a claim, a warrant, and an impact.  Evidence and qualifications are important: simply explaining your argument and why it is right is not sufficient, rather you must contest the quality and content of evidence or argument your opponents are making.

All arguments must make sense or I will not vote for them.  I am not very familiar with the topic so explain terminology to me.

You MUST give voters at the end of the round.

I pride myself on my ability to be fair-minded during the debate.  I will evaluate the debate in the manner that has been laid out for me. 

I debated PF in high school

Paradigm adapted (copied) from Thomas Zhang's.

Please try to keep track of your own prep time.

Tech > Truth

Case - Don't go too fast if possible (starts to get hairy around 200wpm+). Specifically slow down for tag lines (including warrants/impacts), author names, institutions, dates, and statistics.

Off-case args - Never debated them. If you are going to run an off case arg, I'd pref it not to be frivolous (i.e. actually nuanced/interesting/strategic)/just used to pick up a dub, esp if it's against novices or people who can't spend thousands to go to camp and learn progressive argumentation.

Crossfire - Anything you want me to evaluate from cross needs to be brought up in a speech.

Rebuttal - Start signposting here please. Number your responses. Label what the response is at the beginning e.g. de-link, turn, non-unique, etc. If you read an overview, tell me before the speech + where I should flow it. Given the new summary rules, I want to see rebuild in second rebuttal. New frontlines in second summary are too dang sketchy (the only time to respond is first FF, which creates insane time skew).

Summary - Off-time roadmaps appreciated. At the very least, tell me where you're starting. Don't just say "extend Moore '19" but actually make an effort to walk me through your warrant/impact story again. Signposting in the later speeches is really key.

Final Focus - Anything you want me to vote off of has to be in FF. Anything you want in FF has to be in summary. I'm only going to vote off of something if you extended both warrant and impact in both speeches (the warrant debate is more important for me though). It would probably be in your best interest to collapse and weigh at some point.

Presumption - On resolutions that call for an action, I presume neg. On value resolutions, I presume first speaking team. Both can be changed if you make it a topic of debate. I try to look for any offense to avoid presuming tho (risk of offense args are great for this).

Disclosure - I'm not voting off of disclosure theory. If you disclose to your opponents, include me in the chain sahila@princeton.edu.

Evidence ethics - I'll call for evidence if it sounds sus af, someone tells me to, or what you say it says changes throughout the round.

Don't be rude or problematic (please).

I am a lay judge with a couple years experience. I appreciate structure (rebuttal should be used to rebut your opponent’s case; focus should be used to tell me why your argument wins), and I will try to follow your flow. If you get me early in the tournament, you should explain acronyms and detailed points before assuming that I know what you’re taking about. You’re the expert, you need to make sure I understand your points. Please refrain from jargon and technical debate terms. I know what a block is, but I get lost when a team refers to terms they may have heard a coach use. I understand better when you use plain english to explain your structure and the effectiveness and meaning of your arguments. Unless you are amazingly talented, speaking ridiculously fast will be lost on me. You will be polite and respectful to your opponents.

I spent thirteen seasons solely working in policy. I have spent the last five seasons working in public forum. In addition to coaching and judging, I served as the Tournament Director for the NYCUDL, the Vice President for Policy Debate for the BQCFL, part of tab staff for NYSFLs, NYSDCAs, the New York City Invitational, and the Westchester Invitational, and in the residence halls for DDI.

What this means for PF debaters is that I am very flow-centric and expect good sign posts. If you give me a road map, I expect you to follow it. While I understand that you will not read evidence in-round, I do expect you to clearly cite your evidence and will listen to (and reward) good analysis of evidence throughout the round.

What this means for policy debaters is that I typically spend more time running tournaments than judging in them. My flowing skills are not what they used to be. You need to SLOW DOWN for your tags and authors or else they will not make my flow. You should also SLOW DOWN for the actual claims on any theory or analytic arguments (Treat them like cards!). My flow is sacred to me, if you want me to vote for you, your flow should look like mine. Lay it out for me like I am a three year-old.

As for arguments, I consider myself a stock-issues judge. Those are what I coach my novices, and I still feel they are the best arguments in policy debate. That said, I have voted on all types of arguments and performance styles in debate. If you want me to vote on something that is not a stock issue, you better explain it to me like I am a three year-old. Even if you want me to vote on a stock issue, you should explain it to me like I am a three year-old.

I do not typically ask for (or want to) examine evidence after the round. It is your job to explain it to me. There is no need to add me to an email chain. That said, if there is some contention about what a piece of evidence actually says, you should make a point of that in your speeches.

As for paperless debate in general, I like my rounds to start on time and end on time. If your technical issues are hindering that, I will start running prep. I will do my best to accommodate debaters, but you need to know your tech at least as well as you know your arguments.

My name is Cliff Birge and I am a parent judge. I work as a merger & acquisitions attorney for Johnson & Johnson so my experience with business negotiations influences my approach to debate judging. I expect civility and will heavily penalize derogatory comments or personal attacks. Speed is not an issue for me - but it’s a given that you must speak clearly enough to be understood. I flow and value sound logic over evidence but logic backed by evidence best of all. I do not disclose.

I am parent judge. I prefer that you speak at a speed that is not overly fast. I have zero tolerance for debaters being disrespectful to each other. I vote the most persuasive argument who counters arguments against most effectively while supporting their own side.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- 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.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

I have been a parent judge for PF for six years. Though I take a lot of notes, please do not be fooled into thinking I am a flow judge. I am most definitely a lay judge and appreciate debaters who do not speak too quickly or use a lot of jargon. For example, if you must use a term like "non unique," please specify what part of the argument you are referring to, or better yet, don't use the short-cut term "non unique" at all, as it is more informative if you are more explicit in your reasoning. If you speak so quickly that I do not catch the details of your arguments, you may lose the round, even if your arguments are superior, since I will not have heard them in full. Lastly, if you are dismissive or rude toward your opponents, your speaker points will suffer, and it will impact my decision for the round. Rounds that are conducted in a respectful and collegial manner are much more pleasant for judge and competitors alike, and they tend to result in much higher quality debating all around.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

I am the head coach of my school's program. With that being said debate is not my forte. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round.

2. I like empirical evidence - you will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument.

3. I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. I can flow, but am not as good at flowing as someone who judges PFD every weekend.

5. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but it will be with 20 speaks.

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.

Hey this is Chris and this is my dad. A couple of things to keep in mind

1. Please signpost

2. Speak p slowly: He doesn't flow extremely well

3. He doesn't really like new offensive overviews in second rebuttal

4. You probably should weigh and respond to your opponents weighing, and metaweigh if applicable

If you ask him any questions abt this paradigm he's probably gonna be confused bc he's never read it. So just go along with it and you should be fine.

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

I am a High School English teacher, this is my fifteenth year of teaching, my first year in the debate world. Over the years I have taught students to construct effective arguments and recognize that arguments are strongest when they are logical and reasonably paced. As a judge I am listening intently for your argument's claim then for your strong supporting evidence. I am listening for evidence that has credible sources and your confident delivery and rebuttal. Please do not rush. Take your time, present confidently. If you feel as if you're stuck, do not falter, pause take a breath, regain composure and let the respectful debate continue.

I'm a junior at Princeton majoring in Physics, minoring in East Asian Studies and Computer Science.

I debated for four years in high school. I like warrants, comparative weighing, and organized final speeches.

Feel free to ask me other questions before the round. Good luck!

I am a parent judge with 3 years of judging experience.

I prefer traditional debate, where the debater speaks at a conversational speed.

I look for quality of arguments, evidence, solid logic, and strong advocacy of the position.

I am fair-minded as a debate judge, and will do my best to select the best team.

Me at a glance:

Lay [-----------------*----] Flow

Traditional debate [-------*--------------] Progressive debate

Speak slowly [------------*----------] Spreading is ok

Truth [-----------*-----------] Tech

No CX flow [---*-------------------] Flow all of CX

Define all jargon [----*------------------] I know all jargon

Narrative argumentation [----------------*-----] Referencing the flow

Refer to evidence by name [--------------------*--] Refer to evidence by argument

Quality [--------*--------------] Quantity

I am an experienced nat circuit PF debater turned college student, though I haven't debated in 3 years. I can tolerate speed but there is always a tradeoff between amount of information delivered vs. argument coherence and focus. If a debate is friendly, I'm more likely to enjoy it, and if I enjoy the debate, I'm more likely to give y'all higher speaks. Signposting will ensure that I flow your arguments the way you'd want me to. All presentations of evidence must come with warrants for the results, whether provided by the evidence or by you. FF is a great place for impact calculus; if you don't do the weighing I'll do it for you. I won't run prep time for reading evidence as long as no one is prepping. If you discuss K's, role of the ballot, fiats, or any other technical terms, you should be able to present those concepts in a way that is compelling outside of the world of technical debate. Muddling or misconstruing an argument does not invalidate it; an argument is on my flow until it is clearly and effectively rebutted or dropped. Offtime roadmaps for summary and FF are encouraged. If you drop offense in summary it will not return to my flow during FF. I can extend terminal defense through summary. Focused, collapsed arguments in FF are going to be more compelling than trying to review the entirety of the debate. If the specific of a piece of evidence is hotly contested, please ask me to read it and move on. I encourage you to enter the room and setup if you arrive before me.

Things I will not flow:

Frameworks without warrants

High-speed card dumping

Constructive arguments during a rebuttal

Personal anecdotes

Any non-consequentialist arguments without a very compelling argument for your moral framework

I am a student and member of the debate team at Princeton, where I compete in parliamentary debate. I also did PF at Horace Mann for four years.

I'm a pretty typical flow judge, so these preferences shouldn't be shocking. Of course, feel free to let me know if you have any more specific questions before round.

1. All offense in FF needs to be in summary - please, please, don't abuse this, especially if you are speaking second

2. First summary does not need to extend all terminal defense

3. Second rebuttal does not need to address turns, but if you have time, it can't hurt

4. Please weigh! It makes my job a lot easier.

A few stylistic things: please don't spread, don't be rude to your opponents (especially in cross), and don't misconstrue or lie about your evidence. Doing these things makes debate less fun for all of us, and I will not be happy with either team if the round boils down to name-calling in cross or a messy evidence debate. I will call for evidence if anyone explicitly asks me to, but I will be annoyed and your speaks will probably reflect that.

Also, keep in mind that I don't have much specific knowledge of this topic yet -- so especially if I'm judging you early on, try to be as logical and well-warranted as you can. Having a well-warranted, respectful, and clash-filled debate will make me happy, which is in all of your best interests!

Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!

In high school, I debated in California's Yosemite Forensics League. I participated in a variety of debate events, which included public forum, parliamentary debate, and congressional debate over the course of four years.

I am not a major fan of meta debate, so please keep that in mind as you select which arguments to propose.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for the past three years .

This should go without saying but I see it happen every tournament .Please, be nice to your opponents!!! I have little patience for people who are rude, cocky, rolling their eyes ,obnoxious, etc. in round. It really is unacceptable and you will be penalized for it ! You are here to debate your topic so do it strong and respectful ! Please make this round enjoyable for everyone and don't ruin it!

Voting

I vote for the team with the most persuasive argument. The soundest vote for me is an offensive argument........this means you clearly state your argument while also pointing out the comparative merits over your opponents.

I want you to convince me to vote for you based on your arguments not by the speed you talk . If you talk too fast your speaker points will reflect tht and if you speak so fast that it's difficult to understand you you will lose because I can't vote for a argument I can not hear !

Crossfire

I don't care if you sit or stand during crossfire . Do whatever you're the most comfortable with.

Evidence

Please do not call for evidence often unless you feel tht there is a real concern for its accuracy . If I feel you are calling for evidence purposely to distract or sway round you will be penalized .

I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible. If you tell me to call for something, I most likely will unless it's really unimportant for my decision. I may also call for evidence if something sounds suspect/too good to be true .

Speaker points

Articulate your cases and you will be rewarded . The more you know your case and can articulate it the higher your speaks . Reading from the screen of your computer like a robot will not get you high speaks .

IF YOU SAY things that are SEXIST , RACIST ETC or act rudely as mentioned earlier , I WILL DROP YOU AND GIVE YOU THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS. The threshold for me dropping you is pretty high so please never make me do this.

Overall, I am here to hear a strong debate and have a enjoyable experience ! I hope you enjoy the debate as well and have fun !Good luck 🍀

My name is Jonathan Freedman. I am a lawyer, and while I did not debate in high school, I have been judging Varsity Public Forum for three years, and JV Public Forum for two years prior to that. If I can't understand you, I can't flow for you, so please speak slowly, clearly and loudly. No spreading, please. I judge tech over truth, so I won't argue for you. It helps me to flow your speech if you give me an off time roadmap, so please do so. If you have any questions, ask me before the round starts.

I know things like theory and kritiks are starting to show up in PF, but I am probably not the right judge for that kind of argument. I will only vote on the substance of the resolution.

Please do not spread. Signposting is requested. Make impacts clear.

A compelling argument carried is far better than several floppy arguments dropped. Quantity does not impress me much if it is in terms of arguments and not impacts. Help me to anchor my understanding of the round. My background is in the humanities, literatures and languages. I enjoy listening to a well presented and tight case.

More "creative" interpretations of the resolution are thus welcome. I flow but do not pay much mind to CF or Grand Cross. I use that time to collect my thoughts and weigh, as time in-round is at a high premium. I do pay mind to constructive and rebuttal. Please pass important points from CF onto C+R+Sum for my consideration.

If you call for evidence, do not prep while you wait. Do use the evidence in a way that changes the course of the round. If the round doesn't turn on the card, don't call for it.

I am a lay judge. Prefer persuasive story telling and narrative. Speak slowly so that I can follow you.

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 am a parent judge aligned with Regis High School in New York City. I have been judging debate for several years at some of the larger regional tournaments, states, and local tournaments, judging mainly Public Forum, rounded out with a BQ qualifier and BQ nationals. Parliamentary Debate is a new format for me.

I work in finance. I'm familiar with basic debate jargon (turn, extend, etc.) but I'm certainly not a very 'debatey' judge. For PF, off time roadmaps are welcome. Please be sure everything you say is understandable. Speed is okay but you must be clear. If I can't follow you it will be harder for me to understand connections between your contentions, warrants, and impacts or challenges to your opponent's arguments.

When time runs out, please finish your thought and stop speaking.

I will vote off the flow.

Parent judge with 4 years of experience, I do flow the entire round.

If possible, please make it easy for me, collapse or go for a very well explained turn.

I am not a a pro and wont necessarily understand all the jargon and nuance.

My prefs:

1. yes - signpost; off-time roadmaps, extending from SUM to FF;

2. warrants > blips = I will have a hard time voting for poorly explained arguments;

3. no - spreading, anything new in 2nd SUM or FF;

4. Happy to skip grand-X if you are...

5. If K and Theory is read, I will do my best, but no promises that I will do a good job of it.. so swim at your own risk.

you can add me to email chains and case - viettagrinberg@gmail.com

About Me:

did pf while i was in high school (class of '17). i'm pretty tech for my time, but progressive argumentation is not my thing, so don't read it.

The Basics:

- i can handle speed, but i am rusty so don't go crazy
- intelligent warranting/impacting/weighing > card dumping for extensions and voters
- signpost wherever you can, just makes my life easier

update (3/10): for evidence sharing, use a google doc to save us all some time. my email: rajang456@gmail.com

While I encourage you to use whatever method you need to time yourself, I will have the official time with me, including your prep time. When the time is up, complete your sentence and be prepared to move on to the next part of the debate.

You may speak as fast or as slow as you like - however - if I can't understand what you are saying, it may not be helpful to your argument.

1st and 2nd cross are individual crosses. Your partner should not be assisting you during this time.

My personal opinions on whatever the topic might be will not interfere with how well you make your case. Convince me and you will win my vote.

Best of luck to everyone!

Preferences:

I noticed that most teams are prepared very well. I am looking for teams who can provide solid evidence to support their statement, and defend/offend logically. I also pay attention to and weigh the facts/evidences that may play key factors in PRO or CON. Please speak slower if you think the presented facts/evidences are critical to support your statement, since that may help you to gain a point.

Experience:

a new parent judge with 5~6 tournaments' judging experience only.

I am tabula rasa; did policy debate in HS and college. Fine with speed and K.

Claudia Hodges, am relatively new to judging 2020. I have received some training and have judged Public Forum previously. My goal is to be a fair judge

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.

I debated throughout middle school and high-school so I know what good argumentation sounds like, that being said, I would much prefer if you do not spread, in my experience it just makes the round worse and the result come down to relatively trivial matters. You should still respond to each and every one of your opponents points but try to group them if you can so you don't get bogged down in rebuttals, especially in later speeches. This will be easier for you and your opponents if you roadmap well and also have succinct and well named tag lines for your arguments (and potentially also enumerate). I come from a background of impromptu debate so I will appreciate well-argued points that flow logically and do not only stand on a piece of evidence that will inevitably be challenged. I really dislike arguments about evidence, with the internet, one can basically find evidence for anything. Justify your evidence. Also, remember to weight the arguments in contention and explain to me why your weighting system makes sense. If you do not tell me why the economic losses of a policy outweigh the potential social benefits I will have to make that judgement for myself. Try to engage with your opponents as much as possible and not argue past each other even if their case is unexpected; it makes the round more enjoyable for all and the result a more fair assessment of your skills.

Be civil to one another and have a fun time.

Experienced judge; I have judged at local and national tournaments in the past.

Speed.

I prefer an average speed so that your arguments are easier to understand and evaluate. Clarity > speed. Make sure I can understand you. I can’t score you appropriately if I can’t understand what you are saying.

Prep time

Use your prep time. Use it wisely, but use it.

Arguments

Make sure you address every issue raised by your opponent. I prefer evidence over pragmatics. Be sure to provide strong links between the different pieces of your argument and I will notice if you do not respond to an argument put forth by your opponent. I’m comfortable with jargon. Remember to signpost - I am not going to vote for good positions, I am going to vote for good arguments. Remember to be respectful while attacking your opponents position. Show the same courtesy you wish to receive.

I will not intervene unless asked OR in the event of outlandish statements, lies or any types of hate speech.

I competed in Public Forum for Corona del Sol HS for four years, graduating in 2019. I am now only very infrequently involved with the PF debate circuit and have not watched / judged a debate round since 1H 2022.

I coached for two years after graduating with my team championing the TOC in 2022. Therefore, I have a somewhat clear understanding of how to flow and evaluate a round, but I don't frequently judge and am less acquainted with the topic than most. You should assume I have no clear picture of stock arguments or common pieces of evidence.

You can read any argument you'd like - I'll vote for anything, though I will need greater explanation on how non-traditional arguments function for my ballot.

Currently debate for Princeton, debated PF for 4 years for Ravenwood High.

I vote entirely on voter issues extended and weighed in FF. Strength of link > size of impact. If I have to vote based on a big impact with shoddy links, I will grit my teeth and lower your speaks.

logic > evidence. You must give reasons/analysis for empirical findings from studies for me to care about them.

Be careful with weighing too early. Trying to weigh impacts from an argument that still is very contested at the warrant/link level is a strategic waste of time. Resolve the clash to win the argument first, and only then try to weigh it. Weighing an argument through ink is bad debating.

Be extremely clear with signposting. The messier my flow, the higher chance I make a decision you don’t like.

Summaries/FF should be more than just saying your opponents dropped arguments. Be thoroughly responsive. Resolve clashes and compare the strength of warrants.

In both summaries, explicitly respond to all turns. If your opponents drop a turn, extend and weigh it in summary/FF.

I can take any PF-appropriate speed (no spreading) and I know all the jargon (or at least I think I do…).

Have fun!

I debated for Stuyvesant with moderate success and currently attend Princeton. I do collegiate debate (parli) but I do not coach high school pf. That means I have very little knowledge about the topic.

General Preferences

All offense that is in FF must be in summary.

Second rebuttal does not need to address turns. First summary does not need to extend defense unless it was frontlined in second rebuttal.

Bring up cx concessions in a speech for me to evaluate them.

No need to disclose.

I do not like non-traditional arguments (theory, the K). I believe they are ripping apart the activity that I love. If those types of arguments are your thing, strike me.

I will, 99% of the time, evaluate the round based off util. It will take a lot of convincing for me to do otherwise.

Will call for evidence if:

1. It was hotly contested / a team asks me to

2. It is crucial for one side's offense and it sounds very sketchy

The best way to win my ballot is to weigh. I shall resolve weighing/framework first, and then resolve clash regarding the offense that links into that framework. If neither side weighs, I shall have to do it myself, with potentially unsatisfying results for both teams.

I will reward teams that adopt a strong narrative and collapse effectively, as opposed to blippy responses and going for too much. I value clear warrant stories with small impacts much more than big impacts without well-explained links.

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L.

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 9/18/22

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.

With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.

With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional or policy. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.

I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.

All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.

Policy

Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

I was formerly a 4 year PF debater at Stuyvesant High School, a 4 year PF coach for Hunter High School, a 4 year APDA/BP debater in college, and the Director of NSD PF for 3 years. 3 things to note:

1. I don’t need defense in first summary if 2nd rebuttal didn’t answer it and you extend it in final focus, but I do need defense in 2nd summary if you intend for that response to factor into my decision. All offense must be in both summary and final focus.

2. I give relatively low average speaker points, as I will award an average PF speech a 28.

3. Do not be afraid to grill me after the round if you think I have made a mistake in evaluating the round in any way. It will not sway me but it might teach you something and i really don’t mind at all.

i wont micromanage your round but in the words of my friend:

"weigh

and don't give off-time roadmaps

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur"

- ozan ergungor

Hello debaters,

I am a lay parent judge from Westborough, MA who has been judging for the last three years at local and natcir tournaments. This paradigm was written by my son. I will take notes on the round kind of like flowing. However, the easiest way to persuade me and get my vote is in the final focus.

truth>tech - I already have a limited understanding of the technicalities of debate, please don't run low probability - high magnitude arguments and expect me to vote for you.

I will deduct speaks if I can't understand you (please don't spread)

Things I think will be helpful for the round

I will pay attention and take notes on crossfire

It might be a good idea to respond to arguments from first rebuttal in the second rebuttal

Try to build a narrative throughout the round.

I have a low threshold for random debate words - phrases like "terminal defense " are useless to me. Your word economy should be simplistic and effective.

Please refrain from bringing up new argumentation in the second half of the round.

Weigh in FF. This speech helps me sign my ballot for you, so give me clear reasons why i should prefer you over your opponents.

Please do not run theory or k's, I do not understand them.

Don't be toxic, this debate round doesn't matter in the long run.

I will disclose after the round, hopefully, you find my feedback helpful.

For TOC and any online debate - if you are sharing evidence with the opponents and wish for the judge to be on the email chain, please ask me before the round for my email.

Good luck and have fun!

Hi, I am Soyoup Lee. I am a parent judge from Hunter College High School. I am new and very inexperienced in judging debates.

It will be helpful for me when debaters speak slowly and clearly.

I am a US History, World History, Law, and Personal Finance teacher in Lexington, MA and have taught Civics in a past life outside DC. Meaning that I have a strong academic background on the policy issues that are being discussed. That said, I am a relative newcomer to academic-style Debate in my second year judging.

As a PF judge I expect solid arguments that correctly apply strong evidence and do not ignore major flaws or counter-arguments. I would much rather hear someone say "we do not disagree that the aff/neg argument is valid, but here is why ours is stronger/more relevant." Speak clearly. No spreading. Have fun!

As an LD judge I am new to the game but well versed in solid arguments. Refer to your framework in your arguments to strengthen them and do not engage in extensive de-linking unless you are on solid ground logically. I will lean on my understanding of logic in the arguments rather than fancy debate tactics. Also if you spread, I will not understand you. Keep it civil in CXs but don't be afraid to press your opponent if their answer is weak. Email is Plehmann@lexingtonma.org for speech docs.

Wikispaces no longer exists for some reason so I'm gonna try and summarize here.

I went to Scarsdale and did Public forum debate there. I am now on the Columbia Parliamentary Debate Team.

I will disclose at the end of the round. Debate is stressful enough without guessing for hours as to who won. The one exception is if its unbelievably close, and for me to tell you without thinking about it past the normal time at the end of the round, would be almost akin to guessing. This has happened a total of once I believe.

If you read a card in the first two speeches, you have to at least tell me its a card in the second two. You don't have to read a tag, but I have to know you said it earlier, so I know I can go back and find it on the earlier parts of the flow after the round. If you don't do this, I won't vote off of it.

I don't care if you go fast, as long as I can flow. I'm faster on computer than paper, but I'm not bad overall. If I ' cant get it the first time, I won't vote off of it.

I don't care if you're a jerk in crossfire, as long as someone doesn't appear visibly uncomfortable. If they do, ease up. No one should leave a debate round upset because they felt bullied. With that said, so much of crossfire is useless because people are trying to yell about who has a right to speak. Focus on getting one really solid point across. You're more likely to sway the needle.

If you want to be card-centric, do that. I'm game.

You don't have to rebuild in the 2nd rebuttal. If you do it well, however, it can be really effective.

Weigh in the summary, weigh in the final focus. Weigh in the rebuttal if you can. If you do those things, I will give you high speaks. I have no issue giving a lot of high speaks. A lot of you are high-quality speakers.

Senior at Princeton who did four years of PF for Regis High School. I really value good weighing and clear warranting - stats don't mean anything unless you can explain why they're true. Please don't be rude. Feel free to ask any more specific questions before the round!

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

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Yes, include me on the email chain. zhaneclloyd@gmail.com

Brooklyn Tech: 2011 - 2012 (those three novice UDL tournaments apparently count), 2017 - 2021 (coach)
NYU: 2014 - 2018
The New School: 2018-2020 (coach)

***I used to keep my video off for rounds, but I've since learned that it's a mistake for the morale of the debater as well as for confirming whether or not I'm actually in the room. If my camera is off, I am not in the room. Please do not start speaking***

I currently work a full-time job that has nothing to do with debate. I still judge because that full-time job does not pay enough (does any job nowadays?) and I've built community with people that are still very active in debate, so seeing them is nice. It is also means I'm VERY out of touch with what the new norms in debate are. But everything below still applies for the most part.

In case you're pressed for time

1. Do you. Have fun. Don't drop an important argument.

2. If there is an impact in the 2NR/2AR, there's a high chance you've won the debate in front of me. I like going for the easy way out and impacts give me the opportunity to do that. Impact comparisons are good too. NEG - LINKS to those impacts matter. AFF - how you SOLVE those impacts matter. Outside of that context, I'm not sure how I should evaluate.

3. I flow on paper, so please don't be upset if I miss arguments because you're slurring your words or making 17 arguments/minute.

4. Don't assume I know the acronyms or theories you're talking about, even if I do. This is a persuasion activity, so no shortcuts to persuading me.

5. Obviously, I have biases, but I try not to let those biases influence how I decide a round. Usually, if debaters can't accomplish #2, then I'll be forced to. I prefer to go with the flow though.

6. If at the end of the round, you find yourself wanting to ask my opinion on an argument that you thought was a round winner, know that I have one of two answers: I didn't consider it or I didn't hear it. Usually, it's the latter. So try not to make 5 arguments in 20 seconds.

7. There's no such thing as a "good" time to run 5+ off, but I'll especially be annoyed if it's the first or last round of the day. 10+ off guarantees I will not flow and may even stop the round. I'm not the judge for those type of rounds.

8. I've grown increasingly annoyed with non-Black debaters making "helping Black people" as part of their solvency. A lot of you don't know how to do this without either a). sounding patronizing as hell or b). forgetting that "helping Black people" was part of your solvency by the time rebuttals come around (#BackburnerDA). I'm not going to tell you to stop running those arguments, but I strongly recommend you don't have me in the back of the room for them.

**ONLINE DEBATE**: You don't need to yell into your mic. I can hear you fine. In fact, yelling into your mic might make it harder for me to hear you. Which means you may lose. Which is bad. For you.

If you're not so pressed for time

I debated for four years at NYU and ran mostly soft left affs. I think that means I'm a pretty good judge for these types of affs and it also means I'm probably able to tell if there is a genuine want for a discussion about structural violence impacts and the government's ability to solve them or if they're just tacked on because K debaters are scary and it makes the perm easier.

I do think debate is a game, but I also think people should be allowed to modify the "rules" of the game if they're harmful or just straight up unlikeable. I've designed games from time to time, so I like thinking about the implications of declaring debate to be "just" a game or "more than" a game. Now to the important stuff.

Speed: Through a card, I'll tolerate it. Through a tag or analytics, I'll be pretty annoyed. And so will you, because I'll probably miss something important that could cost you the round. When reading a new card, either verbally indicate it ("and" or "next") or change your tone to reflect it.

Planless affs: Even in a game, some people just don't want to defend the government. And that's perfectly okay. But I would like the aff to be relevant to the current topic. Though I do understand that my definition of "relevant" and a K debater's definition of "relevant" may differ greatly slightly, so just prove to me why the aff is a good idea and why the lack of government action is not as relevant/bad/important as the negative's framework makes it seem.

CP: Wasn't really much of a CP debater and I don't really coach teams that run CPs, except the basic novice ones that come in a starter kit. I think they're a fine argument and am willing to vote on them.

DA: You could never go wrong with a good DA. DAs, when run correctly, have a really good, linear story that can be extended in the neg block and could be used to effectively handle aff answers. Feel free to go crazy.

Ks: I can't think of a neg round where I didn't run a K. I've run cap, security, queerness, and Black feminism. But please, do not talk to me as if I know your K. If you're running pomo, I most definitely don't know your K and will need to be talked through it with analogies and examples. If you're running an identity K, I probably do know your K but expect the same from you as I expect from a pomo debater. Cap, security - you get the memo.

T: My favorite neg arg as a senior. I'm always down for a good T debate. I do think that sometimes it's used as a cop-out, but I also think that some affs aren't forwarding any sort of plan or advocacy. Just stating an FYI and a neg can't really argue against that. So T becomes the winning strategy.

Framework: Not exactly the same as T, but I still **like** it. Please just call it framework in front of me. I've heard various names be used to describe it, but they're all just arguments about what should be discussed in the round and how the aff fails to do so.

Theory: Important, but the way debaters speed through their theory shells makes me question just how important it is. Again, slow down when reading theory in front of me so it's actually an option for you at the end of the round.

Short:

Debated 4 years PF in HS. 3 years of policy in college. Coached PF for 4 years.

Ridge 2014-201, NYU 2018-202, current MD/PhD student at Michigan

Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (brandonluxiii@gmail.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.

Tech over truth. Policy and K both good. I can flow around 250 wpm without a doc. Favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.

If you don't extend I will vote neg on presumption unless it's LD where I'll vote aff on presumption. It makes me sad to have to say that I've voted on presumption in about 10% of rounds I've judged, although this number seems to be going down.

My name isn't judge, you can say my name if you want my attention.

If it takes you longer than 5 minutes to find a card, it doesn't exist. Very excessive card calling that makes me want to fall asleep: -0.2 speaks per card.

Please time yourselves.

Ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful. Postrounding is tolerated, but don't be annoying.

Please contact me if you feel unsafe during round.

Long:

PF Paradigm

I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.

Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.

Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.

I used to say I wanted to see a theory debate about whether 2nd rebuttal should frontline, but no one is willing to do it. If someone does it well, I will give both teams 30 speaks. Meanwhile, I currently default to 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything (yes, defense too. Don't be lazy).

Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary. NOTHING IS STICKY.

In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).

How to win my ballot:

Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.

I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).

I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).

I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.

I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.

Things I like:

Debating the line by line well.

Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.

Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.

Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).

Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.

A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.

Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.

Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.

Excessively long roadmaps- Your order should just be the flows. At most the arguments. Weighing is not a flow

Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice. The more frivolous your theory is, the less speaks I will give and the lower threshold I give for responses.

Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.

Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).

Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.

Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.

Things I hate:

New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.

Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.

How I award speaks:

30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.

29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.

28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.

27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.

26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.

Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)

30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.

Miscellaneous things:

Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.

I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.

Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.

If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 0.5.

You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.

If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.

I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something funny.

If you can make a reference to song I like, I'll boost your speaks. If you make a reference to a song I don't like, I'll dock speaks.

Write down things you did to boost speaks and remind me right when the round ends. If I forget, you can remind me the next time I judge you and I'll give you the extra speaks I owe.

Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts

TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.

LD Paradigm

Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.

I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.

K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.

K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.

Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.

Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.

Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.

I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.

Policy Paradigm

I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.

Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.

I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.

DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).

CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.

Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.

K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.

Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).

T: For some reason, I'm a masochist and I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.

Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.

I have 7 years of BP and world schools experience, and 2 years of APDA experience.

Unfortunately I am not good with spreading - my ability to keep up begins to decline at 200 wpm and maxes out at 230 or so. Please speak slowly if you can.

I will not vote on jargon and theory. If you want me to call for evidence, please ask me to - I am unlikely to do so otherwise. I encourage explicit efforts to evaluate and weigh evidence. I tend to "sniff-test" poorly warranted claims if they are outside of what the average NYT reader would consider reasonable rather than accepting them as true for the round simply because they go unresponded to. As a general rule, I prefer quality over quantity.

I will dock speaks if debaters make offensive generalisations about any particular identity group, or if they are excessively aggressive in-round. I really enjoy creative similes and metaphors and will reward speakers who use them effectively in their analysis.

Please feel free to approach me for individual feedback! My email is xiaokel@princeton.edu

I am former 4 year public forum debater. As of writing, I am a first-year out (11/7/2019).

I evaluate off the flow. I can handle a decent amount of speed, that being said, I prefer rounds without spreading. Defense is preferred in second summary, not necessary in first. If second summary does not provide defense, I expect you to at least establish what offense you are going for. All offense in final focus must be in summary, but defensive extensions don't have to be; no new evidence in final unless its defense to new evidence in summary.

Please weigh. Tell me why and how I should vote for you; otherwise, I might as well just vote for the cleanest extension regardless of impact. I prefer not to intervene, but will for egregious violations. I do not flow crossfire, so if something important happens tell me in the next speech. Feel free to ask questions before round.

I am a junior in college who debated PF for 4 years at Cranbrook Schools. I have not been very involved in PF since April 2019, so I likely do not have much knowledge on the current topic.

Feel free to ask me any questions that you may have before the round. I can give much more specific comments in-person.

hi! i'm angie khadijah. i studied philosophy at columbia (barnard class of '22) and competed on the houston circuit for 4 years @ cinco ranch high school. i've worked for the NYCUDL, judged at national circuit tournaments, and currently work with the Brooklyn Debate League (BDL) -- i'm passionate about speech advocacy!

questions about my paradigm? wanna chat? confused about my decision? feel free to email me! angie@brooklyndebateleague.org

tldr; give me a weighing mechanism so you don't leave the round confused by my decision. impact thru everything. link chains are super important. i will always look for the clearest path to the ballot and try to be as tab as possible.

speed is totally fine, but clarity is essential in this activity. use jargon when its needed please.

i will drop a debater who wields anti-Black/racist/unapologetically insensitive etc. speech or behavior if their opponent asks me to. this is a speaking activity: you are responsible for your words.

LD

please add me to the email chain: angie@brooklyndebateleague.org

i am down to hear anything. this is your space, please use it how you'd like. i recognize the labor and time invested in this activity by so many of you, and sincerely thank you for sharing it with me.

i like kritikal debates, though i aim to be an approachable and reasonable judge for all levels/styles of debate :)

i am *not* the judge for you if t is your entire neg strat. i am not as well versed on t as some other judges and often find complex theory debates to be frivolous. i will hear anything, but want to remain fair to you!

i vote tech > truth but will definitely discuss truth-y issues if its problematic or if you wanna philosophize after the round.

i love performance and GREATLY appreciate all attempts to make the debate space less elitist + more radical.

impacts and links are important to me!

i avg 28.5 speaks. earn a 30 by being unique and memorable :)

yes i disclose and always try to give constructive feedback to both sides

PF

summary is the most important speech of the round, followed by rebuttal.

weigh! impact! tell me how to vote!! i love unique args.

i vote off my flow, looking for the clearest path to the ballot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

debate is about education imo. feel free to talk about this space w me before or after round (or in round...do what you want)

HAVE FUN!! seriously, this activity is great and i hope to foster an inviting and intellectually rigorous space in all my rounds.

I am a parent of a PF debater. I have judged PF debates [2018-2019] at the JV and varsity level.

Personal History:

-I participated in Public Forum Debate for 4 years for University School (Ohio) in high school (2015-2019).

-I have judged Public Forum for the past 2 years on the national circuit, and locally in Ohio. I have also coached for a couple of schools nationally as well as at the National Debate Forum's camps the past 2 summers.

Speed:

-Nothing over like 225 words per minute. As long as you are clear and don't spread, I should be fine. But, I will not accept speech docs so if I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Expectations for debaters + Technical Preferences:

-I will deduct .1 speaks for every 1 minute I have to wait for you to preflow

-Unless you think it is completely necessary, please no Ks or Theory. I have very limited experience with them and will not do a very good job evaluating debates involving them. However, I will do my best if you do run a K or theory.

-Please tell me where you are starting before every speech (obviously doesn't apply to case reads).

-I expect basically all weighing to be in summary speeches, your weighing won't be important in my decision otherwise.

-Don't be sus if/when paraphrasing evidence

My evaluation of arguments:

-Unless you say something completely ridiculous, I am tech>truth.

-I will only call for evidence if I am explicitly told to call for it in a speech, if there is a dispute over what it actually says, or if it sounds too good to be true or sketchy.

-All offensive arguments in Final Focus must be in Summary if you want me to evaluate them.

-The warrant and the impact have to be in both speeches, if either are missing, the argument doesn't matter and I will act as if it were dropped.

Speaker Points:

-Rudeness or overly aggressive behavior will hurt your speaker points. However, if you say something funny or roast your opponents respectfully, speaker points will be added accordingly.

I am a parent judge. Don't speak too fast or I won't be able to follow along. Please speak clearly and number your points.

Hey, I debated PF for four years at Jackson High School in Ohio and got 6th at NSDAs my senior year. I'm now a rising junior at NYU.

My email is hm2375@nyu.edu.

For NSDAs 2021:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give me comparative warrant analysis. This topic is horrible in general. But, it even worse to judge when both teams just keep repeating their arguments over and over without engaging in clash. If you argue that social media creates echo chambers on NEG, and your opponents argue that social media provides a "diversity of information," tell me why it's more believable that these echo chambers are likely to persist over a diversity of information. I literally have no idea what is going on most of the time during this tournament, because teams keep extending cards without implicating them in the larger context of the round and the context of their opponent's warrants. Make my job easy as a judge and tell me WHY your argument is more believable than your opponents.

Overarching things:

Don't be super rude and obnoxious. There is a thin line between being firm and aggressive to being rude in cross. It's irritating as a judge to watch competitors be elitist and rude to each other when the purpose of the activity is to be inclusive.

Don't be racist, xenophobic, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. If you are you probably will get a) Dropped and b) Low-speaks

***Just a PSA: I severely dislike when debaters use progressive argumentation to get a leg up on their opponents: many of whom may come from smaller schools that don't teach progressive debate. If you fall into this category, you contribute to the many inequities and elitisms in debate that your Kritiks/Theories are probably referencing. I wouldn't mind seeing a thorough K debate if both teams are adequately prepared to debate it; but if you are purely using the argument because you KNOW that your opponents don't know how to respond to it, I will drop your speaks and will not be a happy camper :( ***

Just some semantics:

I don't care if you sit or stand; it's up to you.

I don't pay much attention during cross, so anything from cross needs to be in a speech for me to actually process it.

Time yourselves please. Don't shake my hand.

With regard to the round itself:

Second rebuttal should frontline all offense (this means turns and disads). That being said, I think it is best strategically to frontline everything.

Please don't bring up new offense past the rebuttal speeches. Don't read disads as turns... If you really want to read an add-on or disad, just do it. There is no need to mask it as a turn. I will vote for anything as a judge, but my tolerance for responses decreases the more "out there" an argument is.

With that in mind, I do not require the first speaking team to extend defense in the 1st summary speech. However, if said defense is frontlined in 2nd rebuttal, the 1st summary should interact with the frontlines. Nothing irritates me more than a 2nd summary that purposely chooses to disregard the 1st summary's frontlines and extends through ink. Please, don't do that. Now that summaries are three minutes, I think that defense should be included in 1st summary to build a narrative, but if gets extended straight to final focus, it's not the end of the world. But defense in 2nd summary is needed.

Speaking fast is fine with me (PF versions of fast at least). I'd prefer if you did not full on spread. I tend to flow on paper or XL so there is a limit to how fast I can write/type. If you really want to spread, just make sure you send me and your opponents a speech doc so we can follow along, and do it clearly. Since tournaments are now online, I would limit speed because you might cut out mid-speech.

I'm not super well versed with theory and kritiks so you should shy away from progressive argumentation. If you are really intent on running a K, go for it, but you will have to explain super well to me to get me to vote off of it. I have a very high threshold for theory and I probably would only vote off of it if there is proven in-round abuse. (Particularly true for NSDAs)

Collapse and weigh on one to two main arguments. Whether this be turns or case offense, it is imperative that you collapse and collapse early. With regards to weighing: do not just tell me that impact XYZ is of great magnitude and thus I should vote for you. Weighing is supposed to be comparative so try to do it at both the link/impact level. Moreover, if your opponent's weighing mechanism is scope and your's is probability, tell me WHY probability is more important than scope (i.e, give me a warrant). I know this is a lot to ask, but good weighing makes my job easier and more likely you get high speaks and my ballot.

Properly extend and warrant your arguments. All offense should be in both final focus and summary. This means that links and impacts need to be included in both the final focus and summary speeches. Do not just extend through ink. Warrant your argument so that you build a narrative. I'm more likely to vote for a well-warranted argument with some clash than an uncontested blippy argument without a warrant.

Don't mess with evidence. If your opponent calls you out on misconstruing evidence, I will call for the evidence at the end of the round. Evidence should include: author, qualifications and dates. Please, please, please do not mis-cut your cards. Evidence ethics in public forum are already sketchy; let's not make it worse.

My RFD/Speaks:

I give speaker points based on in-round strategy. The earlier you collapse and weigh, the higher your speaker points will be. That being said, when casting my ballot I tend to take the path of least resistance for well-warranted, well-weighed arguments. I try to be tech over truth, but I am human and PF is a persuasion based category. So I am inclined to vote (and give higher speaks) for persuasive, narrative based arguments.

At the end of the day, I will do my best to adapt to you as a judge. If there is anything you need from me please ask and I will do my best to provide. Have fun debating!

Hi! I'm a PF alum from Montville, NJ (with some random experience in extemp and congress my senior year).

As I've done debate through my four years of HS, so I'm a standard flow judge. It needs to be in a speech if you want me to flow it (i.e. I don't flow crossfire).

I'm alright with most speeds, but just know that if you go too fast, I'm going to stop flowing. Please don't spread!

Please signpost. Tell me where to flow. Otherwise, there is a good chance your argument gets lost somewhere on my flow. I'd hate to drop you because I don't know what you are talking about, or because I wrote your response in the wrong spot.

In rebuttals, I don't appreciate card dumps. Use the cards you have wisely, and if you don't explain the response, I won't vote off of it. In short, show me the most significant evidence and tell me why it matters in the context of the round and the arguments presented.

Do NOT misconstrue evidence-- I value warrant comparisons more than evidence comparisons, but if you have sketchy evidence and that's the crux of one of your arguments, I won't buy it and will most likely call for it. I want to see warranted responses!

Make sure you are strategic with what you extend in summary. I think the first summary is alright skipping on defense, but it should extend offense. The second summary does have to extend defense. Offense must be extended in second summary. If you drop a warrant to your argument in summary that you go for in final, I can't vote for that argument. Everything in final -- except terminal defense -- must be in summary.

The ultimate crux to my paradigm is weighing. I don't care if weighing starts in final-- however, please do it earlier!-- I just need some way to comparatively vote. If no one weighs, I have to intervene, and no one likes that.

Finally, make sure to have fun! Remember why you are here and try not to get caught up in the stress of doing well. Always remember to enjoy what you are doing!

Good luck!

I am a lawyer and Executive Director of the NYCUDL.

I have judged PF for the last 6+ years, over 100 rounds and run many judge trianings.

I will judge based on a combination of the flow, general logic and common sense.

Speed-don't do it. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for it.

If you want me to vote on an issue please include it in both summary and final focus.

Write my RFD for me in final focus.

Only call for evidence if there is a real need (context, integrity).

In general, be nice. I believe in debate access for all so I will cut your speaks if you create an environment where other people don't want to participate in the activity.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent and relatively new to judging. Please speak slowly or I will not vote for your argument. Have clear reasoning. Be nice and have fun :)

I have judged lots of speech and a couple tournaments of PF. Please don’t spread.

Background:

Former debater, 3 years PF 1 year Extemp.

I am definitely a flay judge for this tournament. My knowledge of the topic will be superficial during the start, and while I love PF, I am also the typical tired college student. So while I hope to make evidence-based (what is the superior logic) decisions, effective presentation and delivery will be unconscious biases.

How to help me make my decision:

General: Everything's easier if you follow these.

WEIGH:

I cannot stress this enough, tell me the MVP's of your case - don't make me infer a decision. Just pretend I have a short term memory, because if I have to infer I will only use the logic continuously/most recently presented to me in the round (I will not string arguments into a big picture unless I am told).

Clarity/Transparency is key:

Always remember that you are debating your opponents, but you are convincing me. Do not become muddled in topic niches, or argumentative nuances that only suffice to sway the other team's beliefs.

Some specifics: There are exceptions to all of these, but if you need some more guidelines here you go.

Give me measurable outcomes:

arguments should be feasible and anchored in reality. This is not LD or Policy - existentialism, moral qualms, etc only work if you ground them back to the issue at hand.

Deliver cause-and-effect relationships:

Your links, facts, evidence, logical reasoning...etc, should not leave gaps between your contention claims and impacts.

Give me reference points:

I completely understand how frustrating it is when teams pick up dropped arguments on a whim, brings up, creates, or misrepresents evidence, etc. I will do my best to catch all of these happenings, but you need to help me out as well. To do this, instead of making the blanket claims (explained below), give me reference points. Where should I see these blanks on my flow, what part of the round should I recall, etc? Time is always an issue on this, but road maps can definitely help.

Words of caution: Be fair during the round. I'll always be watching for these, but I doubt many major problems will happen!

Please don't spread, evidence dump, flow through arguments, assume the non-trivial is understood, waste time on the trivial, etc.

Make overarching claims carefully:

Phrases like "they never respond to" or "they completely drop"... only work if I have witnessed the same phenomenon on my flow, or in evidence. If you make an absolute claim about the other team, I will try to check them through my flow and/or requesting evidence. If I can verify it on my own then the claim will absolutely help you! However, if I find the statement false, things won't go so well for you. Sometimes, these blanket statements, without reference points (explained above), are so ambiguous they cannot be proved or disproved, so they waste everyone's time.

Be cordial to your opponents:

Remember this round is not deciding your life, it should not be a test of emotions, but instead wit. If the opposing team is rude or being ridiculous, don't worry I will see it too. My decision obviously will be biased if you treat others badly.

In essence, muddling the round, and reducing clarity will result in semi-confused RFD's, and rudeness will heavily bias my decision. Unfortunately, if I discover cheating or blatant lying during the round the decision will go to the opposing team, and it just won't be a good time.

Final Thoughts: Sorry about the rambling! If anything's unclear just ask me at the beginning of the round. I'll be completely chill during the round, as long as your chill too. Keep things exciting!

(also well-timed/placed jokes are always appreciated)

My experience: Systems engineer in DoD/Aerospace industry. Would like to see constructive argument framing.

1. Delivering: Clear and well organized arguments with supporting evidence.

2. Transport: Slow down to make sure your message is received in clarity and be compassionate and respectful to your opponent

For both LD and PF, I am a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation. I will disclose ONLY if required by the tournament host. I will offer no oral critiques. Both of those are the purpose of the ballot.

Matt Novak: Kenston High School

I've been a debate coach at Kenston High School in Chargrin Falls, OH for the last 5 years. I've judged PF, LD, and Congress, primarily in Ohio but also on the national circuit. I'm the parent of a TOC finalist, so I've seen what it takes to win. I'm a West Point graduate with a degree in civil engineering and Iraq war veteran. I currently work for a North America-focused consumer goods company and have spent the last 15 years in supply chain roles. I did not debate in high school or college.

I will flow the round. I'm not a fan of policy-like spreading, but I can deal with a faster than normal speed. I value competitors that show a deep understanding of the topic and clearly have researched and thought through all of their arguments. I prefer an aggressive cross with more question/answer back and forth than drawn-out speeches. I'm balanced between evidence and logic, there needs to be both in a good argument. I'm ok with the K as long as it tangentially applies to the debate.

Good Luck!

I am a parent judge. Although I have judged before and have a very basic understanding of flowing, please do not speak too quickly or use jargon.

I value a clear narrative. You should have a clear extension of your argument through round that really expresses the significance of what you are arguing.

Implicate turns and defense! Tell me how your responses are relevant to the round. Warrants are more important than cards.

Please weigh!

Have fun :)

Hi,

I have judged PF for a few years.

Be respectful to your opponents, especially in crossfire, and don't make bigoted arguments

I will flow your speeches, but I expect you to call out if your opponent dropped an argument, has incorrect logic/ facts etc.,

Speed: If I cannot understand/flow it, it does not count i.e., I favor normal speech speed , quality arguments vs spreading/quantity.

Cross: Raise items in speech if you want me to flow it and use it in my decision.

Clearly identify your arguments, warrants, highlight clash, weigh, identify voting issues and why you should win the debate

Generally, I will call for cards only if asked, or if my decision rests on a card. Don't use that as an excuse to misrepresent cards.

Theory? Please don't!

Lastly, have fun!

Coming from a dominantly PF/Parli background, I'm comfortable with most things so long as debaters let me know beforehand.

Want to spread?

A-okay, just let me know.

Off time roadmap?

A-okay, just let me know.

Self time prep?

A-okay, just let me know.

Anything else?

Just let me know and we can talk it out.

The only things that I'm nitpicky about are intelligibility when speaking and timing for crossfire. Otherwise, it'll be round-by-round what I'm looking for in the debaters. Don't worry about what you think I'll want to see as a judge, just do your thing.

Update 10/8/22:

First, don't worry too much about this paradigm - just debate!

Experience/background: I'm a teacher who did policy debate a long time ago, co-coached PF for several years, judged many (> 100) national circuit PF rounds over past decade, a little experience judging CDA & parli styles.

Some notes/comments in no particular order:

In all styles, it comes down to the same thing: it's your job as a debater to convince me to vote for you. It's not my burden to make sense of arguments that are muddled, incomplete, poorly organized etc.

(PF): I'm not currently coaching PF, and you'll risk losing my ballot if you use tons of jargon, esp. with arguments/acronyms etc.

I'm not lay but also not super technical (re PF/policy); I vote off the flow. For CDA/parli, presentation is higher priority, but well-crafted, persuasive arguments are what win my ballot. (Of course these things are related.)

I love good analysis; not impressed by blippy arguments. Ideally you have a coherent narrative by the end of the round.

Evidence: quality over quantity. Understand your evidence. Ideally you should be able to:

- explain any expert opinion you cite (rather than just stating it),

- understand where a statistic comes from & context (how a study was done, what its limitations are etc),

- defend the relevance of any empirical evidence you present, and

- be sure you’re not misrepresenting evidence!!! In PF I will call for cards.

Weighing is critical (not just weighing impacts, not just "we win on magnitude" etc.). Tell me why I should vote for you!

Some/moderate speed is ok as long as you're clear. If you can't speak both quickly and clearly, slow down.

No new args in rebuttal, I will not vote on them. (However you can respond in rebuttal to new args made in your opponent's 2nd constructive.)

Extending an argument in rebuttal means more than one or two words ("pull x"); you have to fully articulate it in rebuttal for me to consider it.

cx (for PF): I listen, but I'm not voting off cx. Bring it into a speech.

fw: I have voted off framework in some PF rounds, but only when convincing and directly relevant to args in the round. If you agree on fw, there's no need to talk about it in the round - time is better spent on other things.

k's: I'm generally not a fan in PF, but I'll do my best to be fair and consider whatever you're running. I have voted on them on occasion.

I sometimes avoid disclosing at larger tournaments in order to get things moving.

In the best rounds I've judged, debaters listen well to one another. Good clash is not just "they said this, but we say that." The best debaters can incorporate their opponents' arguments into a coherent narrative of the round.

Good luck!

Not a lay judge.

Debated 1yr of PF and 1yr of LD.

Was 1 of the 2 co-captains for my high school debate team, AFBHS S&D.

I look for:

-Debate Jargon (key words)- “Void,” “Drop,” “Extend,” etc.

-Weighing Impacts and/or framework.

-Good CX.

-Quantifiable Statistical Evidence & Credible Examples.

-Clear Diction & Expressive Tone.

-Keep track of your own prep/speech/and cx time.

For both LD and PF, I am a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation. I will disclose ONLY if required by the tournament host. I will offer no oral critiques. Both of those are the purpose of the ballot.

Current senior at Princeton, debated PF at Regis.

1. Try to speak slowly and clearly.

2. If you win on the flow, you will win the round.

3. Please weigh for me in your final speeches.

4. Be respectful during crossfire.

5. Respond to all arguments in rebuttal/summary; extend your most important arguments through to summary and final focus.

6. In final focus, focus on one or two main arguments that you win and explain why those are the most important.

I did nat circuit pf in highschool, senior in college now who did apda for a bit

add me to the email chain alex.purn294@gmail.com

I am a librarian and in my 7th year as a Public Forum and Parlimentary debate judge. I believe a well-presented argument relies on speaking clearly and thoughtfully, rather than rushing to present every piece of information. State your contentions clearly and use this to create a reliable, well-structured argument.

I am a parent judge who has been judging since 2014. I am your traditional parent judge who does some basic flowing. The easiest path to my ballot is through logical arguments and slow, articulate speaking. I know you don't want to see this, but I'm truth>tech. If your argument makes sense to me, I'll be happy to vote off of it. If your argument isn't well warranted and just doesn't make sense to me, don't expect for me to vote off of it. I know some basic debate jargon, but the less you use the better. Mutual respect in round is key, and if I see cheating in any way(such as using messaging platforms for help) I will automatically drop you.

I'm a lay judge so speak clearly, don't spread, and don't run tech arguments. Be civil, professional, and courteous and weigh if you want to win of the argument.

I debated PF throughout high school and am now a sophomore at Princeton. I've competed and judged at a decent number of local tournaments and a few state and national ones.

- Stats are definitely important, but I'd prefer if you focus on the warrants rather than nitpicking each other's statistics. Also, try to refer to cards by their contents and not their authors since I will probably not remember the authors' names sorry :/

- Definitely more of a flow judge than lay, but also pls don't talk at the speed of light

- Collapse!! I like it when teams condense the round down to 1-3 key points in summary and final focus- quality > quantity. Also, make sure that everything you bring up in final focus was mentioned in summary.

- Weigh!! It makes my job a *lot* easier if you outline exactly why you should win the debate in final focus- show me explicitly why I should base my decision on a certain issue or why you outweigh your opponents in scope, timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.

- If something important happens in cross, make sure to mention it in your next speech or I probably won't consider it too much

- Signpost! Please!

- Some logistical things: I'll let you finish your sentence after my timer goes off, but pleeease don't abuse that. I don't run prep time for finding cards when the other team calls for them; I do run prep time for the other team to then read the card. I'll keep track of your prep time, but I would appreciate it if you just ask me to run prep instead of asking me to stop you after 30 seconds since I normally like to write some ballot comments during prep, which is harder to do when I'm also watching the clock.

- Pleeease try to be respectful and have fun- I know how easy it is to get caught up in the stress of debate, but the rounds where everyone is nice to each other are usually the most enjoyable. :)

Feel free to ask me any questions you might have, and good luck! :)

I am a flay parent judge and have judged previously. Though I will be flowing most of your arguments and can process relatively fast speaking, I would prefer a mid-paced round. Do not spread!! - I will miss information. Please sign post - it will help your speaker points.

I will not flow cross fire - make sure to bring up all the points you want me to vote on during your speeches. However, I will take cross fire in to account when deciding speaker points. Be polite and considerate to everyone participating at all times. If you consistently interrupt your opponents, it will negatively impact your speaker points.

Additionally, please weigh, or I will be forced to weigh for you. Explain to me why your arguments is outweigh your opponents' or why your points stand/theirs do not.

I am a traditional debate judge.  I like clash, weighing of arguments, and substantive, not blippy arguments.  I do not believe that Kritiks and other cases like that have any place in PF debate.  Speed should be reasonable.  I can handle speed, but again, I don't think it belongs in PF.  

I was a policy debater in high school and college, but have been coaching other formats for the past 17 years. I would prefer that you don't speak too fast, as my ear is no longer able to catch everything like it once was. This doesn't mean you have to speak at a conversational pace, just that if you go too fast, I am likely to miss things on my flow.

I will only read evidence after a round if there is a debate about what it actually says. This means you are responsible for articulating the warrants within your evidence throughout the debate if you want those warrants evaluated. Author name extensions are useless in front of me, as unless you are debating about someone's qualifications, it won't matter in my decision calculus, and a name on my flow is nowhere near as useful for you as using that time to articulate the argument itself. Quality of evidence only factors into my decision if there is a debate about why it should.

I will vote in the way I am told to. If there is no debate over the method for deciding between competing claims, I will usually default to voting for the team that wins more arguments overall.

Debated Congress and PF in high school. A few things:

1. Respect is a must. "Zingers" and one liners are fun, but not at the expense of a good debate or your opponent.

2. Cross-fire is apart of the debate. I do not want new arguments in cross, but please use your questions productively. Attack weak analysis, set up weighing, issue burdens etc.

3. Clarity is important but speaking style is not. Being a good orator is nice, but being a good orator comes in many shapes and forms. For example, stuttering, having a quiet voice, or having an accent that is different than mine will not be causes for lower speaker points or bad marks on clarity. Slurred/lazy words, failure to enunciate, unorganized speeches and reading with no emotions or passion will.

4. Signpost.

5. If your opponents logic is dubious, point it out (even if briefly). I will not count a weak argument against them if you do not tell me to. This makes it fair so that you are debating each other rather than me simply putting my own opinions or thoughts into if an argument good or not.

6. Have cards ready. This is a personal pet peeve. Do not delay the round because your sources are not organized.

Have fun. I enjoy judging because of how much you all enjoy debating.

Do not lie about or manipulate evidence. All arguments and rebuttals must be across my flow throughout the round. Do not make a point in rebuttal and drop it in summary and final. You must weight and you must link to impacts. I appreciate good speakers but will award low point wins in any round where the better speakers fail to cover the flow, weigh, link to impacts or address framework (when applicable).

I would like you to be courteous to each other. The team with the better constructed argument and clearer communication will be the winner. Please use a moderate speed to deliver your arguments. Furthermore, please use discretion when calling for cards and please have cards ready upon request. Excessive card calling without a clear purpose will be noted negatively against you.

I am a lay judge with two children who have participated in debate; I have judged a few tournaments. I am a scientist (biochemist) in my day job and am a visual thinker. Please do not speak quickly. I tend to value rounds where debaters set out the framework of the case at the beginning and then can weigh evidence and summarize why their case is more compelling than their opponents'. If there anything I should know or anything you feel I should accomodate, please let me know.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and explain all abbreviations. I do flow all rounds. I look for logical, well explained and well supported arguments.

I was a high school debater for all four years of high school. I'm a flow judge and will determine the round based only on in-round arguments (cross x doesn't count) and weighing. I cannot stress enough how important it is that you weigh your arguments I won't do it for you so please do yourself a favor and make strong weighing arguments in summary and final focus.

I'm fairly well versed in the NSDA rules, but if you don't tell me that your opponent has violated them (ie running a plan or reading bad evidence) then I won't put it on my flow and it won't impact my decision.

My biggest pet peeve with debaters is rudeness, I understand being assertive but there is a difference between making sure you get your point across and needlessly trampling on your opponents so just be kind, please.

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

I’m a parent judge, so I would prefer if you spoke slowly and clearly. I would also appreciate it if you explained abbreviations before using them. If you don’t want to lose speaker points, please don’t be overly aggressive towards your opponent and stay respectful throughout the round.

IN THE ONLINE REALM OF SPEECH AND DEBATE - SLOW DOWN.

I am a flow judge.

I have a few things you should keep in mind:

I evaluate the rounds based on the framework provided by debaters.

When extending evidence, extend the warrant not just the author (because sometimes I don't write down the tag and just the warrant).

I do not flow crossfires. If you make an argument in crossfire or your opponent concedes an argument in crossfire, you must say it in a speech in order for me to count it.

**Although I am a flow judge, I reserve the right to forfeit my flow (and vote like a lay judge) if competitors are offensive, bullying, or just unnecessarily rude.

For both LD and PF, I am a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation. I will disclose ONLY if required by the tournament host. I will offer no oral critiques. Both of those are the purpose of the ballot.

General Info:

Call me Vega!

SHE/THEY

Proud Boriqua Educator and Artist

Middle-School Debate Coach at John D. Wells, MS. 50

Full time Paraprofessional in Brooklyn, NYC

Debate Career:

ACORN Community High School 2012-16: Policy Debate

Coached Leon M. Goldstien from 2016-17

Judging Policy and Public Forum from 2015- Present

Judging LD from 2018- Present

Judging Congressional and Speech from 2019- Present

For the majority of my debate career I was double 2s, and later became 2N, 1A.

Overall Rules and Expectations:

I do not count sharing evidence as prep unless you take a century.

I believe that judges are NOT supposed to intervene in round under any circumstances, unless in the case of an extreme emergency.

I shouldn't have to tell you be respectful or to not use hateful, racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic language. If I hear it, I will automatically give the ballot to the other team. ABSOLUTELY NOT TOLERATED.

Some may think petty debaters or debaters with attitudes are amusing or cute, I don't. Treat your competitors with respect or it will affect your speaker points.

Judge Philosophy:

I believe that it is my responsibility as the judge of the round to remove any pre-existing notions or biases from my mind on whatever topic you chose to debate over, and act as an objective observer who decides whether or not the AFF is a good idea. Unless told otherwise in the round, this is the perspective I default to.

Minimal expectations are the following: If the NEG does not provide any DAs to voting AFF then I will vote AFF. If the AFF does not prove that the AFF is better than the status quo and has an actual solvency method, then I will vote NEG.

It is in your best interest (speaker points) to go far beyond these basic debate expectations. I'm generous with speaker points if you keep me engaged and make sure I understand you, they usually range from 27-29.5

I don't have any specific preference when it comes to argumentation and I will vote on virtually anything you want me to if explained well, but DO NOT assume I know anything.

I did PF for four years at Evanston Township HS, and I'm currently a senior at Columbia.

I'll flow, I can handle speed, and I'll listen to anything as long as it's not offensive/violent -- I won't vote for your argument if it's either of these things.

I'm most likely to vote for you if 1) your argument was extended in its entirety (warrant and impact) through summary and final focus, and 2) you weigh. The best weighing is comparative, so just repeating an impact from case, even if you're doing a great job explaining why that impact matters, isn't enough if it doesn't engage the other half of the debate.

Have fun & make jokes if you're funny :)

I'm a debater parent and I've judged PF debates for 3 years. My evaluation is based on a combination of flow, delivery, and clarity of thought.

I'm an engineer/scientist by trade so I value logic and data-driven arguments and quality over quantity. Rather than overwhelming me with debate jargon, extend a few well-researched warrants through your crossfires into your summary and final focus with clearly articulated impact.

Please speak slowly and clearly, and maintain civility and courtesy, especially during crossfires. If you'd like me to vote on a particular claim, be sure to include it with appropriate evidence in your summary and final focus.

Please refrain from creating too many distractions by obscure interpretations of facts or by calling for evidence/cards unless there is a clear need to establish integrity or accuracy.

Above all, enjoy the debate and good luck!

Put Me on the Email Chain: Cjaswill23@gmail.com

Experience: I debated in College policy debate team (Louisville WY) at the University of Louisville, went to the quarterfinals of the NDT 2018 , coached and judged high school and college highly competitive teams.

Policy Preferences: Debate is a game that is implicated by the people who play it. Just like any other game rules can be negotiated and agreed upon. Soooooo with that being said, I won't tell you how to play, just make sure I can clearly understand you and the rules you've negotiated(I ran spreading inaccessible arguments but am somewhat trained in evaluating debaters that spread) and I also ask that you are not being disrespectful to any parties involved. With that being said, I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make sure there is a clear impact calculus, clearly telling me what the voters are/how to write my ballot. Im also queer black woman poet, so those strats often excite me, but will not automatically provide you with a ballot. You also are not limited to those args especially if you don't identify with them in any capacity. I advise you to say how I’m evaluating the debate via Role Of the Judge because I will default to the arguments that I have on my flow and how they "objectively" interact with the arguments of your opponent. I like narratives, but I will default to the line by line if there is not effective weighing. Create a story of what the aff world looks like and the same with the neg. I'm not likely to vote for presumption arguments, it makes the game dull. I think debate is a useful tool for learning despite the game-structure. So teach me something and take my ballot.

Other Forms of Debate: cross-apply above preferences

I am a parent judge -I will write down what i think is important, but if you go too fast, I might not catch what you say and miss things -I will try to be fair, but explain what you say - if I don't understand something I wont vote off it -Emphasize what you think is important to the round and why it is important -Rudeness is not tolerated and be nice to your opponents

I did PF in high school, and I’m currently on Princeton’s debate team.

Just a few points:

1. My debate experience isn’t that intense so I don’t actually know much jargon. Please use plain English.

2. I don’t like frameworks that interpret the resolution in a weird way. That being said, if you can argue it well go ahead.

3. Don’t be rude or else you’ll lose speaker points.

4. For crossfire, please do not speak over each other otherwise I won’t be able to understand you. Make sure to bring up all important points from crossfire into your speeches or else it won’t be a voting point.

5. Just a pet peeve: all the stuff that you weigh in your final focus should have been important points during the round. Don’t pull a “our opponents never responded to this point” if it was only brought up during the first two speeches and was never touched upon again.

Other than that, organize your speeches well, speak clearly, and you’ll do great!

I did PF for three years, becoming a state champion my senior year. I'm currently a sophomore at Princeton.

Just some general rules

Don't be mean. There's a difference between being aggressive in cross-fire and being mean, don't be mean.

Don't lie or misconstrue your evidence. I'll probably read evidence if you ask me to, and if I feel like you're stretching something then I'll probably call for the card at the end of the round.

About cross-fire: I generally don't flow cross-fire, but if something spicy is mentioned I'll jot it down. If you're witty you'll get some speaker points, but there's a big difference between being witty and being mean. Mean bad, Witty good.

Truth over Tech any day of the week, especially in PF. Something that will really help in clarifying how you win in that regard is by weighing your arguments in the context of magnitude, probability, and time-frame. I loooove impact calculus, really gets me up in the morning. That being said, don't just tell me that your argument is more probable, rather tell me why it is more probable.

I think PF is at its best whenever it is focused. Don't bring up some argument that has been ignored the whole round back up again in final focus. If it really is an important point then bring it up continuously in your speeches.

There's a lot of value in telling me why your evidence is better than your opponents, especially whenever they say opposite things. Also if you have a DOPE piece of evidence tell me why its a goldmine.

Overall I think debate is a fun time where we should learn a lot from. If I walk out of a round and don't learn anything, then there's a problem. If you can provide some unique analysis that provides an impact that makes me really care about the topic, then you've done a fantastic job.

I am more of a lay judge than technical judge. Quality and delivery of content matter more to me than quantity of arguments. Speakers who articulate their points clearly and persuasively will fare better than those who speak very quickly. I find cases that have a logical narrative and build towards a compelling conclusion are more effective than a long laundry list of arguments that are only semi-related.

Civility during the round is important, but only seems to be a problem <10% of the time.