Big Lex
2020 — Online, MA/US
Varsity PF Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI am a Novice PFJudge, I have judged only
Local circuits.
Please go slow and explain your arguments well, so I can flow the round. Please avoid compound complex sentences, speak louder and clear. Don’t overwhelm me with evidence , rather choose best evidence to support your claims, give a good overview for the voters at the end of the round . I judge on quality of arguments.
I will do my best to be neutral and fair.
Currently a law student. I did PF for three years and have been coaching/judging on and off for Lake Highland for six years. My only request is that you extend arguments, not just author names.
Note// I am a very expressive judge. If I do not like or buy an argument, you will see it on my face. Do what you will with this information
TLDR:
Edited mid-Harvard Tournament: after reading a few other judges paradigms I have come to the conclusion that I will add this, I do not like args that say "I can do x because I am y identity group", especially when the x that you want to do is "abusive". This does not mean I won't vote on it, it just means that my threshold for responses is lower than most other arguments.
Dont like: really messy substance debates, blippy 1ar theory that is collapsed to in the 2ar (no 10 second shells!), tricks, performance affs that drop their performance in the 1AR/2AR, new in the 2 >:(, speaking past time, etc.
Likes: clarity, overviews + why you are winning; weighing & IMBEDDED weighing; if running k, on THEME K debates (w/prefiat analysis); EXTENSIONS, etc.
I want to be on the email chain- kristenarnold1221@gmail.com
Run anything except tricks! How to pref me:
Reps/K: 1
T/Theory: 1 (Lower if you are going to spread through all your analytics)
Larp: 1-3
Phil: 2-4 (I love Phil but not when you spread analytics)
Tricks: strike
Hi y'all! A lil background on me: I debated for Pinnacle High School in Phoenix, AZ for 4 years from 2015-2019. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania. I at-larged to the TOC my Senior year and debated almost entirely locally my freshman and sophomore year so I am comfortable with more traditional style debating as well as progressive. I have run every type of argument that exists in LD debate so I will try my best to adjudicate rounds as tab as possible but I will provide a disclaimer to you that I tend to give more weight to Reps than most judges because I very often ran Reps myself as a debater- that does not mean reading reps is an auto win so just make good args.
Things to keep in mind: I will let you know by saying "Clear" 3 times before I start docking speaks. Also when switching between flows: say 1, 2, .., etc so I can keep my flows separate. I am generally a messy flow-er and I do not think that will change. If I miss something because you didn't listen to me when I cleared you, that is on you. Also if something is really important, SLOW DOWN. You do not want me to miss your ballot story.
General thoughts on Progressive vs Traditional debates: I do not think you should have to go out of your comfort zone to try to match a traditional debater. If they ask you to slow down, please do. If they ask you to explain your arguments, please do. I will not hurt your speaks for your strategy but being not nice warrants at the highest a 27. If you both explain and maintain a slower pace, I will be a points fairy.
How I view rounds:
Layers of debate (obviously negotiable- but my defaults- pls do weighing and change my mind)
Reps
T
Theory
K
Substance
My defaults on theory: Drop the debater & Competing interps
Phil: I did this a lot in high school but if you are running a less well-known philosopher in debate, please take time to slow down and explain how the framework operates. I ran a lot of tricky framework args in high school to auto-win framework so I am fairly well versed in how these debates run. Default epistemic confidence.
Aff K's: I ran these but also debated them so I have no default opinion. I have both read and responded to T against these but if it is the type of debate you are most comfortable with or feel like you have a strong message, please read them. Just make sure to give me a ballot story or I don't know how to evaluate your AC.
K: I love the K but pls if you don't understand your K and cannot give a 2N on it, do not run it. Your speaks will be very disappointed in you. Other than that, give me a ROTB and prove that the alt solves the impacts you read and I will evaluate your K. Pretty well versed on almost every K- legit all reps, Cap, Anthro, Antiblackness (mostly ran Wilderson), Set col, Nietzsche (wouldn't suggest running it unless you are very confident because I have pretty low threshold for responses to it), Fem, Security, Baudrillard (but really just who on heck* is Baudrillard), etc. K's I don't know much about: Psychoanalysis (tried to avoid these debates by uplayering) and Bataille. God, please stop reading Deleuze and Baudrillard with me as a judge. I do not like it, and you do not explain it well.
T: I love T and imbedding reps into it-- Shoutout to the OG Sai Karavadi for being an icon at doing this. That being said, I would run 3 T shells if the aff violated so I love these debates. 2N should collapse and weigh. I don't have any defaults but Nebel T is kinda funny although I ran it all the time so I think it's a legit arg (or time suck). RVIs are great, go for them.
Theory: I mean go for it. I will vote on bad args if they win. Just pls read paradigm issues. RVIs are great, go for them.
1AR theory: I do not like the 5 second condo bad shells, please read something that you can grandstand on in the 2AR without making a ton of new args. That being said, please read 1AR theory because I will vote on it if you win it and win weighing.
DISCLOSURE: PLEASE DISCLOSE. I have been both pro and anti disclosure through my debate career but by the end of my senior year, I can say that I am a very strong advocate of disclosure. If your opponent does not have a wiki, find them on facebook or in person and ask for their case. If they are a traditional debater, they are still required to give it to you. I think disclosure theory is always valid if you have asked and they have declined to give it to you (Esp if they know what the wiki is). However, if you could not find your opponent and their case is very traditional and you have blocks to it, please read those instead.
Tricks: No pls no. If you do read them, I believe in new in the 2 responses and will provide a very low threshold to responses. Auto 26 speaks if you ask, "What's an a priori?" to someone asking if you have any a prioris.
Larp: Go for it! I love love love when debaters make it easy with weighing (prob, mag, duration, tf, etc) and also if you weigh between them (Prob vs mag) I will love you and your speaks will notice.
CP: I default condo and I do not judge kick.
Long U/V: Go for it.
Speaker Points Scale (I tend to evaluate this more on strat than how you speak because I would never dock points for a stutter or speech impediment).
30: You'll win the tournament IMO -OR- you did everything I wanted you to and I have no constructive criticism
29.5-29.9: Clear win, my ballot was written in 3 seconds, thank you for your service.
29-29.4: Great strategy, you won, but it wasn't crystal clear at the end of the round.
28.5-28.9: More muddled but I knew what you were going for.
28-28.4: Round was messy and it was hard to evaluate.
27.5-27.9: You really had no idea what your strat was but pulled something together.
27-27.4: I wanted to rip my hair out writing this ballot.
26: You are not nice.
Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.
I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.
I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.
My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.
I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.
I'm a former debater, having debated Novice LD and Varsity PF.
It's been a hot minute since I've thought about debate, so I've definitely lost a fair amount of nuance. More likely than not, my only preparation for the topic is reading the resolution the morning of the first round, so you best explain things well (I have a lay understanding of the arguments).
My default frame-work is Util, but I'm not opposed to other, well-argued weighing mechanisms. Do not give new in the two, don’t bring up new arguments in the FF or Sum. I don't flow cross, but it's still binding, and I will use it for speaks. Feel free to give off-time roadmaps, and I love sign-posting, the more, the better. Be polite, or I will give you low speaks.
SPEED: I am not here to stress about flowing 400 wpm. If you are very fast/difficult to understand, I just won’t flow you, and I judge based on what I have on the flow.
I debated in high school, two years varsity and one year novice, but I haven’t been active in the sport since then. This is my first time judging. I’m looking for well-articulated arguments and a clash of ideas supported by credible evidence. I expect you to be poised, professional and respectful of your opponents. I will flow the debate and use crossfires to refine my flow, but I won’t be flowing crossfires. If you speak so fast that I can’t follow or flow your ideas, the unprocessed arguments will receive lower significance in my judging decision. I admire speakers who can think on their feet and respond to challenges with well-supported counter arguments. I also love a good closing summary that ties everything together and justifies why you think you have won the debate.
You don't have to shake my hand.
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.
DEBATE
I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.
I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.
RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.
Former high school debater.
I will vote for the team that makes the most compelling argument for their side. I give special emphasis to reasoning over an overflow of evidence.
In the first crossfire, I expect both debaters to establish why we’re debating the issue at hand. In other words - why are we talking about this topic? Who can we expect to be affected by its outcome? I will use the arguments made relating to these factors to decide the round.
i debated for 4 years at lexington high school (1 year in novice policy and 3 in varsity pf) and am now a sophomore at boston university.
i'm not super particular about much, but here's what i do care about:
1. warrants: have good ones. i don't care who said what if you can't explain why.
2. weighing: do it, as early in the round as possible.
3. dates: read them. recency is important on pretty much every pf topic.
4. framework: i will default to util unless you give me a compelling reason to do otherwise.
5. analysis and evidence: i want to hear both. i want neither for you to spew evidence at me nor for you to make a bunch of unsubstantiated arguments. that said, if you're second speaker and you don't have evidence against an argument your opponent made, i would much rather hear a fully analytical response, rather than you wasting my and your time with a random card that's only vaguely relevant.
6. responses: there are few things that annoy me more than a second speaker getting up for rebuttal and saying some shit like "we have 17 responses" and then reading a bunch of weak cards that only sort of respond to the contention as a whole. i would rather hear fewer but better responses, that actually respond to the specific arguments being made.
7. extensions: don't extend through ink.
8. collapsing: do it. if i hear all of the arguments in your case again in summary and final focus, i will be sad. please don't make me sad.
9. speaker points: obviously, speaking more fluidly and persuasively will earn you higher speaker points. if you have a good sense of humor, i will raise your speaks. i really appreciate it if you make me laugh. if you are rude or offensive, i will lower your speaks. please be nice!!
if you have questions about any of this or something i didn't mention, feel free to ask me about it before the round! if you have any questions about my rfd after the round or want some extra feedback, i'd be happy to talk to you.
tl;dr: here
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.
A successful debate performance is one that is easily intelligible and persuasive to a general audience, listeners who are not trained in the arcana of debate terminology, and does so with a rate of delivery that is spirited but does not draw attention to itself by its speed.
Persuasion comes from a Latin word meaning "thoroughly sweet". Being persuasive allows the speaker to challenge the opinions of an audience by a fusion of rigorous logic and an oratorical style that does not offend but which urges the listener to buy into the speaker's take on the great issues of our day..
Br. Anthony K. Cavet
Catholic Memorial School
West Roxbury MA
Nov 19, 2020
Traditional/parent judge
Just do whatever ur comfortable with :)
LD PARADIGM
Speak clearly, logically, at a reasonable speed
Actively respond your opponent's arguments-don't just claim an argument is abusive. Debate is about healthy engagement, not dismantling the system or decrying everything
PF Paradigm
Clear delivery is important. It matters that I can understand what you are presenting. If cases are presented frantically and incoherently, it is difficult for me to appreciate the amount of work you put into your case. More simply, if I can't understand you, I do not want to listen.
I respond well to when teams actively engage with the arguments presented to them and are able to adjust their cases based on the other side's examinations. Crossfires are meant to be dialogues, rather than platforms for one side or the other to restate their speeches. Being able to have a strong presence not only in prepared speeches but in cross demonstrates true skill in this activity. That being said, cross more often than not is unproductive in my view, I don't flow it, just try not to shout at each other.
Extremely disinterested in spreading, unsubstantiated evidence, and unnecessary and distracting rhetoric. There's a difference between being clever and resourceful, and being cheap. Don't be cheap. Debate rounds do operate with a winner/loser, but I'm less interested solely in the drive to simply "win". Rounds should be balanced with presenting the most effective case, as well as a willingness to engage with the resolution at large.
If I stop flowing and cross my arms during your speeches, it means that you have become loud, incoherent, and not worth listening to. Increased volume does not equal a better argument. Please be mindful of that.
Off time road maps are unnecessary. Just start speaking.
Debate jargon drives me crazy. No one in the real world speaks like that.
Have all of your cards ready. Assume the other side will call all the cards you cite. Taking too long to produce them unnecessarily prolongs the round, and may factor in my decision.
I feel the need to include this since it has happened -- If you run a joke case to intentionally throw a round, I will report and reprimand you accordingly. It is a waste of everyone's time and undermines the effort many people give to make this activity possible.
I don't shake hands. It's not because I don't like you, I just prefer not to.
Be respectful, and have fun.
I did two years of Public Forum at Byram Hills and two at Lincoln Sudbury High School.
General Ideas
I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in second rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.
To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.
The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.
Technical Debate
Overall, I was not super experienced in a lot of aspects of tech debate. I think I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.
I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a young man and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. Do with that what you will. I'd say generally don't change your style of debate for me, but be conscious that I might not be on the same page as you if you're being a big tech boi.
I don't know as much as I probably should about theory and K debating. I'm open to voting on them, but I'll let you know right now that I am not super informed and you'd have to explain it to me like I'm a dummy.
If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.
Add dcigale01@gmail.com and planowestdocs@googlegroups.com to email chains.
I am the parent of a current debater. I was not a debater myself in high school or college. I am not a very experienced judge, so it would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. I will try very hard to make sure I am voting on the issues each side raises, so please try to compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful to one another while still demonstrating their arguments are superior to those made by their opponents.
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.
Im a junior at umass amherst studying political science and journalism. I did 1 year of LD and 3 years of PF at lexington hs. I'm a fairly straightforward, classic pf judge so just do what you know you're supposed to.
Prefs:
- ***The easier you make it for me to vote for you, the more likely I am to do so! Don't just respond to arguments - actually tell me why you're winning (so weigh, do voters, compare framework, etc). I don't like having to do extra work on the flow, it makes my job as a judge a lot harder.
- I love arguments that are legitimately warranted and clearly explained. Obviously, evidence is important too, but I'd rather have an argument that logically makes sense over a random card that doesn't link well or has no warrants as to why I should believe it.
- It needs to be in summary to be in final focus so EXTEND. The exception to this rule is if you're speaking first and your opponent brings up some new arguments in their summary. In this case, it's fine for you to make a new response in final focus. But outside of that, you really shouldn't argue something new in FF if it wasn't in summary.
- Collapse your arguments in summary and ff. Don't leave me with a ton different arguments to weigh after the round. It's annoying and basically an evidence dump. I recommend using voters in your summary and/or final focus. It's not mandatory but heavily recommended.
-and going off of that: CLASH. actually respond to/weight arguments please.
- I won't flow your cross-fires. So if you think you won something during cross you better tell me during your speech.
- If you want me to call for evidence, tell me and I will. I may call for evidence at the end of the round anyway if things have become muddied.
- Don't spread; you can talk fast, but don't spread. It makes me more confused and you don't really want me to confused. Also, I'm a strong believer that if you're debating well you shouldn't need to spread anyway.
-This should go without saying but don't be rude or offensive. I do dock speaker points if you are overly rude or aggressive or say anything that is harmful. Debate should be an overall positive experience!
ask in round if you have any questions! good luck!
I am a lay judge.
I have judged 3 tournaments.
It is important to me that the debaters are respectful of each other.
Please speak slowly so I can follow your points.
Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!
I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com
if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).
---
pref shortcuts:
Phil / High Theory 1
K 1/2
LARP/policy/T 1/2
Tricks/Theory strike
-----
PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):
I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.
email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.
I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be
Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.
I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!
--
LD: updated for PFI 24.
philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.
I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.
Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.
Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.
I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.
Put me on the email chain.
Happy to answer questions !
--
---
Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC
Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate
Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.
------
Policy Paradigm
I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.
The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.
Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com
I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.
I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.
If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.
---
---
Speech is cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines. I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me.
--
Background
I am currently one of the debate coaches for Milton High School in Massachusetts. We typically include local tournaments but include at least one national tournament a year. I never did debate in high school or college, but I did teach our debate class at Milton for a school year and have served as one of our coaches for several years now.
Rounds:
You have all put a lot of time and effort into creating your cases and evidence to support your points. I ask that you try and speak in a conversational tone and speed. Try to speak clearly. If you speak too quickly I may miss key components of your contentions, claims, warrants, data, or impacts. At that point, that information is lost to me and I will not ask you to clarify or bring it back up, so be aware of that. You all are talented and have spent so much time to create these cases and I do not want to miss out on it.
Be civil during our debate. Being rude or obnoxious will cause you to lose points.
Be clear and specific during rebuttal. Refute the contentions of your opponents. Using rebuttal to go over every aspect your case a second time will not help you.
Make crossfire....crossfire. I do not want to spend the entire time on one question or one piece of evidence/data. This is a time for each team to question the other. Let's make that happen!
Keep track of your own prep time
Use summary and final focus to let me know why you won the round
I am a debate parent in my first year of serving as a judge. I am a partner at a small environmental law firm in Boston. I was a middle and high school History teacher for 7 years before going to law school. I expect debaters to listen to and be directly responsive to the arguments of the other side. I look for each debater to get involved in every aspect of the format, including Grand Cross. I do not need debaters to provide an off-time roadmap previewing what they are going to say during their allotted time. If you believe such a roadmap is important enough to spell out and use as a framework for your comments, you can devote some of your time to it. Debaters can use timing devices during the debate, but they should not use any alarms while tracking their opponents’ time. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I appreciate debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I will deduct points for any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class.
I am the parent of a current student debater. I was not a debater myself in high school or college. I am not a very experienced judge, so it would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed.
Please introduce yourself and clearly state which team you will represent and indicate if you are the first speaker or the sencond speaker before we start the round.
I will be responsible for timing the debate. I will raise my right hand to singnal you when 30 second remains.
I am an experienced judge in both speech and debate, having coached for 30+ years in all categories offered within the spectrum of S&D. I began coaching Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate in the 1990’s, have coached PF since its inception, having coached the first PF team that represented NJ at Nationals in Atlanta, GA. I currently coach the NJ World Teams.
I am a flow judge who looks for logical arguments, a valid framework, and substantiation of claims made within your case. As a teacher of rhetoric, I appreciate word economy and precise language. Do not default to speed and redundancy to overwhelm. Persuade concisely; synthesize your thoughts efficiently. Be articulate. Keep your delivery at a conversational rate.
A good debate requires clash. I want to see you find and attack the flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and respond accordingly in rebuttal. Cross examination should not be a waste of time; it is a time to clarify. It is also not a time for claws; be civil, particularly in grand crossfire.
Disclosure is not a discussion or a renewed debate. Personally, I am not a fan, in large part, because of a few unwarranted challenges to my decision. You are here to convince me; if you have not, that will drive my RFD.
I am a parent judge for Acton-Boxborough and I have judged on the local/national circuit for two years.
English is my second language, so please please don't spread. Keep the word count at 180 will be great.
General Preferences
I like arguments that are logical and explained clearly. If you do this, then you will be successful.
I do not flow cross, but I do pay attention. Be civil and respond logically. Don't be over-aggressive.
Rebuttal
I like arguments that are logical and are supported by cut evidence. Rebuttal is your time to point out flaws in your opponent's arguments with clear logic from your side. Please don't read a bunch of general prepared blocks - I want to hear relevant, targeted responses.
However I do think extent on your own contention is important. The case can't be solely won just on rebuttal.
I am a parent judge who values common sense and clear logic in argumentation. The following are my preferences:
1. Always organize and collapse on your arguments.
2. If your evidence contradicts your opponent's, convince me with logic. More recent evidence may not be better.
3. Slow down if you do not articulate your words.
4. Be respectful and let your opponents answer the questions you asked during crossfire.
I was a policy debater at Bronx Science in the 1980s and currently run the upper school public forum debate team at Nightingale Bamford. I flow and can handle speed, as long as it is clear. I listen to crossfire, but do not flow it. If there is something important said in CF that you need to win, please apply it during your next speech. No new arguments in summary or final focus, please. Also, it makes me a little crazy when people call for a million cards, and/or when a team takes 10 minutes to find evidence. You can be on the internet now and everyone is working off computers--there is really no reason on earth not to be able to provide your evidence if called for.
Lastly, and most importantly, I like debaters to clearly explain their arguments, and to weigh them. In a perfect round, debaters would be assertive but polite, enjoy themselves, and make it easy for me to know how to vote by weighing in the back end of the round. Overviews are find and can help frame things if there is something you want to emphasize, etc. Mostly just be clear and imagine what you would like to RFD to say....then say that ;-) Good luck and know how important this activity is and how much respect we judges have for you all. Best of luck.
I debated in PF in high school for four years.
Please stick to the spirit of PF by not speaking excessively fast.
I find arguments that are realistic to be more compelling than long link chains that hang together by virtue of obscure evidence quotations.
I'm a parent judge that has been judging over the last 2 years. I will flow but speed and extreme amounts of jargon will make it harder for me to follow you.
I am more likely to vote for a few well articulated arguments than a ton of individual, unwarranted arguments. When referencing things from earlier speeches, don't just tell me the author's name. Reference the claim/thesis of the argument itself because more likely than not, I won't have the author's name on my flow. Also, I tend to pay a lot of attention to crossfire. Please be respectful to each other.
I generally place more value on impacts with higher probability that impacts with a high magnitude. The more implausible an argument, the less likely I am to be persuaded by it. Given a close round, I will often side with the clearer and more logical team. Also, weigh arguments. Don't just tell me your arguments are important, tell me how they COMPARE to your opponents' arguments.
I really admire the effort that all of you put in to partake in this activity. That being said, enjoy the tournament!
Hello, I did pubic forum debate for 4 years at Lincoln Sudbury High School. I am now a fourth year student at NYU who has judged a little here in there in college. I have a very standard circuit pf paradigm (if you don't know what that means, ask). I don't mind some speed as long as it is clear. Please ask me any other questions before the round. Please have a fun and relaxed round, thank you!
The most important thing to me is that a warrant gets extending through final focus. Otherwise I WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU!
I usually won't know the topic well so make sure to explain anything topic specific but I would like to think I have a pretty decent understanding of international politics and basic, debate relevant, economics.
Keep track of your own prep time and if you care, your opponents prep time, because I will not be timing either.
If you are gonna run theory or Ks, ask your opponent before the round if they are ok with it. I don't really like those argument styles but I'll vote for them if they are cleanly won.
:)
My email is bsh298@nyu.edu if there is any questions after a round or anything else (hopefully no death threats).
I competed in public forum debate and congress at Shrewsbury High School for four years and competed on the national circuit during my senior year.
How I Vote: I vote by resolving the weighing debate and then looking at who best links into the weighing. If both teams weigh, please use meta-weighing to help me resolve the round. I presume for the neg/squo.
Preferences:
- Well-warranted, analytical arguments are better than unwarranted, blippy card dumps. Well-warranted carded arguments still trumps all.
- Start weighing early.
- Most speeds are fine as long as you are clear. Do not use it as a tool to exclude.
- Theory should only be used to check back egregious abuse in the round. If you plan on reading theory, please read standards.
- Paraphrasing is fine but do not misconstrue evidence.
- I usually only call for evidence if it is really important by the end of the round and the interpretation is contested in the round OR if an indict is extended all the way through the round.
- Just tell me where to start before speeches from rebuttal onward. Roadmaps are fine but not too long.
- Overviews are fine in either rebuttal but don’t make them too long (<30 sec), especially in second rebuttal. The exception is weighing overviews, those rock!
- 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline all turns- I would be happy to see teams frontline defense as well but it is not required.
- All summaries need to extend full link chain and impact, just frontlining an argument is not extending.
- 1st summary only needs to extend offense but not defense, as long as it is not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal
- 2nd summary is required to weigh, no new weighing in 2nd FF
- Consistency between summary and final focus is important
- Clarity of impact weighing doesn't exist
- Yelling a bunch of buzzwords like scope and magnitude is not weighing
Speaks: I give speaks on how strategic a team is during the round. Make good decisions and you will get good speaks. If you are overly aggressive or rude during the round your speaks will take a significant hit. If you have completely lied about evidence, your speaks will tank as well. Expect a L0 if you make any ___ist arguments
I am a parent Judge. I have been judging PF for three years. First, speak clearly. Please make sure I understand what you are saying. Second, keep good eye contact. Third, be respectful to all and have fun!
Background
I am currently one of the debate coaches for Milton High School in Massachusetts. I have been coaching/advising the team since 2014 and have judged most tournaments that we attend. These typically include local tournaments but include at least one national tournament a year. I have no personal experience as a debater.
General:
Please speak slow and clear. If you speak extremely fast I won't get all of your information/main points and at that point its out the window as I won't ask you to repeat or clarify.
Be nice. Being out right rude will cause you to lose points.
Be clear and specific during rebuttal. Let me know why your opponents contentions are weak. Using rebuttal to go over your case a second time will not help you.
Keep track of your own prep time
Use summary and final focus to let me know why you won the round
Hello,
I am a lay parent judge of Acton-Boxborough, with a son who has done debate for the past 3 years.
My ability to understand fast speeches and write quickly is limited; please make sure you are able to effectively get your point across in a manner where I can understand things.
More importantly, when comparing arguments, while you might give a couple of reasons your argument is better than your opponent, at the same time your opponent will also do the same. Please tell me the reasons why I should believe your comparisons over their comparisons, but do so well enough all throughout round so it is easy to remember. Do this same thing with your response and tell me why your response to their case or the response you do when you defend your own case matter more than theirs. In the end, whoever does this effectively is the one that wins, as the debaters are the ones that provide the logic and reasoning for the arguments.
Keep debates clean, no yelling in crossfires
I am a parent of a high school debater and I have been judging PF at the National and Regional levels for the last five years.
I love the guidance "To what degree will an argument improve the world as holistically as possible given the resolution––humans, environments, economies, etc.?" Using numbers, and sizes of numbers, to make these cases is critically important to my decision-making processes.
I love ethically-collected, fact-based contentions from reputable sources, such as from the gray circle at the top of this curve: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba Think tanks on both ends of the spectrum, particularly those funded by right-wing/Koch money can get a bit sketchy in this context.
And above all else, I expect measured cadence during statements (if I can't understand you, it does you no good!), and a spirit of graciousness during crosses. Points will be taken away for the above misses (particularly if I can't understand what you are saying) as well as any demeaning, sarcastic, or derogatory comments, facial expressions, tone, or evidence. I dislike using debate tribal language in excess and particularly in lieu of content. The "frothing at the mouth preacher style" does not work well with me; I merely ask you to be authentic. Your content should convey the weight of your arguments, not your actions. You will be docked speaking notes for discussions, nodding, or other facial/body expressions while the other team is presenting.
I also delight when humor can be interjected. And smiles are always appreciated.
I will happily share my thought process with teams once the ballots have been entered, while respecting the rules of the specific debate.
my email for evidence and etc: esther.kardos@gmail.com
general rule of thumb.... i am now officially 4/5 years removed from pf debating and the format has changed a lot. i am super receptive to this change so if you're doing something especially out of the box it's totally fine with me, i just need a heads-up and you might have to do some extra legwork to teach an old pf-er new tricks.
spreading - yeah, probably. if you can't get through your speech without it, then i can follow until about 230 wpm. after that, maybe send over a copy of your speech to make sure i don't miss anything. i would encourage you to slow down toward the back end of your speeches, but up to you.
theory & beyond - i didn't have to deal with this a ton back when i did pf (pf used to be the "one format without theory" lmao not anymore!), but i've had enough exposure to T/K/plans/counters from judging that i can probably pick up what you're putting down. as a caution, i REALLY need to get persuaded by theory to vote on it, and if it's too complicated for me to understand i'll just default to your opponent.
flowing - make flowing easy for me! start each of your big points with something flashy like "my first contention is..." or "my second independent point is..." or even just "one... two... three...", and then clearly indicate to me the different branches of argumentation under that big point. you don't need to be as obvious as shouting "THIS IS MY WARRANT, THIS IS MY IMPACT", but be able to clearly explain why/how something is true and what's going to result from it, and especially why it matters more than whatever your opponent is saying. i listen to cross-ex but i don't flow it, so if you/your opponent say something important during cross, make sure you remind me during your next speech so it 100% makes it on the flow.
evidence/cards - evidence is only as good as the warranting, weighing, and impacting that goes behind it. i will never base my rfd on how well you were able to gather bits of evidence from the depths of debate's dark web, or if one really good point you were making had a link that couldn't load. instead, if the argument you're creating makes sense to me (with some informational evidence to back it up) because of the warranting, weighing, and impacting you put behind it, then i'll always be more willing to pick that up rather than just buy what the other team is saying because of some guardian article from 2004.
misc - i don't mind "offtime roadmaps" or whatever the kids are calling it these days, just let me know beforehand and plzzz keep them brief. if you're a novice (or even a varsity!!!) and you have questions during the round, please don't be afraid to ask me, i'll never look down on you for wanting to learn! i'm happy to give any timing cues, you just gotta let me know beforehand. be nice to each other, debate is temporary but building a habit of being a jerk follows you forever. and in case I haven't beaten this to death already, WARRANT AND IMPACT AND WEIGH.
if you have any more questions, let me know. i'm so excited to see what arguments you come up with!
Hey everyone!
I am a graduate of Fordham University in the Bronx, and am very excited to be judging! I attended Nova High where, senior year, I founded and coached our Lincoln Douglas team, so I have a very extensive, but not completely exhaustive, understanding of LD. I am very well versed in debate events- freshman & sophomore year I competed in congress and junior year in PF. So I'm great at following logic- if you are going to run something tricky I'm totally capable to judge it, just make sure you explain it well.
Clear warrants and weighing mechanisms are extremely important to me. Please give me a means to evaluate what you are arguing. Keep my flow clean. Signpost.
I'm pretty much open to anything you wanna throw at me. With a few limitations of course. If you are at all sexist, racist, homophobic, or rude to your opponent, expect me to call you out and don't expect speaks higher than 25. I'm fine with speed to an extent- if you want to spread that's completely fine, just don't expect me to get every word down. If it's important, you better bring it up in your later speeches. I love to hear out of the box arguments - in high school, I ran a rage fem K - so I love to hear new and progressive ideas.
I'm sure I left out some things here so I'll be posting updates, but feel free to email me with any questions!
-Julia Kennedy
juliakennedy97@gmail.com
I am the parent of a current debater. I was not a debater myself in high school or college. I am not a very experienced judge, so it would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. I will try very hard to make sure I am voting on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful to one another while still showing their arguments to be superior to the arguments made by their opponents.
Please make sure to make this round a lay debate round and I appreciate you adapting to my preferences. Thank you and have a good debate.
I am a parent judge; I will flow, but please speak slowly enough for me to understand and follow you. Tell me what you are responding to before launching into responsive arguments.
Be courteous, respectful and professional. Always.
Don't assume any facts or arguments are in the debate if you haven't set forth or explained them.
Make good, rational arguments on how you want me to weigh the evidence and contentions.
Cite evidence honestly and tell me why it matters.
Make sure your logic is solid and you connect every step clearly. Don't speak in shorthand that expects me to know the arguments to which you think you are referring. Be articulate.
Enjoy yourselves.
This is my fifth year judging PFD. I did not debate in high school or college, so I try to approach PFD as a "citizen judge." When I listen to a debate, I track a lot of factors. The three most important factors are: 1) citing information sources and demonstrating that you performed solid research and know your topic, 2) expressing a clear set of contentions and subpoints, 3) and how well you listen to your opponents and attack their argument.
In terms of delivery, I favor slow or medium pace and clear, well developed arguments.
Finally, it is important that each team respects its opponents. I understand that debates can get exciting, but I do not like to see opponents interrupting or talking over each other too much in crossfire. Good luck today.
I am a father of a debater. This is my third year judging.
I consider myself a flow judge, but my son tells me that I am a lay judge. I guess, the truth is in between. I try to keep counts for all items in the contentions, rebuttals, and responses, but maybe not to that level to be considered a real flow judge.
I am not a native English speaker, so please don't speak very fast, especially if you are also not a native English speaker.
So, try to do your best, I and will try to do my best as well. Good luck!
I have been a debate judge since this year. I don't have any preferences on debate.
I am a parent judge from Newton South High School, MA. I have been constantly learning to improve my judging skill since I started judging Public Forum Debate in February 2018. Prior to being a Public Forum Debate parent judge, I served as a parent speech judge for 4 years in various speech categories.
My goal: is to be a fair judge, to do my best to provide helpful feedback so the debaters can improve their own skills.
Based on what I have learned as of now, I currently follow below principles when judging:
1. I value overall truth of the resolution, overall speaking and debating skills.
2. Walk in a session like a baby knowing nothing and take in anything as true without judgement or personal opinion.
3. Winner would be the team who convinced me the most, not the team who had better presentation/speaking skills.
4. I ask you to be respectful to the other team and speak clearly at a speed that I can follow. Please refrain from using jargon or speaking too quickly.
Hi, I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly! I have judged many pf rounds before, but I am still definitely not a flow judge. In round, make sure that you're using logic to explain your arguments thoroughly as well. If you see me writing, don't take it seriously, I am just taking notes. Don't be rude and have fun!
---
Hi this is his daughter that does PF and from what he's told me abt judging here are some tips if he's judging you:
-he doesnt flow everything u say :((( so make sure you're emphasizing the most important things he should be flowing
-he won't feel comfortable voting off your argument if he doesn't understand the logic (if he doesn't understand either side he randomly chooses lol so TALK SLOW and MAKE SENSE)
-he likes it when you have arguments that directly clash (pro and con both run the same arg i.e. innovation) but he also likes clean extensions of args that go conceded
-he adores clean signposting
-also he works in like biology/physics/medical related stuff and knows a lot abt pharma so be accurate lol or he'll know
I was an LD circuit debater in the 1990s when LD was slower but still evidence-based. After a hiatus from debate to complete a B.A, M.A., and Ph.D. in history (plus two years in-between teaching high school science), I became a history teacher and the debate coach at Phillips Exeter Academy in 2011. While PEA had mostly competed in Parli before I arrived, I'm slowly making NSDA debate, and PF in particular, a major commitment at the school.
In my opinion, the fundamentals of debate are the same for every event: do you have a clear "thesis" for why your side should win? Do you offer sub-arguments and evidence to support that thesis? Do you address the arguments and evidence of the other side? You won't (easily) win my ballot without these three questions answered. Debate is also about clear communication to address the previous three questions. That doesn't mean you can't talk fast or use jargon, but if those aspects of your performance take away from the fundamental logic of your arguments, you're not being a clear communicator.
In conclusion, I approach debate as an educator who strongly believes in the pedagogical value of the activity. Please debate in a way that proves me right about the value of debate, instead of making me doubt my commitment to the activity.
I am a parent judge and do well with slow to moderate talking speed during debate rounds. If you want to get my ballot, you should make sure that you're talking slow enough for me to pick up everything you're saying.
Things to do:
- moderate to slow talking speed
- being respectful in round
- well organized arguments
- weighing
Things to not do:
- reading a new contention in rebuttal
- new evidence after first summary
- disrespectful or overly aggressive teams during cross
- kritiks or theory arguments just because I don't have sufficient experience with them and as a result have a low threshold for a good response
- taking an unnecessarily long time to find cards once called
Good luck!
I am a parent of a PF debater. I have judged PF debates [2018-2019] at the JV and varsity level.
I am the parent of a current debater at the Bronx High Science of Science. I was not a debater myself in high school or college. I am not a very experienced judge, so it would be best if you are going to spread to spread clearly. I will try very hard to make sure I am voting on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents.
I am semi-familiar with the topic this year and I can understand most arguments that will be run. I encourage debaters to run whatever arguments they are comfortable with, and I am not predispositioned towards any type of debate (Ks or policy).
Evidence is important but the way it is presented throughout the round is more important.
I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful to one another while still showing their arguments to be superior to the arguments made by their opponents.
Please make sure to keep in mind that I am a parent judge. Good luck!
Speak slowly and articulately rather than racing through your speech
I like hearing logical arguments based up by evidence
In your final speeches, tell me why you should win
I am a very traditional judge. I do not like speed. Speak at a normal pace.
No K's. Debate the topic.
Crystalize. Tell me why you won the debate. If you write out my RFD, you stand a better chance of winning.
Make sure that you bring up any cross-ex points in your next speech. Connect them to what you have said.
Overall, I want to know why you should win the round. Spell it out. If you leave it up to me, don't be surprised if I had a different takeaway than you wanted.
I debated at Lexington High School for four years with a year in LD and three years in PF. I'm a flow judge who votes based off of clearly cited evidence and weighing.
Prefs:
- The easier you make it for me to vote for you, the more likely I am to do so.
- I evaluate any argument that is legitimately warranted and clearly explained. If you have a link, explain it. The exception to this rule is if you read something extremely offensive or totally nonsensical.
- Please weigh and actually engage with your opponent’s arguments. Tell me why you are winning on certain points and why your impacts matter more to me. If you have a framework, weigh using that framework. There have been so many times where debaters introduce frameworks and don't ever actually use it (despite it potentially winning the round for them if they did).
- It needs to be in summary to be in final focus so EXTEND. The exception to this rule is if you're speaking first and your opponent brings up some new arguments in their summary. In this case, it's fine for you to make a new response in final focus. But outside of that, you really shouldn't argue something new in FF if it wasn't in summary. If you are a Novice PFer, I will likely be more lenient about this rule but do try to not bring up new arguments in Final Focus.
- Collapse your arguments. Don't leave me with 17 different arguments to weigh after the round. It's annoying and basically an evidence dump. I recommend using voters in your summary and/or final focus. It's not mandatory but heavily recommended.
- I won't flow your cross-fires. So if you think you won something during cross you better tell me during your speech.
- If you want me to call for evidence, tell me and I will. I may call for evidence at the end of the round anyway if things have become muddied.
- Don't spread; you can talk fast, but don't spread. I can understand you if you do spread but I hate it when PFers spread.
- I can keep track of the speech times and prep time if you'd like. You can silently prep during your opponents’ speeches (at your own expense) or during cross-fires but don't talk (loudly) during your opponents’ speeches. It'll cost you in terms of speaker points.
- For speaker points, I start at a 28 and adjust accordingly based off of presentation and general pathos of each debater. I rarely give anything below a 27 unless you actually annoy me. I will not dock off speaker points based on the actual content of a speech and to that end, I will not decide a round based off of speaker points either.
TL;DR: here
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 lay judge and I am a teacher. I understand the flow to some extent. Please make sure you present well constructed arguments and explain your evidence and refutations clearly. If you use data, explain its significance. Thank you.
-I am a parent judge with limited judging experience, so make sure you go slow and state your claims clearly.
-Stand up during speeches and cross.
-Make sure you are respectful throughout the round; you speaker points will reflect this.
-Don't assume I have any prior knowledge on this debate topic.
-Try to extend key arguments through all speeches and tell me why I should vote for you vs the other team.
I have been judging PF for a little over two years now. I am a scientist at heart. So it should make sense that in order to evaluate your arguments I need to understand them. This is PF, not LD and that should mean something to you. I want to hear well-warranted arguments supported by evidence extended and explained in rebuttals.
You need to weigh with rationale and impacts. Everything in the final focus should be said in summary.
Be respectful to one another and to me. Be polite in the crossfire. You should learn something new in every round and remember to have fun.
As a side note, I am here to judge the resolution. I will not listen or judge side topics or arguments. Do not bring your own agenda into the round, specifically I am not judging your critique of debate theory.
Fourth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.
I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.
I've coached and judged all major debate topics. I work most closely with our Congressional debate team, but also have experience judging PF, LD, and Parli.
PF: I think it's important for you to remember the goal of the event. Anyone should be able to walk into your round and follow the debate. With that said, I do flow and will try to give tech feedback as well as general commentary. I think some speed is ok in PF, but I think spreading absolutely does not belong.
LD: I am not a former debater myself; I really struggle to follow theory debate, K's, and spreading in general. I've learned a little about it over the past few years, but if you are a tech/theory/spreading team you should probably strike me (just being honest!). For all other levels--I will flow both framework and case and have voted on both. Try to be concrete in connecting your evidence to your claims. I've found that LD debaters can sometimes get carried away with "debater math"...and no, not everything can lead to nuke war. I am partial to probability arguments--I'm a realist at heart :)
Congress: As a teacher of Government & Politics, I really enjoy this event. You should always be roleplaying being an actual representative/senator. What would your constituents think about your speech? Why is your advocacy in their interest? I really like constitutionality arguments--we have a federal system, and sometimes bills being debated are directly in violation of those principles. Feel free to cite those Supreme Court cases all day. As you get later into the round, I will be highly critical if you are just repeating points from previous speeches. I want to see crystal/ref speeches later on--as do your fellow competitors, I'd presume.
More of a flow judge than not, but don't spread and don't assume all jargon will be understood. I value extended arguments, will not pick up any new arguments brought in FF, and weighing is greatly appreciated. My advice as a coach and request as a judge is to tell me what is important and then tell me why you've won those points.
I value consistently extended arguments over arguments that were not extended throughout, but that doesn't mean I won't value them if all else is equal.
Crossfire is a place for actual questions, not BS excuses to make an argument, and never a place for reading cards.
Don't be rude or demeaning to anyone in the round, and failure to do so will be heavily reflected in speaker points. Humor always appreciated when appropriate.
Hi!
I am a parent of one former and one current PF debater. I have judged a fair amount of local tournaments and a few national circuit tournaments here and there. I am by no means a experienced judge, and my knowledge on debate jargon and technicalities is limited (keep that in mind during the round and please adjust).
Some things I look for/like to see:
- Clarity of speech; Try to refrain from speaking too fast and talk clearly, if I cannot keep up with you, I cannot fairly judge the round.
- Body language; Eye contact and a confident posture/presence is always good!
- Speaker points; I mostly award speaks based on clarity of speech, and your sportsmanship/attitude in the round. Be respectful to your opponents and the round, and you'll most likely get good points.
Other notes:
- I'm not very picky about speech time/prep time; as long as its agreed upon by both teams, feel free to go over 10-15 seconds. Just try not to take advantage of this.
Good luck to all of you, I know you've all worked very hard to get here, and have a fun tournament!
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!
I am a lay judge, who has been judging in the New England area for the last three years. I have debated in my high school and college days some 25 years ago, and by no means was that structured the way debates run today. I have picked up some of the PF debating jargon, but am definitely not at expert level yet. So, please do not assume I'm familiar with debating jargon and don't assume that I'm familiar with arguments, just because they've been common on this year's topic.
I'm not logistically challenged, so please feel free to find a comfortable spot that works best for you and makes you feel confident. This is about you not me.
Public Forum (PF) is supposed to appeal to a lay audience. Be very clear with arguments and thorough with your rebuttals. All I require is that I can understand the argument. Clarity is more important than speed for me, so please DO NOT SPREAD. I value quality over quantity. It is extremely difficult to listen, digest and take notes, when the debater speaks too fast! I often say, if you can't reach me, you have already lost the round!
Provide and agree on definitions, so that everyone including your opponents and the judges are the same page. Provide citations and be sure to explain how the cited information supports or refutes a point. I'm not big on statistics for the sake of statistics. Please remember numbers and arguments can be twisted any which way to support or refute a hypothesis. So, analysis and interpretation needs to be logical, reasonable, and believable. Please don't resort to doomsday soothsaying. It doesn't grab my attention, unless you can prove your impacts with the right evidence and logic!
I place a premium on well-supported "real-world" links, but this doesn't mean you throw a bunch of stats/ or jargon at me, you'll definitely lose me. Instead warrant/ impact your arguments logically to their full conclusion, make sure there is ACTUAL CLASH and possible vote. It is best to show me that your evidence presents a coherent story with both warrants and resulting conclusions that support your argument. Consistency with historical precedence/ the world we live in is very important for me. I'm open to hypothetical/ theoretical/ creative argumentation, as long as you can support your argument with logical reasoning, specific evidence/ statistics and/or historical antecedents from around the global. Remember, history doesn't belong only to the United States. Research global historical events and use them to your advantage.
In conclusion, my ballot often depends more on link credibility than on impact magnitude. Outline the case, restate and/or carry your main points into the summaries and final focus. Do not introduce new arguments after the first summary and do not forget to extend your case. Crystallize your case for me. DO NOT make me do the analysis and conclusions for you! I may get it completely wrong and you may not like the result!
Please don't make morally reprehensible arguments. For more detailed feelings about specific arguments, feel free to ask me before the round. During crossX, please be inquisitive, investigative and probing, but not contentious or disrespectful. CAMARADERIE and HUMOR are always a PLUS! Most importantly, have fun debating and learn from each of these amazing experiences. Enjoy!
Pretty typical flay judge.
If you believe that something in the round is important, tell me. It also better be in every speech possible.
I’m okay with some speed, but remember that speed has a tradeoff with clarity. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow you, thus I can’t vote for you.
Keep jargon at a minimum, Public Forum is meant to be accessible to the public. Using jargon does the opposite.
I am a parent judge from Westborough, MA with three years of judging in local and natcircuit tournaments.
Talk slow and do not spread
Organize your speeches and explain your arguments well
Avoid debate jargons
Do not assume I know all the abbreviations
Relative numbers provide lot more information than absolute numbers. For example, if you tell me the impact is $50 million, Is that on a GDP of $20 trillion or on a country with a GDP of $500 million
If you are providing a statistic, check on what the other team is talking about too. For example, one team could say that imports increase of 15% and the other team could say exports decrease by 20%. Ideally both teams should talk about the same statistic and the impact. If not, you should tell me what matters the most (import or export) and the impact in terms of dollars, employment etc.
Try to build a narrative and a theme throughout the round
Overwhelming me with data and evidence tags is not good. I am looking for a combination of logical reasoning with data
Exclude Extinction arguments and theory
A few well defended high impact arguments are way better than going all over the place
Please weigh well and provide clear reasons to vote for you
However you want to debate in front of me is fine.
I won't require defense in first summary, unless second rebuttal frontlines.
Don't forget to have fun!
I am the parent of a current debater. I was not a debater myself in high school or college, but I am really interested in watching debates and comparing arguments made by each side. I am not a very experienced judge, so it would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. I will try very hard to make sure I am voting on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful to one another while still showing their arguments to be superior to the arguments made by their opponents.
I am a current high school English teacher and college composition professor. Although I never debated in high school or college, one of the focuses on my graduate study was in argumentative writing as a focus through composition, so I will be looking for debaters to form effective and solid arguments through evidence and solid logic as a basis for my judging. It is important that you speak at a conversational pace, so I can hear and understand all of your contentions for the issue you raise on your side. I will work hard to focus on the effectiveness of your sides issue for each round and by thoughtful about comparing the effectiveness of each side fairly against one another. The best debaters, in my opinion, are respectful to one another while clearly building a strong and effective argument for their own side of the issue before focusing on the weakness of the opponent.
Was a flow judge, now I would say I'm more flay.
Pet peeve of mine: please do not interrogate me before the round starts regarding what I will or won't vote for. You should run the arguments you think are best.
If someone wants to start an email chain pre-round, use this email: Senghas.Jacob@gmail.com
Debate Coach for Wayland High School, 2019-Present.
Debate Coach for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, 2017-18.
Former Extemp speaker and PF/Congressional Debater with Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, 2008-2012:
MA HS State Championships 2012, Congressional Debate, 6th Place.
2012 Harvard Semi-Finalist.
Collegiate debater for the University of Vermont in the British Parliamentary/WUDC format, 2012-2016:
Binghamton IV 2012, Octofinalist, Top Novice Speaker;
Vienna IV 2014, Finalist;
Ljubljana IV 2014, Semi-finalist;
Pan-American Championship 2014, 2nd place;
Northeast Regional Championship 2014, Semi-finalist;
Northeast Regional Championship 2015, Finalist;
Brandeis IV 2015, Semi-finalist;
Empire Debates 2015, Semi-Finalist;
Malaysia WUDC World Championships 2015, Finished in the top 10% of teams but didn't break, took round a round from a world finalist (not an achievement but I'm proud of it so it's going here);
National Championships 2016, Octofinalist;
Winner of countless irrelevant speaker awards.
I am a lay judge, but I am on my second debater kid, so I do know a little bit about PF, just don’t go too fast. I'm an estate tax attorney in my day job. I like appeals to philosophy but only if you get it right.
In terms of style I like weighing and frameworks so I know what's important upfront.
If there is anything that I should know about you, anything I should accommodate, please let me know.
graduated speech captain who used to do pf. i will flow the round but if you go too fast i can promise you that i will get confused. i don't flow cross, but please see it as a major opportunity for speaker points.
please extend through ff. i will not vote on something if you drop it.
also, eye contact.
Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com
Policy:
I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.
Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".
Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.
The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.
I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.
For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.
The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.
PF:
I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.
Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.
My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.
Worlds:
Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.
Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper
Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.
Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.
Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.
I'm a parent judge at Hunter College High School and I've judged at a few PF tournaments before. Please speak slowly and clearly, and don't use any jargon.
If you want me to vote off of an argument, please make sure to bring it up in both summary and FF. At the end of the round, you should only focus on the 1-2 most important arguments and weigh them against your opponents' arguments. Have fun!
I am the coach of Scarsdale HS and have been in the activity for 20 some odd years
LD
These days I tend to tab rather than judge so I am generally out of practice. Treat me as you would an educated parent judge. Go slow and clear. Signpost. Weigh
As a more traditional judge, I prefer to hear arguments that are actually about the topics. I will listen to any well reasoned and explained arguments though although voting on argument not about the topic will probably make me want to give poor points.
PF
i would prefer fewer cards and stats that are actually contextualized and explained than a slurry of paraphrased nonsense. Anyone can make individualized stats dance, but a solid debater can explain the context of that work and how it links to other pieces of info
Hi everyone,
Son here. Hopefully I am able to explain his preferences in terms you can probably understand.
Speaking is key. He values slow, clear, and concise speaking very highly, which shouldn't be surprising. As your speed goes up, so does your chances of losing. He won't choose a winner based on who speaks prettier, but better speaking means a better chance of winning. He'll probably give speaks somewhere in the range of 28-29.5.
He flows decently. He'll get the tag lines and will remember your arguments if they're well-warranted and make sense to him. Don't worry about him missing an entire contention or something, but if you're reading a lot of very nuanced links, maybe cut down on those.
Limit debate jargon. Instead of saying "delink," "uniqueness," "defense," or something along those lines, explain what the response/weighing is and use good evidence. The name of the response/weighing shouldn't represent any important content that he would miss out on if he didn't understand the jargon.
Good luck!
I am a lay judge who's been judging for 4 years. I take notes during the round and I'll try my best to give good feedback after rounds. Make sure to have fun!
Hello!
I'm a sohpomore in college, who debated three years of PF for Lexington. I also did one year of policy, but also I was a young high school freshman at the time so please just stick to the PF stuff. Refer to my friend Anika's paradigm because I'm lazy and a leech :) If you still have questions, ask!
I used to dabble in Varsity Public Forum, I am by no means a normal man.
If the debate is happening over video call and you see my cat feel free to say hello
I competed in PF for 4 years (2015-2019). Please feel free to ask questions any time on Facebook Messenger.
I presume for the neg.
No new weighing in 2nd FF.
No Ks and use theory only for egregious abuse.
Cross isn't that serious.
L0 if you make any ___ist arguments.
I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.
MAIN STUFF
I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice. 
Here's how I make decisions 
1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.) 
2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW 
3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches 
I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. 
You need to re-explain your argument from uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.
Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.
SPEAKING PREFS
I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants 
)
Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time, I only need to know where you're starting.
I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh. 
I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.
Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. 
The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.
Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns. 
Reading tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.
Don’t extend every single thing you read in case. 
PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS
My email is devon@victorybriefs.com
I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief. 
Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure. 
Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. 
Track each other’s prep.
Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable. 
PROG STUFF
Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs 
Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.
I will vote for kritikal args :-)
Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K
Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership
I am a parent judge. Judged since 2016.
I value logic and coherence. Apply empirical evidence in your arguments.
I prefer a small number of clear, well-articulated arguments over a list of arguments covering every aspect.
Don't speed, you may lose me.
Be nice in the crossfire.