2020 — Online, MA/US
Varsity PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a Novice PFJudge, I have judged only
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.
TOC UPDATE: in an effort to provide full transparency, I want to make clear that there are certain debates I feel not confident adjudicating:
1. Really messy substance debates (that lack weighing and clarity and rely on my ability to catch every analytic against every card) & or anything that requires me to have in-depth knowledge of the topic.
-please provide clarity and overviews & tell me why you are winning
-weighing impacts and between other weighing standards
-if you want to win on a turn, answer the aff & explain defense
2. Blippy 1ar theory that is collapsed to in the 2ar (I’m biased against 15 second shells unless the 1n is 5+ offs)
-imbedded weighing in the standards is ideal!
3. K debate (I’m pretty confident in this but I have a hot take that makes me vote against k’s more often than I would like to)
-I need to be convinced that a cap or security k (or other variant) exists on a pre-fiat level or somehow the aff cannot be leveraged against it. If the impacts are post fiat, so is the k in my opinion. Pre fiat Ks are about reps that influence the real world! This seems kinda obvious but just to clarify.
4. tricks vs ableism/other ks- I will 9 times out of 10 vote on the k
5. Performance affs that stray from message after the 1ac. Do not forget your message by the 1ar and don’t drop case in the 2ar! I will vote against you if you want to win on the aff.
1.OK Y'ALL IF YOU DO NOT EXTEND YOUR CASE, I CANNOT VOTE ON IT. If they concede your case, tell me they conceded your case and extend your arguments and weigh them, don't just say "They conceded my case, now let's move on" I will NOT VOTE FOR YOU on this argument.
2. no new in the 2 args- I STOP FLOWING. IF I AM NOT FLOWING IT, I AM NOT EVALUATING IT.
3. Also, when the timer goes off my pen is down, I am not flowing unfinished args/cards.
I want to be on the email chain- email@example.com
TLDR: Run anything! How to pref me:
T/Theory: 2 (Lower if you are going to spread through all your analytics)
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 have not been involved in debate since April of 2019 so I advise you not to go full speed. 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 a dick 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)
My defaults on theory: They don't exist. Read paradigm issues, if you don't I can't evaluate your shell.
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 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 hell is Baudrillard), etc. K's I don't know much about: Psychoanalysis (tried to avoid these debates by uplayering) and Bataille.
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 25 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
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.
25: You are a dick
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.
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. 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 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 rationality that supports an argument or a 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.
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.
I have been a parent judge for PF for four 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
Just do whatever ur comfortable with :)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have been judging PF since 2010.
Please do not speak quickly - I will not be able to follow you.
I place a premium on well-supported, "real-world" links, which are to me a prerequisite to your impact, no matter how large.
I am a judge from Newton South HS, just outside of Boston, MA. I have been judging PF since 2010. I debated in high school in the early 80s. But don’t let that fool you.
FLOWING – I can flow SOMEWHAT faster than conversational speed. As you go faster, however, my comprehension drops. In addition to speed, I have trouble with the following: (1) Evidence tags: Because I am unable to catch most evidence tags, I probably won’t know what you are talking about when you remind me that “Smith in 17” told me something important in your partner’s last speech – unless Smith is a big deal in the round and you have talked a lot about that evidence. (2) Short argument tags, especially in the two-minute speeches, in which debaters often introduce their own argumentation structure. If you say something like, “On economic growth, remember…”, I will end up spending 5-10 seconds trying to figure out what “economic growth” argument you are referring to (and perhaps even what side of the resolution you are on). As a result, I may miss a few of your responses. It’s more helpful if you build a bit of the link chain into your tag. For example – “Our opponents say more H-1b visas boost jobs and hence economic growth, but remember…”
IMPACTS AND LINKS – I find that which side wins my ballot often depends more on link credibility than on impact magnitude. If I don’t find your link chain compelling, I will have a hard time voting for you, even if there’s something very big at the end of that chain. Argumentation that contributes to link chain credibility includes: (1) Inferences based on rigorous analysis of empirical data – i.e., a well-designed statistical analysis. If you can explain why the data in the analysis apply to (i.e., can be generalized to) the scenario being debated in the round, and why the statistical methods mitigate the risk of invalid inferences, I will find you to be compelling. (2) Consistency with history / the world we live in – For a lot of arguments, there are no rigorously conducted statistical analyses. For example, for few statistical studies look at how policies may influence public opinion, politicians, the policies of other countries, and so forth. But if you can identify pertinent historical precedents and argue that they inform the scenario being debated in the round, I will again find you to be compelling.
LESS COMPELLING ARGUMENTS – (1) Just because Professor Smith says something is true won’t necessarily convince me unless I understand *the basis* for Professor Smith’s beliefs. Yes, I’m looking for a warrant. But hopefully, you have more than your *own* explanation for Professor Smith’s conclusion. It’s best to show me that your evidence presents a coherent story with both warrants and resulting conclusions that support your argument. (2) Pasting together links from different sources often produces less compelling arguments. For example, Source A tells us that certain policies are politically divisive; Source B says that political division leads to federal gridlock; and Source C says that gridlock delays funding for the military and undermines national security, which, naturally, causes nuclear war. A problem with this sort of link chain in my mind is that the different sources use similar phrases to describe various types of events, but they aren’t really talking about the same things. For example, is the “divisiveness” described in Source A really equivalent to the “political division” described in Source B? And is the political division described in Source B emblematic of what has caused gridlock, as documented in Source C? If your opponent fleshes out these limitations, and if they have an alternative, more plausible description of how the real world works, that could be a problem for your position.
BOTTOM LINE – Fast argumentation challenges my ability to follow you. Stretched link chains challenge my tendency to believe you. You are best off presenting an intuitive narrative (i.e., a story that is consistent with how the “real world” works) and using that narrative as your foundation for establishing why your position is more credible than your opponent’s.
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.
- ***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.
I debated in high school a lot, I debated some in college. I now help out with debate when I can.
I like debate, and I hope you do too!
I think debates should be fun and I do not like it when people aren't friendly.
I am somewhat new to judging CX (Bronx 2019 was my first time judging circuit policy) but I really enjoy it and am excited to improve! I have lots of experience judging PF and college parli, but I'm well aware policy is a different beast and so I hope you'll bear with me! If I can't understand you I'll yell clear!
Do add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I don't have strong beliefs that should move you to alter your style in front of me. My favorite thing about CX is the creativity y'all have with arguments and strategies; please do your thing and tell me why it's dope.
I have more experience judging policy-style rounds than K debates. That said, my academic interests are much more in line with the sort of literature I understand appears in many K debates (I'm a philosophy major with specific interests in french post-structuralism, german idealism, and psychoanalysis). That said, my experience with this sort of literature is not in the context of debate.
If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.
LD. I really like judging LD! paradigm is basically same as for CX, fewer specific thoughts because I don't have lots of experience yet.
As I get old and grumpy, I am increasingly frustrated with PF's bells and whistles. We are all regular people. You don't need to 'strongly urge an affirmation' or proudly declare what the 'thesis of your case' is or anything, you just need to debate the round and explain what's going on clearly. There needn't be pomp and circumstance in a room where we're talking about ideas for fun on the weekend.
I will evaluate the arguments as best I can based on what I understand in the round and what lands on my flow. I regret to admit that if something makes no sense to me I will be deeply reluctant to vote on it.
I don't have strong opinions about most practices in PF (defense in first summary, frontlining case in second rebuttal) beyond my personal beliefs about what is strategic. I am more than open to hearing arguments in the debate about why I should care about these things.
I deeply appreciate clever strategies and will reward them with speaker points that reflect how stylish the play was.
If you want to win my ballot, win the round. If you want to win my heart, concede everything your opponent says and still win the round. Weighing is good, but declaring that magnitude is a thing is less good. Compare your arguments to your opponents arguments directly and carefully.
If you have specific questions that I have failed to answer here, feel free to ask them before the round, shoot me a message on Facebook, send me an email, or mail me a postcard.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 thirrd year student at NYU who has judged at a some over the past few years tournaments. 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!
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 email@example.com if there is any questions after a round or anything else.
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.
- 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!
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.
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
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.
Hi everyone! A quick overview about me before I launch into what I'm looking for: I debated PF at Council Rock North for four years, and I'm now debating APDA with Columbia Debate. I judge pretty much every high school format nowadays, but PF and LD are going to be way closer to my sweet spots than Policy or Speech events - so if I'm judging one of the latter two, be aware that I may ask questions here and there during it. It doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong, it just means that it's harder to teach an old PF-er new tricks.
Okay! Let's talk debate:
Spreading - The number one question I always get asked is if I'm cool with spreading and the answer is... eh? I can follow a faster pace than everyday conversation, but the moment you need to be double-breathing and speaking in gushes is when I'm less keen. As a rule of thumb, if you really don't think you can get through your speech without spreading then let me and your competitor know and I'll see what I can do.
Theory - So this is something I've never had to deal with in PF, but apparently every other format is doing something we aren't. Pretty much, if you run theory that's very well warranted and not just an attempt to throw off the other team and not debate the actual topic then I'll consider picking up on it. If it's anything but, I'll throw you some dirty looks and tank your speaks.
Flowing - Make flowing easy for me! Start each of your big points with something like "My first contention is..." or "My second independent point is...", 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 something is true and what's going to result from it, and especially why it matters more than whatever your opponent is saying. Also, I flow everything, including cross-examinations (I don't know why it's trendy to not flow these?), so believe me when I say that I care about every point you make.
Evidence/Cards - I remember once a few years ago I got asked to see a card about a point I was making, and my Google Doc had tragically lost the link to the article I was citing. I was horrified, I thought my debate career was over, etc. etc. And yet, the judge still picked up my point. Why? Because 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 making makes sense to me (with some informational evidence to back it up, sure) 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. If you have any more questions about this, let me know.
Misc - I don't mind "Offtime Roadmaps" or whatever the kids are calling it these days, just let me know beforehand. 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've just gotta let me know beforehand. Be nice to each other, high school debate is temporary but building a habit of being a jerk lasts forever. And in case I haven't beat this to death already, WARRANT AND IMPACT AND WEIGH.
If you have any more questions (about debate, about college, about debate in college), let me know. I'm so excited to see what arguments you come up with!
I'm a fifth year out, am a recent 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.
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!
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.
"How can you speak so fast yet say so little?" - Daniel Ju
I agree with everything here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=53579
"flow" judge, I guess.
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.
This is my fourth year judging PFD, and I typically judge about 4-6 debate events per year. I did not debate in highschool 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. (Note: I do not like to hear arguments about debate theory. Please be prepared to debate the topic.)
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.
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 pf before, but not extensively. 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
-when you rebuttal/frontline doing line by lines and signposting he will be impressed and less confused
-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
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
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.
- 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.
I am a lawyer, Co-Director of the Westfield Debate Team and Co-Chair of the NYCUDL Board.
I have judged PF for the last 2 years, over 75 rounds.
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.
First-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.
Given that I am newer to debate, I prefer traditional debates that focus on the intent of the resolution/topic over technicalities. I've judged Parli, and I work closely with and have observed LD, PF, and Congress.
In my experience, the teams/debaters that perform the best are the ones who set out a clear framework and back up all contentions with evidence and weighing. Almost all resolutions/topics can be answered either way; that's why they are chosen. That means it is up to you to explain to me why it is your framework and evidence that outweighs your opponents.
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.
I am a parent and I have judged 2 debate tournaments so far. I am eager to hear from all of you and I would appreciate it if you spoke slowly. Good luck
Update 10/15/20: I've judged many PF rounds but 2020 NYC Bronx will be my first experience judging remotely, and my first of this school year - meaning I am new to this resolution, args, evidence. I'm not currently coaching, so you'll risk losing my ballot if you use tons of jargon, esp. with arguments/acronyms etc. specific to this resolution.
Experience: minimal policy debate a very long time ago, and many PF rounds judged
I'm not lay but also not super technical; think flow-leaning flay. I vote off the flow.
I love good analysis; not so impressed by blippy arguments. Having a coherent narrative by the end of the round is a good thing.
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 (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.
Weighing is important (not just impacts). Tell me why I should vote for you.
Some speed is ok with me as long as you're clear (not crazy speed). If you can't speak both quickly and clearly, slow down.
If something isn’t in summary, don’t bring it up in FF b/c I won’t vote on it. If you want me to vote on something, it should be extended through FF (by "extended" I mean more than just one or two words).
cx: I listen, but I'm not voting off anything in cx. Bring it into a speech.
I'm generally not a fan of kritiks in PF, but I'll do my best to be fair and consider whatever you're running.
I sometimes avoid disclosing at large tournaments in order to get things moving.
Good luck, please don't worry about this paradigm - just debate and have fun!
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 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 on composition, so I will be looking for tenants in forming effective and solid arguments as a basis for my judging. As I am not very experienced as a judge, it is important that you speak at a conversational pace, so I can hear and understand all parts of 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.
Debate Coach for Wayland High School, 2019-Present
Debate Coach for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, 2017-18
Former Extemp and PF/Congressional Debate competitor with Acton-Boxborough Regional High School.
MA HS State Championships 2012, Congressional Debate, 6th Place.
Collegiate debater for the University of Vermont in the British Parliamentary/WUDC format.
Binghamton IV 2012, Octo-finalist, Top Novice Speaker;
Pan-American Championship 2014, 2nd place; Vienna IV 2014, Finalist;
Ljubljana IV 2014, Semi-finalist;
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 2016, Finished top 10%, took round a round from a world finalist (like that's an achievement but I boast about it so it's going here);
Winner of countless irrelevant speaker awards.
Contributor to Flashpoint, a Burlington-based debate-focused TV program alongside several prominent debaters and faculty members from a range of institutions on a number of topics.
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.
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.
-Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though.
-You have to frontline offense in second rebuttal
-I rarely call for evidence; if you don't have the warrant in the summary/final focus, I'm not going to call for the card and do the work for you
-If we're going to run theory... make sure it's warranted and, more importantly, merited.
***Speaker points include delivery, strategic decisions, conduct in the round, etc.
*** If you're second flight and the tournament is already running behind and you walk into the room and haven't flipped and pre-flowed, I am going to be annoyed
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 th activity for 20 some odd years
As a member of the LD Wording Committee, 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.
Don’t steal time. Once the timer starts at the beginning of the round, it doesn’t stop. Whatever electronic shuffling you want to do, water that you want to drink, happens on your time.
No, I don’t want to be on the speech doc. I want to flow and think. Therefore, if you want it on my flow, you have to speak at a speed and clarity that allows that to happen. I would say that about half what you believe to be your fastest speed is probably appropriate.
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
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.
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!
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. 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; Please stop making my head hurt.
L0 if you make any ___ist arguments.
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.
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 fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. This goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.
I need parallelism (summary+FF) for any offense you want me to vote for.
I realize this is controversial, but I don’t require defense in summary, although it usually makes sense to extend in 2nd summ once you know what offense your opponent is going for. With that being said, if your opponents frontline case in 2nd rebuttal, you need to answer back their frontlines in 1st summary if you still wanna go for that defense. Defense is most important for me in Final Focus though, so if you want me to delink/NU the offense they're going for, blow it up in FF. (Long story short, good pieces of defense can be extended as terminal D from rebuttal to FF if not answered by your opponents.)
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.
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 love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me.
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 more than 1 or 2 different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact impacts I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.
Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.
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.
I may look like I’m timing stuff, but I just like to watch the clock run. Track each other’s prep.
Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs . Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event, but I won't intervene against a shell you're winning.
I will vote for kritikal args if you win/extend role of the ballot :-)
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. Have judged about 30 PF rounds.
I value logic and coherence.
I prefer a small number of clear, well articulated arguments over a list of arguments covering every aspects.
Don't speed, you may lose me.
Be nice in crossfire.