Hi! I'm a flay judge -- here are some of my guidelines:

-if you are rude in any way, i'll give you low speaks

- please please please weigh & interact with your opponents' weighing

- don't go too fast, i don't like speed (i'm not great at flowing)

- that also means that i prefer quality over quantity

- im a flay judge and idk what theory is, so please dont run it

I am a lay judge. My son is in his second year of debate. I have a good familiarity with how to flow, and the M4A topic as well. Please don't speak too fast or else I won't be able to evaluate your arguments properly. Extensions are important to me from rebuttal through the final focus. Also signposting will help me flow your arguments well too. Please avoid any technical debate language or jargon I won't understand and probably ignore it. Stay kind and courteous to each other and make sure to have fun!

Hiya! Debate is supposed to be fun, so let's intend it stays that way : )

A FeW ThInGs To KnOw:

1) Done PF for a few years...

2) I'll flow the round to the best of my ability and can handle a relatively decent pace. Please don't spread I beseech you (this is PF not LD lol).

3) For rebuttal, please don't read me a card dump (I will cry 큰 눈물 on the inside). Reading something an inTelLeCtuAl from Harvard says as a response means nothing if you don't logically explain it. You are much more likely to convince me with 3-5 well-warranted, logical responses than 11 blippy ones. Second rebuttal should frontline if they have leftover time.

4) For summary, please collapse on and then reexplain your warrant(s) and impact(s). First summary should include defense if it was frontlined in second rebuttal, but defense that is unresponded to doesn't need to be extended in first summary. Weigh weigh weigh : )

5) What's in your FF should have been in your summary. Literally tell me why you deserve to win. If you do this successfully, my job will be easier, and I shall be elated. Weigh weigh weigh : )

6) I won't flow crossfire so literally do whatever you want to. You can even dance for all I care. If both of you decide you'd rather use it as prep time feel free to do that too. Just be polite and productive.

7) Please signpost. I'm imploring you.

8) If you give me an off time roadmap please follow it.

9) Don't waste too much time calling for cards. I'll get very bored and cry on the inside. I will call a card after the round if I think it is integral for my decision.

10) Please don't run Ks on me ~ I don't feel that comfortable judging one.

11) I will give you + .5 speaker points if you integrate Lorde's Melodrama into one of your speeches. Be creative : )

12) Please refrain from using the phrase "insofar as." I utterly abhor it.

13) No need to shake my hand after the round (I always found that a bit weird lol).

14) Most importantly, carpe diem and have fun!!!

Hi I'm a lay parent judge that has judged four tournaments in FY18 - FY21. I would prefer if you spoke clearly and articulate your points better rather than throwing more cards than your opponent (quality over quantity.) I am a mix of tech and truth. Please be respectful during crossfire and between speeches. Otherwise good luck to all of you, and I respect the work you all put into debate.

Hello,

Please make sure you do not speak so fast that I cannot understand you. If you do, I will stop you.

Please be courteous to your opponents and avoid foul language/ad hominem. Any of the "-isms" is an automatic 25 in speaker points and automatic loss.

I find weighing very important. If neither team weighs, I will be forced to weigh for you. I also value front-lining.

I will keep track of time however, it is also very important that you yourselves keep track of time.

I will pay attention to crossfire, however I will not flow it.

Please provide off-time roadmaps before the speech and signpost.

Stay topical during crossfire.

Hello,

Please make sure you do not speak so fast that I cannot understand you. If you do, I will stop you.

Please be courteous to your opponents and avoid foul language/ad hominem. Any of the "-isms" is an automatic 25 in speaker points and automatic loss.

I find weighing very important. If neither team weighs, I will be forced to weigh for you. I also value front-lining.

I will keep track of time however, it is also very important that you yourselves keep track of time.

I will pay attention to crossfire, however I will not flow it.

Please provide off-time roadmaps before the speech and signpost.

Stay topical during crossfire.

Current Varsity PF debater. PF for two years, policy for one.

I competed in Policy for three years in high school, and Parliamentary debate in college for three years. I've been judging PF since then.

Columbia University 2018

New York University School of Law 2022

Speed

It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. I am generally fine with spreading.

I never time debates. That's not my job. Therefor, it is your job. Police yourselves and eachother. There is an art to this. Opposing teams can hold up their iPhones to indicate their opponent has run out of time.

I generally allow for a 15 seconds grace period to finish sentences.

Posture

Circumstances permitting, you must stand up, in a centralized spot, and face me during constructive arguments. This is preferred but not necessary during cross.

Evidence

If you fail to call out bad evidence, it will be accepted as true for the round.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be impact analysis and weighing. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them. If you don't compare them for me, I will do it on my own and no one wants that.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof.

Hi, my name is Lorena Dakaj

During the debate please keep in mind the following things:

- speak clearly and loudly at a moderate speed.

- be considerate of your opponent's mistakes or mispronunciations of words.

- extend arguments from summary through final focus.

- in the final focus, make it clear to me why your case is more persuasive or more informative.

I competed in public forum for Acton-Boxborough.

Rebuttal

I have little to no tolerance for new frontlines in second summary (if you’re second speaking team and didn’t frontline at all in rebuttal)

Theory

I don’t know how to debate theory and honestly don’t understand it. Don’t run paraphrase/disclosure/other theory in front of me; I won’t vote off of it. That being said, if your opponent is being sexist/racist/ableist/discriminatory in any way, call them out on it; clearly warrant and explain what they are doing and why it is harmful (if you are the one being offensive you’re getting auto dropped and lowest speaks I can give). In general though, no theory.

• Don’t hesitate to ask if you have questions or if there is any way I can make the round more accessible for you.

• email is ashleydawn@college.harvard.edu for evidence chains

email me for questions/add me to the chain: tara.gill.527@gmail.com

tl;dr:

Me: "Do you know why I'm such a laid-back judge?"

Y'all: "Why?"

Me: "I go with the flow"

(creds to @Debate Memes on Facebook haha)

• yes I will vote off the flow
• honestly just debate well enough to make me care enough about the round (which means focus on the bolded text below)
• warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh and you're doing really well
• I don't think most debaters truly spend time explaining warrants or weighing
• things you want me to vote on have to be in every speech after first rebuttal
• I want the round to be chill and educational and fun so please make that happen

quick disclaimers

i'm now old and grumpy and care a bit less about debate than i used to so please don't assume i have extensive topic knowledge

novices:

it's so cool that you're trying out this activity even though it's probably kind of scary. If you don't understand some of my preferences in the long version, the tl;dr should be fine. Just know that you're probably doing great and that you got this :)

feel free to ask me any questions before/after the round.

Longer Version:

hi! I did 2 years of Public Forum at Lexington but I started out my debate career in policy which influences how I judge!

- i'm more tech than the average tech judge so please clash to avoid judge intervention, or at the very least weigh a lot on both link and impact levels :)

- in later speeches, please give quick narrative style overviews at the top of your own case then frontline/line by line (i still don't know what frontline means but just don't drop stuff) if u want me to vote on your contentions otherwise dropped defense will mitigate your impacts. this also means u should frontline in second rebuttal and extend defense in first summary.

- i will vote off most arguments including theory/k if they are debated well (my threshold for these being run well is pretty high lmao so try at your risk) and not used just to be exclusionary (check the bottom of my paradigm)

- do a lot of weighing/impact calc and logical analysis (not just for me, it is also strategic if you're lost/confused and I would know first hand oops)

- once again please weigh weigh weigh. really make the force of gravity a lot here (i'm sorry i'm a physics nerd)

- start collapsing by first summary because depth>breadth in terms of giving quality arguments in short PF speech times

- crossfire shouldn't be three minutes of extra debating please ask and answer questions in a non-aggressive and CIVIL manner or I will be frustrated, get a headache and probably dock speaks.

- if you want to take off a jacket or shoes in round feel free to do so because i almost never debated with shoes. this will not affect speaks or the result :)

- feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused, I will not dock speaks and I feel like it usually helps you learn how you can improve in the future

- i am fine w speed if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, make sure your opponents are ok too, slow down on tags, authors, and analytics, signpost clearly, offer speech docs if necessary

- lastly, debate is a game: this means that you should not be exclusionary, follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make the debate more accessible to you, and HAVE FUN!!!!!

Extra:

- fist-bump instead of shaking hands haha

- I'll default to a slightly above a 28 if it's by 0.1 and 28.5 if it's by 0.5

- i am also happy to talk after round, show you my flows, and answer questions about either debate or life :)

LD (MSDL States 2024):

i am fairly confident in my ability to flow a debate and understand arguments that are clearly explained to me, however, I also understand there are certain thing specific to LD that I am not familiar with.

• focus on weighing your arguments against your components, basic frameworks (util, structural violence) I am familiar with and are good for providing that comparison
• not sure about other "value criterion" that's a term i've heard but i don't know what that means so just explain to me clearly
• not super used to nat circuit LD speed anymore, but a little speed is fine
• rest of the paradigm applies

i debated

- weigh

- collapse and make clear extensions

- frontlining in second rebuttal is cool

- be funny

if u renegade during ur speeches i’ll give u a 30

This paradigm is a work in progress; I know it's lame at this point, but more will be added over time. For now, here are a few guidelines:

I'm a lay judge (hence the lame paradigm) - first year, fourth tournament

I appreciate roadmaps

Not a fan of speed; please speak clearly

If both sides make compelling cases, you really need to weigh

Never hurts to make me laugh!

If you see me typing while you're speaking, don't worry, I'm still listening.

Please make sure your Internet is working before we start the round

Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge. My day job is Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, where I spend most of my time running a research lab exploring the role of non-coding RNAs in gene expression and heredity. I know quite a bit about science, but, alas, not so much about economics or public policy. This means that, unless we are debating a science question, I am not an expert. Additionally, I have never debated myself. For this reason, if you use topic-specific or debate-related jargon/acronyms there is a pretty good chance I will not know what you are talking about. Although I do my best, I am also not a "flow" judge and, therefore, you are not likely to win the round based on debating subtleties or total number of contentions made/refuted. I find that most PF speakers overestimate my ability to follow their arguments. Bludgeoning me with a laundry list of facts, whose relevance I find difficult to ascertain, is probably not going to get my vote. Remember, you have been thinking about this material for a long time... I have been thinking about it for a few minutes to a few hours. If you remember anything from this paradigm remember this...less is often more with me. Organize your arguments clearly and logically and avoid burying me under poorly connected factoids. Spend time explaining the underlying essence of why your central arguments are better than your opponent's central arguments and you will do well. As the old saying goes..... don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Hi all! I graduated from Lexington High School in June 2021 and I am currently a sophomore at University of North Carolina at Charlotte. I have debated LD for 2 years and PF for 2 years, so I understand almost all the antics.

things that I look for in a debate:

- extending and explaining your framework(LD) + arguments across the flow

- good cross-x questions

-being respectful to your opponents

-giving voters and overview at the end of the round

and:

- do not spread while speaking (LD), can go a little fast but not too fast.

- bonus speaks for an entertaining round

If you have any questions, you may email me at this address mehr.k2k3@gmail.com --but please no scam emails .

-I will flow. I appreciate a clear narrative across arguments! It's okay to collapse.

-Significant impacts are awesome, especially quantifiable ones! Explain the gravity of the situation!

-Signposting is always really helpful.

-Spreading is okay, but make sure we can actually understand you. Don't speak super fast against an obviously less experienced team (this helps no one!)

-Don't be rude in cross-ex, especially don't be patronizing or condescending toward female debaters

-If evidence is requested, please pull it up quickly for the other team

-If you're running complex theory, please break it down and explain it.

Speak slowly and clearly so I can understand your arguments; if I don't understand them, I cannot vote for you. Use only realistic arguments.

It's helpful when you frontline and give implications in your speeches. Make sure to weigh in summary and final focus with consistency.

Do not run theory or any type of progressive arguments.

Be respectful to your opponents.

Looking forward to listening to your round!

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'm writing this paradigm for my dad

He's a parent judge but has judges multiple times before and I have ranted to him about rounds before so he knows some things.

Don't go too fast. Your speed doesn't matter as much as quality, quality > quantity.

Be respectful of your opponents, don't be too loud and don't insult anyone. No racism/sexism/homophobia/etc

Your arguments don't matter, no preconceptions in this round, you can read anything you want with a warrant. Explain more complicated arguments slowly and make it make sense, because my dad won't have any biases.

He sort of flows, but it's more of a note talking, so don't focus too much on the line by line.

Just treat him like a lay in terms of speed and jargon and explanation, but you can run whatever non-discriminative arguments with him that you want to(including things like spark, I confirmed this myself, you just really need to warrant it out and always articulate reasons clearly). Don't forget to weight, slowly and clearly, like you would on a normal lay.

I am a parent judge who values common sense, clear logic, and coherence.

1. Arguments shall be clear and well-articulated, even if they do not cover every aspect.

2. If your evidence contradicts your opponent's, convince me with logic. More recent evidence may not be better.

3. As for mechanics, I am pretty flexible and should be comfortable with speed as long as you are clear. (However - I'm definitely not used to a policy level of speed so send me a speech doc if you do so). I'm open to theory, as long as it is not frivolous. I default to reasonability.

4. Have evidence ready, shouldn't take longer than 2 mins to find it or send it out. Also, I will take it from your prep if you're prepping when your opponent is getting a card.

5. Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in every speech, and collapse on voters in at least FF, if not summary.

6. Be respectful and let your opponents answer the questions you asked during the crossfire.

Judging Criteria

Clarity of the speech: Not too fast (please don't do 200 wpm), not too slow. I am flowing the entire session with all of you, so I appreciate everyone do not miss any important contentions.

Facts and figures: Whenever you cite a number, please include the source. Reputable sources command a higher winning score. Your interpretation of the source is required, don't just quote it without explaining how it validates your position.

Professionalism: I pay special attention to all speakers' eloquence, being aggressive is okay, but not personal insults. Confident speakers usually come with well-prepared speeches, and I look forward to an educational exchange of rebuttals and crossfire.

Points: All speaker points start from 27, and extra points are awarded for logical links, extending good warrants, and impacts.

I appreciate it if you could connect the dots for me, as to why your contentions make more sense compared to your opponents.

I will not call for cards unless I need them for my flow verification.

Content warnings for sensitive topics need to be disclosed at the very beginning.

"I have little to no understanding of theory, run it at your own risk!"

2020/2021 will be my second year judging, my child is a member of the Waring School debate team. I will award the win to the team who makes the clearest arguments supported by the best evidence. I encourage all debaters to speak slowly.

I am a parent of a Lexington (MA) High School debater. I have been trained as a judge and this is my second year judging & have judged at 4 tournaments thus far.

I try hard to keep my personal preferences and opinions from influencing my decisions as a debate judge.

I take notes during the debate. So please do not speak too fast, otherwise I will not be able to take notes and/or follow your arguments.

I am a cardiologist and father of a 9th grade PF debater at Lexington High School. I am a lay judge without experience but I love hearing controversial topics debated. Good luck to everyone!

I like to hear simple, clear, and logical arguments explained in terms of the resolution being debated, with the reasoning explained at moderate pace and organized to enable the audience to understand its most significant issues and points. Rapidly citing a large number of sources without explaining anything about the source is not so convincing to me, and lengthy quotation of the opinions of sources that do not themselves justify their reasoning is not persuasive.

I especially like to see debaters take seriously the meaning and intent of their opponent's main positions and understand their opponent's evidence and engage with it substantially, not dismissively.

Hi, I competed in N/JV/V debate in highschool and have judged MS PF, NPF, JVPF, and open LD

Please speak clearly and loud, if you spread and I can't flow your argument I can't give you a win

Extend..extend..extend... if you do not extend your arguments throughout the round, especially in summary I will drop that argument.

To be more particular (mostly for younger debaters) when you extend state the card name. I do not flow arguments that are not extended in summary.

Include your impacts. talk about voter issues, and why your argument outweighs your opponents based on the framework established in the beginning of the round

Be engaged don't put me to sleep

For me debate is about the power/art of persuasion so even if you arent that technical if you persuade me and extend in summary you'll win the round

As of when I'm writing this, I am a first year out from Lexington, MA. My freshman year was policy, and my sophomore, junior, and senior years were in PF. Since I came from policy, I have a pretty lax view on PF and can probably handle speed (unless you truly suck at spreading or have a garbage mic). aadharsh2010@gmail.com (for email chains)

*Crypto Topic*: I know more than a decent bit about crypto. At the end of the day, I'm still tech, but my previous experience with crypto will affect my threshold for buying arguments and also means that if you don't weigh or engage with your opponent's argumentation, weird stuff might happen.

Evidence

I may call for evidence if it seems fishy or is debated on for a bunch of the round. Also if you call for evidence, I usually would like to see it too, be it via an email chain (aadharsh2010@gmail.com) or physically.

Round Stuff

I expect second rebuttal to have at least some frontlining in it, and it'd be best if anything that was round deciding be in both the summary and the final focus (If neither team extends properly, the decisions might actually be based on marginal amounts of offense which is never fun, because it gets very sketchy very quickly). Don't waste too much time on defense in first summary, please.

Comparative weighing is also hugely important for me, so the sooner you start it in round, the better. Signposting is always pretty nice, and your speaks will reflect this.

Techier Round Stuff

I'm okay with DA/theory/K stuff (will only vote if both teams seem to understand theory, running higher level arguments to block your opponent on their knowledge is super scummy and your speaks will definitely reflect that).

Speaks/Cross

I don't flow or weigh cross in my ballot decision, so it'd be pretty sweet if you could mention it in a speech when your opponent concedes something in cross. I also hold the belief that speaks are independent of wins, so if you have great speaks but lose, know that you have the speaking stuff down, but just have a less than amazing case or something along those lines. If we're at a super lay tournament, I'll be a speaks fairy unless you do some dumb crap in round, I'm probably going to start everybody on a 28 and go up and down in increments of .5 or .1 if the tournament lets me. It's also totally fine if you want to debate without your cameras on, this will not impact how I eval you (I'll defer to tournament rules if they contradict this)

In general, don't lose sight of the fact that debate is a game. I see judges talking about humor on their paradigms a bunch, but I've never had the guts to crack jokes in round. I like humor and stuff if it is vaguely tasteful, and your speaks may be bumped. I generally believe that I do a crap job of hiding the ways that I feel about an argument, so reading me is going to be to your advantage.

Feel free to ask questions or message me on Facebook. Also I will disclose for sure at tournaments that allow it! Also please read my comments, I really do try to make them super good instead of browsing reddit in round :P

Misc stuff (will disengage this at any competitor's request, no questions asked)

- References to the Robert Chen round will warrant a speaks boost.

- Funny contention names will grant a slight speaks boost

- Citing rap lyrics in round and being funny is the dopest thing you can do to make me like you.

Hi everyone! Hope everyone is doing well! :)

He/Him/His

I am a freshman in college and competed mainly in PF in high school for all four years, but I have experience in some speech events and world schools debate. I started judging as a junior in high school, and I have pretty decent experience judging both public forum and Lincoln Douglas. In terms of judging, I would consider myself a bit technical although I have specific preferences for events or tourneys which will be updated at the bottom if I do have time/tourney specific request.

General Judging preferences

Please try to signpost or give me a roadmap as you go, I want to spend as much time evaluating your arguments as possible instead of trying to understand what section your discussing

I can understand speed, but I would prefer not to listen to spreading, if you do spread I will listen but I will need a copy sent so I can understand it properly.

Try to be nice to each other, debate rounds can get intense or passionate, but there is no place for personal insults, talking over each other, and being hostile to each other in debate.

Please keep your own time and prep time, although I will keep a timer as a backup option.

In terms of topic specific jargon, I am not currently coaching or very active in the circuit so I generally am out of the loop in terms of specific information on topics, I am a political science major so I have an OK knowledge base but assume I won't know to much about some of the topic.

If anyone has questions that were not addressed in the round or RFD, you can reach me at email at resniknico@gmail.com or through social media, I am active on most major platforms except twitter, if you look up my name I should pop up somewhere.

ANY ARGUMENT OR STATEMENT THAT IS RASCIST, HOMOPHOBIC, OR HOSTILE TO ANY GROUP IN A HATEFUL WAY WILL RESULT IN AN IMMIDIATE LOST FOR THE GUILTY PARTY AND ME TAKING A TRIP TO TABROOM AND COACHES

This is my third year as a lay parent PF judge.

I am usually familiar with the topics as I am judging tournaments that my daughter participates in, and the AFF and NEG are discussed around the dinner table.

Speed is fine, but I find it much more interesting to listen to people talking rather than listen to people reading out loud.

When using statistics or quoting numbers, please explain why they are important and how they support your contentions and arguments otherwise I usually find those meaningless.

Intense crossfire is great, but please keep it polite and respectful.

GOOD LUCK!!!

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

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

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

What I like to see in the round:

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

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

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

What isn't necessary in the round:

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

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

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

Evidence Exchanges:

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

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

Progressive Debate Rounds:

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

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.

I have been a lay/parent judge for the past 4 years. I did not debate in high school and am not well versed in the technical aspects of debate. I judge rounds as if I were watching a presidential debate. (Because really you're doing this to learn how to present a point of view in the real world.) Are you able to present a valid argument with points relevant to the topic? Can you respond to the other presenters arguments in a logical manner with validated information ? Are you able to speak in a respectful tone yet still effectively argue your side of the question ?

Hello debaters, please speak clearly and slowly, and use evidence to support your points. Thank you.

Hello there!

I was a PF debater in high school, and am now super chill and in college. In my opinion, debate should be fun and educational. Please try to keep it that way. Here are some of my judging preferences:

Make yourself as convincing and understandable as possible. Pretend like I have no idea what you're talking about, but I will vote off the flow.

I tend to prefer tech>truth, but if by common sense your argument is totally incorrect, I'll have to give you the low-point win.

I do not flow cross, so if you win an argument based on something said in cross, you need to bring it up in speech.

The decision will be based on which arguments are left standing and how they compare to each other.

Offensive arguments will be factored into my decision, but defensive arguments will not. If a defensive argument is not responded to, I will simply drop the original offense.

Weigh. A lot.

Extend everything (until summary), unless you want me to drop an argument. IF you do drop an argument, tell me why.

I don't like roadmaps. They're a waste of time. If you roadmap, I won't dock you any points or anything, but I'm not gonna like it.

If you are in LD, framework is definitely important, but don't rely on me to judge solely based on the framework debate.

My number one rule is to be polite. Remember to keep it civil. Do not disrespect either your opponent or the judge.

Updates for Kentucky:

I have never used this online system so forgive me if I don't know what's going on with the technology.

If there's something wrong in terms of technology I'll be very lenient so don't worry about that.

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

If I'm judging you in LD, sorry in advance, I'm a PFer. With that being said, I just want to be entertained, so if you have the most fun running K's, theory, or tricks do so, I'll vote off anything if it's explained properly. If you take "I'll vote off anything" as me being clueless, you're probably right. Otherwise, I have nothing else to say to you but to have a good and clean debate.

Now into PF land (I'm a first-year out, 1 year of policy and 3 of PF in high school):

The crux of what I said above still holds true; I want to have fun and I want you to have fun too.

Some overarching things

- Please time everything yourself, I'll try to time everything, but sometimes I forget to press the button and am pretty lackadaisical on that front as a whole

- Don't speak to your partner during their speech or crossfire. They already have so much going on, another voice is just distracting and tends to produce worse results. Even if they're forgetting something important, I think it's better to let your partner be self-sufficient so they can learn for later debates.

- While eye contact is nice, don't bore holes into my skull. I'm probably too busy flowing or writing comments to notice anyways

Onto more speech by speech things

CASE:

- Clear link stories and quantified impacts make me a happy camper.

- I enjoy unique arguments, but I know that it's harder writing up really obscure cases, so don't worry about running stock arguments.

- Speak clearly. I can handle any speed below legitimate spreading so don't worry too much about that. If I can't understand you, I'll audibly say something once. If you don't heed that, then it's on you.

Rebuttal:

-SIGNPOST! I can generally figure out where you are when you speak, but I don't want to have to do that work.

- As much as I find card dumping hilarious, I don't think it's particularly effective so please don't just string off a hundred cards in a row.

- I like there to be some weighing in Rebuttal, even if it is just 15 seconds at the end of the speech.

- Rebuttal is for Rebutting. If you are just reiterating your case for no purpose other than reiterating your case, kudos to you for using your time, but it's really not necessary. This is not to say don't defend your case in the second rebuttal, but if you're not actually engaging in with the arguments your opponents have put down I don't know what you're doing.

Summary:

- Some people like to treat this as a second rebuttal, but it really should be boiling down the round to a few key issues.

- EXTEND YOUR OFFENSE! I don't know how you plan to win a round without offense, but if it's not mentioned in summary, I'm not letting it through to Final Focus.

- Don't give me a one-off sentence with just a claim. Try to do some explanation behind the argument.

- WEIGH! Just do it.

Final Focus:

- OFFENSE! Tell me why you are winning the round. Make it easy for me to write the RFD in your favor.

- WEIGH!

Some other things:

(Copied from Aadharsh Pannirselvam)

In general, don't lose sight of the fact that debate is a game, and that novice year(s) are supposed to be about learning first, fun second, and W's third.

(Now my own words)

I love humor. Debate is stuffy enough as it is, making me laugh will reflect well on your speaker points. I love meme cases, but if you want to run one, make sure your opponents are on board, debate is still supposed to be an educational activity and I don't want to see one team being deprived of that educational experience.

I'm known to inflate speaker points. If you got below a 28.5 then something really didn't go well.

If you want to run policy-esque K's or other unorthodox arguments, then I'm probably your best judge to do that on. However, if you are running theory or a K, then again, I would want you to at least warn your opponents as to what you are planning to do. I will legitimately vote off of anything, but that being said, you need to clearly explain things no matter what argument you try to extend.

Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth

^Make of this what you will

Bonus speaks for accurate and sensical application of chi-squared analysis.

If both teams want me to simulate a non-flow judge for whatever reason I can do that.

I plead the fifth

conwayxu93@gmail.com

I am a former PF debater and an architecture student, so interpreted as you will. For the current tournament, you can consider me as a lay judge. Technicality is fine. Ask me if you have questions about anything.

[-] Etiquettes:

- You may time yourself, but you must be honest about your time. I will keep official time regardless.

- I permit off-time roadmaps but don't ramble.

[-] Structure:

- I am not a tabula rosa.

- Please be clear on the magnitude, scope, timeframe, and probability.

- When you frame your case or the round, you must prove that your side ultimately solves for that framework. Also, it must be logical.

[-] Philosophy:

- Utilitarianism always ignores a minority group.

- Education is not the great equalizer unless it is proven equitable, accessible, and equal.

[-] RFD:

- I do not disclose because it may discourage teams mid-tournament. However, I do disclose if required by the tournament.

Peter Zopes
Speech and Debate Coach, Chelmsford High School

I participated in Policy Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking in high school (in the late 70s), though mostly Extemp. I teach US History, Speech and Debate, and Government. I’m in my fourteenth year of coaching Speech and Debate. I think formal debate and argumentation has real value; it drives public discourse and helps society progress. I am very interested in what I see going on in the debate community, though not all do I agree. That being said, here is my judging paradigm that outlines my position on debate.

The Resolution. I prefer substantive debate that focuses on the resolution. There is a reason we have a resolution, debate that! Be clear, concise, and clash. Be topical. Debate the contentions, the evidence, the link, warrant, etc. Don’t waste time on frameworks or arguing about debate! I’m not a fan of theory or kritiks. (They smack of deconstructionist word play!) Be professional, speak to the judge (me!) not your paper or laptop, and address your opponent with respect. Stand during the round. Dress professionally. (Yes, imagine that!) I can flow most things that comes my way, however, speed and volume (not loudness, but the amount of information put forth) do not necessarily further the debate.

Case and Evidence. This is key. In LD, debate is value based, you must demonstrate how your case is constructed to achieve the value and value criterion you identified. If not, this will negatively affect my judgment on the round. In PF show strong case development in support of your side of the resolution, with strong claims, evidence, and warrants. Arguments need to be developed and elaborated upon, not just with vague statements, but with supportive evidence (statistics, analogies, statements, data, etc, from philosophical, legal, theological, historic, and news sources). This should be used both in case development and rebuttal (when appropriate). Evidence used should be clearly identified in the reading of the card in terms of both author and source. (Name of author, title of article, and if needed title of publication and date) During rebuttal explain how you or your opponent did or did not support their side of the resolution via claim, evidence or warrant. Specifically identify voting issues raised, defended or dropped.

Speaker Points. Be professional, polite, articulate, strategic, and clear. This is the basis for determining speaker points. DON'T Spread or even try to talk really fast. All words have a clear beginning and end. I need to hear them. IF YOU SPREAD, YOU LOSE. Your case should be presented in a manner that is not over flowing with debate jargon or nomenclature.

Something to keep this in mind: In the original debates, if either Lincoln or Douglas conducted their debates in the manner modern debaters do, neither would have won. The audiences would have walked away. Modern LD and Policy debate may provide you with some great learning experiences, however, constructing and delivering a case in the manner I hear today is not one of them. All you are learning is how to deliver to a narrow, self-selected audience. I hope and will do what I can to prevent PF from proceeding down that path. Further, too often debaters dismiss parent judges for not knowing enough about debate. That is the wrong mindset. It is not the parent judges' job to become an expert in your type of debate or the resolution. Your job is to educate them on the resolution and your case, and convince them your position is correct. You need to adjust your delivery to reach them. The number one consideration for any debater or speaker is reaching their audience. If you lose the audience, you lose the debate. Simple. The supposed "cool" judges who let you do whatever you want are not helping you develop your skills beyond the narrow world of debate. Selecting judges with widely different judging paradigms does! Good luck!

Update. I prefer a narrative presentation of the arguments. Telling me you are "frontlining' this, "extending" that, is overtly technical and undermines the rhetorical nature of the event which we chose to engage. Avoid the nomenclature of debate - identifying the structure various parts of or the process of argument, but explain to me, in clear concise language, what arguments you are advancing in the round and why they have impact compared to your opponents' arguments. Good speaking, like good writing, is precise and concise, avoids jargon and uses common, proscribed vernacular.