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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Choi (he/him)

*assume I don't know the topic or the literature/arguments surrounding the resolution*

Email: achoi07650@gmail.com

FOR LD:

• I'm generally fine with anything/any speed, but you will need to slow on impromptu analytics/weighing
• I SUCK AT PHIL BUT FEEL FREE TO RUN IT you will just have to explain it like im a toddler

1. Tech v. Truth

- varies on a case-by-case basis but will mainly default to tech

- always assume I don't know anything

- generally not an interventionist judge

- just b/c I mostly default to tech doesn't mean that if truth is blatantly ignored I won't consider it

2. Positions

As a general rule and maybe this is because I'm becoming a boomer but I would rather judge a debate about the topic at hand rather than a debate about debate.

Disads - cool

Counterplans - cool except in PF

Kritiks - cool

Theory - cool, but run it for a legitimate reason and not as a time-suck or abusing someone who doesn't know how to respond (@ novices/middle schoolers)

Topicality - will rarely vote on it

3. Speed + Evidence

- any speed is fine but please if it's public forum shouldn't be too fast

- I probably won't call cards but you never know

- plz don't plagiarize + know the rules of evidence

4. Speaks

- will give high speaks for nice round :)

- if y'all chill expect 28+

- if y'all rude/disrespectful/purposely making someone feel uncomfortable expect nothing higher than a 25

5. Basic stuff

- please weigh

- I ain't tolerating problematic behavior in my rounds. You know what this means. Please be respectful, the win is not worth turning into a terrible person.

- I beg, please don't excessively call for cards. I take the whole round into perspective and a card probably will not change my decision and if it will, I'll call for it myself. However, do what is in your best interest.

6. Digital stuff

- Usually tournaments say camera on (I believe) but if not I don't care whether or not your camera is on or off. I will keep my camera on unless something wild occurs.

- If you experience lag I may interrupt your speech for you to repeat something. Don't be worried if I ask you to repeat something my ears are getting old :).

- Say if you need me to accommodate something. It may always sound corny but a lot of people forget that the priority should always be students so know that I truly have your best interest in mind.

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.

Whoever uses the word "avocado" fluidly in the context of a speech will win automatically. Haha. Just kidding. (or am I?)

Don't do an off-time road-map unless you are a wimp. Your job as a debater is to lay out your arguments clearly within your time constraints.

Whispering to your partner during your opponent's speech is not only disrespectful, but an indirect use of prep time. Don't do it.

Make sure to refer to your opponent as "my opponent" rather than he or she — it's respectful, and you avoid misgendering someone.

I am a lay judge with limited knowledge of the technical rules of debate. I will work hard to give you a fair judging experience. In the number of years that I have judged, I have always valued truth over tech. I favor thorough research and clear arguments. Help me and yourself by: speaking clearly and optimizing for clarity over speed; providing signposts and numbering of arguments; avoiding jargon; and, ensuring your final focus includes all arguments you want to be credited for. Always be courteous to your fellow competitors.

Quality of evidence is important for me. On occasion, I may call for a card. If requested, provide me with the original source highlighting the section you used.

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

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

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

My prefs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speak slowly and clearly. If I cannot understand or hear a point or contention, it will not be counted.

Hi everyone! I am a public forum judge and have judged tournaments for the past year.

I'm a lay judge. Please don't spread because it will most likely turn out that I won't be able to understand you. If you speak quickly and I can't understand it, then I won't be able to use any of the information you're giving me.

Please extend through rebuttal, summary, and final, and most importantly, weigh.

In regard to cross, I like to see time being used productively. I don't like to see a lot of arguing back-and-forth about small details, especially if it is taking up a lot of time. Please be respectful of each other. Your speaks will be lowered if I see a condescending or disrespectful attitude towards your opponent.

Good luck and have fun!

I will vote off of the flow. Please make sure to include any arguments you want me to vote off of in both summary and final focus. Your final focus should basically write my ballot. That being said, your attitude will affect your speaker points. Try to be nice to each other in cross-fire; get your point across, but don't scream.

Most importantly, be confident, and have fun! You have prepped a lot, and you know what you're doing. Good luck!

I debated two years of Varsity LD and Varsity PF in high school. I’m a year post college now and it’s been a few years since I’ve been around or judged any kind of debate. I'll probably stop flowing if you start spreading. At the same time, I'll evaluate any kind of argument. Feel free to make it interesting or unconventional. No need to be overly formal. Be clear, respectful, and make good args and you'll get good speaks. Also time yourselves and each other.

If you paraphrase a piece of evidence and your opponent calls the card and all you have is a link to an article and you have to control F your way through the page to find what you are referencing I WILL NOT EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE. CUT YOUR CARDS.

I have been judging PF for a little over two years now. I am a scientist at heart. So it should make sense that in order to evaluate your arguments I need to understand them. This is PF, not LD and that should mean something to you. I want to hear well-warranted arguments supported by evidence extended and explained in rebuttals.

You need to weigh with rationale and impacts. Everything in the final focus should be said in summary.

Be respectful to one another and to me. Be polite in the crossfire. You should learn something new in every round and remember to have fun.

As a side note, I am here to judge the resolution. I will not listen or judge side topics or arguments. Do not bring your own agenda into the round, specifically I am not judging your critique of debate theory.

I am a parent judge. I will try to vote on the flow (tech>truth).

I know how bad it is to be judge-screwed. Please help me make the right decision:

* Explicitly state what contentions you were able to extend, turn, front-line, etc. and how your opponent failed to do the same

* Please signpost (tell me where you are on the flow)

* Please limit technical jargon unless you have the time to explain what it means

* I am unlikely to follow any progressive argumentation: theory, Ks, tricks (not that I know what it means), etc.

* You don't have to use your lay cases as long as you speak clearly.

* Assume I don't know the rules well, but don't be afraid of subtlety and sophistication.

* Be explicit with comparatively weighing your impacts and those of your opponent's

* If you believe the rules forbid something like modifying the status quo, introducing new evidence in FF, etc. declare it in order to help me invalidate your opponent's contention

* Speak slower than cattle auctioneers, but if you cannot help yourself, send me a speech doc.

* Logic and historical parallels are sometimes better than a questionable/unwarranted card.

* Feel free to post-round me. I will not get offended by any questions or criticism.

* Add me to email chains vladislav.onik@gmail.com

Good Luck!

Update 10/8/22:

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

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

Some notes/comments in no particular order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck!

My name is Rajasekar RC (Raj) and I am a varsity & novice PF judge for last 4 years. I look forward to having you in my round. Here are some points about Me

I flow and I vote based on the flow. This flow does not include anything said during crossfire. If you want something in my flow, it better be in a speech.

Keep track of your own prep time. When time is up in a speech, finish your sentence, and that's it. If you continue to speak I'll deduct speaker points.

if you speak so fast that is hard to follow - I am sorry

I'm a senior debater at Lakeland and have been debating for the last four years, and judged every year at Lakeland. I'm an adaptable judge so my preferences are by no means concrete rules, rather general guidelines.

Speeches

Constructive: I know the resolution so you don't need to read it your speech. I'd like to hear how many contentions you have near the beginning of the speech. The biggest thing is to really emphasize where each contention or sub point starts so I can flow it easier.

Cross: I don't flow cross but I do listen. Please don't spent all three minutes on the first question, or turn cross into a shouting match. I think cross should be used to clarify arguments rather than win arguments.

Rebuttal: Please make sure to tell me where you're starting, and when you switch to rebutting a new argument. Second speaker doesn't need to respond to first rebuttal, but it is often useful.

Summary: If you didn't weigh in rebuttal, you need to weigh in summary. Also make sure to include everything you want me to weigh in summary(Contentions + turns) Defense doesn't have to be extended in summary.

Final Focus: Tell me why you won the debate. Include weighing, offense, and defense. Don't make up any new arguments in final focus.

General things

Extending - When you extend cards, don't just read the author's name. I don't flow the name only the content of the card

Evidence - Have your evidence downloaded or have a paper copy. You should be able to retrieve it within thirty seconds of your opponents asking for it. Prep time starts when once the card is being read by the team that asked for it. If you can't find your evidence within thirty seconds, your prep time will start. If two teams say the evidence says different things I will ask to see the card

Time - I don't keep track of time, I trust teams to keep track of their own prep time and speech time

Speaker points - I don't give more points to faster speakers, so please make sure you speak at a rate that everyone can understand you. Clarity is the most important aspect for speaker points. I don't give extra points for politeness, but I do take away points for rudeness.

[Enter judge paradigm here]

I've debated in varsity public forum for two years and have been judging competitions for 1.5 years. I am familiar with the rules of debate, so, if your opponents break a rule, you don't have to worry about pointing it out to me. Often, I will give a warning regarding a broken rule, and points will always be deducted.

Decorum-It is very important to me that you are cordial to your opponents. Yes, the stakes are high, but nothing is tantamount to ensuring both team have a fun, fair debate. I really dislike when competitors are yelling over each other; it causes unnecessary tension, not to mention that it makes it difficult for me to keep up.

Crossfire-As per the rules, I do not write down anything that goes on during crossfire. Crossfire is intended to help the debaters clarify certain parts of the case. If there is something that comes out during crossfire that you would like me to consider, state it in either the final focus or the summary speeches.

Timing-I allow competitors to keep their own time, but I will be watching the clock as well. Sometimes, the timer goes off mid sentence, in which case I almost always allow the speaker to finish his/her sentence. Do not take advantage of this; if you attempt to speak for a significant amount of time after time is called, points will be deducted.

Speed-Because I have debated and judged in the varsity level, I can keep up with faster-than-average speech. However, there can be no case if you are too fast to be intelligible. Take a moment to gauge your speed.

Decision Making-Typically, I decide who has won the debate based on the cases presented (quality and quantity of evidence), as well as consistency of theme throughout the debate. What that means is, if you have a framework, that framework should be referenced not only in the opening speech, but also in the rebuttal and the final speeches.

Judging Paradigm

Hey everyone. I was a 3-year debater at Newark Science. I mainly debated policy, but I also have some experience in LD and PF. Here’s how I approach judging. This paradigm should help you understand what I value in a round.

Policy Debate

Kritiks and Performances: I often engage with kritiks and performance-based arguments on both the affirmative and negative sides. For the affirmative, ensure there is a coherent narrative that flows throughout the round. For the negative, provide clear links to your position and illustrate what the impacts look like in an affirmative world.

My voters (in no particular order)

1. Framework:

• The framework debate should be prioritized in every speech. Be prepared to justify why your framework should be preferred in the round.

2. Methodology:

• Clarity is essential here. Whether your proposed alternative to the status quo starts with a symbolic ballot or it involves a tangible action, it is essential to articulate a well-defined methodology.

3. Impact Calc:

• Paint a picture of an aff/neg ballot and weigh your impacts against those of your opponent.

4. Quality of Evidence and Support:

• When making claims, back them up with credible evidence and follow that by strong analytics. Clearly cite your authors and provide contextual implications of their words in this debate.

Speaker Points:

• High speaks are awarded for overall clarity, organization, and persuasiveness of your arguments in the round, but speaker points are ultimately up to my discretion as the judge. As long as your arguments are supported by specific evidence and maintain a logical flow throughout your speeches, you’re good to go. I look forward to your participation in the round. Please remember to be respectful of everyone participating.

I'm a parent judge. I prefer slow and clear speakers to fast and aggressive ones. Make fewer but strong arguments. I don't flow crossfire, but please be civil.