PF: I only think an email chain is necessary if audio is not the best or you plan on spreading. Email me if there is any way I can make the round more accessible.

email: noorabdallah101@gmail.com

I am a third-year student at the University of Georgia. I did four years of PF at Columbus High School, and one year of policy at UGA.

Policy: I am still learning policy myself, so please take that into account if I am your judge. I will always try my best to make the best decision and I am way more comfortable with DA's and CP's than K's. Just do not expect the same out of me as you would a regular policy judge :)

Speaks:

1. In terms of speed, I can comfortably handle around 250-270 wpm. Online debate might not allow that speed, keep that in mind. I don’t really see the need for spreading, but if you do, ask your opponents and send a speech doc. If you do this to confuse them and win, I will drop you.

2. No judge will get everything you say, so warrant.

3. I am a huge lover of puns. Wit and puns are appreciated in round. However, if you intentionally make any racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low speaks and notify your coach immediately. Assertive and funny debaters are different from rude ones.

Argumentation:

In short, you do not want me to interfere as a judge. Do the work for me and that means to make clean extensions, frontline, and weigh. In detail, here are things that win my ballot:

1. I vote off the flow. I try to interfere as little as possible, which means you NEED TO WEIGH. If you don't, I will have to interfere and use my own weighing mechanism. In that case, you probably won't like my decision. I will do everything I can to ensure a fair round from my part but don't get mad at me if I don't flow a one-second extension that isn't flushed out.

2. Frontline!! You can't just extend your arguments through their responses without telling me why they don't matter and/or why your argument still stands. If they extend their warranted response(s) throughout round and you do not respond to it, you are in a bad position.

3. Signposting is extremely helpful and should be done :) I RARELY flow author names so do not just extend "Smith 19" and think that is you extending something. I should hear what Smith 19 said over and over.

4. I will vote tech over truth. If your opponents make an unwarranted assertion, refute it. Don’t rely on me to do the analysis for you.

5. Summaries - Line-by-line, voter, etc. I have no preference on format (though line-by-line is better to me). Create the narrative, defend, extend, weigh. New weighing in both summaries is fine.

6. NO new arguments in final focus (with the exception of extended weighing analysis in 1st FF). There really shouldn't be any new arguments in 2nd summary.

7. I am not your judge for theory, K's, topicality, etc. I have voted for these things before, and am understanding them as a policy debater. BUT reading theory against a team who doesn't know how to deal with it is abusive.

8. I use cross to write feedback, so anything said is not binding, just bring it up in a speech because I probably didn’t listen. Use cross strategically and for your own benefit.

First-Speaking Team:

1. I do not require defensive extensions in first summary if they have not been responded to. However, you must extend overviews/turns if you expect me to be voting off of them.

2. By final focus, you should know what your opponents are going for. Defensive extensions must be in final focus if you want them to factor into my decision. Defense not responded to by the second-speaking team by second-summary is dropped defense - bring it up!

Second-Speaking Team:

1. The rebuttal should respond to any overviews/turns/disads. The only other time second- speaking team has time to respond is second summary, and that is extremely abusive. You do not have to respond to terminal defense until summary, although it may be strategic to do so on the arguments you’re going for later in the round. To clarify - if the rebuttal does not have to answer all terminal defense, the summary obviously must, or I will consider it dropped.

2. No new weighing in second final focus. It’s unfair and gives your opponents no chance to respond. Also, this is not your chance just to extend through ink because no one will be able to call you out on it.

Evidence:

1. Every card you read within a debate should be cited and available almost immediately (30 seconds is reasonable time) within context for your opponent to read. I will drop your speaks if you are unable to find or provide your evidence to your opponents or me.

2. Any evidence misrepresentations will factor into my decision. If you are blatantly lying about your cards, I will most likely drop you and your speaks. I am very very okay with cards that are paraphrased as long as they are not misused (feel free to have this argument with me)

3. I like logical responses just as much as I like carded responses. But just like a carded response, logic should make sense and be warranted. The card does half the work, do the other half and apply it in round.

Otherwise, if you have any questions, please ask me or email me at noorabdallah101@gmail.com ! Debating is supposed to be an educational, motivational, and fun experience so make the most of it! I will always disclose and give feedback if the tournament allows me.

Good Luck :)

I debate Public Forum so i understand the rules of debate just fine. I will judge in a mix of lay and tech. This means I'll focus on the arguments but nothing that goes too far in terms of violating PF rules. I won't do any analyses for you: make it obvious for. Any argument I vote on will the ones most well developed and frontlined throughout the round.

Please speak clearly, concisely, and slow enough that I can understand. Supporting your claims with factual evidence is a must. Be prepared on the topic, it is apparent when you are not. Have passion which will sway my vote. Attack the other competitor's claims with reason and evidence. Tell me what arguments you have refuted and why you win the argument. Christina.Cazzola@cobbk12.org

• Feel free to time yourselves and your opponents but my time is the official time. (If you are timing your opponents, make sure your timer does not make a noise while they are speaking)

• No off-time roadmaps please, either include your roadmap in your speech or formulate your speech in a way where your intentions are clear.

• I don't flow cross, if there is a concession made or something important brought up during cross, bring it up in a speech

• Summaries should be composed of voters, at that point I need to see weighing, what the round has come down to, and why you won at each point.

• Make it a point to extend your arguments. If your opponents fail to attack a point, but you fail to talk about it after the first speech until the final focus, no one wins that point.

• Arguments introduced in summary/final focus will not be considered.

• I can handle speed but spreading is not okay, if I can not understand you, I can not flow your arguments.

• No need to be rude. Your speaker points will be docked significantly.

Hi! My name is Marybeth and I debated in high school and coached/independently drilled with some students in college!

Contact info: mehlbec@emory.edu

Read this, if anything:

Please just have as comfortable of a round as you want, let's all treat each other with respect, empathy, and camaraderie.

Stolen from Malcolm Davis's paradigm: 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.

Main Preferences

1. I will vote for an argument (hopefully under a framework [one that is warranted and fairly won] ) if it is warranted, impacted, and weighed against the other args in the around under a default of comparative worlds unless instructed otherwise. Blippy and unwarranted offense will likely produce an audible sigh from me. Exceptions to this rule: the arg is offensive/exclusionary, not in both summary/FF, card is misconstrued/grossly paraphrased.

2. MY HEARING IS NOT THE BEST. please be VERY CLEAR with signposting, extending author names etc.

3. Weighing has to be explicitly comparative and contextualized to your opponent's offense.

4. No off time roadmaps unless you are reading an off.

5. The extension of defense into first summary is not required. It is required if the defense has been frontlined.

Random things due to the cultural decline of public forum:

1. read cards in front of me please, I don't care to hear paraphrased evidence but I will evaluate it when push comes to shove

2.i think disclosure theory in PF is pretty unconvincing/bad strat, although it is a good norm.

3. i would much rather you read theory in paragraph form rather than shell if that's what you're comfortable with and wont look down upon such when I'm evaluating it.

Good luck and have fun!

I've been the Speech & Debate Coach at Starr's Mill H.S since 2018. My team only competes in Public Forum and Speech events, so that is where I have the most experience coaching and subsequently judging.

PF:

1. Make good, consistent arguments with clearly stated and explained evidence and you won't have a problem winning the round.
2. For high speaker points, I look for good sportsmanship, confidence, politeness, clear rhetoric, consistent signposting, and timeliness.
3. Do not spread. Do not ask if I or your competitors want your case as a workaround.
4. Signpost as much as possible (i.e. please reference the argument you are responding to as you go down the flow).
5. I am not a judge for off-the-wall stuff (topicality, kritiks, etc.).
6. Actually summarize in your summaries! No new arguments in final focus. Create the narrative and convince me to vote for you.
7. I do not flow cross, but I have decided rounds on crucial admissions and will take notes "on the side" as need be.

LD:

1. I am a lay judge. I only judge PF or Speech so if I get placed in a LD round, it's usually a one-off.
2. Do not spread. Do not ask if I or your competitors want your case as a workaround.
3. I'm not receptive to most counterplans and prefer standard LD cases.
4. Value/Value Criterion will absolutely weigh in my decision.

I have been coaching and judging Public Forum debate for three years now. My preferences are as follows:

Timing:

I'm a stickler for time. I do not allow off-time road maps. Everything you say needs to be in your time. You need to ensure that you are timing yourself, your team mates, and your opponents. If any member goes beyond time (except for closing statements -- "and for this reason, you must ballot aff" and etc.) I consider this a failing in timing for all members, and can affect speaker points. For prep time, tell me what you've used after you've used it. Do not tell me what you intend to use. For a cross fire, if you ask a question at the end of the time, you will not receive an answer.

Argumentation:

I do flow each contention for each round. Each contention should be extended through the summary speech. Failure to extend an argument will be considered conceded to your opponent. If your opponent notices your failure to extend a contention, and also mentions it, that can sink your debate for me. The exception to this is your final focus. Your final focus needs to be exactly as it is titled -- focused. You need to consider where your single strongest contention is and explain why you win on that basis. In the process, be sure to bring back your evidence and reasoning to support your impacts for that contention. Essentially, give me your voters only.

Evidence:

I'm not a stickler for evidence, as some judges are. When prompted for evidence or a source, you should be able to provide it quickly. I hate when a debate is mired with searching through cards to find particular quotations or links. If you cannot quickly find a source, I will assume it does not exist. You should not ask for evidence unless: 1. You know your opponent is making unsubstantiated claims, 2. Your opponent has evidence directly contrasting your own evidence and claim, or 3. You believe your opponent is misrepresenting or falsifying evidence. In any of these cases, as you ask for the evidence, be clear to provide your reasoning. If you believe the evidence is false or misrepresented, I will look at it as well. Otherwise, I never ask for evidence.

Crossfires:

I don't generally note or flow crossfires unless an important development or concession is made. Respect during a crossfire is paramount. I understand and support passionate exchanges, but not at the expense of civility and respect for your opponents.

Speaking:

I can understand and follow spreading, but I generally discourage it. I think your ability to vary your tone, adding vocal emphasis to your important points, and to sound interested and passionate in your topic, are far more important than loading your speech with the most evidence possible. I award points on this basis. I have no preferences for sitting or standing at any point in a debate, and I don't care at whom you look during speeches or crossfires.

Determining Winners:

As stated, I judge each contention independently. I will award a "point" to the side who best argues each contention for each case. At the end of the round, the win will go to the side with the most points (that is, the better arguments for the greatest number of individual contentions). I don't generally weigh frameworks unless both teams provide and debate frameworks, or there is a tie in points and the framework affects the weight/scope of the arguments.

Hey, I did PF for four years back in high school. I'm now a sophomore at Georgia Tech studying Computer Science you can ask about that if you want. I am perfectly fine with speed. Don't give off-time road maps, they just aren't helpful in my opinion. I will call for evidence if certain cards are heavily debated in round. I try to disclose if I can do it in a timely manner, but if the round is super messy I might not disclose. If you have any questions, please ask. Be respectful and have fun.

he / him

My email for the chain is hbharper8@gmail.com but also feel free to reach out with questions about your round / my RFD

tldr: I am okay with anything you run as long as you are respectful.

Fun Facts:

I did PF from 2015-19

I do not like to base my ballot only on disclosure theory or topicality, so you shouldn't make those your only voters.

I do not like when teams try changing the structure (speech times) of the round with theory.

I don't expect you to necessarily run a counter-interp against theory if you don't know how to do that. Just engage with the substance of their theory argument like any other argument.

I will probably tell your first speaker that they went for too much in summary.

I think in summary defense is sticky unless it was frontlined.

The second rebuttal should address the first rebuttal but I will accept responses in second sum as well - just no new turns.

No offensive off-case arguments in the second rebuttal.

Speaker points:

I appreciate funny taglines and puns when they are in good taste.

Yelling / being mean in cross will hurt your speaks.

History: I did PF debate during highschool, debated in the GA circuit and went to many National Circuit tournaments. I have been judging PF for a while now. I have been off the circuit for a little while though, and may not be knowledgeable about recent developments within the last year in regards to PF.

How I evaluate the round: I expect you to extend your arguments throughout the whole round. This means offense from the rebuttal needs to be extended through the Summary and Final Focus for it to be weighed in the round. I also do not like it when teams bring up something from rebuttal in the final focus without extending it through summary (called extending through ink), doing this will likely result in the argument being dropped off my flow.

Argumentation: I expect all arguments to be properly warranted and impacted with supportive evidence to go with it. However, don't just speak off cards.

If you want the argument to be important, then make sure I know that it is important.

I am a flay judge. I usually vote off of logical arguments with solid evidence and weighing.

I am a linguist by training so your language of debate matters to me. I like clear and comprehensible speeches, meaning you might have to slow down a bit (I'll give extra speaker points to those speakers)

I also care about being courteous and professional during your debate, meaning I would never vote for those who are too aggressive and rude.

I debated for 4 years in high school and I would consider myself technical.

I need understandable evidence shown and clearly told to me in almost all instances to be able to flow an argument to your side. Though I will take logical arguments if the concepts are well known and make sense to link into the debate.

I try to judge based off of evidence that is said in speeches, and not flow arguments that only show up in crossfire. Make sure if there is something important said in crossfire make sure it said in the following speech!

Being able to clearly understand what I'm voting for throughout the round is also important, it makes it easier for me to put on my flow what you are advocating for and why. So voters or however you feel comfortable presenting it to me helps me see the round a lot clearer.

I would also prefer if during the speeches for debaters to not spread their speeches, because i'm not the greatest getting everything that you will say, and because of that it may confuse me how your case is structured.

Preferences for crossfire, I would like debaters to stand if they can and face me while asking questions so that the crossfire doesn't get as "heated" or personal.

I will be judging mostly based on evidence to back your arguments up and will understand and try to weigh logical arguments against something your opponent says, if possible. Though usually you will need evidence of this logic working before or something along those lines.

I also will be judging non-biased as possible, and when I weigh I usually weigh human lives over everything else. Because disregard of a lot of human lives is almost never worth a "little bit" of money.

I need understandable evidence shown and clearly told to me in almost all instances to be able to flow an argument to your side.

Policy Debater for Riverwood 2016-2020

Put me on the email chain: blakejones089@gmail.com

Non-specific stuff

I don't really like speed, but you can go fast if you feel that it's necessary for you to debate.

Run whatever you want as long as it's not ableist, racist, sexist, etc.

If you have a nontraditional way of evaluating the round you'd like to do, such as a churro challenge or through a game of some sort, feel free to do so.

Extra speaks if you make fun of Riverwood debaters, specifically Ricardo Ruiz.

Policy

- I like K args but I'm not familiar with too many of them. The ones I understand most are critical disability theory and settler colonialism. As long as you explain your args then I should be alright though.

- I'm not a fan of speed, but go fast if you really want to.

- Literally run whatever you want as long as you explain it.

PF

- Only done policy debate

- I don't have topic knowledge.

- I think that you can make seemingly ridiculous things work in front of me as long as I have an explained impact and a warranted internal link chain.

- If you're gonna run K's, you can do it in front of me if you want. I run them in policy though, so I have a decent threshold for what you need to win. If you can win link uniqueness and the impact debate I'll probably be comfortable voting for you.

- I think disclosure and email chains are good ideas, so an extra speaker point for taking part in each.

- Off time roadmaps are fine, but I'm not totally sure why they're necessary in PF

- I'll keep a timer running but time yourselves please.

- Open cross is ok

- If you have other questions, email me.

I was a 4-year debater at Carrollton High School and I have only judged and competed in Public Forum.

my email is javierlm030503@gmail.com if you have any questions after the round.

Expectations

1) tech > truth

2) Do not bring up any new arguments from the second summary onwards

3) No racist or sexist remarks

4) I am not your person for theory at all

If you have any questions let me know

My name is Scout Malloy. I am more a lay judge than I am a tech judge, but I will flow the entire round, besides cross. As far as speed goes, spreading is fine, I am pretty good with speed, and do not mind it. Time management is KEY. I will drop you, if you get up to speak for 30 seconds and then sit back down. Be prepared walking into the round, and do not speak quietly. Speak with volume so I can hear you, otherwise you will be dropped. Ill go over paradigms prior to the round in person.

Experience/Background: I coached at Columbus HS from 2013-2021, primarily Public Forum, and now coach at Carrollton HS (2021-present). I did not debate in high school or college, but I have been coaching and judging PF, a little LD, and IEs since 2013, both locally (Georgia) and on the national circuit, including TOC and NSDA Nationals. I spent several years (2017-2022) as a senior staff member with Summit Debate and previously led labs at Emory (2016-2019).

Judging Preferences:

If you have specific questions about me as a judge that are not answered below (or need clarification), please feel free to ask them. Some general guidelines and answers to frequently asked questions are below:

1. Speed: I can flow a reasonably fast speed when I'm at the top of my game, but I am human. If it's late in the day/tournament, I am likely tired, and my capacity for speed drops accordingly. I will not be offended if you ask me about this before the round. For online rounds, I prefer that you speak at a more moderate speed. I will tell you "clear" if I need you to slow down. If I am flowing on paper, you should err on the slower side of speed than if I am flowing on my laptop.

2. Signposting and Roadmaps: Signposting is good. Please do it. It makes my job easier. Off-time roadmaps aren't really needed if you're just going "their case, our case", but do give a roadmap if there's a more complex structure to your speech.

3. Consistency of Arguments/Making Decisions: Anything you expect me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Defense is not "sticky" -- meaning you cannot extend it from rebuttal to final focus. Please weigh. I love voters in summary, but I am fine if you do a line-by-line summary.

4. Prep (in-round and pre-round): Please pre-flow before you enter the round. Monitor your own prep time. If you and your opponents want to time each other to keep yourselves honest, go for it. Do not steal prep time - if you have called for a card and your opponents are looking for it, you should not be writing/prepping unless you are also running your prep time. (If a tournament has specific rules that state otherwise, I will defer to tournament policy.) On that note, have your evidence ready. It should not take you longer than 20-30 seconds to pull up a piece of evidence when asked. If you delay the round by taking forever to find a card, your speaker points will probably reflect it.

5. Overviews in second rebuttal: In general, I think a short observation or weighing mechanism is probably more okay than a full-fledged contention that you're trying to sneak in as an "overview". Tread lightly.

6. Frontlines: Second speaking team should answer turns and frontline in rebuttal. I don't need a 2-2 split, but I do think you need to address the speech that preceded yours.

7. Theory, Kritiks, and Progressive Arguments: I prefer not judging theory debates. Strongly prefer not judging theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument. If you are using theory/Ks/etc. in a way intended to overwhelm/intimidate an opponent who has no idea what's going on, I am not going to respond well to that.

8. Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If it comes up in cross and you expect it to serve a role in my decision-making process, I expect you to bring it up in a later speech.

9. Speaker points: I basically never give 30s, so you should not expect them from me. My range is usually from 28-29.7.

I debated at Marist. I did two years of policy and two years of public forum.

General Stuff

Weigh and warrant arguments.

Tech > Truth

Add me to the email chain: aeovadje@gmail.com

Evidence

If you don't cut cards, strike me. I won't drop you if you paraphrase, but you must have cards available if called for and it will hurt your speaker points. If your evidence is terribly misconstrued, I won't evaluate it and will tank your speaks.

2nd Half

2nd rebuttal must frontline defense and turns

Summary and FF must extend all parts of an argument if you want me to vote off of it

Speed

I can't really handle speed anymore (I'm rusty sorry lol), but you can speak a bit fast.

Theory/Kritiks

I'll only vote for paraphrasing bad, disclosure good, or if your opponent does something atrocious.

I don't like judging K's tbh.

Other

Have fun! Debate is really competitive and intense at times, but you will make rounds better for you, your opponents, and judges if you actually seem to be enjoying yourself.

If you have any questions you can ask me in round or just email me.

I debated as a 2N for 4 years at Northview High School. I don't have a preference for any type of argument, so you can read whatever you feel like reading as long as its ethical.

Also, I don't know much about the topic this year, so just explain your arguments thoroughly to me, and we should be golden.

Add me to email chains: avpat02@gmail.com

Have fun debating!

Riverwood Class of 2020 Go Raiders

GSU Class of ???

Double 2 (2A and 2N)

Email: lucas.debate@gmail.com PLEASE PUT ME ON THE CHAIN

TOP LEVEL

-YOU DO YOU! By all means, run arguments you're comfortable with. I find that debaters generally do better when they're running arguments they're comfortable with and can explain.

-I've been out of debate a while! My spreading ears have gone soft! Please slow down a little bit in front of me, I sometimes have trouble processing audio. See a few dashes below.

-I lean tech > truth, but I find tech is hard to win without truth.

-A big thing for me is comparative impact work- make sure you keep your impacts alive into the last speech, make sure to do some work on why your impact matters, why it outweighs, why it assumes their impact, why it controls the escalation of their impacts etc...

-I'll vote on Framework and I'll vote for a K aff- as long as you can articulate your vision of debate better than the other team, I'll vote on it. I lean slightly neg, but if you can win your model of debate I'll easily vote aff

-I can comprehend spreading- while I don't do it myself. However, big clarity > speed for me- I can sometimes have issues with my hearing depending on the echo/ acoustics of the room, so I might ask you to slow down/ be clearer. Don't worry, I won't murder your speaks unless it's like a repeated thing, because I understand that it's not a conscious thing, it's just a force of habit. I'll make sure to let you know, though.

-I'll generally give good speaks- I rarely give below a 27.5. I give extra good speaks if you:

--Know what you're talking about

-Don't be racist/ ableist/ sexist etc... I will tank your speaks

-Have fun. I think the best rounds are ones where both teams are enjoying the round and really having a fantastic time.

-Impact turns are great. Don't impact turn racism/sexism/ableism/ anti-queer violence etc... Everywhere else I love them.

-Most importantly, I like to reward innovative strategies. I think case debate is often overlooked because it isn't as shiny of a tool as a DA, but a presumption ballot is still a ballot. I'm not as averse to voting on it as many other judges, if you can win the case debate (and don't have any funkiness with the offcase flows, no conceded turns or theory etc) then I'm more liable to give you a W.

-DO WHAT YOU DO BEST

THE LONG OF IT

-Cases: I like a well-developed aff that has strong advantages. If it's got good ev and solid internal links to impacts, that will make me happy. If you've got a plan text, please try to be topical. If you don't, then have a reason for not being T (my guess is the aff will usually have this, but please explicate.)

-DAs: I enjoy a good DA. I think that they can be vulnerable to thumpers (just because of the complexity of the world, but I wrote this a long time ago) but a nice DA will make me nod my head slightly in approval

-CPs: Love a good CP. If you can come up with a good, innovative CP with a nice net benefit I will be extremely happy. It's really an art form. Troll CPs are funny, but good troll CPs that actually have a net benefit that beats the perm are much more impressive. Please make sure it doesn't link to the DA.

-Ks: I mostly run Ks. I'm very familiar with most major K lit branches, particularly Deleuze, Lacan, and Settler Colonialism. I know Cap, Security, Orientalism, Object-Oriented Ontology, and pretty much everything else that's well known. Afro-pessimism is my weak point, but I still know enough to give feedback.

-T: A good caselist and explanation of aff ground will go a long way. Too often I feel like T can be over limiting to the extent where I struggle to see why it's a good model for affirmative and negative teams on the topic. I'll vote on T.

-Theory: I like it when you can point out specific abuse. Again, I'll vote on the short aspec shell, but I might hate it (I won't nuke speaks for it)

-Disclosure: I think most of the time disclosure is definitely good. (on that note, if you're having trouble with using the wiki/ disclosing I'm happy to help- I know it can sometimes be confusing) The big exception for me is that i don't want to force people to disclose arguments that endangers them- IE, if you're running an aff about your identity and you don't want to be outed by a google search, that's completely understandable and I don't want to compel you to put yourself in danger.

-CX is binding. I pay attention to it. A good CX can be extremely effective. Tag team CX is fine by me.

PF SPECIFIC

-I'm still a techy judge. I like efficiency.

-Interesting cases that it is clear you know what you are doing.

-I know about critical arguments, but I know that not being able to have an alt is gonna constrain it. You have to do link differentiation and make arguments about how you either don't link to the status quo OR that you can still win impact uniqueness. Essentially, you're gonna have to win link and impact uniqueness if you're gonna do a K.
-I'm cool with extinction impacts. Run it if you want.

-Email chains are encouraged. +1 speaks for participating in email chain (even if you're going second you can still get this point) I will also not take prep for sending out docs. If you abuse this then you will

-Disclosure is also a +1. It's a good norm.

-I'm down with roadmaps. I think they're useful for flowing and help me get my stuff in order. I don't really get why some judges dislike them.

-If you want to spread, I just ask that you make sure the other team is able to comprehend/ ok with spreading. I think that spreading can be good as long as it's accessible to everyone. I'll be able to comprehend it (just start a little slower than full speed and speed up- it helps for comprehension)

That just about does it. Email me if you have any questions.

* Quality of argumentation

* I don't like people getting angry, personal, or condescending during debate

Ayaan Sharma

I am a Senior at Columbus High School. I have debated in local and state-level tournaments in Public Forum.

Preferences

1. Overall Speaking

I am fine with speed just make sure you are speaking clearly. If I don't understand it I will not be able to flow it so make sure you speak clearly and at a decent speed.

2. Framework/Overview

Make sure you have a framework to weigh your impacts on or provide an adequate overview during your rebuttal. It is difficult for me to weigh your impacts if you don't provide a framework.

3. Summary and Final Focus

Make sure you don't bring up new stuff in the Final Focus (I will not flow it). In summary, make sure to tell why your argument is still valid after considering opponent's rebuttal (Frontline). Also, both during summary and Final Focus make sure to tell why your impact/argument is more valid than your opponents (Weighing).

4. Crossfire

I don't care if you stand or sit for crossfires but make sure if you want me to extend something from the crossfire that you bring it up in your speech. Like many other judges, I do not flow crossfires

Overall, just be respectful to each other and have fun.

Good Luck!!!!

Hey, I'm Alec. I debated Public Forum for Carrollton High School and now I attend UGA

Email: alecsiek1@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain)

I never really know how to structure my preferences, so here's a basic rundown of what I like to see:

1) Tech > Truth. Everything you want me to vote on needs to be really well warranted in every speech though.

2) Spend time engaging in arguments constructively. Good logic beats bad evidence every time.

3)Please collapse as the round progresses.I am a huge believer that one or two really well warranted arguments are better than a bunch of unwarranted ones.

4) Weigh consistently, direct comparison of links will take you far. As a judge, I want to intervene as little as possible. The earlier you start weighing, the better.

5)Meta-weighing is important! If you are using different weighing mechanisms than your opponents, you should be weighing those too.

6) I can handle speed, just make sure you're not sacrificing clarity.

7) I have really low threshold for theory, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for it. If you are keeping an abusive practice in check, go for it. However, if you are running theory against a team that has no threshold for it, that can be equally abusive in my eyes.

Other than that, you do you. There is not one right style of debate, and I don't want to make you fit into one.

I hope this goes without saying, but please be respectful to your opponents. Debate is such a cool educational tool, and I hate it when people are discouraged from using it. If you are being blatantly disrespectful, I'll drop you.

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

Current Student at the University of Georgia

Please add maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal, defense is not sticky

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go. My only caveat if you go fast is to slow a bit down on taglines and still signpost well

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

I will give my paradigm in round.

First off congratulations to all competitors for making it this far, hats off. I used to do Speech and Debate as well and I own the title for POI Georgia State Champion for the 2019 season. I enjoy thrill filled speeches, showcase of compassion, and I enjoy watching the performer getting lost in their scenes. For the sake of PF, i rather debaters not spread, more of a traditional judge in that realm.

"Tout ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément." ~Boileau

I vote on the clarity of the arguments and on the clarity of their articulation, so it is wise to avoid spreading.

I am looking for proof of your argument - make sure you cite cards throughout, and be clear about what point you are drawing from the evidence you're quoting.

Language matters! Don't assume that speaking faster / louder = making a stronger point. If the words you're using are not clear, or if your syntax / grammar is obscuring what you're trying to say, then it doesn't really matter how loudly you shout it or how fast you say it. There are plenty of examples of overemphasis in the world; be different. You should aim to stun your opponent & judge with an argument (or speech) that is worded with precision, starting from a solid framework, methodically laid out with a logical progression, and reinforced throughout with sound and airtight research / data that you have thoroughly cited.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, be respectful of your opponent(s). You can and will lose your argument if you resort to incivility. Again, there are plenty of examples of rudeness in the world; be different. And please, keep your own time.

Ph.D., Emory. I've judged on the regional and national circuit, mainly LD and PF, although I've also judged speech a bit and quite enjoyed it. ;)

Email: lupadhyay@chapin.edu

s/o Anthony Ovadje for the paradigm template :)

I did PF for four years at Marist School.

General Stuff

Weigh and warrant arguments.

Tech > Truth

Add me to the email chain: vance.sydneym@gmail.com

Evidence

If you don't cut cards, strike me. I won't drop you if you paraphrase, but you must have cards available if called for and it will hurt your speaker points. I usually won't call for cards myself, but if your evidence is terribly misconstrued, I won't evaluate it and will tank your speaks.

2nd Half

2nd rebuttal must frontline defense and turns

Summary and FF must extend all parts of an argument if you want me to vote off of it

Speed

I'm fine with speed, but clarity is always more important

Theory/Kritiks

I have basically no experience with K lit, but I'm open to hearing K/soft left arguments. A lot more warranting and explanation needs to be done if you are running this argument in front of me.

I'll usually vote for paraphrasing and disclosure theory unless it's handled atrociously. If your opponents do something terrible in round, I'll also evaluate some sort of shell explaining why its unfair.

Other

Have fun! Debate is really competitive and intense at times, but you will make rounds better for you, your opponents, and judges if you actually seem to be enjoying yourself.

If you have any questions you can ask me in round or just email me.

I debated for Marist.
General Stuff:
Tech > truth to an extent
Please explain your arguments and have warrants that back them up.
Evidence: Honestly everyone is pretty shady in PF with evidence and it gets pretty annoying. You should have all of your evidence cut and preferably not paraphrased. I will almost always prefer an argument with evidence to an analytical argument.
Rebuttal/Second half: Second rebuttal needs to frontline at least turns. Summary and FF need to mirror each other. Defense is needed in first rebuttal. Besides that do whatever you want

Cross: Please be civil during cross. Interrupting your opponent is not an argument and you will get low speaks if you are unnecessarily rude.
Speed: I’m a pretty fast debater for the most part so just do whatever you want.
Theory: Theory is a good way to check back for abusive practices in the community like paraphrasing but do not just run theory to run it and get an easy W. That’s abusive and defeats the point

My Clout:I am a PF debater and currently captain of Houston County Debate Team. I have debating varsity for over 3 years, and currently my partner and I are the state champs in Varsity PF so ya know, I really like debate.

I mainly judge PF debate so I love dynamic speakers and good presentation. I can do like a little spreading, but if you're spreading don't be surprised when I wasn't able to understand/flow what you read. Also I really like when a team has good synergy, it is so annoying when debaters act like they hate their partner. I love humor, idk like a pun or something, ya know a lil chuckle.

I don't flow cross, so it does not have a influence on my ballet unless it is brought up in another speech (and yes it has to be extended). I DO NOT tolerate rudeness or being obnoxious during any speech, and do expect you to be aware of the dynamic of you and your opp. Like why do you need to yell, I'm right here. You will automatically lose the offense if you extend through ink, misread cards, or gaslight in any way.

I believe in signposting as much as possible, especially front lining in second speeches such as second rebuttal and summary, like I need to know what is going on if you just start in the middle of your flow and go with it. I prefer when the summary is a clean split between offense and defense, but really it's not a huge deal as long as your addressing arguments. Theory argument is fine, just please warrant it and place weight on it. Most importantly I should be able to flow clear impacts and voters from your F.F. PLEASE for a clearer debate condense the round in summary and F.F nobody has time for you to attack everything in the round PLEASE.

I usually disclose, please do not argue or try to alter the vote in any way. Thank you! oh and ask questions if you need to I don't mind :)

My Clout: I am currently the 2020 Varsity Public Forum State Champion, captain of the Houston County High School Debate Team, and I have been debating VPF for over 3 years.

Truth>Tech

I'm here for argumentation, as such, having great presentation and being the team commanding the round will definitely earn you higher speaks. As a PF debater, I definitely will be looking at the synergy of your team, I absolutely hate teams who seem like they don't like each other or have never debated together.

Truth>Tech

I don't flow cross, but I definitely pay attention, however, if you want it on the ballot it MUST be extended!! I don't tolerate rudeness or arrogance but I definitely enjoy a good pun, especially if it makes me cackle. I require frontlining in all second speeches, such as rebuttal and summary, and please, please, PLEASE signpost.DO NOT extend through ink.

MOST IMPORTANTLY I am not here for you, so don't make me do more work- HAVE IMPACTS. Please make sure summary and F.F mirror each other. For a clearer debate, please condense the debate in summary and F.F..

Thank you, and may the odds be ever in your favor :)

Email Chains: iyang061002 AT google DOT com

Do whatever you want, I’ve gone for almost everything in my time.

I try to have no argumentative bias (I feel like I do a pretty good job).

Spreading is probably good but go ahead and be trad if you want, no preference

Non-negotiables:

- Have fun

- Try your best