I am a parent judge and have not judged very many rounds. Please speak slowly and clearly if you want me to understand your arguments. I do not flow speeches or crossfires extensively but I will pay attention to everything that is said during the round.

Be nice to your fellow debaters.

I will not tolerate hate speech or other inflammatory rhetoric.

I am a new judge, so keep that in mind.

Speed: If you move too quickly, I will likely have trouble flowing your points.

Jargon: I am not familiar with most debate jargon, so try to use it sparingly.

Signposting and road maps: I greatly appreciate anything you do to make it easier for me to understand your points and to make my life easier while I'm flowing.

Cross: I will not flow the cross, but I will be paying attention.

Final focus: Write my ballot for me by giving me clear voting issues.

Speaker points: Don't be rude, aggressive, or insulting. Speak as clearly as possible. Humor is always appreciated.

current freshman at Carnegie Mellon University

did PF for 3 years, LD for 1 year

tech>> truth

extend your arguments (offense needs to be in summary for me to vote on it)

if you any questions- please ask me before round!

please be nice and respectful to everyone and have fun :)

General Info: Treat me like I'm a lay judge. Pretend I haven't debated public forum for 3 years, and that right now, I'm listening to Drake or playing Angry Birds. That being said:

Please don't be toxic or insult your opponents (there's a fine line between mean and dominant).

Please Weigh. I will dock speaks if you say something along the lines of "let's move on to weighing" and don't actually weigh. It's annoying. Remember--weighing is comparing the two impacts.

Have your cards ready. If I feel like you're taking too long to find a card or the card is cut blatantly incorrectly, I will drop the card from the round. Let me repeat myself. I will drop your card. Do not waste my time or your opponent's time.

Signpost. If I don't know where you are, I won't be able to flow your argument comprehensively. That's on you. It's worth the extra five seconds to say "Now, five responses on their second contention."

Speed: As far as speed, I'm pretty much fine with anything under 1000 wpm. I prefer slower and more logical responses that are easy to follow, but I will not dock points for going too fast.

Speaks: I love jokes, analogies, and puns, so those may/may not bump up your speaks (make sure to focus on the round first and foremost, however). Or, do the billy bounce for at least 30 seconds during a speech. I've tried. It's hard. If you do push-ups during your speech, I will give you plus one speaker point for every push-up (90 degrees, tricep pushups).

I hope you have a fun/educational/worthwhile round!

P.S. I am open to theory. Not some dumb [censored] like "shoe theory". What the heck even is that? If you run theory, make it legit.

3 years of Public Forum with 1 TOC bid. I graduated in 2017 and did not continue to debate in college, so I might be a bit out of my element.

Speed:

I want to be able to hear and write down your arguments, so please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. I will be flowing, so if I can't hear or understand you, I won't be able to take note of it.

Definitions/frameworks:

Keep definitions and frameworks short and to the point. I expect teams to argue a bit over definitions, but will be looking more at your contentions and how they support your definitions/framework.

Argumentation:

I'm looking for good clash or arguments and weighing from both sides. Please explain why your argument is more important than your opponents in a logical and quantifiable way. I really want clear claim, warrants, and impacts. The more I understand your argument, the more likely I will be persuaded by it. Rebuttals are my favorite, but be respectful to each other. I will take note of snarky comments and excessive cutting off.

Evidence:

Have all of your evidence ready ad accessible. No one wants to wait around while you look for your card. If the opponents ask for a card, I will definitely want to look at it as well.

Bonus Points:

I love subtle jokes and puns in speeches and will be definitely noted in speaker points!

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round!

I have experience in judging Lincoln Douglas debates for over 3 years.

It is vital to talk at a fast pace to allow you time to say what you want but slow enough to be easily understood.

I look for arguments which are both logically sound and supported by proper evidence.

I will pick a winner based on who best convinces me that his/her position is the correct one.

Have fun debating!

(he/him)

I've debated public forums for a few years, as both a first and a second speaker.

I'm generally tech>truth and tabula rasa, but you'll get dropped if you try to convince me that racism is good or something of that absurdity.

Spreading:

Public Forum is not for spreading. I don't mind speed, but remember quality of arguments > quantity of arguments. If I stop typing or writing in the middle of your speech, it means that you're going too fast for me to flow and those arguments are going to be lost forever. Take it as a sign to slow down.

I'm more lenient about speed in LD or policy as long as I have a copy of your case to follow.

Framework/Impact Weighing:

Make sure you set a framework so I know what to vote on (if you don't have a framework but your opponents do, guess whose framework I'll use). Basically, tell me why I should vote for you over the opponent. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'. Impacts should be terminalized, and voters should be explicitly outlined in the back half.

Evidence:

Evidence should be read according to NSDA rules (last name, date). Be prepared for me or your opponents to call for a piece of evidence (either have the card cut or the link ready). I don't usually call for cards unless it's pivotal in my decision or if it's a pretty serious clash of cards. ALSO, simply reading me a link without warranting is not going to be enough to get any offense. Warrant the card, tell me why it matters, and explain its relevance to the resolution.

Theory:

I know very basic theory, so if you choose to run it, make sure to explain clearly what you are arguing. Also make sure your opponents know enough to respond to theory. If you run theory against a team who has no idea what theory is, I'll drop the arg.

Speaker Points:

Speaks start at 27.5 and move up or down from there based on how you act during round, regardless of whether you win or lose. Articulate your points loudly and clearly. Be respectful to your opponents, not rude. Please, please, please signpost your second half speeches.

CrossX:

I do not judge off crossX, but I do listen. Please remember that cross is for questions about the other team's speeches. Addressing me (the judge) in the middle of crossX or trying to give a speech during crossX is the fastest and easiest way to lose speaks.

Counterplans:

I don't mind counterplans in LD or policy as long as the aff reads a plan beforehand. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense for you to provide a counterplan to a nonexistent plan. Counterplans in PF are a no-no move and will not be flowed.

PF Specific:

New arguments or evidence brought up in second summary or final focus will not be evaluated. Defense should be extended through second summary, and anything that I don't flow from summary won't be flowed into final focus.

Other Stuff:

If there's anything you are unsure about (either on judging preference or anything), I'd be happy to clarify before round starts.

Also look at Yvo Sandjideh's paradigm here. She's kinda cool and it has a lot of content and standards that I agree with.

I appreciate a logical argument that weighs both sides. I do research the topics a little, so please do not misconstrue evidence. You should be able to reasonably explain your argument, stating cards is not enough. Please do not get too aggressive, I will dock points if the debate is not respectful.

Public Forum debater for four years, judge for three. Feel free to ask specific questions at the beginning of the round but here is generally what I will be looking for:

Sign Post (and Road Maps): Outlining and numbering in each speech not only adds organization to your arguments but ensures that I flow where intended.

Clarity and Presentation: Your arguments are only as good as the way you present them. Apply this concept to speed; speak at a pace so that your points are not only heard but also processed. Present arguments in both a logical and supported manner (with qualitative and quantitative evidence). Rely on BOTH evidence and logic throughout the round, not only the evidence, because I am much more likely to buy into evidence that is BOTH credible and that you can explain (since that shows you have a thorough understanding of what you are advocating for). Succinct explanation, including clear claims, warrants, and impacts will work in your favor. Impacts are especially crucial in explaining to me why what you are saying matters and why your impacts should be prioritized. Remember that link chains should not be implied but explicit.

Respect: Always keep in mind that the round should be clean, civil, and based in evidence. Anything you say will ultimately be a reflection of your character so stay level-headed and grounded in fact. If you question evidence, talk about its credibility, reliability, citations and card-cutting, etc. rather than using subjective words such as bad, atrocious, terrible, etc.

Weighing: Please refrain from squeezing this in at the very last minute! It does not matter if an argument goes uncontested if its impact, and all others, are not weighed against the other side and explained in terms of magnitude, morality, time frame, scope, probability, etc. Use world comparison to explain why it should be a clean ballot for your team. This will help relay a cohesive story to me on why to vote PRO/CON.

Above all, be confident and have fun with the round!

Email: rayelucamyers@yahoo.com

Researching the topic and delivering the points in a succinct manner is important for me. Equally important is the listening skill.

3 Years of Public Forum, 1 Year of Policy. I graduated in HS in 2017, with 2 TOC bids in PF. Bit rusty with where debate has gone since then.

Not very fond of progressive debate. I prefer traditional argumentation and clashing. I will absolutely not vote on Ks, Theory, or any other non-substance argument in Public Forum. If there is a real violation in the round - not just to get a quick ballot - make it clear in paragraph form and I will evaluate it.

PF:

Speed: Clarity over speed. Personally believe that Public Forum should be debated as the title intends. Signposting is a must. Tag your evidence/blocks clearly - it makes the flow that much cleaner. Do not spread - especially against a team that is clearly not equipped for it. I will tank your speaks. 

General Round Structure:

• Please consolidate the debate as early as possible, ideally in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary. Highlight the most important arguments, and then focus on those arguments and explain them further towards the end. 
• If you are going to frontline, that is fine - just give me heads up before the speech
• I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal
• Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot

Weighing:

Please actually make comparisons and do the impact analysis during your speech. Attaching buzz words like "magnitude" or "scope" aren't enough. Weighing is the easiest way to win my ballot. 

Evidence Stuff:

I try not to call evidence unless is it 1) absolutely necessary and 2) the opposing team tells me to call for it. I'm pretty expressive during the round - if I make a confused face, chances are that I didn't understand the evidence enough and will call for it then. IF you change the meaning of evidence or a specific card or misconstrue it in the middle of the round - I will also tank your speaks. 

Overall:

Just be nice to one another. Don't yell in CX. I won't flow it but do pay attention. Call back to something that occurred in Summary and I'll add it to the flow. 

If you have any other questions, just ask before the round!

Hello. I am a lay/parent judge, although I have a bit of experience judging. I will not write down arguments so if you want something to stick in my head, be sure to repeat it each speech. I will not tolerate any vulgar language or actions in-round. I would prefer it if you speak at a talking pace. I wish all teams luck in the round and if you have any questions, please feel free to let me know in-round. Send any evidence asked for in chat.

I am a parent judge and this is my second time judging PF. I have a few simple guidelines:

- Be courteous. No personal attacks or rudeness. Stay focused on the content of the topic, not veer into debate technicalities and theory.

- Use clear arguments, followed by evidence. Limit debate jargon 

- Impact over speed: few clear arguments win over cramming in a bunch so fast that I cannot understand you. Please send me a speech document if you have one. Email: srividyaprakash@hotmail.com. 

- Final focus - Summarize in a way that writes out the ballot.

I will judge the debate as if I have no prior knowledge of anything that is being said in the round. If an argument or point is not refuted/contested by the other team, I will accept it as true. 

If you want a circuit judge, you should probably strike me. I'm a very traditional LD judge.

Talking Speed:

- I do not like spreading; please keep speeches at a traditional pace.

- If you spread, I probably won't flow your arguments.

Arguments and Cards:

- I will call for evidence if I am asked to.

- All arguments should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact.

- All cards should be tagged.

Theory/T:

- I do not like theory debates.

- I will absolutely not vote on theory/T.

Plans:

- I generally do not like to weigh offense from plans, but I will if I have to...

- Try and keep the resolution as broad as possible.

Framework:

- I am not well-versed in philosophy so keep it simple for me.

- Tell me why you win framework, and how your arguments link into it.

- I try to be tabula rasa with framework, but I do generally vote util.

Hi I'm Gage, I did PF for 4 years in high school and I'm now a freshman in college.

I'll do my best to keep up with speed but I wouldn't venture anywhere near spreading. Please also make sure to signpost - if I don't know where you are it's not getting flowed.

I never ran Ks or theory so probably not a great idea to run it with me, though you can certainly try.

Sticky defense for first speaking team is good, frontlining in second rebuttal is good.

I really try my best to exclude any outside knowledge unless your argument is racist/bigoted/etc, so feel free to go with whatever crazy thing you thought up (just know that it will probably be more susceptible to probability weighing).

Good luck!

Experience:

Hello, my name is Diego and I am a rising junior in high school. I have been debating for two years now and have experience in PF, LD, and Extemparaneous Speaking. I have never judged before, and most of my experience is in LD, so make sure you make your arguments CLEAR. As long as you can do that and keep the debate space civil and orderly, you'll be fine.

Prefrences:

As for my judging prefrences, I would like to see some framework debate, but most importantly, I want to be able to follow the flow easily. So, in other words, stay organized and hold true to your original arguments. A winner will be determined based on how well arguments are made and adressed, and be careful when making claims without evidence to back them up. Some tips I would offer you are: 1)Definitely call out your opponents on baseless claims 2)be civil with crossfire and don't be mean to your opponents 3) keep a cool head and make what you are trying to say as clear as possible.

Austin '20 | UT '24

Email: rah.v.shah@gmail.com

I did PF for 4 years, and have competed in 10+ IEs throughout this time.

PF Paradigms

Overall:

- Debate is supposed to be an enjoyable experience for ALL, so keep it that way.

- I do not evaluate theory, kritiks, tricks, or anything of that sort. This is PF. Theory does not belong in PF. I'm definitely a traditional debater and have never spent the time or effort of evaluating them. If there is any abuse in the round, warrant it, and tell me why I should drop them.

- I will intervene as minimally as possible. Tell me what I need to flow, and I'll do it. ASSUME I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE TOPIC. If you tell me a response is bad or unresponsive, tell me why. Simply stating it won't do it with me.

- Tech>Truth.

- Speed is fine, spreading is not. Again, this is PUBLIC forum. You shouldn't be spreading, because honestly, you don't have to.

- Frontlines need to be addressed in the speech right after. This burden falls on both teams now that summaries are 3 minutes long. Any offense and defense you want to bring up, do it in the next speech. If you don't have time, hit what's important.

- Defense isn't necessarily sticky. I would suggest you extend your defense arguments no matter what.

- Defaulting NEG. If there is no offense in the round, I will default NEG.

Case:

- Don't really care. Just do what you usually do.

CX:

- No open crossfire. Ik it's fun, but it also gets annoying quickly.

- Cross is binding.

- Be nice. Cross is the best part of PF. Don't ruin it by being a jerk.

Rebuttal:

- Sign Post and Roadmaps. Please signpost, it'll be easier for me to flow your round. Also, a roadmap at the start of the speech will always help.

- You need to frontline.

Summary:

- The best way to get me to vote for you is to have a bomb summary.

- Extensions. Tell me what the author says and its implication in the round. Make sure to extend defense

- First Summary

- New Evidence to Frontline is okay.

- Second Summary

- Weighing. Make sure weigh here. After this, I will not accept anything new.

Final Focus:

- IF IT'S NOT MENTIONED IN SUMMARY, IT SHOULD NOT BE MENTIONED IN FINAL FOCUS. Don't waste your time by saying stuff that wasn't mentioned in summary. I will not listen to it.

- COLLAPSE. I don't care if you line- by- line or big picture, but you better collapse on what's important.

- EXTENSIONS. Extend weighing; doing so is in your advantage.

AUTOMATIC Ls:
- MISCUT EVIDENCE

- ABUSIVE TO OPPONENTS

- RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, ETC.

If you have any other questions, you can email me or ask me before round starts!

Kyna-Anthony Shen paradigm:

Spread at your own risk. Whatever arguments that I can't catch will not be counted in the round. Clarity is more important than quantity. Share your cases with me in advance so it's easier for me to follow. Make sure link to framework. Signposting is important. Tell me why I should vote for your ballot.

Respect one another and respect the rules; no grace period after time is up, keep track of your own time.

I'm not knowledgeable in regards to K, and theory.

I am certified by NFHS for the following: Adjudicating Speech and Debate, Culture Competence, Protecting Students from Abuse

I debated in high school, and I was decent.

I can follow complex arguments and flow. I think Cross ex is useful to clearing up messy topics, but I don't flow cross ex.

To win, you must:

a) weigh your framework and impacts

b) win on paper (so, if your presentation worse than that your opponents', you can still win)

c) be respectful

d) verbal citations must be clear

Things to avoid:

a) avoid talking over your opponents

b) whispering to your partner during your opponents' speeches

c) taking more than a minute to find evidence when your opponents ask for it. If you can't access your evidence quickly, I will drop the evidence from the round

I am a parent judge with very little experience judging, I would like to see people slowly and clearly.

I do not like seeing people spreading.

Thank you.

I am a parent judge, who has judged a few tournaments in the past. The most important thing to me is talking at a rate I can understand. That means no spreading. If you don't speak clearly then it will be harder for me to weigh you in the round. Make sure to enjoy the debate, but at the same time remember to remain polite and courteous.

I am a parent judge. I have judged a few tournaments before in the Bay Area. I like debates that are based on facts and evidence. Impact weighing is very important to me. Please make sure to extend your most important arguments. I do flow the rounds.

Also, try to speak slowly and clearly. If I cannot understand your arguments, I will not be able to count it. Make sure to be respectful to your opponents.

I am a parent judge that has one year of experience. I prefer competitors speaking at medium pace. I prefer people having arguments supported by both evidence and logic. I don't give verbal feedback nor disclose. I will also dock speaker points if you are rude.

Debate experience:

I am a "parent judge" but a former debater. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a debater for USC (NDT). Was away from debate for about 15 years, but the over last 5 years, I've been frequently judging PF and LD rounds (with several TOC-bid tournaments the last couple of years for LD).

Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com

Me Likey / Me No Likey:

LARP - 1

K's - 2

Phil / Theory - 3

Tricks - not unless it's Halloween

Speed:

I can handle a reasonable amount of speed. College debate is pretty fast. However, I dislike super blippy rebuttals full of analytics read from a doc. While I will probably flow most if not all of it, I'd prefer you to slow down a bit to articulate warrants of arguments you feel will be critical for you to win.

Kritiks:

I am reasonably familiar with most generics (setcol, cap, afropess) and a few postmodernist positions, but it might be safe to assume that I may not be as familiar with the literature base as you might be.

K Affs:

I have tended to vote close to 50/50 for and against K affs, so I tend to be fairly open-minded about these positions, but I am more persuaded when you can articulate a clear and compelling reason as to why you need my ballot. However, I also enjoy a good framework debate that's clearly contextualized for the aff (and the round) rather than something mechanically just read from premade blocks.

Speaker Points:

I tend to be reasonably generous and won't give anything below a 28.5 in a bid tournament. If I think you're strong enough to break, I won't give you less than a 29.5. I won't disclose speaker points, however.

I am a parent judge . This is my fourth year judging PF debates.

Speak clearly and articulate your points well. Please don’t spread.

I pay attention to cross-X sessions and how your are countering the opponent’s cases/arguments with proper evidences.

Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents.

Good luck!

Lay judge. Pls speak slowly and clearly.

if you want a paradigm, please ask me before the round starts

Debate is fun (although I don't have debate experience). I enjoy judging. Most of my judging experiences are PF followed by LD. I also judged limited rounds of parli, policy and congress. Except for PF, don't assume that I am familiar with the current topic. I usually disclose and give my RFD if it's allowed and time permits.

Add me to the email chain: cecilia.xi@gmail.com

I value clear warrants, explicit weighing and credible evidence. In general tech > truth, but not overly tech > truth (which means that I have to think about the truth part if you read something ridiculous) if you read substance.

- Speed: talking fast is not a problem, but DON'T spread (less than 230 words per minute works). Otherwise, I can only listen but not keep up flowing. If I missed anything, it's on you. If it's the first round early morning or the last round late night, slow down a little (maybe 200 words per minute).

- Warrants: the most important thing is clear links to convince me with supporting evidence (no hypothesis or fake evidence - I will check your evidence links). Use cut card. Don't paraphrase. If you drop your warrants, I will drop you.

- Flow: I flow everything except for CX. Clear signposts help me flow.

- Rebuttals: I like quick thinking when attacking your opponents' arguments. Turns are even better. Frontlines are expected in second rebuttal.

- CX: don't spend too much time calling cards (yes, a few cards are fine) or sticking on something trivial.

- Weighing: it can be any weighing mechanisms, but needs to be comparative. Bring up what you want me to vote on in both summary and FF (collapse please) and extend well.

- Timing: I don't typically time your speeches unless you ask me to do so (but if I do, the grace period is about 10 sec to finish your sentence but not to introduce new points). I often time your prep and CX.

Non-substance (prefer not to judge)

Ts: limited judging experience. Explain well to me why your impact values more and focus on meaningful violations. Don't assume an easy win by default reading Ts, if you sacrifice educational value for the sake of winning.

Ks: no judging experience. Only spectated a few rounds. Hard to understand those big hollow words unless you have enough warrants to your ROB. If you really want to do Ks (which means you are at risks that I won't be able to understand well), do stock Ks.

Tricks: I personally don't like it - not aligned with the educational purpose of debate.

Finally, be respectful and enjoy your round!

I'm a parent judge. Have judged a few rounds in the past. Would like to see debaters showing respect to their opponents. Try to state your augurement clearly.