46th University of Pennsylvania Tournament
2021 — Philadelphia / Online, PA/US
PF Varsity Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Written by Debater:
I am a lay judge and have little experience in structured debate so please talk slowly so I can understand you, do not use jargon. I will do my best to be unbiased and not use prior knowledge but everyone is human. That being said I am a political scientist so I understand those kinds of complexities and can understand any argument you make as long as it is clear. Please be respectful to your opponents and most importantly have fun!
This is my second year as a parent debate judge and am well versed with the virtual format of the competition. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you :
1. Speak slowly and clearly. Do not Speed. If I cannot understand you, then you lost the round
2. Do not be rude and respect your opponents viewpoints.
3. I would like to review the evidence being presented if required. So please have it handy
I have been judging mostly PF for 4 years. I leave timing the speeches up to you, but will start my timer for the crosses. I listen in to your speeches carefully. Your style, command over the topic and politeness amazes me. Looking forward to great debating!
Hi! I debated for five years at Hunter High School. I cleared at the 2019 TOC.
If this is LD or CX:
I don't have any LD or Policy experience; I only did PF in high school. Thus, I'm not familiar with all of Policy/LD's bells and whistles, but I can flow and evaluate a flow to some extent. Don't try to sneak new arguments/responses/ghost extensions in places they shouldn't be though, I'll notice (for example, no new arguments in the 2ar). Here are some more detailed things:
While I don't like progressive arguments, because they're such a big part of these styles of debate, I'll evaluate them like any other argument. Run any argument you want, progressive or otherwise. Please err on the side of over-explaining if your arguments are progressive.
Spread away, but send a speech doc if significantly over 300 wpm. Yes, please put me on the email chain if one exists (firstname.lastname@example.org).
For PF novices:
I flow. Go as quickly as you want, and read any arguments you want as long as they are not racist, sexist, ableist, etc.
1. Be nice
2. Limit the offense you go for in final speeches.
4. Ignore the rest of the paradigm
Do all of this and you guarantee yourself at least a 29.5.
For everyone else:
***For the charter schools topic particularly, but really for every topic: If you read unwarranted statistics I will cringe. For example: "Charter school students have 50% higher test scores because they have better teachers." WHY do charter schools have better teachers?***
TLDR: I will vote off anything, I don't intervene, but please warrant, extend, and weigh all of the argument(s) you go for.
If you have any questions about any of the following, or anything else, feel free to message me on Facebook or ask me before the round.
I am a pretty standard tab judge, but here are a few specific preferences:
I always disclose, even if the tournament tells me not to :). Non-disclosure is mean.
This should go without saying, but I reserve the right to intervene against unsportsmanlike conduct. This includes but is not limited to misconstruing evidence, intentionally mistagging arguments so your opponents "drop" them, etc.
I don't care if you don't fully extend uncontested portions of your argument in summary and final focus. Save your time for the line by line. Repeating your argument over and over if a certain section is not being answered is kinda a waste of time.
However, I will never, ever vote for an argument whose warrant and impact are not clearly explained the first time the argument is introduced. What this means is that if you're going to dump 15 turns in rebuttal, they all need clear warrants and impacts. You don't get to create a new one for them out of thin air in summary or final focus.
If a tournament is side-locked, if both teams agree to flip a coin the normal way (winner of the toss decides speaking order or side (their choice), the other team decides the other), I'm fine with that. I think side-locking makes no sense and is very harmful to pf as an activity when certain topics skew neg.
If the round is delayed, we might skip grand crossfire, and maybe second crossfire. I've never seen a round that was decided by grand cross anyway.
I'm tech>truth, a dropped argument is a true argument, and I don't intervene. No -ist/problematic arguments.
I don't flow crossfire. If something important happens, bring it up in a speech.
When bringing up a new piece of evidence, just the author and date is fine (you don't need the organization or credentials).
If defense is dropped, I consider it to be "sticky" until the speech immediately after it is frontlined. In that speech you must extend it. For example, if second rebuttal frontlines half the defense, you only need to extend that defense in first summary if you want to go for it. The rest can be in first final focus.
Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence
That being said, I will rarely call for evidence, even if you tell me to. I'm not going to decide a debate based on what a random journalist from CNN or Fox News thinks, you honestly know more about the topic than they do and are a better authority. Usually, the only evidence that is useful would be a statistic of some sort (ex. the economy declined by 4% this year, or a ___% increase in ___ increases ___ by ___%). When I call for evidence, it usually means that both teams are sort of just repeating their evidence rather than engaging with their opponents' evidence, so I basically look for a way to break the tie on that issue without intervening.
Speed is a good tool for depth, but not breadth. I can flow up to 300-350 wpm without a speech doc. However, if you're going to spread be sure your opponents have a speech doc.
All weighing is good. However, just saying "We outweigh on scope, because we impact more people," is not weighing. You need to fully explain this and flush it out. Bonus points if you can preempt their counter weighing and/or if you meta-weigh. However, if you read nonsensical weighing, like weighing on "strength of link" or "directionality of link," a) it's not going on the flow and b) you're losing 2 speaker points. Those are not weighing, they probably just mean you have defense on the opponent's case and/or you should be doing well-warranted probability weighing. New weighing is permitted in any speech (not delinks disguised as weighing), but I will only evaluate new weighing in 2nd FF if there isn't any so far on that argument.
Speaker points are not based on your presentation, they're based on what you add to my flow. If you are excessively rude, I will dock though.
It's silly to go for a turn to an argument that you just read defense to if that defense responds to the turn. Your opponents need just point this out at some point in the round for you to lose that turn.
If you are winning the round very clearly (ex. your opponents concede a theory shell, etc.), at any point before 2nd FF, you can call a TKO. If you are set to win the round no matter what, you'll get the W and double 30s. If not, you'll lose with 27.5s.
If there is no weighing, I default to strength of link, meaning I vote for the team who wins their offense most cleanly.
If no team wins any offense, I presume for the first speaking team. Presuming neg seems as arbitrary as presuming aff, and especially with the three-minute summary, speaking first is much harder.
Please don't shout over each other. Make the round fun to watch! :) If you make me laugh in crossfire, chances are someone's getting a 30.
Weigh disads. Just please weigh.
Summary and FF:
Here's a Haiku stolen from many others:
weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh
weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh
weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh
You must, must, must, must (!) extend any offense you want me to vote off of in both summary and final focus. That means a complete extension, with the major links of your argument (your warrants) and your impact. That does not mean you need to go for every warrant and every impact of your argument (ex. if you say in case, this is true for three reasons) and doing so is not a good idea; you only need one to win the argument. I will not vote off of an argument or turn that is not extended in both speeches. Extend, extend, extend. That being said,
Don't extend through ink! Defense is sticky, remember that.
You never need defense in first summary. If the other team frontlined in second rebuttal, it might be strategic to include it, but is never necessary
Defense extensions from first rebuttal to first final focus are fine.
Defense extentions from second rebuttal to second final focus (not in summary) are sketchy, and only really fine if the defense is dropped.
New arguments are not allowed in either final focus, unless they are weighing. This includes frontlines.
Turns extended from first rebuttal to first final focus cannot provide offense, only terminal defense. If you want offense from them, extend them in first summary.
This used to say "yes if it's legitimate, no if it's just a cheap tool to win rounds." But then I realized it would probably be unfair for me to decide what's legit or not on a case by case basis. So I'm just going to say no. Whatever your thoughts on whether or not progressive arguments are good for debate (I think they're not and am happy to discuss), I think it's good to have a style of debate, PF, that's completely devoid of them.
People fly to tournaments and put 100s of hours into prepping the topic, not your a priori that says that I should always presume neg because the topic is always resolved.
Reading double 30s theory will result in double 10s.
Bring me food and I will bump your speaks.
I raise speaks for novices (especially if you're debating in varsity because it's tough!).
Note: If tournaments force me to give different speaks to everyone in the round, say that I must round to the nearest .5, ban low points wins, or do anything else that restricts the speaks I can give, I will raise your speaks to remain in accordance with the rules.
I'm also probably nicer than this scale, but here goes:
29.6-30: You showed extraordinary technical ability in your debating, AND/OR you made a very interesting strategic decision that was not abusive, but granted you a great advantage in the round (ex. you went all in for a double turn your opponents made). If you make an interesting decision that turns out to be flawed, it will probably cost you the round, but I will reward the creativity with my speaker points.
29-29.5: You weighed well, covered the flow very well, made high-quality responses, and made the right strategic decisions in the round.
28.5-28.9: You didn't drop any major responses/arguments, you offered some weighing, and condensed the round down to just one (max two) pieces of offense in the final two speeches.
28-28.4: Your flow coverage could have been better, but you addressed the major points of the round and added some new analysis.
Note that if you got below a 28 you probably violated/ignored some part of my paradigm and/or annoyed me.
27-27.9: Very, very weak flow coverage, you failed to address the major arguments of the round.
26-26.9: You failed to speak, or spoke for a very small fraction of your time.
25 or below: You said/did something racist, sexist etc (speaks based on severity).
Speed is fine as I try sincerely to flow everything you say. But to ensure I get all your information correctly, I encourage you to be coherent.
Please extend everything you want me to judge through all your speeches (I will be flowing so if something is not extended I will not weigh it when making my decision). If you have a framework, USE IT and also extend it. Every extension should bring new or useful information (ie do not repeat something you have said in a previous speech without anything new; this dries out the round and wastes your time).
If a card is called, you should be able to produce it with a citation. If not, I will not weigh the card when making my decision. I usually do not call cards if I am not prompted to. That being said, to make sure I weigh your information correctly you need to offer me the following information about every important card you use: warrants, links, and the card itself. An unwarranted card is useless as it does not explain how the card is applicable. If I do not hear a warrant I WILL JUDGE THE CARD MYSELF. If I find issue with a card I will not interpret it in your favor. Thus it is in your best interest to be clear when introducing and explaining a card. It is fine to reference a card by name throughout the round to save time.
If you run a kritik or want to point out an argument that is somehow abusive, it NEEDS to be stated in the rebuttal or earlier. I will not entertain abusive claims after rebuttal. I also do not entertain new arguments in summary or ff. Keep in mind that new arguments are not the same as new logic and analysis, which are fine to bring into the summary and ff.
I always judge argumentation, information, and cards over presentation. Do not sacrifice density and quality of information for fluffy presentation. I do not care if you are the best ranked speaker in the world if your argumentation is not cohesive or nonsensical. However, if you are clearly organized in your speeches so I can flow accordingly that is a strong plus and will also factor into your speaks.
I strongly value partner chemistry and believe in the power of a pair (if you are an ironman I will not hold this against you, obviously). Thus I strongly prefer that the last two speeches take the same approach as it is both clearer and makes your case stronger. This can be done in a multitude of ways (emphasis on the same arguments, two chronological speeches by theme, etc). I will default to the weighing mechanism of the team with cohesive final speeches if the other team is not cohesive.
I don't really care for (and don't judge) crossfires, so use them to ask information from your opponent that would help you when constructing your argument instead of trying to impress the judge. That being said, if you are rude or demeaning to your opponents by any means other than with your arguments, I will null your speaks. The purpose of debate is to have a logical and informative discourse, and as soon as the boundaries of respect are violated, the value of the discourse decreases.
Please time yourselves and your opponents. Please don't talk to your partner during an opponent's speech, but heckling is fine as long as it's not rude.
I don't like off-time roadmaps. Please don't run one unless you're going to take a really unorthodox approach in your speech.
If you do not tell me how to vote, I often find the following the most useful to judge by: 1) topicality 2) solvency (ie feasibility) and 3) significance. I also reserve the right to judge by another paradigm if you do not give me one to judge by. Thus, to be safe, in the summary and ff tell me which arguments and which mechanism you want me to vote by. To be safe, do the weighing and impact calculus for me (not impact algebra.. adding and multiplying is not enough). Assuming it is warranted and makes sense, I will use the mechanism you give me to judge the round but will also weigh the information on my flow to make a decision.
I debated four years in high school and three years for the New York City Coalition under the City University of New York. I continue to coach and judge for the City University of New York for the last seven years.
New Trends: I come from the debate world of tubs and expandos. I do not take prep for jumping. I do not want to be on the email chain. Debate is about convincing the judge. Therefore, you have to explain your evidence in comparison to the other team. I do not read evidence because I flow the warrants of the evidence. Please be very clear when reading.
Framework: I do not mind as long as it is impacted and there is clash on the interpretation vs counter interpretation.
Disads/cps: I do not mind. However, on disads, you need to explain the internal link to the impact. I won't just vote for you because you said nuclear war. For cps, I like when negative teams have creative ways to solve for the aff. As far as theory, I am not that incline to vote on these args but in some instances theory args have been very well articulated and I have voted on them. These debates can not be two ships passing in the night.
Kritiks: I believe the negative have the ability to win this argument without an alternative. However, I like alternative versus solvency debates.
Performance: I believe debate is a space where students have freedom of expression. While making your arguments, you need to indicate how I'm suppose to situate myself within the round.
Your stylistic approach to debate is entirely up to you. I'm just there to adjudicate the round. Have Fun!
I am a parent judge and have judged before. I prefer that you talk slowly, show respect for each other and have fun. I appreciate organized structure throughout and analysis of why you should win in the final focus.
I debated PF for 4 years at Montville, NJ, but I'm now a junior at Wesleyan University.
I can keep up with PF speed and a bit beyond that, but please don't go crazy. If I look lost or if it's an 8am round, probably slow down.
Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline if you don't want to. Feel free to, but don't feel like you have to.
First summary does not need to cover defense, but you probably should if you currently have none (e.g. if second rebuttal did a really good job frontlining). For turns made in the first rebuttal, if you want them as offense you should put them in summary, but they can go rebuttal to FF as defense.
I won't call any cards unless I'm specifically told to.
In my experience, the team that wins the weighing debate tends to win the round.
Please make yourself comfortable. If you're warm, feel free to take off your jacket. If you're cold, feel free to put on a hoodie. For Zoom debate, I don't care if your camera is on or off.
Please ask me any and all questions before the round!
I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge. That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential. If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say. I also believe that clarity is important. Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent. In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.
I'm a mechanical engineering senior at the Cooper Union in New York and have been judging debate for two years. I did PF all through high school back in Virginia. If you ask me to rap to you in Chinese, I will, but my unashamed love for foreign languages and music has not translated into a good singing voice.
1. If you say something that's obviously wrong, I think a sufficient rebuttal is, "that's obviously wrong." If you use a counterfactual or hypothetical, convince me that it's a realistic scenario.
2. Don't waste time in CX. Don't shout over others. Don't bully others. Do use CX to clear up misunderstandings, to bring more evidence out into the open, or to expose the flaws in your opponents' arguments.
3. Extend your arguments all the way through final focus. You might have a bit of fudge room if your arguments come up in grand crossfire but don't count on it.
4. Stay on topic - I focus on stock issues.
5. It's okay to appeal to my morality, or any other non-quantifiable metric, when weighing. Correspondingly, I won't always weigh on your favorite metric just because it's quantifiable.
6. If your speech contains related rates, ratios, etc. (such as: X% increase in something will cause a Y% increase in another thing) please translate them into absolute figures so I can judge their scale. Relevant XKCD.
7. Help me with the teen lingo. Are people still Tebowing? Do teens still make Ridiculously Photogenic Guy memes while listening to Gangnam Style and Nyan Cat? Do you call stuff "major keys" and would you "do it for the Vine"? What's going on with Fortnite dances?
Nicole Burdette: I'm a novice public forum judge (11/14/20 is my second tournament). I'll flow (other than during cross fire), but will flow more accurately if you prioritize and speak slowly. Very much appreciate signposting, and on rebuttals -- as much clarity as possible regarding what you are rebutting. While I'm not as able to judge on technical approach as a more experienced judge can, I will judge based on the strength and clarity of the argument, and the impact you demonstrate -- both in terms of probability and magnitude. If you believe you win on a point based on evidence or other, tell me why. I appreciate creative arguments as long as you demonstrate clear relevancy.
As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.
I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.
I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.
For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.
Truth over Tech - but you have to be prepared to debate. I have strong preferences against nonsense, but you must be skilled enough to meet a minimum threshold for responsiveness.
ðŸ˜¤ WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS ðŸ˜¤
Hello! I'm a judge for Oakton High School. I'm a parent of a debater, and since I've traveled with him to many local and national tournaments, I have decent experience judging this event.
I like clear, well-explained arguments, backed up with valid and convincing evidence. Explain your arguments clearly, why I should vote on them, and why they're more important than your opponent's, and you'll be rewarded.
If your argument is remotely false I will drop you.
Yes: Weighing (not just impact comparison). Warranting. Comparing evidence and analysis. Implicating all arguments to the ballot (offensive and defensive). Arguments that make sense. Smart collapsing. Direction of link analysis. Signposting.
YES! Starting good weighing in rebuttal. Summary-final focus parallelism. Ballot-directive language. Productive use of crossfire. Creating a cohesive narrative in the round, supported by each argument you make in the round. Weighing your weighing.
No: Weak, blippy evidence. Cards without warrants. Independent offensive overviews in either rebuttal, especially 2nd. Rudeness. Ghost extensions. Not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. Squirrely arguments that are unclear or confusing for the sole purpose of throwing your opponent off.
NO! Misconstrued cards. Extending through ink. New arguments in 2nd final focus. Saying something's dropped when it's not. Dropping weighing. Being unclear in speaking. Being actively mean, degrading, racist/sexist/homophobic.
I kind of flow but not really, I take notes.
No defense in 1st summary unless if it's not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal (you should do this). All offense must be in every summary and final focus. I presume for the 1st speaking team.
If you say the words "do you have any preferences" without a specific question, I'll assume you didn't read this.
For email chains/evidence exchange: email@example.com
This is my third year judging PF. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.
- First summary does NOT need to extend defense UNLESS the second rebuttal frontlined their case. In that scenario, first summary MUST extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.
- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already).
- I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.
- I don't need second rebuttal to frontline case, but I do require that you frontline any turns. Leaving front-lining delinks for summary is fine with me.
- I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.
- I love warrants/warrant comparisons. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached (i.e. explain the warrant behind it). Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.
- Speed is okay but spreading is not.
- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative. Simply saying "their argument is vague/we outweigh on strength of link/we have tangible evidence and they do not" is not weighing.
- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing. With this in mind, please trigger warn your cases. Trigger warning theory is probably the only theory shell I will ever vote on. That said, I HATE VOTING ON THEORY. Also, I hate disclosure theory. Just ask your opponent to share their case if it is a big deal to you.
- Off-time roadmaps are fine, but please don't use an off-time roadmap so tell me you're going to go down their case, then your own case if there's time. That I get.
The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks.
As a general proposition, if your evidence is flimsy, I will leave it to your opponents to call the card and then tell me in rebuttal that the evidence was flimsy. BUT, if your evidence is so poor so at the crossover into misrepresentation of what the source from which the card was cut says, prepare for me to call you out on that whether your opponent brings it up or not.
Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round or if there is anything I can do to accommodate you and make you feel safe.
I want to see a good debate.
Respect for everyone is very important.
No yelling, I will drastically lower your speaker points.
I'm a lay judge, so don't speak fast and I enjoy a narrative style debate rather than the line by line
If you send me your cases or add me to an email chain, +1 speaker points.
Background: I debated PF in high school for four years and have a decent amount of judging experience.
Contact: Let me know if you have any questions before round :) Contact through firstname.lastname@example.org or find me on Facebook. UVA'24
I am not evaluating ANY progressive argumentation (theory, k's, etc). PLEASE DO NOT READ PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS AND THEN CLAIM THEY ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE LATER IN ROUND. I don't know how to, and I don't want to. If you read it, I will drop you.
Don't steal prep, speaks drop fast.
Roadmaps; I don't care if you give one or not. You don't need to ask me for permission.
Signpost; if you are all over the flow, it is likely I will miss your arguments. If I can't flow it, it probably won't factor into my decision.
Weigh. That's it. This is the key to winning most close rounds; do it.
Extend. If you don't extend, its dropped. Don't bring dropped arguments back up, I will ignore it. Also, warrant those extensions in summary and final focus. If you just say "extend this", that's not extending.
Preferences: 2nd rebuttal should frontline or it's dropped. 1st summary still needs to extend dropped arguments. Link/impact turns need the full argument extended if your opponent goes for another.
Cross: Nothing in cross will be evaluated unless you explicitly bring it up in a subsequent speech.
Speaks: Average 28 (within division), generally 29.5 max but 30 if there's nothing to improve.
Preferences: I did circuit pf, I cannot handle speed super well (I can kinda handle it), I cannot evaluate progressive arguments very well, I can flow, prefs: larp - 1, literally everything else - strike.
I'm a parent judge without real debating experience myself :-)
I don't mind your speaking speed but please be clear. My flow skill is not there yet but I do try.
I pay a lot of attention to good arguments (plus for your side) and effective rebuttals (minus for your opponent). Your summary and final focus just need to bring up those plus and minus points.
Your insightful and innovative arguments, if you can back them up well with clear logic and/or credible sources, will be appreciated. I consider judging a learning experience and enjoy it very much.
Please be respectful to your opponents as I don't favor aggressive behavior.
Good luck to both teams!
I am a parent judge for Dublin High School. My daughter is in her second year debating in PF. I expect the debaters to self-govern disabling WiFi access and adherence to time limits.
- Speak very clearly (enunciation) and slowly. Do not speak too fast and emphasize important words, use pauses effectively.
- Speak confidently. If something is important, make sure you make that very clear. Refer to me as judge if you want my attention especially during your speech.
- Give eye contact during every speech.
- I take your body language into consideration.
- Be polite and respectful to me, your opponents and your partner
- Stay on the topic. I will not vote for you if you go off topic.
- Make your arguments very clear to follow and understand, especially if you are advancing them. If your opponents do not respond, make sure to mention that in your next speech.
- Don't be disorganized. In rebuttal or summary, tell me if you're addressing their case or their refutations in crossfire. Also, give me an off time brief roadmap before the rebuttal, summary, and final focus speeches.
- In final focus, tell me the voter issues (main arguments in today's debate), why you won, why they lost, and why your impact outweighs theirs. The easier you make it for me to know why you won, the more likely you will win.
I attend Rutgers University - New Brunswick.
I am new to debate and so I won't know debate jargon.
You can time yourself and I will give my own feedback at the end.
If I get some rules wrong, please correct me!
To put it simply, I am a lay judge.
Please go slow in speeches and bring up important arguments across your speeches
I will not be able to flow very well, but will do my best to understand and evaluate the overall debate round
Heyo I debated for Stuyvesant High School for a little bit, if you have any questions feel free to ask!
- Second rebuttal should frontline responses from first rebuttal. I probably won't accept new frontlines in second summary.
- Defense should be in first summary as I think that 3 minutes is long enough to do so.
- While conceded turns are 100% true, they must be explained, implicated, and weighed properly. Failure to do so will probably mean that I won't evaluate them. With that being said, please limit the amount of disads you read, no matter how well they are implicated, I probably won't evaluate more than 3.
- I'm fine with teams reading defense to kick out of turns but it has to be done in the subsequent speech.
- I'm generally tech over truth. I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, I will always default to warranted analytics over unwarranted evidence that has a carded statistic. While this may be true, keep in mind that I won't accept blippy or nonexistent warrants as it is far too easy for teams to get away with.
- Please collapse and extend case properly in summary and final focus. This means extending the uniqueness, link, and impact. I probably can't grant you any offense if you don't do this.
- In the rare event that I am forced to, I don't have a set rule as to who I default to (I'm kind of torn between defaulting neg or defaulting first speaking team), so I'll have to intervene somewhere on the flow. PLEASE convince me otherwise as I'd gladly appreciate it.
Things I Like:
-Weighing is super important for everyone and I'm no different. It helps me evaluate the round more easily and it prevents me from making a terrible decision which will probably make you unhappy. With that being said, you probably should meet these standards if you want me to buy your weighing.
A. It has to be comparative. Please don't reiterate the same impact ev over and over again.
B. Please metaweigh. This makes my job much easier, since I definitely don't want to have to intervene when it comes to things like urgency versus magnitude. You don't have to metaweigh if you're going for a prereq due to the fact that it is the highest form of weighing and I will always evaluate it first.
C. It should be started as early as rebuttal. I'll buy weighing in both summaries but its better if its set up earlier in round. I probably won't evaluate weighing in FF unless no other weighing is done throughout the rest of the round (This only applies to 1st FF, I won't evaluate any new analysis in 2nd FF).
- Consistency between summary and final focus (Ik this is kind of overused). A lot of teams like to use the extra minute of summary to do a lot of stuff but I'd prefer if summary collapses on the things that final focus would go for and spends most of the time on weighing instead of unnecessary frontlining or defense. (If you know what I mean)
Things I Don't Like:
- Speed: I've always been quite bad at flowing so the faster you go, the more likely you are to lose me. I'm not a huge fan of speech docs because it allows teams to fit extra content into a doc that they never probably go for in a "normal" round, but I will still evaluate them.
With that being said, I prefer the round to progress at a moderate or normal PF pace.
- Going new in the 2. Please don't do this, I'll ignore it and tank your speaks.
- When teams try to hide links and etc in case and blow it up in the later half of the round when it doesn't get responded to. At the end of the day, I will still vote for conceded offense but I'd prefer if teams don't do this because its not very fair.
- Progressive Argumentation (Theory, K's, etc): I'm extremely confused by all forms of progressive argumentation so I'm probably not the best person to read these arguments to. That being said, I am open to evaluating these kinds of arguments if they are explained very well. Although I'm open to these arguments, please don't read Theory on novices or those who are unfamiliar with it.
- This goes without saying but teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc will receive the lowest possible speaks and the L. If possible I will also talk to tab as such behavior should not be permitted at any tournament.
I am comfortable with any style of debate. Since everything is virtual, my only request is to be clear when speaking so your opponent(s) and I can hear and understand you.
I enjoy kritiks, but am comfortable with any traditional or non traditional types of cases.
I also like hearing counter plans, but these need to have a well-articulated net benefit with sufficient evidence.
I don't flow CX's, but I will take them into consideration for weighing my ballot and speaker points.
Please provide me with an off time roadmap before each speaking round.
I flow logic, and please weigh your arguments. Weighing is the best way you can get me to vote for your team. I would also prefer you to collapse your arguments into one or two.
I have no tolerance for oppressive discourse.
I don't flow CX's, but I will take them into consideration for weighing my ballot and speaker points.
Please provide me with an off time roadmap before each speaking round.
Things to know about me:
- I debated on the national circuit in PF for 4 years (went to the TOC if that matters to you)
- ask me any other specific questions in round
Debate specific stuff:
- Tech > Truth (but that doesn't mean I don't care about the "narrative" or "story" of your argument)
- If it's in final focus then it must be in summary
- If the 2nd rebuttal does not frontline defense, then the 1st summary does not need to explicitly extend that defense.
- However, 1st summary should still extend turns and any offensive arguments. If you are still unclear on this, then just let me know in round.
- I can handle speed but please maintain clarity because it's been a while since I've flowed
- PLEASE WEIGH
- PLEASE SIGNPOST
- time yourself
- If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, then you tell me during your speech
- Speaker points: debate well and you will be rewarded
- I'm probably going to be on FB during cross so if something important happened during cross make sure to repeat it in the speech
I'm a parent(lay) judge who doesn't judge often. (btw my daughter is a debator who helped write this so if you see jargon and it seems like im a flay, im not. please please PLEASE go lay:))
I can't understand you if you go too fast. I'll say "clear" once if you do, after that I will start taking off speaker points. Please emphasize certain words/stats if you believe they are important.
I'll rarely call cards, but I'll do so if you request I do. However, please take your own prep/speech time. Please limit your use of jargon, I won't understand much.
I'm truth>tech. I vote for the team that convinces me.
I consider crossfire the most important aspect of the round and I do occasionally flow it. However, please do not be rude, I value respect in debate.
I don't understand theories or K's so please do not run them, chances are I won't vote for you if you do.
If you're rude, sexist, ableist, racist, etc. I will tank your speaks.
Me disclosing depends on how clean the round/decision is.
If you have any questions feel free to ask me before round!
(For Dowling specifically, I have already judged a nocember tournament but more complicated/unique arguments I may not know and need further explanation)
Good luck and have fun!
I debated in high school a lot, I debated some in college. I now help out with debate when I can.
I like debate, and I hope you do too!
I think debates should be fun and I do not like it when people aren't friendly.
I am somewhat new to judging CX (Bronx 2019 was my first time judging circuit policy) but I really enjoy it and am excited to improve! I have lots of experience judging PF and college parli, but I'm well aware policy is a different beast and so I hope you'll bear with me! If I can't understand you I'll yell clear!
Do add me to the email chain: email@example.com
I don't have strong beliefs that should move you to alter your style in front of me. My favorite thing about CX is the creativity y'all have with arguments and strategies; please do your thing and tell me why it's dope.
I have more experience judging policy-style rounds than K debates. That said, my academic interests are much more in line with the sort of literature I understand appears in many K debates (I'm a philosophy major with specific interests in french post-structuralism, german idealism, and psychoanalysis). That said, my experience with this sort of literature is not in the context of debate.
If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.
LD. I really like judging LD! paradigm is basically same as for CX, fewer specific thoughts because I don't have lots of experience yet.
As I get old and grumpy, I am increasingly frustrated with PF's bells and whistles. We are all regular people. You don't need to 'strongly urge an affirmation' or proudly declare what the 'thesis of your case' is or anything, you just need to debate the round and explain what's going on clearly. There needn't be pomp and circumstance in a room where we're talking about ideas for fun on the weekend.
I will evaluate the arguments as best I can based on what I understand in the round and what lands on my flow. I regret to admit that if something makes no sense to me I will be deeply reluctant to vote on it.
I don't have strong opinions about most practices in PF (defense in first summary, frontlining case in second rebuttal) beyond my personal beliefs about what is strategic. I am more than open to hearing arguments in the debate about why I should care about these things.
I deeply appreciate clever strategies and will reward them with speaker points that reflect how stylish the play was.
If you want to win my ballot, win the round. If you want to win my heart, concede everything your opponent says and still win the round. Weighing is good, but declaring that magnitude is a thing is less good. Compare your arguments to your opponents arguments directly and carefully.
If you have specific questions that I have failed to answer here, feel free to ask them before the round, shoot me a message on Facebook, send me an email, or mail me a postcard.
My daughter is a Varsity debater and I have watched many of her rounds, but am relatively new to judging. Please do not spread. While I will be flowing throughout the round--utilize summary and final focus to explicitly tell me what you are winning on and why I should vote for you.
Yes, email chain firstname.lastname@example.org. Disclose as soon as possible.
I currently debate for CSU Fullerton. I debated for two years in high school for LAMDL/ Bravo in policy debate.
-Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't explain what happened during the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, then that's on you.
-Spreading is fine, but be loud. I won't flow if I can't hear you (make sure your audio works prior to speech).
-Extend arguments, not authors. I flow your arguments and sometimes your author's initials & year.
-A dropped argument is true, assuming you substantiated, impacted, and weighed it.
-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long.
-In the event of a technical difficulty, I will try to be as reasonable as possible.
[AFFs] I think affs should have some reasonable connection to the topic and have some action. I will reward creative arguments. Win the likelihood of solvency + framing.
[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have a good answer to theory.
[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.
Also, I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here.
[T/Theory] I have a high threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory and it's well impacted (!)
I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to fairness. It depends on how the rebuttal spins it.
[Ks/K-affs] Ks are my favorite argument to hear. That being said, I am not going to pretend I know all your authors, so you are better off doing more work to explain your theory of power and links. Framing is everything. Explain why the alt is preferable.
k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I wished k debaters would generate more clash on case and develop strategic rebuttals. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.
k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make innovative and creative solvency arguments. Make sure I don't forget about the significance of the 1ac and give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.
[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate your propose (impacts that happen outside of round).
I judge LD and PF at all levels.
I did LD my freshman year and PF for the subsequent three (NCFL, NJFL, NFL), so my paradigms are a mix of both. Theoretical arguments are welcome if you can actually reason them through other than just giving a Rousseau quote and moving on. Obviously, you need evidence to back up your claims. The key is quality, not quantity. If you have eleven subpoints to a contention for the sole purpose of confusing your opponent, I'm likely not going to extend them if the opponent runs out of time at point three. By that token, I dislike spreading, and if you spread for every speech you will likely see that taken off in speaker points. This is first and foremost a public speaking activity; if I cannot understand what you're saying, you cannot be successful in public speaking. If you need to speed up to get all of your points in, that's fine once or twice, but policy-level spewing is not appreciated. Again, quality, not quantity. Eye contact and actual persuasion are absolutely critical to speaker points and winning the debate.
As for actual judging, I vote off the flow. I try to take down every argument made and follow it throughout the round. That means I'll know if you mistakenly extend a point or even an entire contention, and you will definitely lose that point/contention if you pretend you've won when you haven't. That means the FF of "and my opponent dropped X and Y and Z" doesn't fly when I have the flow of the opponent actually addressing X, Y, and Z right in front of me.
Most importantly: please be civil during your rounds. Everyone at a meet/tournament is an adult and should be treated like one. If you talk down to your opponents, you will absolutely have speaker points taken off. Where it is allowed, I do give low point wins. The easiest way to make sure you don't get one is to speak clearly and politely throughout the round.
I am a parent judge. My kid has been debating for about 3 years.
Please impact out your arguments and explain why your framing
matters most. I'll evaluate the round how you tell me to support your views.
Please speak slowly and clearly and be polite to each others.
It is my first time judging on this topic!
I'm Irene Do and I am currently a student at NYU Stern. I graduated from Oakton High school in 2020 and debated Policy for 4 years and Public Forum for 3 years. I will vote on about anything and am open to vote on most arguments if given a reason to.
I consider myself a flow judge and I score speaker points starting from 28 and going up or down from there.
- I am fine with speed as long as it is clear but I recommend slowing down online
- You do not need to extend defense in summary unless it's frontlined in rebuttal (sticky defense)
- Even if something is dropped or mishandled, tell me why it matters. In summary/final focus I expect clean voting issues, tell me why you win.
- Be civil in cross, just don't get to the point of screaming or yelling. I'll intervene if I think it has gone too far.
- I do not flow cross fire, if you want something from cross say it in speech
- No new arguments in final focus
- Calling Cards: I'm fine with it and if gets to be an important issue in the round tell me to call for it
- Theory/progressive: I'll vote on it if given a reason to but I have a low threshold for responses
- Weighing: I think it should start early, even in rebuttals and continue throughout the following speeches
- Please collapse!!!
- Add me on email chain: email@example.com
- In debate I normally ran a policy or soft left aff. I know some K affs relatively well, but you need to be really clear since it has been a while.
- Performance: Fine with it! Just be clear!
- I personally ran K's (Cap, Neolib, Setcol, Ableism, Fem, Queer Pessimism), Politics, DA, and sometimes theory
- If you want to run a non-generic K (not the ones above) I'll need a clear overview/explanation on it
- Politics: I'll vote on it, but make sure you're winning the link, I find that the faultiest in most politics debates
- DA (general): Chill with it
- CP: Chill with it, but the net benefit has to be really clear
- Theory: I know most of the common theory arguments (T, Plan Flaw, Disclosure), if it's not just make sure to clarify your impacts.
In Round Details
- Keep track of your own prep. I'll time speeches, but you are responsible of keeping track of your time
- I'll probably be eating during your round :)
I debated for 3 years [LD] in High School for Pine View School in Florida, and I debated policy for NYU. I was the assistant debate coach at Collegiate School. I'm currently a criminal justice researcher / data scientist.
I'm a flow-focused judge and am more concerned with the argumentation that happens in a round, with clean extensions and a focus on providing the highest quality debate. I really look for, aside from well thought out and developed positions which tie back to a core thesis or framework, an understanding of debate as a platform and respecting the structure and underlying nature of how competitive debate works. I've seen a lot of people in PF try to extend through ink without addressing arguments, or picking up long-dropped arguments in their final speeches, and I'd really prefer that didn't happen. A good round, for me, shows a cohesion of thought and argumentation between partners whose roadmaps for winning the round are aligned.
Personally, I have very few feelings about what Public Forum is "supposed" to be, and I encourage a wide variety of voices and styles in all debate events. Coming from a more progressive debate tradition, I am fine with types of arguments that have not traditionally been seen in Public Forum, however, those non-traditional arguments often require frameworks and set ups that are often implicitly baked into events like Policy, and are not present in Public Forum. It's incumbent on you to, if you're planning on making those sorts of arguments, be prepared to provide theoretical backing or compelling argumentation for including them.
CX: My only other note is that I have an extremely strong preference for cross-ex to be a cross-examination, and not some sort of vehicle for evidence presentation. Asking your opponent "if they're aware" of some evidence you want to use later on is a poor use of time that could be used to ask clarifying questions or to set up argumentative traps. Watching someone get flustered or making someone upset because you're making arguments in CX rather than in your speech accomplishes little. While I don't flow CX, I will take notes on things that are admitted, and cross-ex is binding. Grand CX shouldn't be a yelling match, and I will fully tune out if you guys get too heated and I can't understand what you're saying. I'll give a few "clears" before then, though.
If you want more detailed stances I have on debate, you can read down for other events.
I try to intervene as little as possible in the round, but I actively try to counteract how I feel. Here's what I specifically look for.
Framework: I'm open to any framework format, be it just a "standards", a burden analysis, value / value criterion, and everything else under the sun as long as I am given clear reasons to evaluate the round using that. I like both substance reasons and theoretic reasons. Make sure to weigh back to your framework though. If you're going to have framework clash, make sure that that you give me substantive weighing.
Impacts: I'm fine with most impacts as long as they link back to some evaluative standpoint, but make sure that if they're particularly big-stick impacts like extinction that you have well warranted internal links in your scenario. I'm receptive to analytic takeouts of poorly linked impact scenarios, so make sure that your link story is coherent and consistent. I really like impact calculus debates -- I also know I have a predisposition to weigh scope and probability over magnitude, but I actively try to counter-act that bias.
Philosophy: These are just pet peeves and won't really influence my decision, but there are very clear distinctions between ethics, meta-ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. Namely, the last 3 have very little to do with what is ethical. Please keep this in mind when you're writing your arguments or trying to make analytic arguments. That being said, I am a big fan of analytic philosophy and much less of a fan of continental philosophy. What that means is that I will totally on board if you use people like Chalmers, Street, Osuka, Hare, and so forth. I have no problem evaluating arguments out of the continental tradition, but please make sure you're actually using the internal warrants found in the cards to advance those views rather than just relying on the cite. Just like with impact analysis, I'm receptive to analytic takeouts of internal link stories for philosophical frameworks.
Kritiks: Even though I'm not the biggest fan of continental philosophy / PoMo, I think that Ks are interesting and would like to listen to them, and even encourage them, especially if your opponent says things in the round that warrant K. That being said, there's a thick line between a securitization K or a non-violence K and a psycho-analytic Jungian K where you have to battle your Shadow via in-round poetry slams. I don't like vague alts on Ks, so "reject" alts don't do a lot for me unless they provide explicit mechanics by which rejection actually happens and pre-empt why you can't perm. I, personally, encourage running theory on these sorts of alts.
Theory: I don't default to any specific weighing mechanism if it isn't brought up. I think "strategic theory" is ok when there are some arguments that might be abusive, but if your violation is "her font is size 12 and not size 14" then I'm just going to auto-gut check on it, but that's really rare. "I meets" which are uncontested are terminal defense. A new application of "spirit of the interpretation" which is not brought up when the shell is presented will not be listened to. I don't default to competing interps or reasonability. I prefer drop the argument but if it is not clarified I will default to drop the debater. If you want to say "drop the argument" for strategic reasons, I'll be receptive to it. RVIs are fine, but have a higher standard to meet than other sorts of theory arguments; I will vote on potential abuse on theory, but not RVIs, which must demonstrate actual abuse. You don't need to warrant most standard theory voters, but in the event of theory weighing, it's useful to have them.
AFC: Please don't. I will not vote on it.
- Speed is fine.
- I heavily penalize new arguments made in the last speech. It will generally cost you massive amounts of speaker points, and if the entire 2AR is new arguments, it will cost you the round.
- I don't vote on who speaks better, since this is a debate event. Don't try to go for speaking better or out speaking your opponent, because it won't work, please focus on substance.
- I evaluate speaker points on the criteria of originality, adaptability, clarity, and as a last ditch, persuasive ability.
- I don't care if you curse, as long as it is kept to a moderate amount. Make sure that you're still respectful to your opponent.
- You get two free "clears", after which I stop flowing and start docking speaker points.
- I don't really like pref or narratives, but as long as it's topical, it's fine. If you read a non-topical narrative, you need to have to have very compelling reasons to vote on it.
- Debate is fundamentally a persuasive event. Even though I prefer to always vote on the flow, and will absolutely give low speaker wins for people who are worse at persuasion but are technically more competent, some rounds ultimately ask judges to make adjudication based on impact calculus or weighing which isn't presented by the round. Ultimately, these rounds end up in whichever competing narrative the judge buys, which has a lot to do with the persuasive capacity of the debater. Make sure you avoid this pitfall; give clear breakdowns, weight your impacts, and provide the strategic decision calculi that you think will win you the round.
I'm pretty tabula rasa, and you can pretty much run whatever the hell pleases you, in any framework of interpretation of what debate is. I generally default to legislator or some sort of cliche; I'll vote like the plan is actually going to passed. I love me some simulations.
T: I don't really care what argument you make on T as long as it actually makes sense. Extra-topicality is fine too, but just make sure you're clear where the AFF is being extra-topical. I don't care much for topicality being the only thing debated on the flow, however. If you're going to go for T, make sure that there's something else to try to keep me interested, as I find T kind of stale. I generally won't pull the trigger on T unless you can actually prove a violation.
K: I'm a philosophy major and I find hearing different philosophical-type arguments very interesting, however, make sure you know what you're actually saying. I might be familiar with some of your authors, but because there is always more to read, I can't be sure. Don't assume I know what you're talking about, and more importantly, don't try to misrepresent what the author is saying. If you're talking about Otherization, make sure you identify who is being Otherized. It's pretty annoying to hear a long ramble about how the plan Otherizes and then there's no impact calculus defining who is being Otherized and why I should care. Kritical Affs are kinda weird sometimes, but I'm cool with them. Finally: When you extend your K, make sure you explain it in terms that I'll be able to flow. I don't care what it says in your pre-written overview or on your tagline, make sure I instantly know where you're going with the extensions.
CP: Any type of counter plan is fine with me, just make sure you clarify how it competes with the plan. I think PICs are fine as long as you don't read 3 and then make bad "condo good" arguments.
Theory: I'm open to all theory, and I'm fairly receptive to abuse stories, as long as they are clear. However, theory still needs to be explained coherently, and you need to say why your interpretation is better than your opponents. Saying why your theory is good is fine, but make sure to explain why theirs is bad.
Performance: I like topical performance, but when you're reading a non-topical narrative, I don't really know what to do and probably won't evaluate it without very compelling reasons to do so.
Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: firstname.lastname@example.org
TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quality, please collapse, warrant, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom to see how tech I am). If you don't have time to read, just ask me questions before round.
Background: Debated for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. I coached for SPA in 2020-21, and am now an assistant coach for Delbarton.
Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.
After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).
Here are some more specific notes
Jargon and Speed
- I can handle around 250-275 words per minute. Send a speech doc if you are above 250, and no matter what SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES.
- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less
- Technical terms help me evaluate my flow easier, so use them as long as you don't exclude your opponents.
- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F.
- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.
- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow. Bonus points if you label subwarrants/implications with letters (ie, 2nd response is X, warrant a...., warrant b....)
- Collpase in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). you MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I prefer it to frontline terminal defense, but that's not mandatory.
- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines in 1st summary.
Summary & Final Focus
- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.
- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense is sorta sticky). I will evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.
- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.
- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (ie, don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be avoided). Disclosure, paraphrasing, misgendering, and social distancing theory are all fair game.
- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.
- Feel free to run paragraph theory-- shells are easier to flow, but either way is fine.
- I'm not super versed in the literature, but I've voted on Ks before and I have a decent grasp on them
- You need to at least have bare-bones extensions of the link, impacts, and alt in summary and final focus, along with framing/Roll of the Ballot
- Prog weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing and structural violence weighing.
- Strength of link/impact is not weighing . I will never vote on it.
- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that.
- READ CONTENT WARNINGS PLEEEEEAAAASE. Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt out no matter how you do it.
-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round, 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.
Ask me any specific question before round and I'll answer.
How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.
- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it isn't strategic.
- Politics Disads/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- politics is life, so run whatever so long as it isn't objectively offensive
- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.
- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.
- Tricks: Nope.
- Impacts to animal/plants: Yeah I would vote on this with a framework.
I am a lay parent volunteer and this is my first year judging debate. While I am a newbie, I am also a practicing lawyer, and specifically a litigator. So, I know how to put together an argument and I know a bad argument when I see it. A few things I will offer:
1. I recommend not filling your arguments with debate jargon. I am not familiar with these terms and using them isn't helpful to me. Making arguments like, "the other team did X debate thing while we did Y debate thing which is better," just is not meaningful to me and so will not advance the ball for you. If there's something I need to know, just tell me without the jargon.
2. Don't assume I know anything about your topic. I get that you have spent a lot of time researching and learning the topic, but I haven't, and that isn't my job as your judge. It is your job to educate and convince me.
3. Be very clear about the components of your argument and likewise quickly break down your opponent's argument. This is extremely helpful to any judge when done well.
4. I'm a fast talker myself, but I find PF debaters can be in a category of their own. Please do not speak too quickly - I will not be able to fully follow or understand you. If you do need to speak quickly, make sure your speech is not monotone, which makes you even more difficult to follow.
5. I value "real-world" links. I will not weigh your impact, no matter how large, if what you are saying defies logic and common sense. Don't stretch your link chains beyond value.
6. Common sense arguments are valuable. Simply turning repeatedly to "my source vs. their source" after the constructive probably isn't going to win the day for you. I prefer that you use reasoning to show me how your argument works and apply real understanding of the topic.
7. Be polite to each other. Pay attention to this advice during cross-fire in particular. Avoid speaking over each other, not answering questions, being condescending, or taking too much time on your point.
Good luck and have fun!
This is my 2nd tournament judging, so thank you for your patience! Please try to avoid talking super fast, it makes it harder for me to digest your points. Also, excessive interrupting can be disruptive and harmful to your overall scoring. I am a lay judge, so keep that in mind in your case presentation and the amount of information you present in summary and final focus.
I am a licensed attorney and parent of a debater. I ask debaters to present the most professional and polished version of themselves. Remember to initially identify who you are, what side you are on, and what relief you seek from the judge. If time runs out at any time during the debate, please ask for a moment to finish your thought/sentence (be very VERY BRIEF as you are already out of time) and also state what you are asking of the judge. Never let yourself be cut off and just let that go. Make sure every chance you have to present your case is used to the very fullest and that includes finishing your thoughts and asking for what you are there to ask for--that is getting the judge to rule in your favor.
I see a debate as my court room and you as current and future community leaders and I expect you to behave as such. To that end, please treat debate communication as though it were a persuasive, calm, thoughtful and rational conversation with a judge. Kindly keep your tone and pace conversational. If I cannot understand you because you are talking too quickly, too urgently or too loudly, I will not be able to follow along with your arguments and that could lead to a reduction in points for you. Also, please do not use any swear words whatsoever. Any foul language, no matter how insignificant you believe it to be, could count against you. For example, words like, "crap" will be considered foul. If you are not sure if a word falls into this category, I suggest you do not use it. Please do not use slang, either. Some examples of slang are: "My bad," or "You guys." Please use formal phrasing and proper English whenever possible. This is a formal setting which requires the utmost respect in your word choices, much like a court room. Kindly treat it as such.
In addition to the above, I expect clear, well organized and well supported arguments to be made with solid, verifiable, significant, and current sources as support. Good luck!
Hello! My name is Andrew Fostiropoulos and I was a former PF debater for 4 years @ Delbarton.
I'm a pretty standard judge. I'm a bit lazy, so I'll probably look for the most clear offense left on the flow at the end of the round, and then vote off of which of this offense is best weighed. A couple of specific things. When you're giving the rebuttal, I'd prefer you give some sort of an analysis on why what ever card you just read is significant to the round if its not really self evident. Second rebuttal really really should frontline, but I won't require anything besides turns to have to be responded to. Similarly, first summary really should be extending defense, especially with the longer summary, but if 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline its not absolutely required. An effective summary and final focus should mirror each other, and they both should be doing weighing. Speaking of weighing, weigh, and I mean actually weigh, don't just say we outweigh on [jargon term] and then move on. If neither side weighs, then I have to weigh, and I'll be sad.
- Be nice to each other, crosses really shouldn't be screaming matches
- I'm a pretty open book, you can tell if I'm receptive to arguments or not.
- I'll be nice with speaker points, 28.5 as an average. I don't really know what to tell you on how I'll determine who gets what score besides good argumentation and good speaking == high speakers.
- I'm not particularly familiar with progressive argumentation
For email chains: email@example.com
Head coach & flow tab judge. Focused on what I see in round rather than forcing the debaters to adapt to me. Will judge and vote on anything explicitly stated in round.
I debated locally for 3 years and nationally for 2 (2014-2017), finishing my senior year at ToC and Nationals. Since then, I have judged and coached for a couple different programs. I can follow most speeds you're used to, but please try not to spread too fast. Weigh your terminal impacts against your opponent's arguments in summary/final focus. Second-half cohesion is very important, so make sure summary and final focus work well together. If you don't put weight on anything, I will have to subjectively choose how to evaluate the round. I will not vote off of anything said in cx unless its extended in speeches. My absolute biggest pet peeve in round is laughing if you think you're beating your opponent.
Im an ex debater who did just about every debate format. That means i'm ok with almost anything as long as it makes sense. I judge based first on which side convinces me most and secondly on flow. I'd love to say i'm tabula rasa but i'm not, if you cant convince me i'm not going to pretend like you do. For final focus dont spend your entire time telling me how you won on the flow, i already know whats happened you dont need to tell me again. Instead tell me how or why you outweigh them and tell me explicitly why i need to vote for you. I like squirrely arguments but if your going to run them your link chain better be flawless. Speed is fine but slow down for taglines or else you're going to lose me. I dont give lower than 28 on speaker points unless you say something racist, sexist, transphobic, ect...
I am parent judge. I have only judged a few rounds before.
I prefer when debaters are clear and avoid speaking super fast.
If you speak too fast i will not consider all your arguments in my final decision.
I value the logic behind an argument and not just the quantitative component.
I am a parent judge. As an engineer by profession & I value facts, logic & supporting evidence. I am usually neutral and try to be balanced as much as possible. Please speak clearly and don't go too fast. I value quality content over quantity. All the best in the debate.
My name is Kenny Golson, I have judged PF Debate for quite a few years now in various contexts.
I explain my paradigm through DOs & DONTs:
1. Make note of contentions that are not addressed by your opponents in the rebuttal and crossfire segments of the match. Your summary speech is also acceptable.
2. For both constructive speeches, go slow. I want to write down your argument for my comprehension. Clearly state the topic sentence of each of your contentions.
2a. I follow your case as follows: Claim > Statistic & Evidence > Impact on Claim
Emphasize the numbers, if your stat outweighs your opponent you need to point that out throughout the course of the match. Make sure it’s relevant to your impact.
1. No lengthy quotations or unclear values unattached to the "who" or "what" in the Debate.
Be polite, kind and stay strong, I am easy-going and want this to be fun for everyone!
forensics background with two years judging debate
I am a lay parent judge with experience judging a couple of tournaments.
1. Speak at a conversational speed.
2. I give more importance to valid and well researched points.
4. Avoid repetition and use of technical terms.
5. Please do not take too much time to pull up called evidence. Be organized.
6. I consider cross to give speaker points so be confident but not too aggressive.
Years of Judging/Event Types: I've judged PF locally for two years and at a couple of nats
I am what you call a "lay judge." Assume I know nothing and thoroughly explain your arguments and their warranting in every speech. I prefer a consistent narrative and story throughout the round over long card dumps and evidence debates.
Speaker Points: I understand things only when spoken clearly and at an understandable speed. I will award speaker points based on how well I understand what you are saying,
Voters: I will vote off of things that you clearly depict to me that you have won in your last few speeches. Make everything as clear as possible please!
Flowing: I try my best to note down what I can. I don't write down everything, but I do write down information that pops out to me.
Clothing/Appearance: Just dress appropriately!
Real World Impacts: I will often weigh impacts based on what I think has a bigger magnitude, but please don't run things that are out of proportion as I will view them as having close to no probability of occurring.
Cross Examination: Feel free to be aggressive and entertain me, but also make sure you are respectful.
This is my first time as a public forum debate judge, please speak clearly and at a normal pace. The main points I consider when judging debate are:
1) The quality of the facts and the details stated
2) Speech presentation and voice modulation
3) A persuasive argument
4) Logic based arguments and reliable evidence
5) Very important: Treat your opponents with respect
I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, and try to avoid jargon. Also, no theory or Ks, and please do not be abusive or exclusive to your opponents.
Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round.
I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa. I competed at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently the varsity PF coach for Duchesne.
What you should expect of me
It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.
I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).
It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.
Framework / Overviews
If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.
There are two types of overviews in my mind.
1: An overall response to their case.
2: Weighing overviews.
I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.
Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.
If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.
My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.
I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.
I prefer 1 or 2 voters not line by line. (I will flow line by line, I just don't prefer it.)
I prefer starting on defense and then ending on offense and weighing.
I prefer frontlining first and extending narrative after the fontlines.
Frontlining =/= narrative extension.
Defense in the first summary:
Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.
This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.
Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.
Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.
I'm fine with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.
I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.
I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.
29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.
28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.
27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.
26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.
25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.
Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.
I love high quality, well researched discussions on what-ifs, but they need to be based on real science, realistic scenarios, or at least scenarios with impacts that can be reached with a quality link chain.
In general, I would like to hear a smart, substantive debate about the resolution that uses the topic lit. I tend to enjoy "policy" arguments and moral philosophy debate the most.
I reserve the right to evaluate arguments based on what the warrant justifies instead of what you claim. But I'll try to be charitable, especially if they're conceded.
Please don’t talk fast especially when tournaments are done online.
I am not a fan of blippy arguments or unwarranted impacts. A warrant > claim + card.
You'll get higher speaks for making good arguments, being strategic, reading original, well-researched positions, explaining argument content and function clearly, and sounding persuasive.
You'll get lower speaks for being unclear or confusing, not engaging with the relevant topical/philosophical literature, reading frivolous theory, avoiding clash, and being a jerk.
I'll do my best to calibrate my speaks with the overall judge pool, but it's possible my speaker points won't quite keep up with point inflation now that I'm not judging very often.
I love good policy-style debate.
Your evidence almost certainly doesn't say that you control 100% of your terminal impact (e.g., you solve 100% of X or you have a 100% chance of preventing X) and I will pay attention to that, even if your argument is conceded.
On the same note, I tend to discount poorly-justified big-stick impact scenarios (note: poorly-justified and low-probability are not synonymous. If you have a solid argument for why the plan has a small but real chance of causing nuclear war, I'll happily vote for it. If your DA makes a ton of logical leaps based on sketchy evidence, maybe not). I am not biased against extinction impact, but I also prefer smart arguments.
I like plans that are reasonably balanced and representative of the topic literature.
Did pf in high school but don’t judge very often. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.
Hello! I'm Jonathan (He/Him) and I did four years of PF in high school and currently debate policy for USC. I have my preferences listed below -- but they're just preferences. End of the day, debate how you debate and I'll be happy to accommodate.
- Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Be respectful. Don't run arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Be accommodating to your opponents.
- How I evaluate rounds. I'll do my best to be as tabula rasa as possible. I also will do my best to vote in the least interventionary way possible. To do that, I'll either look to who accesses the most important impact in the round as argued through weighing (impact weighing), or who best accesses the impact if both teams are linking in to the same impact (link weighing).
- CX. It's binding, but has to be brought up in a speech for me to evaluate it. I really appreciate smart and strategic crossfires - especially if they can pidgeon-hole your opponents into a specific position or tricking them into conceding something.
- 2nd Rebuttal. 2nd rebuttal has to respond to all offense in the round, including opponents' case and turns. I don't require that teams answer all defense in 2nd rebuttal, but do believe it's strategic and makes the round clearer.
- Weighing. Good weighing is the biggest thing you can do to win my ballot. The earlier weighing starts the better. Make sure that weighing is comparative (comparing your opponents' argument to yours instead of just stating that yours is very important). Go beyond just buzzwords - your weighing analysis itself is more important than whatever buzzword you use to tag it. I believe that probability weighing exists. Even if you win 100% of your link, that means I buy that you solve 100% of your impact scenario, not that your impact is 100% guaranteed to happen (e.g. many impact cards talk about a chance of something happening, rather than asserting that they 100% will). Weighing turns in rebuttal is great and will get you higher speaker points. Link weigh and impact weigh.
- Evidence. If you tell me to read a piece of evidence I'll read it. Lying about evidence will severely hurt your speaker points and if the violation is egregious I'll drop the team. I might call for a card if it's crucial to my decision. I appreciate reading cut cards, but I won't punish you for paraphrasing as I get that that's the norm.
- Presumption. If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I'll default to the first speaking team as I believe that the second speaking team has a strong advantage that isn't as present in other debate formats. But if one team makes a default neg argument, I'll listen to it.
- Speed. I'm fine with speed. Just remember that clarity is always going to be more important. Also consider that with online debate it's even more important to be clear and that might mean going slower. If you're going to speak fast, make sure you're not excluding your opponents and send a speech doc.
- Theory/Ks. I'll vote on either if debated well, but I think it's incredibly hard to do so in PF and generally makes the round messier than it needs to be. My threshold for explaining these arguments is probably substantially higher than most judges. Don't run these arguments against an obviously inexperienced team for a cheap win.
- Speaker Points/Things I Like. I'll give speaks mostly based on strategy. Good warranting, weighing, good evidence ethics, interesting strategies (going all in on a turn), smart cx, signposting, good and unique cases are all examples of things that will boost your speaker points.
- Post-round. Please ask me questions after round. I don't want you to walk away from a round not understanding why you won/lost or how you could do better. I won't (and can't) change my decision, but I want to make sure I fully explain my decision if you don't understand. Debate is an educational activity and I believe that engaging with the judge and the decision is a part of that.
- Counterplans. I prefer counterplans with solvency advocates, but are not necessary. I generally believe permutations are better than theory. Specific enough solvency advocates make most counterplans legitimate. I generally think conditionality is good, and I think any specific number of conditional advocacies to draw the line at is pretty arbitrary. However, I think there is definitely the potential for abuse and am persuaded by in-round abuse. Won't kick the counterplan for the negative unless told to, and will listen to arguments in the 2ar for no judge-kick.
- Theory. I default to drop the argument (except conditionality). Theory debates are fine, but I think that a lot of times they tend to be messy. Make sure to do the comparative impact calc and why the model of debate that your interpretation promotes is better. Default competing interps.
- DA. I enjoy good DA debates. Make sure the links are specific to the aff. Not the biggest fan of ptx.
- T. If you're going for T, make sure to explain why your interpretation results in a better world than your opponents' interpretation.
- Ks. I mostly read kritiks. Specific links are good. Not as familiar with high theory and will need more explanation. Not a huge fan of vague alts or floating piks.
- Critical Affs. There should be a well-thought-out counterinterpretation to framework and should be a significant change from the status quo as well as a clear articulation of what voting affirmative does. If the 1ac does something untraditional, it should be brought up in later speeches. I generally think that affs should be in the direction of the topic.
- Case. Smart case debating is great. Affirmatives should remember to utilize their case in later speeches and negative teams shouldn't be afraid of using the 1ac's cards against them.
- If debating traditional LD, all of the PF stuff above about weighing/evidence/how I evaluate rounds applies. Collapsing down to the most important issues in the round in the 2ar/nr, listing voters, and connecting them to the value/value criterion all make it more likely to win my ballot.
- If debating circuit LD, the closer to policy the better. Not very good for evaluating tricks, skep, nebel t, or other LD-specific phenomenon. However, if this is your go-to strategy I will do my best to fairly evaluate them the best I can.
Debate History: I debated for Towson University & Binghamton University (4 years college).
First and foremost, I will not tell you how to engage in the debate. Whether it be policy or K affirmatives I'm open to debaters showcasing their research in any format they choose. However, I do prefer if debaters orient their affirmative construction towards the resolution.
When evaluating a debate I tend to weigh the impacts of the affirmative to any disadvantage or impact the negative goes for in the 2NR. Therefore, if the affirmative does not extend case in the 2AR it becomes more difficult for me to evaluate the debate unless you tell me the specific argument I should be voting on otherwise.
Next, is framework. I evaluate this before anything else in the debate. If you run framework in front of me go for decision making, policy research good, learning about X (insert topic related policy discussion i.e. warming, tech, economy, education, etc.) is good, clash or ground. I do not want to feel as though your framework is exclusionary to alternative debate formats but instead debate about its inherent benefits.
I also really enjoy case debate. If you are on the negative please have case turns and case specific evidence so that the debate for me is a bit more specific and engaging.
CP's and DA's are also arguments I evaluate but I need to have a good link for both or it will make it difficult for me to vote for them.
Please focus more on explanation of evidence and not on the amount of evidence introduced in the debate.
I tend to keep up on politics and critical literature so don't be afraid of running an argument in front of me. I will always ask for preferred pronouns and do not tolerate racism, white supremacy, anti-blackness, sexism, patriarchy, transphobia and xenophobia.
I am a parent judge very new to debate so I would prefer if you make your arguments and contentions as clear as possible. It is very important to me that you speak slowly so that I can fully understand your arguments. Please be respectful of each other and enthusiastic about your arguments. Try to relax and enjoy the competition.
Hi! I'm Tom, a parent judge, in PF for about 2 years. Be careful about speaking exceedingly fast, I will certainly miss some parts of your arguments! Please keep track of your time, I will as well, and will raise my hand if you are running out and don't seem to be coming to a conclusion. Carry your arguments through the rounds, I'll weigh a hotly contested contention more than one which has been lightly discussed or basically forgotten about. By the end make sure you make it clear why your side has won, as if it isn't clear to you, it certainly won't be clear to me.
Be considerate during cross, ask your questions and allow your opponent to answer. Feel free to answer a question through the end of cross time, but don't start a new question with very few seconds left.
Off-time roadmaps are fine. Card sharing is also off-time, between speeches and cross-fire.
PS. I have only judged Parli once, but it was a pleasure.
I debated for four years at Lexington High School, and am currently not debating in college. I have little to no topic knowledge.
Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com
- Disclosure is extremely important.
- Debate whatever style you are comfortable with. I'm experienced with speed but do what you are comfortable with. Seriously. I just want a good debate.
I'm a firm believer in the strategic aspect of debate. My favorite part of judging a debate is watching what kinds of unique strategies you can have come up with, the research you have done to support it, and how you execute it. I'm pretty open-minded and enjoy pretty much any type of debate, so run whatever you want. I would much rather you run what you're comfortable with, rather than trying to over-adapt to me.
I will not accept any discriminatory behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). I generally believe that you are good human beings and will be respectful to each other, so don't prove me wrong.
Tech over truth. How well something is debated determines how much truth I assign to it. While the truth level can lower or higher the threshold of tech required to persuade me, I will judge by the flow. A dropped argument is a true argument. That means it must have a claim, warrant, and impact.
Draw comparisons. Explain why your impacts are important outweigh those of your opponent. This also goes for every part of an argument, like uniqueness, the link, etc. Compare evidence and warrants. Draw a distinction between the alt and the perm. Explain how each argument implicates your opponent's arguments and the rest of the debate. The best rebuttals will break down the core issues of the debate and write my ballot for me. Debates that lack comparison make it difficult for me to write a decision, which will probably make one side unhappy every time.
Evidence quality. Evidence is incredibly important, but it can also be trumped by sound, logical arguments. I value good spin of your evidence. That being said, I strongly dislike when people highlight words out of context or jumble together random words to form an argument. So many teams get away with reading bad evidence, but if you don't mention it, it will continue.
I default to competing interpretations over reasonability, but this is totally up for debate. Reasonability can definitely be persuasive in the right circumstances. Lots of impact calc needs to be done on both sides, and the internal links to your offense should be clearly explained.
Have good turns case analysis at each level of the disad (link, internal link, impact). Make sure to have good, recent evidence because these debates often come down to evidence quality. I don't have any strong opposition to the politics disad – the internal links may be silly, but it's probably a necessity on this topic and I will evaluate it like a normal disad.
While it is very helpful to have them, CPs do not need carded solvency advocates, especially if they are based on some of the aff's internal links. All CPs need to have a clear net benefit and must be competitive. I would like an explanation of the perm and how it shields the link to the net benefit, and this explanation should be happening early on in the debate. PICs are awesome, especially ones that are specific to the aff.
I enjoy a good K debate, as long as there is good analysis and explanation. I will typically allow the aff to weigh their impacts. That being said, what does it really mean to weigh a fiated extinction impact against your epistemology? I believe affs should have a stronger framework push than just "weigh the aff" because most neg framework arguments will implicate this very process of impact calculus. Specificity to the aff is extremely important, but not necessary. However, generic link arguments without sufficient analysis will make me much more receptive to the perm. Don't read super long overviews - put the explanation of the K's thesis there, maybe an impact explanation, but the rest can go on the line-by-line.
I think fairness is an impact, and probably the most convincing one. However, you still need to explain to me why that matters. Impacts that rely on some spillover to institutions (i.e. Lundberg 10) are unconvincing to me. If you are going for T, you should answer relevant arguments on the case page. I think TVAs are strategic and don't have to be perfect.
The aff should have a mix of offense and defense to defeat framework. Most of the time, the impact turn approach is a lot more convincing than trying to win a counter-interpretation, but this depends on the aff. Leverage your aff against framework – impact turn the aff's model of debate or read disads to it based on the thesis of the aff. Defensive arguments can also mitigate a lot of the risk of the neg accessing their impacts.
If you're going for theory, in-round abuse is extremely important. I think the only the thing that can rise to the level of a voting issue is conditionality. 3 condo is fine with me; 4+ is pushing it. Counterplan theory objections are much less convincing if you have a good solvency advocate. I will lean neg on agent cps and 50 state fiat because of the lack of great neg ground on this topic. I lean aff on consult cps, word pics, and certain process cps. Unless there is a 2NR argument for it, I will not kick the CP for you.
Oakton(HJ)'20 (4 years of PF) UVA '24
Winning my ballot starts with weighing, in fact, weighing is so important I'd prefer if you did it at the begiNning of every speech after first rebuttal. Be cOmparative, I need a reason why I should look to your arguments firsT. Please collapse, don't go for more than one case arg in the second half, its unnecessaRy. I'm a lazy judge the easIest plaCe to vote is where I'll sign my ballot. I'm not going to do more worK than I need to. I will not vote off of one sentence offense, everything needS to be explained clearly, warranted, and weighed for me to evaluate it(turns especially). I try not to presume but if I do, I will presume whoever lost the coin flip.
I will evaluate progressive arguments.
If you are going to give a content warning please do it correctly - this means anonymized content warnings with ample time to respond.
I'm very generous with speaks, speaking style doesn't affect how I evaluate the round and I don't think I'm in a place to objectively evaluate the way you speak. With that being said I will not tolerate rudeness or ANY bm in round. I can handle a decent amount of speed but do not let speed trade off with quality.
Online debate I will be muted the entire round just assume I'm ready before every speech and time yourselves and your own prep. I will disclose if the tournament allows.
Hello my name is Irene Hwang. I’m a freshman at UPenn and I did LD debate for 2.5 years in high school. During that time I strictly competed in JV and didn’t really explore Theory or critical arguments so keep in mind I might not fully understand.
Furthermore, this is pretty basic but don’t be racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. If you’re doing a sexual abuse argument make sure to put a trigger warning.
Also- PLEASE weigh in the final speeches. NO new arguments in the last speeches.
I’m pretty good with speed so it’s fine if you speak fast (not like spreading level though).
For the topic- assume I don’t know anything and put in extra emphasis on explanation.
I have been the head coach of Lambert High School's Speech and Debate Team since its inception in 2012, and have I judged regularly since then, mainly in PF, LD, and Individual Events. I hold a bachelor's degree in English, a master's degree in Communications Psychology, and a doctoral degree in Management and Psychology, all focusing on learning and communication in human development and in the workplace.
Although my formal debate activities in high school and college occurred in classroom settings only, I did participate in public speaking and theater/telecommunications productions during that time, and I've studied philosophy, logic, international business, rhetoric, and persuasive writing over 40 years as student and educator at the high school and college level. I have numerous academic publications and one book on writing, cognition, and communications; and, as an instructor of Advanced Placement (AP) Language and Literature, as well as college courses in Communications and Marketing, I've taught classical methods of argumentation to my students as well as how to identify and respond to logical fallacies and manipulation of language and thought. I have completed the NSDA Cultural Competency training, traveled and taught overseas, and have worked in a wide variety of diverse American schools. I treat each debater as a unique individual worthy of respect, regardless of background or lifestyle, but you need to tell me a story, connect the dots, and support theory with examples to win.
When judging student debate, I look for consistent definitions, contentions, frameworks, and logical flow of argument, as well as clear explication of ideas, responses to opponents' contentions and values, and an understanding of the implications of the affirmations or negations of the propositions. Students who articulate respectfully and confidently earn better speaker evaluations from me, and I appreciate preparation, addressing appropriate counterarguments, the citation of sources, and the accurate inclusion of current events from news and readings. I encourage audiences for public speaking, value truth and technique, and I require that evidence to be shared in a timely manner. Add me to your e-mail chain before beginning your round: firstname.lastname@example.org.
At the end of the day, the students who will win have more clearly, logically, and consistently presented their own positions while effectively responding to their opponents. It's all about The Clash, my friends, so stay free, stay free.
I'm a first-year out college freshman that debated at duPont Manual High school. If the meta of PF hasn't changed much since I graduated, any sort of argument you want to make is on the table. Few specific things:
- I can take speed but do not spread. If I get lost you'll probably see it in my face.
- I flow everything I can.
- Not sure if independent offensive overviews are still popular but those probably will not fly with me.
- Ballot-directive language is key.
- Your argument should make sense to a judge the first time you read it.
- Presentation is important, but tec > truth in most cases. Debate should be educational and fair, and I don't think that final focus "gotcha" moments are reasonable.
- 0 excuse for not having evidence ready to exchange to your opponents. You'd be pretty pissed if your opponents were constructing an argument based on evidence they didn't have cut and cited, so please do your part.
- Cross can put in good work for both sides if it remains civil and topical.
- If you ask me to examine a piece of evidence I will do so, and if you choose to do so, lay out to me how that influences the round.
- Clear, concise, reasonable weighing will put a smile on my face and make your path to the ballot much easier.
- Please ask questions if you have any!
I have coached LD and PF for about 15 years now, but I am not a professional debater. I am a flow judge, and I prefer classic debate with clear clash, not jargon-laden spreaders with theory and K shells. I value clash and technical debate, but I will not vote for a blatantly false argument even if it is dropped.
Clear your impacts. I am OK with some speed, but you must be clear. At least slow down through authors and taglines. In the end, if I can't understand you, you will lose.
Extend, don't drop. I will consider dropped arguments to be conceded. Even if the other turn drops a turn, you should extend your warrant. Tell me what was conceded and why it matters.
Weigh your argument. The last two speeches should be about weighing and crystallization, not new arguments or a rehash of old ones. Tell me how to weigh your round, because if I choose the weighing mechanism, you might not win.
Don't make me work. If you tell me, I'll flow it, unless it goes by too fast. The more you link, the less I have to think. I will make reasonable assumptions and discount abusive arguments even if you don't call them out explicitly, but the more work I have to do, the less predictable the outcome will be for you.
Evidence clash is mostly neutral. I don't judge Policy. Trying to outweigh on evidence is not going to go very far for me. In most cases, if you toss just cards at each other, I will call that a wash.
Hello, I am what you would consider a Lay/Traditional judge.
I will probably not have much topic knowledge, so you need to do the explanations for me. Make it slow, clear, and understandable.
Be respectful to each other during the round.
I will drop speaks for long, awkward, pauses mid speech, lack of organization, and rudeness.
Keep the debate at the substance level and due to our current circumstances I would prefer if I got a copy of the case.
My email is email@example.com.
My name is Meg Kandarpa, and I am a Cornell ILR student in the Class of '23. I currently debate for Cornell in British Parliamentary/Worlds debate. (It seems counterintuitive to list BP qualifications on a site that is not used for BP but if you truly want to know ask me).
In high school I primarily partook in APDA/parliamentary debate, but also competed in world schools, congress, public forum, and MUN/speech.
My judging paradigm is relatively simple - If the round doesn't say it, then I don't judge in it (this is 100% based off the flow - not my intuition). This includes not pointing out contradictions, missing links, and other case failures. I'm not one who believes in "punishment judging" - eg if a first speech fails to provide a needed definition, I don't take "away" points.
Refutation is also a good practice - direct responses to teams and telling me why you win also does help!
Also - please weigh/impact. I always see myself questioning "so what" at the end of most cases. Don't let that be your case.
If there's any way I can make the round more accessible for you in any way please don't hesitate to let me know before (or even during) the round.
Specificities to Online Debate (Credit to a University of Rochester buddy - Ali Abdullah who wrote this)
Please please slow down a bit; online debate certainly isn't conducive to blazing fast speeds (especially when most of y'all aren't even enunciating properly in person). This doesn't mean you can't speak fast, just be sure to slow down enough that I can make out every word you're saying. I'll try to tell you if I can't comprehend you but chances are by the time I do I've already missed something important.
Please try avoiding speaking over each other during CX; I love heated CX but 2+ people with their microphones on proves incomprehensible in an online setting.
On video, you certainly don't have to have it turned on when I'm judging you. There are a multitude of reasons for this from privacy reasons to personal comfort, etc. Basically, you do you. I may also ask you to turn your video off if my internet is being slow, but I'll never ask you to turn it on. I find myself paying infinitely more attention to what you say and the tone/form in which you say it than your facial expressions anyway.
On that note, my video will most likely be on as it makes me stay connected and focused - and for debaters to feel comforted knowing that I am not watching Netflix in round. I never make facial expressions when I'm judging anyway so it wouldn't really be useful to y'all in that sense.
I make it effort when doing introductions to offer a space for pronoun preferences. This is by no means required, but helpful if needed. If someone discloses pronouns or doesn't - always best to defer to the speaking position over assumptions.
I'm all for heated debates, but behavior that can frankly be determined as just jerkish is not something I stand for. This includes aggressively cutting debaters off, excessive facial expressions (if it's that ludicrous, 99% sure I caught it as well) and any generalizations/insinuations towards an entire group of people.
Again - generalizations of groups of people - bad and unpersuasive. That goes for debate, and just life advice while we are at it.
Cheers, and thanks to all who have read this far (good luck if I'm judging you!)
Hi, I'm a parent judge
I would like you to do the following.
1. Speak slowly and clearly. I take notes so this lets me catch everything you're saying and gives you a better chance of winning.
2. Please don't use debate jargon. I'm very unfamiliar with it.
3. Be polite and respectful.
4. I value Quality > Quantity. Don't dump a lot of responses. Please implicate them well telling me why they matter and why I should vote off of it.
5. Please keep track of your own time and be honest about it.
Hi! I was a public forum debater from Eagan, MN and debated PF for four years.
TLDR; To win my ballot win on the warrants, narrative, and flow. To get good speaker points, be respectful. *Please* don’t run any theory in round, this is public forum.
Here are my preferences in round:
Be nice. I absolutely hate when debaters are super aggressive, it's unnecessary in my opinion.
Reference your flow! This is extremely important, in every speech after constructive. In your speech, make sure you tell me exactly which contention, argument, or card you are referencing. Remember, my flow will contain only what you tell me.
I am okay with a little speed, but make sure that it isn’t as fast as a policy round.
Don’t paraphrase evidence. Always cite each piece of evidence you read (author, qualifications, and date), and make sure you have access to the full article. If evidence isn’t provided when asked, I will not weigh it.
I weigh evidence over logic, but you can use logic to de-link evidence.
You should extend terminal defense in the first summary, and should collapse to voters in both summaries. These voters should be repeated in final focus. Create a narrative and extend it. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you.
WEIGH. “Prefer this because…”. Make sure to respond to clash. Debates without clash aren’t fun for anybody, especially the judge.
If you're racist, sexist, or bigoted in any way... your speaking points? They'll reflect your low behavior.
Feel free to ask me questions before round!
Speaker point breakdown:
30-29 - pretty good
28-27 - could be better but good
26 - there's some improvement to be had
Background about me:
I am a parent judge, and have been judging PF and LD for the High School debates. I have not debated myself, so would prefer that participants refrain from spreading.
Ensure your speech is clear and understandable, and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak.
I judge on a 4 point scale, from 26-30.
I do not take points off for speed, however, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity.
I value cross-examination and rebuttal skills.
Please do not be offensive or rude.
I am a parent judge. Assume I know nothing and thoroughly explain your arguments and their warranting in every speech.
Please do not spread or speak too fast. If you speak too fast for the average person to understand, I won't vote for you because I won't understand what you're saying.
I take notes during the round but I don't "flow" in the sense you are probably thinking of.
In order for me to judge effectively, competitors must speak clearly: volume, speed, and defined content. Spreading will results in deductions.
My view is that you might be more effective by focusing on fewer points if possible, while yet ensuring that the key elements of your argument or logic have supporting proof points and references.
Pretend that I do not know anything about the topic. The first speakers should clearly frame their arguments to help me understand the topic.
If you would like feedback on how you did please ask after the round. I am not a big writer, rather tell you after the round. If you want to know.
Your reasoning should be plausible with credible evidence that is able to sway the audience, considering the classical modes of persuasion. Articulate your words clearly, follow what you say, thereby connecting with the audience. Furthermore, if a case is made and not countered/refuted, then it will be deemed as true in the round.
Speak slow, no spreading.
In rebuttal provide offensive arguments against your opponent. Do not just simply state your case again.
Extend your arguments.
Any arguments after time (over the 10 second grace period) will NOT be taken into consideration.
I am a lay judge. I don't have a preference on stylistic elements of debate. I have a strong preference for PF debaters who can communicate clearly to a general audience.
Please be civil and professional. If you ask questions in rebuttal, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear from both sides to be able to evaluate.
Also, I understand why some of you speak fast but want to remind you that it is your responsibility to deliver the speech at a moderate and clear pace (i.e. similar to conversation) to persuade me. I will not be able to flow if I cannot understand. Slow down, enunciate, and avoid using excessive debate jargon.
I have a strong preference in weighing. I prefer quality of arguments over the number of evidence you present.
5 years judging PF—4 times at TOC (gold and silver divisions), 3 times at Nationals
I coach only Public Forum.
I am a high school English teacher full time. I also tutor middle school students in debate and speech as well as teach at a University in the evenings on top of coaching for my school.
Speed is fine with me.
I prefer big picture summaries
Role of the Final Focus: Crystallize the round (cliché, I know), but if it does not follow through on the flow I won’t weigh it.
Extension of Arguments into later speeches: I want to see everything on the flow. I look specifically at the summary and the final focus to see what you want me to really focus on in my decision.
Topicality/Plans/Kritiks: Make me engaged and interested in how you approach the round. I am not a stickler for or against anything at all. I want to see solid debates with clear argumentation and exceptional evidence.
Flowing/note-taking: I flow on the computer in an excel spreadsheet. I have my own shorthand and do not flow during crossfire because I would rather see the ammunition come up in speeches.
I value arguments. Style is irrelevant to me as long as I can understand your speaking—be snarky, be rude, whatever. Just get your point across.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I think that the argument should be clearly flowed across. However, that does not mean I would not consider a major missing element from the constructive if it was crucial to the round.
If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I do not require this. It can be effective at times, but not required.
Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Sure. If it is clear and well grounded.
Weighing: I want you to weigh for me if the resolution and your case are really asking for it (usually you would know if you need to.) If you don't weigh and tell me what you ultimately want me to vote for and why by the final focus.... then I will just choose based on the flow.
Crossfire: I'm listening to what you are saying, but I don't write anything down for the most part, unless I am checking my flow against what you are saying and editing. If you want me to flow it, it better come up again in the speeches.
Framework: Sure. Do it. But if you both have one, you better make sure you decide which one to use and why and convince me of that.
Off time roadmaps: Don't care.
My only expectation is good clear debate. I do not like the argument that Public Forum is only for “lay” people off the street. I think it has much more potential to be an intellectual and engaging technical challenge. I am not a big fan of weighing lives because it really seems to be about the pathos/narrative and not the actual argumentation. Not that I don’t care about lives or whatever, it just is generally not an effective argument and most times there are more interesting ways to approach a topic than that.
I am a lay judge and would just like to see a CLEAR and CLEAN debate.
- Don't speak fast and don't be too aggressive
- Explain your arguments well and don't expect me to know everything you know about the topic
- Have an order to your speeches, don't jump back and forth between different parts of the debate and expect me to easily follow along
- Don't use technical debate terms. Keep everything simple.
- Be respectful to your opponents
- Don't bring up new arguments late in the round
- Make sure to interact with your opponent's arguments instead of just listing off random ideas
At the end of the day, debate is an educational activity so have fun and be respectful.
The following are things I look for in a presenter/presentation:
Clear, concise, steady delivery of their argument/contention. Steady cadence
Respectful to all other debaters and judges
Works collaboratively with any teammates
Logical sequence of their facts
Composure when challenged
Arguments need to clear and directly related to the resolution
Sources need to support their argument and sources should be provided for any counter arguments.
I competed in PF for four years for Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa, both on the national and local circuits. I coached at NDF in 2018, 2019, and 2020, and for the 2020-21 season I'm an Assistant PF Coach at Eagan High School. I'm now a junior at the University of Notre Dame studying political science.
Don't be afraid to ask me questions about anything on here - I love answering them, and it shows me that you're making a serious effort to adapt to me, which I appreciate!
Add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org.
How to win my ballot:
Find the cleanest piece of offense on the flow and weigh that. This is probably the most important thing in my paradigm. I want to avoid intervention as much as I possibly can, but if arguments get muddy and don't get sorted out, that's hard for me to do. I would far prefer to vote off a conceded, well-implicated turn than a case arg riddled with ink and conflicting warranting.
You need to collapse in the second half of the round, it's a huge strategic mistake not to do that.
Use the persuasive nature of PF to your advantage. I evaluate the round off the flow, but that doesn't mean I'm not a human and can't be persuaded. Ultimately, your job is to convince me you're right. In close rounds, sometimes that's less logical and more emotional.
In the spirit of persuasion, you should be collapsing on a clear narrative in the second half of the round.
You have to weigh. If you don't weigh for me I'm forced to literally just pick things I think are more important, which means you lose control of the round, and I'm forced to interfere. Weighing should be clear in summary and final focus, and it might even be helpful to start weighing in rebuttal. (NOTE: In order to weigh your argument, you also have to win the argument. I've seen way too many teams weigh arguments that they lose, and that leaves me forced to intervene just as much as if you don't weigh. Remember, you need to extend warrants and impacts).
If you want it on the ballot, it needs to be in summary AND final focus.
Extend warrants and impacts. Make a point to especially extend impacts - I have literally no reason to vote for your argument if there's no impact, and failing to extend impacts in final focus can be fatal.
Defense you need to win needs to be extended in first summary. Especially with 3 minutes for summary, y'all - if you expect defense to be sticky from rebuttal to final focus you are not debating well.
You need to respond to your opponent's rebuttal if you're speaking 2nd. I prefer defense and offense, but I'm significantly more forgiving with dropped defense than dropped offense. If you speak second and you drop a turn read in first rebuttal, I consider it dropped for the round. With that said, please do not "extend" your case in 1st rebuttal, I will probably just stop listening.
Extend card names along with what the card says.
I know debate rounds can get heated, but I think it's important to respect your opponents. If you're unnecessarily aggressive, patronizing, or rude, I'll definitely dock your speaks. I'm not telling you to not be assertive or loud, but I can tell the difference between someone who believes their opponents are wrong and someone who believes their opponents are not even worth their time.
If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. I'll drop you and tank your speaks.
This is a small thing, but I really dislike when teams call out strategic errors made by the other time in cross, i.e. "didn't you drop this in summary?" It's a waste of cross-ex time and it feels rude to me - tell me in a speech, don't turn it into a cross question.
I like interesting arguments a lot! Obviously squirrely/unwarranted args probably won't win you my ballot, but judging 6 double-flighted debate rounds in a row can get super monotonous, and I'll probably reward you if you at least make the round more interesting.
I'm open to any type of impacts, as long as you weigh them.
However, I have 0 background in policy or LD, so if you want to run theory/Ks/pre-fiat arguments you're gonna need to explain them to me in the simplest possible terms. To be clear, I have rarely encountered any kind of shell when debating or judging, and only rarely encountered ROB args as a debater. I am pretty uncomfortable evaluating these arguments and while I'll evaluate them as best I can, you run them at your own risk.
I will evaluate under whatever framework is presented to me in the round.
That means, if you drop your opponent's framework, I will weigh the round based on that.
I'm super hesitant to use framework brought up in 2nd rebuttal, especially if it fundamentally alters the way I need to evaluate the debate. If your framework is something very different from a CBA (e.g. deontology) it needs to be in constructive.
I love weighing overviews and will 100% evaluate them as long as they're brought up by rebuttals.
If you tell me to call for a card OR seeing a card is necessary in order for me to make my decision, I'll call for it.
When sharing evidence with either me or your opponents, the evidence should be in cut card form or a highlighted PDF. Sending just a link is unfair to your opponents and annoying to me!
Don't paraphrase, however I tend to be pretty lenient on evidence ethics. If evidence is bad, I basically just evaluate the round as if the evidence didn't exist. I'm not opposed to dropping teams solely on terrible evidence ethics, but you'd probably have to act pretty awfully in order for me to do so.
I talk really fast in real life, and I talked really fast in debate, so I can handle max PF speeds. Spreading is harder online and early in the morning - I'll do my best, but remember that if I don't get stuff on my flow because you were talking too fast that's your fault. With that said, if you are clearly speaking too fast for your opponents, I'll probably dock your speaks - I think that's rude and exclusionary for an event that's supposed to be open for anyone.
Please time yourselves and your opponents! I am not timing and will let you keep talking if no one else stops you, which just makes the round last longer and is unfair to everyone else.
This is an unpopular opinion, but I LOVE roadmaps. They should be brief, and I can tell when teams use it to steal prep, but if you do it well I will love you. I don't think it ever hurts to make sure you and your judge are on the same page.
This is also why it's crucial for you to signpost. There's nothing worse than you giving killer responses, but me missing them because you lost me in your speech.
You should be using voters in summary/final focus! It's not a dealbreaker for me but it will make me like you more and I'll probably boost your speaks. It also just makes for better debates, so do it!
If you have any questions I'd love to answer them, just ask me before the round!
- dazzle me!
- if you call me "your honor," i'll boost your speaks
- if you flip first, i'll boost your speaks. you confident thang! (that being said this is probably an unstrategic move on your part so i don't recommend)
Anything that doesn't violate the rules of PF or the rules of being a decent person is generally fine by me. If you don't have time to read this long paradigm, just ask in round!
Hi there! I am a former PF debater from Edgemont NY and graduated in 2020. I'm a relatively traditional Northeast flow judge if that means anything to you (I am kinda flay but vote on the flow, big emphasis on warrants). I am pretty unfamiliar with the current February topic, so please explain everything really well. Specifics:
- Don't be blippy because I'm not excellent at flowing and therefore might not catch something; I highly value good warrants. The less intuitive the argument, the more warranting is necessary
- I prefer you to have your camera on, if possible
- I'm tech > truth (even though it won't affect my decision I will tell you if I think something is ridiculous)
- I prefer you to speak at a pace where a speech doc shouldn't be necessary, my understanding of the round/ability to flow trades off with how fast you speak. Unpopular opinion- the way you read your case/speech docs matters and contributes to your speaks
- I'm really really receptive to unconventional and creative arguments that are strategic and effectively run, high magnitude/low probability impacts are cool as well
- Also a really big fan of crafty & weird in-round strategy if executed well. I will reward with high speaks
- Terminalize all your impacts and extend all your warrants/the entire argument especially in the last speeches. Full warranting is essential to extensions-- literally pretend I've never heard the argument before.
- It's hard to vote off things I don't understand
- Concede delinks in the speech right after to kick out of turns
- You can't delink yourself to kick out of turns if your opponents didn't read the delinks
- Offensive overview type stuff is fine in rebuttal if implicated in some way against the opponent's case
- I don't flow card names
- I may or may not pay attention in cross
- Defense is sticky (if unresponded to, terminal defense can be extended from rebuttal to final focus. I think it's uneducational for debaters to win while extending through ink)
- Ten second grace period after time
- I don't have a very good understanding of progressive argumentation, and I'm unlikely to vote for theory unless there's abuse. ex: paraphrasing/not disclosing/the like do NOT qualify as abuse, but lack of content warning qualifies as abuse (please utilize content warnings). If anything, don't read a shell, just explain the abuse in paragraph form.
- New weighing is fine in final focuses, but preferably earlier
- Weighing is only substantive to my ballot if it would actually sway a policy decision: ex: short circuit and magnitude weighing is substantive, "clarity of link," "timeframe," and certain theoretical "prerequisites" are not substantive unless justified to be substantive (this is a confusing point so please ask if you need clarification)
- Won't call for evidence unless asked to and my decision depends on it, and on that note, no evidence > bad evidence
- If there's no visible offense at the end of the round then I default to whoever lost the coin flip. Or, if I cannot find a way to vote on the flow I will vote with an arbitrary lay rfd. That being said, while I intend to be tabula rasa, I will always try my best to resolve a muddled situation even if it requires some sort of intervention. With that, I encourage risk of offense weighing when a situation is muddled!
- I generally have a pretty similar debate philosophy to my former coach Caspar
- Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm/decision/message me on facebook!
debate well and good luck! :))
I am a parent judge. I value truth over tech. Please go slow and be engaging. Never judged ld before.
Parent judge, go slow, truth over tech
I'm writing this for my dad, so yes, this is a lay judge.
Feel free to add him to the email chain: email@example.com
He might not call/read a card unless you remind him to in speech, so make sure you do that.
I have explained and given a brief topic analysis about the NSA to him, but do not assume that he's familiar with your arguments.
Don't use debate jargon, I've tried explaining.
Lay them out your arguments clearly and extend them to win his ballot. He won't vote for an argument if you don't warrant it or if it's super unclear.
Do not speak too quickly. While he will probably understand what you're saying if you go moderately fast, he's persuaded more when you don't zoom through your points. However, if you speak fast and he doesn't know what you're saying, that's not his fault.
Please collapse. Make it very clear that you are only going for one argument so he understands.
If another team does something abusive (bringing up new stuff in later speeches), explain why that's bad (saying "You can't evaluate X, it was brought up too late so you can't evaluate it" is probably enough).
Make sure you emphasize and lay out your weighing. Explain to him why your impact is more important. He won't weigh for you.
Tell him specifically why you're winning the round and why the other team is losing (in summary and ESPECIALLY ff).
If you don't speak too quickly and explain your arguments well you'll do well.
I did 3 years of public forum at Poly Prep (2015-2018) and I'm a junior at uchicago. Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- here's how i make my decision: i look at who wins the weighing/framework. I evaluate that argument. If you win the weighing/framework and the offense with a terminalized impact, you'll probably win. If no one weighs then I'm gonna go with scope or the argument with the least ink.
- I don't like frivolous theory. If you read it you better go for it. Ks are cool.
- I like warrants. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I'm likely to give them some ground. I prefer your counter warrant/ev as a response rather than just their lack of supporting evidence.
- speed is fine as long as you aren't speaking unclearly.
- First summary doesn't have to extend defense from rebuttal unless second rebuttal frontlines. Turns/Offense you want me to vote on need to be in both summary and final focus.
- Second rebuttal doesn't have to frontline but I like it when you do.
- I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech
- I don't time but if your opponents are telling me time is up I'll stop flowing but give them at least 5 seconds. Don't hold up your timer .5 seconds after the speech time is over
- i default neg if there's no offense
Hi, this is Tianliang’s son.
My dad is your standard lay judge. Don’t assume he knows a lot about the topic.
English is also not his first language, so I recommend you speak slowly and explain things clearly - he really likes listening to politicians talk and audiobooks as well. He isn’t too politically knowledgeable but he knows a lot of stuff about famous people because he listens to so many audiobooks. If you try to act knowledgeable and hnderstanding of the topic, he will be inclined to vote for you.
Most of all, he likes respectful and nice debaters. Do this, and it will help your speaker points a lot.
I am a US History, World History, Law, and Personal Finance teacher in Lexington, MA and have taught Civics in a past life outside DC. Meaning that I have a strong academic background on the policy issues that are being discussed. That said, I am a relative newcomer to academic-style Debate in my second year judging.
As a PF judge I expect solid arguments that correctly apply strong evidence and do not ignore major flaws or counter-arguments. I would much rather hear someone say "we do not disagree that the aff/neg argument is valid, but here is why ours is stronger/more relevant." Speak clearly. No spreading. Have fun!
As an LD judge I am new to the game but well versed in solid arguments. Refer to your framework in your arguments to strengthen them and do not engage in extensive de-linking unless you are on solid ground logically. I will lean on my understanding of logic in the arguments rather than fancy debate tactics. Also if you spread, I will not understand you. Keep it civil in CXs but don't be afraid to press your opponent if their answer is weak. Email is Plehmann@lexingtonma.org for speech docs.
I'm currently a freshman at Rice studying biology. I have a bit over 3 years of PF experience from high school. Here are some things to keep in mind if I am your judge:
1. Tech over truth; what's conceded is true for the purposes of the round. I'll do my best as a judge to keep personal opinions out the decision.
2. I won't extend or impact your arguments; that's not my job as the judge. It's not complicated, just make sure you're extending all relevant arguments in each speech while making sure that you're not forgetting to extend warrants and impacts (particularly for offense).
3. Weigh. The earlier, the better. If absolutely no weighing is done (or if no one is sufficiently winning the weighing debate), I will most likely have to intervene in order to make my decision. Don't want to get "screwed?" Then just weigh lol.
4. Don't read theory. Not a fan.
5. I'll only call for cards if I think that the evidence will be important to the decision, AND only if I'm prompted to do so in a speech. I have fairly low tolerance for misconstrued evidence; I might not immediately drop teams because of sketchy evidence but expect very poor speaks if I think the meaning of the original evidence has been manipulated too much. It's pretty simple; as long as you accurately interpret the evidence you're citing, then you're fine.
My email is email@example.com if you have any other questions before the round. I don't want to be added to the email chain. Like I mentioned, I'll only ask for evidence if someone tells me to.
First year as parent-judge.
I have no debate experience myself. As a PhD statistician, I value sound evidence and logic. It is not possible to fact-check during the debate but the evidence cited must be plausible and from reputable sources. Please try to find flaws in your opponents' arguments and don't just tell me how I should vote. Also while English is not my first language I have no problem following most people. On the other hand, speaking very fast does not make it more convincing.
Speaker Point: 27 (Not as Good), 28 (Good), 29 (Very Good), 30 (Perfect).
Hi, I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly! I have judged pf before, but not extensively. In round, make sure that you're using logic to explain your arguments thoroughly as well. If you see me writing, don't take it seriously, I am just taking notes. Don't be rude and have fun!
Hi this is his daughter that does PF and from what he's told me abt judging here are some tips if he's judging you:
-he doesnt flow everything u say :((( so make sure you're emphasizing the most important things he should be flowing
-he won't feel comfortable voting off your argument if he doesn't understand the logic (if he doesn't understand either side he randomly chooses lol so TALK SLOW and MAKE SENSE)
-he likes it when you have arguments that directly clash (pro and con both run the same arg i.e. innovation) but he also likes clean extensions of args that go conceded
-when you rebuttal/frontline doing line by lines and signposting he will be impressed and less confused
-also he works in like biology/physics/medical related stuff and knows a lot abt pharma so be accurate lol or he'll know
Hello! I am Esme. I debated PF for Durham for 4 years and I’m attending Duke Uni. I use she/her pronouns. really dislike blippy arguments, but I guess I'll evaluate them, I'll just give them a LOT less weight. no warrant = VERY LOW CHANCE OF ME VOTING OFF IT. like near 0.
QUICK NOTE- i live in the UK so im 5 hours ahead of EST (8 hours ahead of PST) and if i'm judging after 8PM EST, i might be kind of tired but i'll do my best!! just so ur aware
Ask me questions before round, I don't mind (I know sometimes there's not enough time to read paradigms). Also, please let me know (send me an email/ tell me in round) how I can accommodate this round to make you the most comfortable!
Yooo also please include both members of a partnership. Talking about "carries" and excluding someone who has taken their time to put work into and be somewhere sucks a lot and often hits people already left out of debate the hardest. In round and out, make sure you're acknowledging and supporting work put in from everyone and reaching out to everyone as well. <3
Also don't call speeches "bad" ex: "their summary was really bad" just point out the flaws in it. ex: "they don't extend a warrant/ they never weigh..." etcetcetc
Sexism/ racism/ homophobia/ harassment/ etc. isn't cool. I will drop you and you will get low speaks.
Specifically for the debate, though, here are my preferences:
1. WARRANT AND IMPLICATE ARGUMENTS - by this I mean go one step further to explain your arguments -- tell me why A leads to B and B leads to C and WHY IT MATTERS. IF AN ARG HAS NO WARRANT, I PROBABLY WILL NOT VOTE OFF IT Don't just say "Medicare for All equals less money for pharma companies", explain why (and why it matters) : warranting ex - "under Medicare for All, the government negotiates down the prices of drugs with pharma companies, cutting into their profits". Implication might be - "pharma has less cash for R&D". It doesn't even have to be wordy lol just tell me why your arg is happening and why it matters. I also love warranting for uniqueness in case. Essentially, the more you can give me earlier in the round, the stronger your arg will be.
2. WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS - even if you're losing 2/3 of your arguments, if your 1/3 is more important than theirs', the round is not lost! Tell me why I ought to care about that 1/3 and why it's more important than anything else. I will evaluate what you tell me, so if you tell me poverty is more important than climate change and give me sound reasons why and it doesn't go touched/ responded to with warrants, then I will buy it no matter my personal beliefs. You don't want to take a chance and let me do the weighing for you. You have control over where I vote, you just have to do the work and tell me why. On the other side, even if you're winning your arguments, WEIGH! You can tell me that your argument is more probable or has more warranting or has a larger impact, etc. just do the work.
Also, don't just say "we outweigh on magnitude" go further -- explain how, and (preferably) tell me why it matters
Also metaweigh pleaseeeee (if they're talking about their argument being more probable and you're talking about yours being having a larger magnitude tell me why magnitude matters more than probability!!). I LOVE good metaweighing, it makes me so so happy. I also love pre-emptive metaweighing, so tbh as soon as you introduce weighing, ideally I'd love for it to be metaweighed. (i reward hella for it - check the speaks stuff at the end)
If you haven't ever heard about weighing, I will teach you before round, just ask me please. I'd much rather take 5-10 mins to explain it and have a good round than dive into a messy round with no weighing
i'm happy as long as you let me know when you're moving on to different parts of the arg. ex: "on their link" suffices for signposting.
4. CALLING FOR CARDS AND EVIDENCE ETHICS - Call for cards if something feels sketchy if u want, I don't care how many you call for, it's your prep time. If you find something, point it out in the next speech. I'll call for contested evidence later on if it's relevant, but feel free to remind me. If you don't call for something sketchy, then that's on you (oof), I'll have to consider it even if I don't want to. Sometimes I'll call for a card after the round just because I'm curious, but that shouldn't factor into my decision and usually I only call for ev that's disputed.
As for evidence ethics, I'm totally fine with paraphrasing, but if you powertag or misconstrue evidence, I'm going to be really upset and you will know in your speaks. As a debater, I took evi ethics really seriously. Ev exists for anything, you just have to find it. Also indicts don't mean game over, they're like any other arg, respond, weigh, etc.
5. COLLAPSE - This is SO underrated. You start with 2x 4 minute speeches of args on the topic, then get 4 more minutes. The round can't contain all these args in a 2 minute final focus. I don't want it to. I don't want it to in summary, and often even in second rebuttal! I want you to collapse! Pick strategic arguments and (frontline any offense on them first obviously/ weigh against) but drop the ones that aren't as strategic. Just do the weighing and don't forget/ abandon an arg you drop.
Ultimately, you get control over the ballot, I want to do the least amount of intervention possible as your judge so it is on you to make this a clean round!:)
6. EXTEND - uh this should maybe be obvious but here are my thoughts on this. Obv you can drop case, but if you do make sure you weigh against / frontline offense they put on it and have some sorta independent offense/ default neg/aff strat
IF YOU EXTEND YOU NEED THESE PARTS OF THE ARG FOR IT TO BE A FULL EXTENSION - UNIQUENESS/ LINK/ INTERNAL LINK(S)/ IMPACT (TERMINALISED) if parts of your arg are missing, I will be MUCH less likely to vote on it. If both teams don't have parts of their args, then,,, uh,,,, i'll be uncomfy and stress out about my decision lots and probably look for the path of least resistance. Please don't put me in that situation
You DON'T NEED TO EXTEND CARD NAMES, I'm fine with analysis as long as all the parts of the arg are there. Of course, you're welcome to extend cards, but I find it takes a lot longer and doesn't add much unless you're doing specific evidence weighing. Also, please weigh your extensions! Including turns, like why does your link overpower theirs?
ON PROGRESSIVE ARGS
I'm really uncomfortable voting off friv theory, especially run on opponents who don't know how to handle it, so I'll usually not do that, make sure you're both ok with it. If there's something that makes the space unsafe/ a violation of smth u think is important, prog args are fine. I never ran Ks/ theory, but I get them at their basic level, so please explain well if you read them. if you're unsure if the thing u wanna read theory on is friv or not, feel free to ask me, i really dont mind.
i dont like tricks much
I'll evaluate RVIs if you want to read them. I'll eval competing interps and responses to "must have competing interps". I'll eval paraphrase theory LMAO but I don't like it! I disagree!!! Paraphrasing good. Anyway.
If you're reading an argument about a sensitive topic, please read a content warning. Personally, I'd prefer if these were done anonymously thru a google form or another anon method so you don't have to put the burden on your opponents to ~expose~ themselves if that makes sense.
Put me on the email chain please! You don't have to shake my hand. Please preflow before the round. You can flip without me. Pls give me an offtime roadmap if you can!! won't penalise u if u don't tho! Wear what ur comfortable in.
I presume neg, I guess, but if default neg is part of your strat, prolly include a line of warranting cuz i will be uncomfy otherwise
Analysis> ev if there's an unresolved clash.
Defense isn't sticky, but I give some leniency to first summary speakers, cuz obviously it's impossible to have perfect coverage otherwise.
Second rebuttal should frontline offense, and I'd PREFER it if it frontlined defense, but like,, it's up to u. The later things come, the less weight I give them.
I am tech > truth but obv no one is tabula rasa. I'll vote off what's on the flow like nuke war or LONG link chains if you win them. I wanna evaluate what you give me with as little intervention as possible, so I'll try and stay out of how I feel about it lol unless it's really problematic. idk what then.
I'm okkkkkkk with second rebuttal offensive overviews but i don't love them and if you wanna call it abusive, I'll evaluate that too. Although, ngl I'd like it if you actually respond to it as well. Grouping responses is excellent. I'll give you some leniency, sure cuz time skew.
I hateeee blippy and unwarranted responses. Like, yeah, I'll flow and eval them, but I will give them a LOT less weight. You can go fast I'm down and cool with that, that doesn't mean you get to leave out parts of an arg though:( that makes me v sad. Don't go fast without explaining/ implicating pls.
calling me "judge" is annoying
Please send me a speech doc @ firstname.lastname@example.org if you want to spread. I can handle most pf-speed ok, but I might miss something. If I miss something, I'll probably just ask you to clarify when you're done speaking or ask for a doc, but that's not an invite for you to go really fast and hope that I'll do the clarifying.
I won't time you, but I'll stop flowing after a bit if your opponents hold up their timer and it's obvious you're over time. Don't abuse it.
Pls don't postround me, but please do ask me questions if you have any!!
I will give extra speaks (+.2 each) if you
- call turns "no you"s (+.1 per signposted "no you")
- Make me laugh (especially with puns, especially spontaneous ones)
- Reference Beyond Resolved
- Auto 30 if you make a Minecraft arg. Like not an analogy, a full blown Minecraft-based argument.
- auto 29.7 if u metaweigh with warrants and i'll boost it if ur phenomenal
- +.4 If you tell me your Subway Surfer's high score and it's higher than mine
- Reference Nick Miller from New Girl/ any1 from BBC's Merlin/ KATE BUSH (JSDSFNVSKFNDS I LOVE HERRR)
- If our star signs are compatible - just tell me urs before round and i'll KNOW.
- Auto 30 if you rhyme your entire case
- Auto-boost to a 29.5 + if you Rhyme 25 seconds or so of your speech?
Don't worry, though. I'm pretty easy on speaks and usually give around a 28+. I'm personally not the prettiest speaker, so I totally get it and that shouldn't be a point of stress. More importantly, people get marginalised by the speaks system in ableist/ xenophobic / etc. ways.
I will take off speaks (-.1) for
- Unnecessary obnoxiousness (basically, if you're very mean. Joking around is totally fine lol)
- If our star signs are incompatible
- If your Subway Surfers score is lower than mine, I'll take off .1 points and I will automatically lose all respect for you.
I love debate this makes me happy. Have fun. Ask me if you have questions before or after the round!!
Debated 4 years PF in HS. 3 years of policy in college. Coached PF for 3 years.
NYU 2018-2021 BS in Chemistry
Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (email@example.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.
Tech over truth. Policy and K both good. I can flow around 250 wpm without a doc. Favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.
If you don't extend I will vote neg on presumption unless it's LD where I'll vote aff on presumption. It makes me sad to have to say that I've voted on presumption in about 10% of rounds I've judged, although this number seems to be going down.
My name isn't judge, you can say my name if you want my attention.
If it takes you longer than 5 minutes to find a card, it doesn't exist. Very excessive card calling that makes me want to fall asleep: -0.2 speaks per card.
Please time yourselves.
Ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful. Postrounding is tolerated, but don't be annoying.
Please contact me if you feel unsafe during round.
I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.
Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.
Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.
I used to say I wanted to see a theory debate about whether 2nd rebuttal should frontline, but no one is willing to do it. If someone does it well, I will give both teams 30 speaks. Meanwhile, I currently default to 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything (yes, defense too. Don't be lazy).
Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary. NOTHING IS STICKY.
In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).
How to win my ballot:
Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.
I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).
I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).
I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.
I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.
Things I like:
Debating the line by line well.
Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.
Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.
Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).
Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.
A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.
Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.
Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.
Excessively long roadmaps- Your order should just be the flows. At most the arguments. Weighing is not a flow
Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice. The more frivolous your theory is, the less speaks I will give and the lower threshold I give for responses.
Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.
Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).
Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.
Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.
Things I hate:
New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.
Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.
How I award speaks:
30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.
29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.
28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.
27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.
26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.
Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)
30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.
Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.
I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.
Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.
If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 0.5.
You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.
If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.
I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something funny.
If you can make a reference to song I like, I'll boost your speaks. If you make a reference to a song I don't like, I'll dock speaks.
Write down things you did to boost speaks and remind me right when the round ends. If I forget, you can remind me the next time I judge you and I'll give you the extra speaks I owe.
Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts
TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.
Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.
I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.
K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.
K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.
Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.
Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.
Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.
I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.
I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.
Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.
I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.
DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).
CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.
Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.
K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.
Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).
T: For some reason, I'm a masochist and I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.
Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.
I am a parent judge with one and half years of experience in judging Public Forum. Never competed Public Forum or any other Forensic activities, but I am a biomedical scientist and do research, analysis, and interpret scientific data on a daily basis.
Since English is not my first language, I prefer clear and not too fast speech, so I can catch up the words and meaning of your talk.
I use following criteria when I judge a round:
Were the arguments intelligent? Your response to the arguments
The discrediting to the opposition’s response
The debaters back up their assertions with logical thinking and evidence when needed
Fair in interpretation of the resolution and one another’s statements?
Who is advancing the most significant arguments in the round?
I don’t weight much on the speed of speech, believe less words with sound arguments are much better than too much words which have to be delivered with fast speech.
Don’t have preference on the format of Summary Speeches, and evaluate argument over style.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, their arguments have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches. If a team is second speaking, I prefer that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech.
Don’t vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus.
I did LD debate when I went to high school (2010-2014). I used to judge consistently but stopped in 2017. Since then, I've only judged once before this tournament.
I prefer the debaters speak slowly. I also prefer if they make arguments through creative thinking rather than just reading prewritten stuff. Weighing is also important because each side invariably wins some arguments, so I need to know which arguments are the most important.
That being said, you should debate however you prefer and I'll do my best to evaluate the round based solely on the arguments made in the round.
tldr; flow judge. Do whatever you want, as long as it's clear and explained well, go crazy.
Contact Info: Facebook (my name) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org). Def add me to the email chain if there is one.
I did debate (mainly PF and a teeeensy bit of Policy) for 4 years at Ridge (graduated in 2019) with meh success, but I'm generally pretty competent on the flow. I'll vote off the flow, but it won't hurt your speaker points to speak well and it's generally easier for me to understand you if you speak well. If it's in final focus, it has to be in summary (except for some defense, see below). Weigh as much and as early as possible, don't leave me to do any work because you won't like how I think. Don't extend through ink otherwise you'll make me very grumpy. Be funny (I will understand literally any Office reference you make, try me) and you'll be rewarded with speaks, be rude and you'll be punished. Running unique, weird (but effective) strategies is a fun thing to do and if done well will be rewarded. I enjoy watching people who look like they're having fun.
I don't require the second rebuttal to frontline, but I do think it's a strategic decision to make. I love warrants and I prioritize warranted responses heavily over unwarranted card dumps.
I'm gonna be honest, I'll probably be on Reddit or messaging people (edit: in my old age, I've been spending cross looking over my flow so I'm actually probably doing that) during this time, so I'm probably not paying attention. I'll still be somewhat listening in the background, so concessions in crossfire are binding. It still needs to be brought up in a later speech though because I'm not flowing cross. In the event that I actually am paying attention during cross, I'd love it if you could entertain me by being funny (but not rude please!).
You don't need defense in first summary unless it was frontlined in second rebuttal. Feel free to extend it anyway if you'd like, it can't hurt for me to hear it again. Any offense you're going for in final focus must be in summary (this includes turns, etc.). Turns not extended in summary can be used as defense in final focus, but not as offense.
I love speed when it's used correctly: don't use it to card dump/drop one-lined responses, but using it to thoroughly explain warrants will be rewarded with high speaks. In PF, I doubt you'll hit a speed that I won't understand as long as you're clear. If you're not sure, just send a speech doc, I'd love that. I'll shout clear twice but after that I'm not flowing.
Use theory at your own risk: I'll happily vote off of it if there was a genuine abuse in the round, but my threshold is very low for responses against frivolous theories. That being said, I'll evaluate anything as long as it's well debated.
I'll evaluate K's but try to keep it simple in PF (cap's great) and make sure you have a clear link. Please if you're running a K, do it well. Reading a K well will make me very happy. Reading a K poorly will make me very not happy.
I'll always give a verbal RFD if the tournament allows for it. If you have any questions about my decision or disagree with certain parts of it, bring it up to me and ask me about it. As long as you're respectful about it, I encourage you to do so.
I won't be keeping track of time, so please keep track of time amongst yourselves. Be honest, and hold each other accountable. If you want me to look at a card, explicitly tell me to do so.
Hi, I did Public Forum debate for four years at Lake Mary Prep in Orlando, Florida.
Some things I like:
Warrants and lines of logic over evidence that is unwarranted
Weighing, the earlier the better
Front-lining in Second Rebuttal. You don't have to do this but I think it is a good idea
Collapsing ***** 3 min summary does not mean go for more, just COLLAPSE BETTER *****
My coach always used to say "50% fewer arguments and 100% more analysis"
Some things I don't like:
Miscut Evidence. I am fine with paraphrasing but please make sure its an accurate representation of the evidence (I reserve the right to drop you if it is seriously misrepresented)
Blippy Arguments that are not weighed, warranted, or implicated
Theory / Ks unless there is a serious issue or abuse in the topic or the round. I am also really bad at understanding these, so you should probably strike me if this is your thing.
Any bigoted argument I will immediately drop you no questions asked.
To Summarize, In the poetic words of Ozan Ergrunor:
i begged you
Somewhere where you get your alerts about rounds you should've gotten my name and pronouns but they are she/ her/ hers. If you feel comfortable sharing yours before the round starts that would be helpful (or if they're on tab and sent on blasts). I did PF for 4 years and I go to George Washington for International Affairs and Environmental Studies (the plan is to study sustainable urban development but im impartial for all environmental args for feb as long as you don't blatantly lie about science). I say y'all sometimes, idk why.
General things/ before round
online or not, idc what you're wearing like if it's formal or not, I used to show up in leggings and uggs with no blazer.
time yourself and opponents. Just tell me if someone goes over and don't take too long to look for cards
I dont care about eye contact or if you don't want your camera on (you DONT need to explain!)
If you need a few extra mins before we start for whatever reason (pre flow, water, stress, helping out in the house, getting paper, etc), just drop it in the chat or say that you're gonna step out for a few mins, you don't need to explain or justify it
I am NOT afraid to give below a 26 for speaks, especially if you're rude or are racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. If you are blatantly rude to your opponents or me I will probably tank your speaks or drop you (most likely the first but it depends). assertive and aggressive are different things. most of the time speaker points are arbitrary between teammates if there's like a .2 difference
flay judge, especially if its early in the morning or late at night
if you have some dad jokes, TikTok references, puns, or want to wear a funny hat or outfit, I will probably laugh and it'll be fun for everyone (if it's not offensive!!!) -- tell me if it's a bubble **if you want better speaks**
Debate stuff you actually care about
- Offer a CW/ TW before the round starts/ first constructive. people should be able to anonymously opt-in for evidence, argument, case, etc they can ex/ mental health, criminal justice, lgbtq+ communities, etc ***If you do this and you weren’t offensive I will give you 30s!!!!!! It’s never a bad thing to offer CW!!!*** !!!!
in speeches, start slower then you can go faster so I can catch everything you say. after every tag line plz take a breath!!!!!!!
if it's the first or second round please read me the resolution in first constructive (you don't have to even use your time) or if its the first round of the day plz speak slow in constructive
- I follow and value weighing with quantified impacts THE MOST tbh. ALL of my ballots come down to this, do comparative analysis for me, I won't want to do it for you. If you think it's a very muddled round, make it so clear why I have an easy path to the ballot. Weigh and frame, odds are you win.
Signpost at least relatively clearly where you are on the flow -- if you have FW, tell me where to flow it
Frontlining needed in 2nd RB (at least the turns)
I don't listen to CX so if something important happens, talk about it in a speech
Extend warrants not card names -- warranted analytics> unwarranted evidence
If it's in FF I want it in summary... I will not vote on smth if it's not in summ and FF
If you want to do something progressive, just make sure your opponents are okay with it, but treat me like a lay judge when doing this. If you wanna spread, send a speech doc to email@example.com (I also dont know how to use a wiki) I judged LD with theory debate and it was confusing and I ended up voting on substance so if you're going to do anything be clear with it.
I call for cards if I want after round (if ur misconstruing evidence I might drop you if its a close round and the card is dependent on it) even if your opponents don't call you out, so take that as you will (I would prefer if you called out your opponents' evidence though). you can always add me to email chains for evidence if you want shortimplement@Gmail.com
- I dislike GDP debates especially if they spillover to dev world. Arguing about GDP percent evidence seems detached from reality, paint a picture and crystalize the round for me
Climate change is real.
after round things
- My ballots are typically very casual and have a lot of typos and abbreviations because it's mostly just my notes and parts of my flow if I'm typing. I apologize if they come off in the wrong way and my oral rfds are a little incoherent at times hah
- 9/10 times you can shake my hand at the end if you want lol, the 1/10 times is if I'm sick or something is going around. I know it's awkward if you don't know if your judge shakes hands or not but you don't want to not shake their hands (I always felt like that should be something someone writes in their paradigm). If you don't want to shake my hand or are sick, no worries.
if there's anything I'm missing or you have any questions you can email me, or ask.
question: best juice box/ pouch brand
Hi! I'm Cale. I'm the debate coach at Westlake.
I want the round to be safe and fun, so please be nice, and read content warnings with replacements if applicable. If you need any accommodations, or just need an adult to speak to, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org . This also works for the email chain.
I'll evaluate any argument that's frontlined, fully extended, and non-exclusionary. I'm comfortable evaluating any progressive arguments. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Don't need to extend defense until after it's frontlined. I'm good w/ any speed, just be able to send a speech doc if it's unclear.
I have a background in PF and Policy and have 8 years of coaching experience. I vote based on the flow and won't make any arguments for you. No unnecessary off-time roadmaps (i.e. "I'm going to refute my opponent's case, and then talk about my own if time permits" before the 2AC).
Assistant Director of Forensics - Delbarton School (2020 - present)
Director of Debate - Duchesne Academy (2017-2020)
Marist '16// Rice University '20
Important changes for 2020-21 Season:
Email Chains: 1st speaker of the 1st speaking team should start an email chain as soon as you get into the Zoom/NSDA room. Teams need to send their full case docs and cards by the end of their constructive speeches. Additionally, teams need to send all new evidence read in rebuttal immediately after rebuttal speeches. Ideally, no one should need to ask to take prep to view or call for evidence. Add me to the email chain using BOTH email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org
The subject should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team (side/order) v Team (side/order) .
Evidence - While I prefer debaters read card text, I'm okay with paraphrasing. However, I require you to cut cards for all evidence referenced in the round. These are properly cut cards (Thank you Christian Vasquez for the link). If you don't cut cards then you might want to consider striking me. IF YOUR CARD ISN'T CUT AND I CALL FOR IT, I WON'T CONSIDER IT. Cut cards promote better research and debate ethics. I understand fitting sources into speeches, but lying about what your evidence says ruins the ethos of the round and cheats everyone of the educational and competitive components of this activity. And I'm tired of calling for evidence that contradicts the tag read in the round.
Main PF Paradigm:
1.) I look at the round through an offense/defense paradigm. Ultimately, offense wins debates. It will be hard to just win off just terminal defense. On my flow, offense requires a link/warrant, an impact, and frontlining. Miss one and it will be harder for me to flow your offense.
2.) Speeches must build off of each other. It’s not enough to just read some offense or defense in one speech and only extend it at the very end in the Final Focus. Rebuttals need to be line-by-line with 2nd rebuttals frontlining major turns for at least 30-60 seconds. Any offense or defense you want me to look at on my flow needs to be cleanly extended, especially in the Summary and the Final Focus.
3.) Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other. I don't care about the 1st speaking team disadvantage in summary because there are other advantages in the round. You should extend defense in first summary and similar offense.
4.) Please weigh. It makes it a lot easier to evaluate the round if you warrant what I should look to first. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses timeframe, magnitude, and probability. Strength of link is a fake term for probability. Clarity of impact is not real weighing.
5.) I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done a lot of research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything you have me flow (tech over truth). The only times I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) would be when the args/examples presented are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, anything ridiculous like "extinction/terrorism good," or when I know a piece of evidence being read is completely misrepresented. I will call for evidence if debaters ask me to or if I find it important in my decision. Cards should be properly cut (refer to the message at the top).
Also, it's up to the debaters in the round to call each other out and issue a formal evidence ethics challenge if I don't call for a card.
6.) I will (almost) always disclose. Unless it's Nationals, I will always disclose and give an RFD. I'm also open to questions from debaters after the round. Once debaters become rude or their coaches get involved, then I'll stop my post-round discussion.
7.) I'm 100% fine with accommodations. Increasing accessibility is important. Just communicate what you need before the round. Opponents will also receive the same benefits. If you are an opposing team that disagrees with reasonable accommodations, get over it and debate.
Plans/CPs/DAs - I've always been okay with “specific” plans, “pseudo” CPs, and DAs because I used them during my debate career. Just make sure you "fit" them within PF and the resolution. Debaters who complain about the rules of PF debate when it comes to plans and CPs – get over it and debate.
Kritics - I'm okay with the generic K's people try to run (i.e. Feminism, Capitalism, Securitization, etc.) but I am not familiar with high theory (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche).
Theory - Theory is the highest layer of argumentation, so I'll evaluate it as such. I am okay with just a paragraph or a full shell. For me to extend your theory argument, you need to read it as soon as the abuse occurs. Additionally, theory needs to be extended throughout the debate. Otherwise, it could become disingenuous and opponents are free to use the drop as a way to win time skew. Evidence of abuse is also needed for theory (especially disclosure related shells).
1.) Preflow before the round otherwise -0.3 speaker points.
2.) Crossfires - It's usually not important to my ballot and I don't flow them. I think it’s more for y'all to clarify your args with each other. If something significant is said in cross-fire, then bring up immediately in the next speech to make it binding. Also, be nice to each other.
3.) Speed - I am okay if you go fast (7ish/10), so long as you are clear. I reserve the right to ask for a speech doc if you go too fast.
4.) Speaker points - Debate is an educational activity that requires good use of evidence, so I lean more towards analysis and strategy instead of persuasiveness. Scale from 27-30 with everyone starting at a 27. If you get below a 25, you did something unethical in the round. Don't expect a 30 just because you won the round.
Questions? Ask before the round
I am a parent judge and have been actively judging since 2019 in multiple national tournaments. I have completed the NSDA judge training and Cultural Competency course. As a global business professional, I travel extensively and am fairly familiar with most topics debated in NSDA PF.
Speak at a reasonable pace – clarity is your responsibility. If you make an argument, you should explain and weigh the argument. Warranting is important. Clearly signpost throughout the round. Extending an impact, without explaining its warrant won’t win you the impact. Paraphrasing is fine – but needs to be accurate. Explain clear voting issues in the final focus. I like to hear why you should win.
Cards: Exchange of cards is mandatory when requested. If you cannot produce a card in 2 minutes, I will ignore it.
Timing: Time yourself (rounds and prep)
Audience: This is public forum – public (especially parents) are welcome.
Debaters should advocate or reject the resolution in a manner clear to a non-specialist citizen judge. Clash of ideas is essential to debate.
Debaters should display logic and reasoning, advocate a position, use evidence, and communicate clear ideas using professional decorum.
Neither the pro team nor the con team should offer a plan or counterplan, defined as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.
I am a new judge. So I mostly hope you do not talk too fast or I will not be able to evaluate the arguments. I would also prefer substantive arguments on the topic, rather than theory.
I am a parent judge. I have been judging public forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Speech for last 3 years. I work as a senior engineer in a defense industry.
1) I don't prefer spreading, because if I can't understand and follow you what you are saying, I can't judge you well based upon the content of your debate.
2) Be concise and clear, and present your contentions and arguments well.
3) Be respectful and civil to opponents.
4) For online tournaments, I would like to have all the contestants with their camera on during the debate round even when they are not speaking. Keep yourself muted if you are not speaking.
Hello, I am a parent judge.
Please speak very slowly and explain arguments clearly.
I will try my best to vote for the team that best explains their arguments and why they are winning.
Please try to compare your arguments to each others arguments and emphasize specific arguments; this makes it much easier to decide the winner. At the end of the round, I believe that focusing on one argument and explaining it in its entirely is more important than explaining 2 or 3 arguments briefly.
I really appreciate all the hard work! I am excited to judge your round.
Background: I am a sophomore Penn State pursuing a double major in mathematics and computer science. I attended McDowell High School in Erie, PA, and did debate and speech 9-12. I did a lot of events but some of them were extemp, info, DI, OO, and BQ.
What I want to see: I am a standard flow judge. I want to see clash, extensions, clear roadmaps, signposting, all of that. If a theory or K is applicable, you can run it. Please go slower when running it as I do not have experience there, but I understand the importance.
Weigh. Weigh. Weigh. Please weigh.
Cross - I will not flow CX but I will listen. Please don't shout or anything for CX, there is no need for that. Be nice. If something important happens that you would like me to flow, then say "Evelyn write this down" and I will write it down.
If there is no offense on either side I will assume the neg.
Speed and Fluency: For speed, talk at a logical pace, but also go at a pace that your microphone can pick up. Probably speak 60-80% slower since we are online. I can keep up with pretty fast paces, but clarity is more of an issue, please be clear.
Please be nice. I will not tolerate hate or intolerance of any type. I will tank speaks if you are mean.
If you have any more questions, feel free to ask before or after the round.
Hi - judge's daughter writing his paradigm for him.
Arguments: He's a pretty no-BS guy - if you're running a super niche argument chances are he isn't going to buy it unless it's really well warranted. He really likes the obvious (stock) arguments and you'll find the easiest way to his ballot is the most apparent reasons why to affirm/negate or really well warranted niche stuff.
Speed: He has a low tolerance for fast speed and you're going to lose him if you get anywhere close to spreading - talk at a pace like you would in a conversation. If you need to read your case any faster, send him the link so he can flow it properly.
Flowing: I did teach him how to flow :) so he will be actively flowing! He's less of an impact voter and more of a logic voter - this isn't to say quantified impacts don't help but don't just yell random numbers at him. General piece of advice for all debaters.
Postrounding: PLEASE don't postround him - it's rude and disrespectful. Public forum was made for the public so if he couldn't understand your argument it's your fault, not his.
Speaks: His "average debater" is a 28. He will add or subtract points if he found you to be worse or better than the 'average'.
Anyway, good luck debating and have fun!
I am a parent of a public forum debater. I have judged local tournaments for the past seven years for Bridgewater-Raritan High School NJ in local, state, and national tournaments.
Please speak clearly and at a normal speed. Speech, Delivery, and persuasion will be considered. Please focus on the points made and highlight any new points introduced. In summary and final focus, please identify each of the arguments you ask me to vote on and, most importantly, why your team's position is stronger or better supported than your opponents' position. Please also consider explaining why even if I were to accept an argument made by your opponents, I should nevertheless still vote for you.
I'm a lay judge with little experience judging.
Don't speak too quickly, and speak well.
Debating Experience: I was a Public Forum debater at Millard North High School for 3 years. I've debated on the Nebraska local circuit for those three years. I got into the National Circuit my junior year, getting two bids and attending the Tournament of Champions that year. My senior year had me at several nat circuit and Nebraska tournaments. In college, I debate for the University of Arizona in NPDA style.
PF:I will need cases and rebuttal cards to be provided to me for accessibility reasons. Please be able to do this in round by emailing me at email@example.com or dropping it in the file share area in the online debate space.
Speed: Don't spread. I can understand some level of fast talking, just don't overdo it.
Argumentation: I'll follow most lines of argumentation. I'm okay with somewhat blippy arguments. However, if your arguments rely on obscene or offensive grounds, I'll either dock you several speaker points or outright drop you, depending on the severity. I am a pretty expressive person, so you'll be able to tell whether I am convinced by an argument or not. Explain everything thoroughly. Make sure I don't have anything to be subjective about by explaining exactly why I have to vote for you. I most likely won't have read up on the topic so this is very important.
Intervention: I will try my best not to intervene, but if an argument isn't explained enough, I may be forced to intervene. One thing I will intervene is on framework. The other team can fully drop the framework and I may not weigh the framework if I don't buy it. Thus, you must make sure that your framework is explained in depth and show how it links into your case.
Evidence: I'll most likely call some piece of evidence at the end of the round, so make sure you have it. When I do call evidence and see that it's not correct or something is wrong with it, I won't hold that against you unless the other team calls it in terms of the voters. Speaks will suffer however.
Rebuttal: 2nd team needs to rebuild within their rebuttal.
Summary: Don't give me a complete line by line. You need to start funnelling your arguments down and boiling them down to the essentials. Don't give new arguments unless you are responding to a new argument made in a previous speech. You may introduce new evidence but it should be very important for it to be considered.
Final Focus: Same as summary but funnel it down even more. No new arguments or evidence.
Cross-ex: Don't make it into a yelling contest. Try to keep questions concise unless absolutely necessary. If your opponent asks for a question and you're trying to make a multi-part question, let them ask their question first and get back to it later.
Post-rounding: I'm open to questions after the round, pretty much about anything. However, you shouldn't try to convince me about the debate and try to sway my decision. I'll anyways have sent the ballot out before then.
Feel free to ask me questions about anything before round!
I'm a Pf coach and have been judging PF for years. I have also judged quite a bit of LD.
I flow (except crossfires) but I'm not going to get down every source tag. If you feel a source is important or you want to argue your opponents source please make sure I know what the source said in case (or blocks). Id prefer you to refer to what the evidence said than just card tags.
Speed-don't go too fast. It isn't so much an issue of me not being able to follow you, it's more the fact that this is a public speaking and communication competition and not a race. At no point in the real world (outside of auctions I suppose) will being the person who speaks the fastest get you anywhere. Since I am not going to judge the round based on simply a tally of who had the most arguments, it's not really worth your time squeezing in that extra contention/argument.
Please, please, please impact weigh for me. You don't want your judge to have to decide what's most important, tell them why your impacts are most important.
Roadmaps- don't do them. They are not useful in pf and rarely tell me anything. Just signpost in your speech. As long as you're organized, I should be able to follow you. If you're not organized, a roadmap wouldn't help me anyway.
Be nice to each other, don't constantly cut each other off in cx, you will see it effect your speaker points if you do.
Default framework is harms outweigh benefits for all PF. Just because you have a framework and your opponents don't doesn't mean you win automatically. If they fully respond to your framework or lay out their own, even in rebuttal, I'm fine with that.
Not interested in non-topical arguments. It's probably best for you to just not run them.
Hi — my name is Ashley (she/hers). I graduated from the University of Florida in 2020 and have a degrees in International Studies, Political Science, and History. I currently work as a labor organizer in North Central Florida.
I did PF during my time at a tiny school in SW Florida from 2012-2016. I never put in enough time to be a good debater but I know enough to be able to decipher a clear winner in each round.
If I'm judging you for LD, please treat me as a flay judge — sorry. If you start doing that weird thing with your breathing, I'm gonna check out.
I'm learning how to judge theory/prog debate — to help me do so, tell me when you want an argument on a new sheet.
I will always do my best to minimize intervention within the round — this is your time to be creative with your arguments (i hate disclosure theory tho) and to have fun with developing your own style of debate.
I am generally open to any arguments, but especially love to see how far left you can go with each argument.
Framework: if you don't contextualize the argument, I will do it myself and you don't want that. also please engage with the framework debate as soon as it's brought up in round.
The earlier you start weighing, the better the round will be for you. I won't weigh anything in FF if it's not in summary (please condense and weigh impacts in these two speeches rather than going line-by-line.
Please answer defense.
COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE. You will not win every argument, weigh and collapse.
(In PF rounds) If you treat novices/obv. less-experienced debaters with anything but the same respect you'd want in a round, you will not pick up my ballot. If I'm on a panel with lay judges in the round, go for the lay judge ballots instead of mine.
You can email me at firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions during the round. Please don't try to keep me for more than 5 minutes after I give my decision, it annoys me. Email me instead.
Hello! I look forward to judging your debate. Please provide clear evidence and reasoning throughout your debate. Please time yourselves - I trust teams will hold each other accountable on times for prep/speech etc.
I did Public Forum for three years at Bronx Science. I can flow any speed but if you’re gonna talk fast please speak clearly.
Speaker points will be rewarded based on 1. How easy you make it for me to flow what you're saying. 2. The content of what you are saying. I don't care too much how you sound as long as I can understand.
Defense that is not responded to sticks until final focus. Defense does not need to be extended in the first or second summary unless it was addressed by the other team. Turns need to be clearly extended in summary and final focus for me to evaluate them as offense. If they're non-responsive you should be weighing them.
Weighing matters a lot. If you don’t weigh you’re link or impacts, I will have to do it for you which is not good but if you do it will make your case so much stronger. Also avoid relying on obvious stuff like magnitude and scope, and focus on all the other ways your argument might possibly matter more than theirs. I hold lots of value in probability analysis. If any step of the argument isn’t probable, it likely has no impact. Also, weigh in rebuttal if you can, and all essential weighing should be said in both summary and final focus.
On Kritiks/theory/spreading/other non-PF things
I’m generally open to anything however, you must ask the other team for consent. When you change the style of the debate, you are changing the activity, and with most activities you need consent. Theory is justified in obvious abuse.
Kritiks: I feel like I’m well versed enough to evaluate these and if not that’s your problem.
I will call for cards if they’re very important but too sus. If you know your opponents are lying about evidence tell me to call for it.
Feel free to ask any questions before the round.
UPDATED 4/13/2020 for Online TOC 2020:
(1) GO SLOWLY. I cannot emphasize this enough. Going more slowly will greatly improve the thoughtfulness of your arguments and the quality of your delivery, and doing so will make it much easier for me to comprehend and be persuaded by your arguments. No matter how many pieces of evidence or blocks or turns or rebuilds you present, if your opponent just clearly presents ONE intelligent point that strikes me as pertinent and insightful, I am likely to side with him/her at least on the particular issue, and perhaps vote for him/her altogether.
(1a) In terms of your case, to be as specific as possible, in the hopes that you will actually heed my words about speed, the ideal PF case should be no longer than 600 words total. If your case is much longer than that, and you go faster in order to squeeze it into 4 minutes, it's highly likely that I will simply not catch and process many of your words - so you may as well not have said them in the first place.
(1b) In terms of the later speeches in a round, be selective, be strategic, and sell me the goods. In rebuttals, give me your ONE best response to your opponent's argument - maybe two responses, at the very most three. In the second half of the round, collapse to your ONE best voting issue and give your ONE strongest reason why it is true and your ONE strongest reason why it should be considered significant. I'm not going to count all your points just because you said them - You just have to make ONE good point count. (But don't try to do that just be repeating it again and again. You have to explain why your opponent's attack on it should be considered insufficient.) And point out the ONE most critical flaw in your opponent's argument.
(2) More advice on presentation: because we are doing debate through Zoom, it is MORE important that you pay attention to your delivery, not less. It's much harder to hold people's attention when you are speaking to them online than when you speak to them in person. (I'm sure you know this to be true as a listener.) So if you just give up on presenting well, you're making the obstacle practically insurmountable. On the other hand, if you put some real effort into speaking as well as you can in this new online format, you'll likely stand out from many of your opponents and your points will likely be understood and appreciated more than theirs.
(2a) Be clear: Do everything you can to be as clear and easy to understand as possible, both in your writing and your speaking.
(2b) Vary your delivery: Indicate what are the most important points in your speeches by changing up your voice. You should emphasize what is really important by changing the pace, the pitch, the volume, and the tone and also by using pauses. Your speech should not be one, long unbroken stream of words that all sound the same.
(2c) Eye contact: I know it's very hard but try to look up at your camera as much as possible. At least try to show me your face as much as you can.
(3) I don't believe that theory or kritiks should be a part of Public Forum debate. If you run either, you will almost certainly lose my ballot. I don't have time now to give all the reasons why I'm opposed to these kinds of arguments in PF. But I want you to have fair warning of my view on this point. If your opponent has not read this paradigm (or is blatantly disregarding it) and runs a kritik or theory in a round and i am your judge, all you need to say for me to dismiss that argument is that PF debate is intended to be accessible to all people and should directly address the topic of the resolution, and then continue to debate the resolution.
Since 2001, I have been a coach of the speech and debate team of University School in Ohio. I have coached and judged virtually all high school speech and debate events over the years, but I’ve devoted the most time and energy to Public Forum debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I have experience at all levels: national, state, and local. Probably my biggest claim to fame as a coach is that my PF team (DiMino and Rahmani) won the NSDA national championship in 2010. My school has also won the NSDA School of Excellence in Debate Award 8 of the last 12 years. If any of the points below are unclear or if you want my view on something else, feel free to ask me questions before the round begins.
PF Judging Preferences:
I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF a more exclusive and inaccessible event.
Here are 3 specific preferences related to PF:
1. SPEED (i.e., SELECTIVITY): The slower, the better. What most debaters consider to be slow is still much too fast for the ordinary lay person. Also, speed is often a crutch for debaters. I much prefer to hear fewer, well-chosen arguments developed fully and presented persuasively than many superficial points. One insightful rebuttal is better than three or four mediocre ones. In short, be selective. Go for quality over quantity. Use a scalpel, not a machine gun.
2. CROSSFIRES: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponent speak. But certainly, if they are trying to steam-roll you, you can politely interject and make crossfire more balanced. Crossfire should go back and forth fairly evenly and totally civilly. I want to see engagement and thoughtfulness. Avoid anger and aggressiveness.
3. THEME OVER TECHNIQUE: It is very important to me that a debater presents and supports a clear and powerful narrative about the topic. Don't lost sight of the bigger picture. Keep going back to it in every speech. Only deal with the essential facts that are critical to proving and selling your narrative. If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot.
LD Judging Preferences:
1. VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION: I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not.
2. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: I think that speed ruins the vast majority of debaters, both in terms of their ability to think at a high level and in terms of their effective public speaking, which are two things that are supposed to be developed by your participation in high school forensics and two things I very much hope to see in every debate round I judge.
Most debaters cannot think as fast as they can talk, so going fast in an attempt to win by a numerical advantage in arguments or by “spreading” and causing your opponent to miss something, usually just leads to (a) poor strategic choices of what to focus on, (b) lots of superficial, insignificant, and ultimately unpersuasive points, and (c) inefficiency as debaters who speak too fast often end up stumbling, being less clear, and having to repeat themselves.
I would encourage debaters to speak at a normal, conversational pace, which would force them to make strategic decisions about what’s really important in the round. I think it is better to present clearly a few, significant points than to race rapidly through many unsubstantial points. Try to win by the superior quality of your thinking, not by the greater quantity of your ideas.
While I will do my best to “flow” everything that each debater presents, if you go too fast and as a result I miss something that you say, I don’t apologize for that. It’s your job as a debater not just to say stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with.
Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses. It depends on how significant the point is and on how well the opponent explains why the dropped point matters, i.e., how it reveals that his/her side is the superior one.
As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view.
3. WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE: If you read the above carefully, you probably realized that I usually give more weight to logical reasoning than to expert testimony or statistics. I’m more interested in seeing how well you think on your feet than seeing how good of a researcher you are. (I’ve been coaching long enough to know that people can find evidence to support virtually any position on any issue….)
If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling.
4. KRITIKS: While I may appreciate their cleverness, I am very suspicious of kritik arguments. If there is something fundamentally flawed with the resolution such that it shouldn’t be debated at all, it seems to me that that criticism applies equally to both sides, the negative as well as the affirmative. So even if you convince me that the kritik is valid, you’re unlikely to convince me then that you should be given credit for winning the round.
If you really believe the kritik argument, isn’t it hypocritical or self-contradictory for you to participate in the debate round? It seems to me that you can’t consistently present both a kritik and arguments on the substantive issues raised by the resolution, including rebuttals to your opponent’s case. If you go all in on the kritik, I’m likely to view that as complete avoidance of the issues.
In short, running a kritik in front of me as your judge is a good way to forfeit the round to your opponent.
5. JARGON: Please try to avoid using debate jargon as much as possible.
6. PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.
I have judged PF for a few years.
Be respectful to your opponents, especially in crossfire, and don't make bigoted arguments
I will flow your speeches, but I expect you to call out if your opponent dropped an argument, has incorrect logic/ facts etc.,
Speed: If I cannot understand/flow it, it does not count i.e., I favor normal speech speed , quality arguments vs spreading/quantity.
Cross: Raise items in speech if you want me to flow it and use it in my decision.
Clearly identify your arguments, warrants, highlight clash, weigh, identify voting issues and why you should win the debate
Generally, I will call for cards only if asked, or if my decision rests on a card. Don't use that as an excuse to misrepresent cards.
Theory? Please don't!
Lastly, have fun!
I am a parent and I have judged 2 debate tournaments so far. I am eager to hear from all of you and I would appreciate it if you spoke slowly. Good luck
Public Form was originally designed with the framework that any reasonably educated lay person could follow an argument, weigh the evidence, and judge which side had greater merit. This is the precise premise from which I, as a former history teacher, will listen to your round and judge.
I will base my decision on the following 3 criteria:
1) Speech: Speaking slowly enough and clearly is critical. If you speak too rapidly, I cannot understand you, so it will not matter in the end how good your arguments are. Strive to enunciate, be articulate, and modulate your voice. Keep me engaged and listening.
2) Evidence: Your arguments should be easy to follow, logical, and practical. Statistics and quantitative evidence is most persuasive. You should also organize your evidence. It helps if you enumerate the arguments.
3) Decorum and Civility: Show respect to your opponent. Disagreements should never be wrapped in disrespect. Maintain a courteous, calm, and professional attitude and demeanor.
Remember that you are addressing and making a pitch to an informed and engaged citizen, not a professional speech and debate judge.
I did PF for three years at Corona del Sol High School in Arizona.
Please signpost, extend warrants, and weigh! I won't call for evidence unless there is a reason to do so. I don't have experience with progressive arguments, so please don't run any. Second rebuttal should respond to any opposing offense (turns, DAs) and try to frontline the responses for the argument you're going for.
If there's anything I can do to make the round safer, please let me know at email@example.com.
I debated for 4 years on the PF national circuit for duPont Manual High School and I’m currently a freshman at Vanderbilt. Let me know if anything is unclear or if you have any questions!
Paradigm borrowed from THE Mark Raj
1. Make it easy for me to vote for you with well-warranted and weighed arguments in the 2nd half
2. Plz rebuild in 2nd rebuttal (and even start collapsing!)
3. SIGNPOST I will be forever grateful
4. WEIGH COMPARITEVLY: don't just say magnitude, tell me how you have 3 more magnitudes than your opponent
5. I'm fine with speed; just make tags and signposts especially clear
6. Have fun! Be comfortable! Be nice to your opponents!
2nd Half (Summary/FF): Collapse needs to happen in summary and these speeches should mirror each other. Make sure you are telling me why things matter when extending it. Extend the warrant AND impact in BOTH speeches for me to vote off of it (weigh it and you'll win!)
I don't require defense in 1st summary but mentioning it will always work in your favor.
Cross: I kind of enjoy watching cross so take it as an opportunity to clarify arguments or just to be funny. That being said, it won't factor into my decision at all unless it's brought up in a speech.
Evidence: I'll call for it if someone tells me to or if it's super key to my decision. If it is sus, I will not be a happy camper.
Theory n stuff: I have no idea how to properly run or evaluate it but I will try my best if you read it (my best is not very good). Please do not use this as a tool to be exclusionary. Be sure to emphasize the roll of the ballot.
Please enjoy yourselves while debating and have a fun (and educational) time!
I have been a judge for 2 years. I have judged all events on the speech side at local tournaments and both nationals. I have judged PF at every local tournament for the last year. I want to hear concrete, logically connected arguments. Before you start your speech tell me which side of the flow you are starting on, stating clearly your contentions and sub-points. I have issues with spreading, if I cannot flow your arguments, you cannot win, simple as that. Please weigh at the end. I expect professionalism and good sportsmanship. Most important have fun and good luck!
1. Personal background: I debated traditional LD in OH for four years (2015/16 - 2018/19). I also have experience counseling/coaching, and now mostly judge PF
2. I pick a winner based on who I thought did the better debating (i.e. not whoever has the most and biggest numbers, but rather whoever takes the time to slowly and deeply engage in analytics, unique and nuanced clash, well-thought out round strategy, and of course, persuasive speaking).
3. THAT BEING SAID, I am not a "lay judge." I will flow on my computer, and write down everything that seems relevant and that I can catch (don't speak too quickly, both for the sake of your clarity and your appeal)
4. I have a personal preference against "progressive" / non-traditional strategies. I always strongly prefer something topical over Ks, theory, etc. IF you intend to utilize one of these types of arguments, PLEASE ask your opponent their level of comfort with it before the round begins, and if they are not comfortable or experienced with progressive argumentation/style, don't go down that route, or I'll probably drop you right there.
5. I do not intend to read your evidence after the round. It's on both teams to explain and settle evidence debates in speeches
6. If you read evidence, READ THE WARRANTS. For me, evidence w/o logical explanation > nothing, logic w/o evidence > evidence w/o logic, and evidence w/ logic > all. It also makes my life infinitely easier if, when extending arguments toward the end of the round, you take the five to ten seconds to re-explain the warrant behind the argument
7. I don't typically time prep. You can keep track of it yourself, or have your opponents keep you accountable. Just don't be scummy about taking extra
a) please do not read a framework
b) collapse asap (at second rebuttal ideally)
This was written by her son, Eric, who debates for Montgomery Blair.
I am a lay judge. Speak with tact, be respectful, and have fun. Try to speak slowly and clearly. I will not be able to understand spreading or rapid speech as well. I will not disclose at the end of the round.
Please keep your opponents responsible for their prep and speech times.
I am a lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and give reasoning behind your arguments. Be civil to each other in round; rudeness is not tolerated. Humor is appreciated only if appropriate.
Titles: Assistant Director of Debate at Samford University (AL).
Head Coach at The Altamont School (AL).
College: Top Speaker at ADA Nationals. 2x NDT First-Round Bid at Wake Forest. 2x NDT Octofinalist. 2x Kentucky Round Robin. Dartmouth Round Robin.
High School: 3x TOC Qualifier. 2011 Winner of Emory's Barkley Forum in Policy Debate. Greenhill and Harvard Round Robin. Winner of Woodward JV Nationals. Third Place at NSDA Nationals in 2011. Seventh Place NSDA Nationals 2010.
I’m not the smartest human. You’re maybe/likely smarter than me. Please do not assume I know anything you are talking about. And I would honestly love to learn some new things in a debate about arguments you invented.
Tl;dr: Offense/defense, the algorithm, cards are currency, did I mention offense. UQ determines link unless otherwise said. Very willing to pull the trigger on T/theory.
I keep a running clock and "read along" with speech docs to prevent clipping. At the end of the round, I find myself most comfortable voting for a team that has the best synthesis between good ethos, good tech/execution, and good evidence. I will not vote on better evidence if the other team out debates you, but I assign a heavy emphasis on quality evidence when evaluating competing arguments, especially offensive positions.
Most debaters should make analytics off their flows, especially in digital debate. Conversely, if you include analytics on your speech doc but I do not find you clear but I recognize where you are on your speech doc, I will not consider them arguments. Death to digital debate. I will say clear though, don't worry.
Debaters are guilty until proven innocent of clipping cards. I follow along in speech docs. I believe it is judges job to police clipping and it is unfair to make debaters alone check it.
Condo. 3 against a basic/big stick aff is about my ceiling. 3 contradictory condo and I can more easily be persuaded to vote on condo. For new affs, I think at most 5 condo is permissive. Anymore and I think you risk losing on theory.
Process/ Conditions/ consult CPs are the devil, unless you have a fire solvency advocate specific to their plan text which can prove its predictable and important for that area of debate. But I’m persuaded that a generic/predictable aff posted on the wiki can win a theory debate/perm do CP against a generic process/ conditions/ consult CPs. This is especially true with any Con Con CP. Con Con is the worst.
K debate is cheating (I mean that's the point). Especially K affs. I vote for K teams that are best able to identify what offense that voting for them solves, whether that be through FIAT or non-FIAT means, that voting for the other team does not solve.
I hate judge kick. Do you want me to flow for you too? Maybe compose your speech doc while you're at it? I don't give the affirmative random permutations. Don't make me kick your trash counterplan for you.
PS- Please do not read global warming good. Global warming is real and will kill us all. And I am particularly persuaded by the argument that introducing these arguments in debate is unethical for spreading propaganda and should be deterred by rejecting the team. I'm way more persuaded by inevitability and alt cause args.
I am largely engaged with college policy debate levels of debate. I will flow every word you say. Speed is a weapon in debate. LD is often one big K debate which is fine in LD but I err towards util/consequentialism FW's. I can be persuaded pre-fiat impacts are extra-topical and can be rejected as such (likely not a reason to reject the team). But I do love me a good ol' fashioned value premise throw down from time to time, I must admit. It is the premise.
I'm increasingly frustrated with the liminal space public forum operates in. I'm so happy to see the progress made in terms of substance and clash, but am frustrated at the lack of norms that should accompany these progressive improvements. Here are my thoughts when judging a PF debate:
- Public Forum, if you're looking for your paraphrasing theory gatekeeper, you've found them. I will vote on paraphrasing bad theory ONLY IF the you read properly cited and highlighted cards that are sent out prior to your speech. Please dear god people, let's stop this spreading "Reuters '19" and "Forbes '19" non-sense. Atleast policy has to read long cards, that's WHY they have to spread. Paraphrasing makes debate impossible for both debaters and judge to genuinely test the veracity of evidence sources. This is an increasingly important issue too in our modern age of disinformation, fake news, and propaganda. Let's all work together to continue the progress being made in PF.
- I DO NOT CONSIDER URL/ARTICLES EVIDENCE. if you have to google/search for an article after I call for a card I will not evaluate the evidence and will treat it as an analytic. A CARD HAS TO BE CUT. There has to be some norm to reward actual research and preperation.
- I do not want to be a "policy judge" in PF. Please do not unload the canon and spread at 110%. If you want to do that, just come to policy debate and I'll be happy to judge it. I feel like my experience in policy debate/another debaters experience asymmetrical tilts the debate in a way that is unfair to debaters who do not have policy experience or experience spreading. You can make a ton of arguments while still going at 60-70% of your top speed. How do I plan to enforce this? I'm not entirely sure. It will definitely be reflected in speaks and will feel empathetic to the other team, but past that I'm not entirely sure. I have judged enough PF rounds now where debaters come in and spread that I feel like I am unfairly skewing the debate in one teams favor. Please do not make me feel like this! If you wanna spread, do policy/come do policy for me at Samford.
- Disclosure norm. I'm a BIG advocate of open source/wiki, but I'm not entirely sure I'm willing to vote down a small local school who maybe didn't know there was a wiki against a big school reading disclosure theory "to help small schools." It almost seems counter-productive. I think it can be an easy win if the other team drops it, or if its two big schools debating, I could consider it. But I literally judged a round where a team from a the reigning TOC policy champion school read disclosure theory against a small rural school with no coach and said it would help small programs. I'm not the biggest fan there.
I am a parent judge who has been judging since 2014. I am your traditional parent judge who does some basic flowing. The easiest path to my ballot is through logical arguments and slow, articulate speaking. I know you don't want to see this, but I'm truth>tech. If your argument makes sense to me, I'll be happy to vote off of it. If your argument isn't well warranted and just doesn't make sense to me, don't expect for me to vote off of it. I know some basic debate jargon, but the less you use the better. Mutual respect in round is key, and if I see cheating in any way(such as using messaging platforms for help) I will automatically drop you.
I debated for 4 years on THE PF national circuit for duPont Manual High School and I’m currently a sophomore at Vanderbilt. Let me know if anything is unclear or if you have any questions!
1. Make it easy for me to vote for you with well-warranted and weighed arguments in the 2nd half
2. Plz rebuild in 2nd rebuttal (and even start collapsing!)
3. SIGNPOST I will be forever grateful
4. WEIGH COMPARITEVLY: don't just say magnitude, tell me how you have 3 more magnitudes than your opponent
5. I'm fine with speed; just make tags and signposts especially clear
6. Have fun! Be comfortable! Be nice to your opponents!
2nd Half (Summary/FF): Collapse needs to happen in summary and these speeches should mirror each other. Make sure you are telling me why things matter when extending it. Extend the warrant AND impact in BOTH speeches for me to vote off of it (weigh it and you'll win!)
I don't require defense in 1st summary but mentioning it will always work in your favor.
Cross: I kind of enjoy watching cross so take it as an opportunity to clarify arguments or just to be funny. That being said, it won't factor into my decision at all unless it's brought up in a speech.
Evidence: I'll call for it if someone tells me to or if it's super key to my decision. If it is sus, I will not be a happy camper.
Theory n stuff: I have no idea how to properly run or evaluate it but I will try my best if you read it (my best is not very good). Please do not use this as a tool to be exclusionary. Be sure to emphasize the roll of the ballot.
Please enjoy yourselves while debating and have a fun (and educational) time!
I debated for three years in Public Forum at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts.
I am fine with most speeds. However, I definitely prefer the round to go at a moderate pace and I will not tolerate spreading.
I like to think that I am tech>truth. That said, there is an inherent tradeoff with my threshold for responses on ridiculous arguments.
You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.
I do not think progressive arguments (Theory, K, Breaking Speech Times/Meta, etc.) belong in PF so I will not judge those types of rounds. On the other hand, if there is some outrageous violation, warrant the issues in a speech and I will probably give some credence to it if it is true. Just don't read like a full-blown shell on me.
I default Neg but am willing to hear warranted arguments about why I should presume the first speaking team.
Things I Like:
Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate.
I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.
Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and I might make some heinous decisions.
I also believe that weighing comes in tiers. To quote Brian Zhu: “You need to have a certain amount of probability your impact happens before you access the other layers of weighing like magnitude, timeframe, etc.”
I also love teams who use impact clarity well! Use it correctly, I often see this "weighing" mechanism done poorly.
Things I Do Not Like:
I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments but I will have a super low threshold for responses and your speaks will likely reflect this.
A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions.
If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue.
If you have any questions you can ask me before the round starts or message me on Facebook here.
I am more focused as to how your contentions logically contribute and link to the main story of your argument, and whether the arguments make coherent sense. I am less so concerned about impact, but compelling impact is preferable.
Sitting or standing are both fine. I make no preference.
I am a Parent judge with 3 years of tournament experience. I do not flow cross and expect a civil exchange. Do not spread or I will not understand you. Emphasis on Lagos and Ethos in arguments weighted more.
Laura Roark - She/her - 3 years of High School PF debate, first year out in college debate
:) have fun,
Tell me why the impacts of your contentions matter more than the impacts of the other team's contentions in the final focus speech.
Please don't be afraid to collapse. Even if the final focus is 2 minutes of 1 turn, as long as it makes sense and generates offense you should be able to win. Just don't feel like you need to go for everything in the final focus.
Assuming you have access to your link, If you're the only team weigh in the round I'm probably going to vote for you. So don't be the only team that isn't weighing.
Unless you're a jerk I'm going to give you 30 speaks. Excessive card calling counts as being a jerk.
Don't laugh at your opponents.
Please number your responses in rebuttal.
If you read a framework, justify it.
I was a PF debater. I will flow everything but cross. Be clear, weigh, and interact with your opponents' arguments. Also, humor and unique arguments appreciated. NO new arguments/cards in FF.
For LD treat me as a lay judge, NO spreading.
Make me laugh = ^speaks
Parent Judge. Have judged before. Speak slowly and clearly.
According to Google I'm a lay judge. I like cards a lot so it would be to your advantage to name cards whenever you can.
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE JARGON, AVOID IT OR EXPLAIN IT BEFORE USE.
Clearly identify your main points and supporting evidence. I judge off clarity and the quality of supporting evidence. AKA structure and cards.
+.4 speaker points to each individual who can somehow naturally incorporate snails into the debate. Don't mess this up.
I am a parent judge without a year of experience judging in PF. A few notes about my preferences:
- Please try to speak slowly, if I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not be able to evaluate it in my decision
- Act civil during crossfire, I will drop your speaker points if you are rude to your opponents
- Don't run arguments that use lots of complex technical argumentation and jargon (K's, theory, etc.)
- I evaluate the flow to judge the round, but please give me a clear narrative, I enjoy voting for arguments that are cohesive and well-warranted
- Don't misconstrue your evidence and make sure that if you paraphrase, it accurately represents your evidence
- Give me clear link extensions and weighing in the final focus, and don't bring up new offense after first summary
- Time yourselves please
- Make sure to address all responses from first rebuttal in your second rebuttal, otherwise I will consider the responses dropped
- If you send me your disclosed case I will give you +1 speaker points. firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated for Bronx Science for (almost) four years, and I'm now at NYU Tisch studying Drama. I'm a technical judge, but lay debate is perfectly fine for me! For more specifics:
For starters, disclose your case and speech docs to me at email@example.com. I have autism, processing info can be hard, so please send me stuff to make my job easier. Please send your case as soon as you get your pairing.
- First rebuttal can extend into final focus. If something was frontlined, though, I expect to hear defense on it.
- I love probability weighing, and I'm inclined to have a low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts.
- I care about truth value, don't run something objectively false and think I'll buy it when it's extended just because I'm tech. Tech > truth as a practice is intellectually dishonest and I think that judges need to stop valuing it.
- Please have a narrative.
- The only progressive stuff I can handle is theory in the case of abuse. You must disclose that you're going to read it.
Keep my flow clean. I shouldn't have to do any work in making a decision. Be organized in your speeches.
- Warrant + Weigh = Win (Ty Tenzin <3)
- I HAVE NO TOLERANCE FOR ARGUMENTS THAT ARE RACIST, ANTISEMITIC, ISLAMOPHOBIC, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, ABLEIST, OR WHITE FEMINIST. RUNNING THESE ARGUMENTS WILL RESULT IN 20 SPEAKS AND AN AUTOMATIC LOSS. DEBATE IS NOT A SPACE FOR THAT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR, NOR SHOULD IT BE.
- I hate America First frameworks, I will drop you or give you low speaks if you run them, with some exceptions.
- I pay attention in cross, but don't flow it.
- I don't look at cards unless you ask me to.
I will always make an effort to give an oral RFD, but will write it down if pressed for time. Feel free to ask questions, but don't argue with me.
I debated for Cypress Bay High School in Weston, Florida for 4 years, all of which in Public Forum (2013-2017). I'm currently a senior at the University of Central Florida and an assistant coach at NSU.
ToC: I haven't had the chance to read anything on the topic outside of judging a few rounds at the King RR, assume I know nothing about the IMF.
- plz show up to tech check on time
- if possible, number your responses so i know if I missed anything
- Set up email chains/preflow during tech check. I am a big believer in sending case docs to make it easier for everyone but I won't force yall to do so. You'll get a bump in speaks if you do tho. firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com
a couple things:
- Please don’t shake my hand. (i miss in person tournaments but not this)
- Please don’t speak too fast. I can handle like above average speed but just know I only flow what I can understand.
- First summary should extend defense if second rebuttal frontlined the argument. I think it is strategic for second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.
- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood.
- You can ask to look at ev during your partner or opponent's speech/cross. Idk why or when people started considering this as "stealing prep time".
- 3 min summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh.
- Keep the round lighthearted. I think debaters are way too angry now and some humor would be appreciated. Jokes and puns are highly encouraged.
- Auto 30 if you debate in a galaxy hoodie. Incorporating rap lyrics/references might also boost your speaker points.
- Not a fan of super squirrelly arguments or theory (the next 2 bullets might answer your next questions). Idk too much about K's and im not the best at evaluating them, but if that's what you wanna read just make sure you explain it well. If I'm confused at the end of the debate I promise you won't be happy with my decision.
- READ and SEND cut cards. paraphrasing is whack. i wont penalize you for it but if the other team reads theory or tells me to evaluate paraphrased evidence as analytics and not real evidence, it's going to be a really uphill battle.
- Disclosure in PF is a good thing. Same thing as paraphrasing; If someone discloses and either a) you do not and they read disclosure theory OR b) you LIE about what you've disclosed, I consider this a TKO. This means if disclosure theory is read in the round then it is basically over. Not disclosing or lying is indefensible. (stolen from Aly Fiebrantz)
- Your final focus should be telling me what to write on my ballot. If i don’t have to make me think about how im voting after the round you and i will both be happy.
- Apparently this needs to be clarified now but regardless of speaking order, in the rare situation where there is no offense on either side at the end of the round I will presume neg.
If you have any other questions feel free to email me firstname.lastname@example.org or ask me before the round provided your opponents are present as well. Hated my decision? send all complaints to email@example.com and hold nothing back.
PogChamp: Collapse, weigh, signpost, don’t make me think, galaxy hoodie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai3UfW-dFi8&ab_channel=HeXyaCe
WeirdChamp: being mean, friv theory, no email chain/disclosure, partial quads lmao.
livingston high school '20 | university of california, berkeley '24
warrants matter (in all speeches would be ideal)
comparatively weigh or else i will do my ishan-weighing™️ and you may be unhappy
squirrelly arguments are fun (im tech over truth but cmon now don’t be too outta pocket like elon with his kid’s name). don’t be afraid to be unique and challenge the squo
i have some experience with Ks and Theory but substance debate means i need less sheets of paper...so take that however you want
debate the way you want! all styles are cool. be your own person and be happy with yourself above all. feel free to speak fast but be clear. if y’all decide amongst yourselves before the round and want me to be a lay judge, just lmk; lay is the way (jk...unless...)
be chill, have fun. this goes without saying but anything “-phobic” of any kind can be grounds for the lowest speaks or even a drop based on how egregious it is. debate is supposed to be a safe, intellectually stimulating space; keep this in mind and it will serve you well. think before you speak but at the same time do not be afraid to be a clown and crack some jokes—debate is most fun when you have fun doing it. also please let me know if there's anything i can do to help you feel more safe or comfortable
i like pop culture and references to it so if u want me to like be happy mention books (any quotes from anything by F Scot Fitzgerald will get u + speaks), movies (mention smth by nolan, tarantino, p much anyone cool and will get u + speaks), sports (if ur a barcelona fan, dont tell me or else i will be sad), songs (jeremy zucker bars will get u + speaks) whatever
giving me a good story that i want to believe + making smart decisions + being chill & j vibing = super high speaks. but keep in mind that debate is also definitely a game of persuasion. i personally as a debater tried to be pretty persuasive in how i spoke and tried not to go too fast. but u do u and i will adapt to u
^speaking of good stories: i really enjoy narrative debate. smartly extend and implicate one coherent, cohesive story and u will do fantastic
good luck folks. y’all rock no matter the outcome of the round.
debate is supposed to be educational so have a good time and don’t stress too much !!!
p.s. this shouldn't even have to be said but: no new stuff in FF please; it'll j annoy me a lot :/
as always, if you have any questions about any of this don’t hesitate to ask me before the round
and ofc ask questions after the round! that's the best way to learn :) but i can guarantee that if ur tryna change my decision after the round, it will not work
also if u need any other advice or have any questions about like anything, reach out after round or on fb messenger
once again: good luck !! enjoy your time in debate—you're never gonna get it back
I debated for 6 years in PF for Milpitas High and Russell Middle School.
I qualified for TOC my freshman year(2017), and again my Jr Year(2019).
Some speed is ok, but no spread. Please warrant all your arguments, and if you do not weigh your impacts against your opponents, you leave it up to me.
I competed in public forum debate for 4 years at Poly Prep (2014-2018), coached Lake Mary Prep HM (2018-2019), and currently coach Poly Prep (2019-2021).
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Don't read blippy turns
Do comparative weighing
Tell me why your evidence is better
Bad evidence bad speaks
For the chain: email@example.com
Are you a K PF team? Consider striking me! I am probably not the judge for you. See below for details!
I judge for Union Catholic in New Jersey. I judge 20 or so rounds a year, mostly PF with some LD and Policy. I was a policy and parliamentary debater. I've been judging for around 20 years.
Event specific info follows below.
I strongly prefer resolutional debate given the purpose and current state of PF. I won't require the other team to know clash debate, debate methodology, framework, or topicality. I have a strong preference for resolutional debate.
What does that mean for you?
Do you have a soft left case? That's fine! I'm looking a strong link to the resolution, then an impact. I can work with any impact. Structural inequality, structural violence, racism, sexism, ableism -- these are all great things to talk about.
Are you're running a K-alt or a progressive case? Those are tougher. I will not know your literature. Please slow down and simplify. Use ordinary language. Be clear about the alt/role of the ballot. If your advocacy is "resolutional debate reinforces existing power structures (and that's bad!), rejecting the resolution is activism, activism is a better methodology for change", say that. Then, in your framing, explain as directly as possible how the ballot constitutes an act of activism.
Speed is fine, but please don't spread. What's too fast? If you adjust your breathing to accommodate your speed, that's too fast.
If you're familiar with truth v. tech, I'm in the middle. I vote off the flow, but I don't have to vote for "bad" arguments (i.e., arguments lacking warrants, evidence, analysis, and/or impacts) even if dropped. Presentation matters. Line-by-line is great, but by the end of the round, I need a clear sense of your position and why it wins.
Use the flow to structure speeches. Let me where you're at on the flow, provide helpful labels for your arguments, tell me when you're cross-applying. If you're kicking an argument, it helps if you tell me.
I will not vote on disclosure theory absent a mutual agreement. If both teams consent to disclosing prior to the round or to flashing files prior to the round, then, during the round, one team breaks the deal, i'll listen to theory.
Nothing is sticky. 1st speech = case, 2nd speech = case, 3rd speech = respond to 2nd speech, no need to extend case. 4th speech = defend your case, attack other side; anything not extended in this speech is dropped.
In rebuttals, please collapse. Make choices; don't go for everything. Focus on your best offense and defense.
You can lose arguments and win the around. Don't be afraid of conceding, just mitigate or outweigh. If you write an honest ballot for me, you are more likely to get a favorable decision and high speaks.
In crossfire, be a pro. Share the time. Ask brief questions, give brief answers. Be friendly, be helpful. I dislike leading questions in cross. Make arguments in your speech, ask about them in cross. If your opponent's answer is "I'm sure you'll tell me," you've asked a bad question.
Last thing: don't run "as many as 900 million people could fall back into poverty in the event of an economic shock like the Great Recession," unless you have a card showing that 900 million people fell into poverty between March 2020 and today.
Don't spread. I can't keep up. If you want the ballot to address your arguments & strategy, slow down.
I prefer policy arguments to critical arguments, substantive arguments to theory, and real world impacts to terminal impacts, but argue what you want.
On Ks, I won't know your literature. Start simple. Tell me your thesis, make your alt clear, and build up from there. If you dive right into the evidence, I will be lost. I am more likely to vote for your K if I understand what your alt means in the real world. Good alts specify an action that's being taken, who is taking the action, and when they take that action. If you provide examples, that's very helpful.
For T, I default to reasonability.
Collapse in rebuttals, don't go for everything. I prefer depth to breadth.
I know this sounds very conservative, but it's not that bad. These are preferences not requirements. My comfort zone is traditional policy, but I'm up for whatever. I've voted for Ks, K affs, and CP theory. If you go this route, you'll just need to invest more time in explaining how it works. It'll be fine.
For circuit LD, I’m a lay judge.
You could do worse. My background is policy. I flow, I’ll listen, and I’m open-minded. Brave tournament directors put me in LD/PF bid rounds. Plus, I enjoy debate. I want to buy your argument.
Even so, let me emphasize: I AM A LAY JUDGE.
We all want an awesome round.
However, I’ll be frustrated if I don’t understand what’s going on. You’ll be frustrated if you get a weird decision.
That’s definitely not awesome.
Keys to getting a good ballot:
* Slow down. If you spread, I will get lost.
* Talk about the resolution.
* Go easy on theory. I’m the wrong judge for RVIs. I’m okay for T. There are better judges for condo/fiat/counterplan theory, but I can get through it.
* Use plain language. I will not know your lit or your jargon. Walk me through it.
* Clash. You don’t need evidence. Understand the arguments. Put some thoughtful analytics on the flow.
* Talk about details. Is your framework utilitarianism? Tell me what’s good. Tell me how to figure out whether it really is for the greatest number. Is your T intep reasonability? Give me a way to measure reasonableness. Is your theory impact fairness? What is fairness? How is it measured?
And last of all, in LD, I prefer to truth-test the resolution. Aff talks about why the res is true. Neg talks about why it isn’t. Framework matters some, case impacts don’t really matter, and the question at the end of the round is: who did the better job of proving the truth or non-truth of the resolution?
That said, you give me a plan, I turn into a traditional policymaker policy judge.
If you want me to use a different standard, give it a shot. To do so, I need rules for applying your standard.
Flow judge. Fast speed is fine but don't spread, be comprehensible. Rebuttal should be well structured. Really want voters and weighing in summary (should not be a second rebuttal speech).
I am a parent judge who is new to debate.
Please speak slowly and make sure to tell me what to vote on.
Weigh, weigh, weigh. I need to see you compare both you and your opponents arguments and prove to me that the argument, that you have clearly defended, is more important than your opponents argument.
I am a lay judge so refrain from excessive debate terminology usage and also try to speak a bit slower. I'm not very experienced with judging so do forgive me if I make any mistakes. Thanks!
I did PF in high school! Here are some things I like to see in a round:
1. Pretty extensions. If you want me to vote on an argument, re-explain it in summary and final focus.
2. Frontlining in second rebuttal. If you want me to vote on one of your contentions, you should defend it in second rebuttal.
3. Collapsing. It's better to pick and clearly explain 1 of your contentions than speed through 3.
4. Weighing. Tell me why your argument is more important than your opponents'.
5. A friendly crossfire. Please don't interrupt or talk over your opponent in cross. I probably won't pay attention to crossfire, but if people are being mean I'll drop speaks.
I'm not super familiar with progressive arguments (k, theory, etc.), so if you do run them please explain them well.
Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!
P.S. if you do a TikTok dance/make a TikTok reference you'll get +.5 speaks
firstname.lastname@example.org for the email chain.
I am a parent judge for Mount Si High School, and have been judging locally for 3 years.
A few things to keep in mind:
-Arguing for debate is healthy. Arguing for arguments' sake is not.
-Please be respectful and considerate. Don't be abrasive or cocky.
- Your argumentation should be logical.
-Extend all your arguments. I like a healthy clash.
-List out voters, and weigh.
-Please speak clearly.
-If you take too long to find a card, I’ll start running your prep.
This paradigm is time tested, and daughter approved!
Kempner '20 | UT '24
its probably easier to message me on facebook though
3 gold bids 2 silver bids - promise im not trying to flex its just so the debater can get a better idea of how good/bad of a judge I am
update for feb/march/april: since the aff is the squo and there is no comparative implied in the res imma presume aff if there is no offense in the round
- Debate is a Game, you play it how you want to. But I also have my own bias as to how the game is won. This means that doing what you do best along with adapting to my paradigm is the way to go. DON'T ASSUME IM A STRAIGHT TECH JUDGE CAUSE ITS A LONG PARADIGM JUST READ IT.
My role as a judge is not as a norm setter. It is as a policy maker and voting on the implications of a policy action. This means that I will not evaluate any theory shells, tricks, or any other super progressive stuff. I want you to debate PUBLIC FORUM. However, I still want to see a good tech>truth debate. So imagine that you're in an out round and like 30 people are watching. Debate the way where every single person can understand those arguments and form a decision on their own. The only exceptions to this preference are Ks and paragraph theory. With Ks, i think they are technically answering the resolution, but I hate them. So the threshold to beat the K is really low and honestly you should (PLEASE STRIKE ME PLEASE STRIKE ME) strike me if you are planning on reading it. The other exception is paragraph theory. By this, if you see clear abuse and think they should actually be dropped mid round, then just explain why. I don't want a shell, just explain the abuse story.
- love a good framing debate hate a bad framing debate xD
- "I'm going to vote for the least mitigated link into the best weighed impact" - Andy Stubbs.
- My favorite American Asher Moll puts this quite exquisitely, "weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided i think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. that said, you should still weigh in case i grant your opponents some offense. if i think both sides are winning offense, i resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. i will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there was no other weighing in the round"
- about impact weighing, make sure that you are comparing the most terminal part of it. For a super basic example, "We outweigh on probability, the chance of nuclear war is pretty much close to zero because of mutually assured destruction". Something i would say is not weighing but is more like a response is, "We outweigh on probability , CNN finds that Kim Jon Un isn't planning on using his nuclear weapons." That's more of a delink and is not doing an impact comparison for me.
- Speed is a really subjective thing here. I honestly think it depends. When I debated, I was always relatively faster because I'm used to speaking in a faster pace in all my conversations. So when I debated, I would say I debated at a normal speed, but it was still relatively fast and understandable because that's just how I talk. My partner would disagree but our results show we were pretty good on the lay. So to be as objective as possible, speed should be like my Thai Food spice level: Medium! This means a little kick in the pace can be advantageous, but too much is going to make my brain explode and I might just give up on flowing. If you're going too fast, my mind is just going to lag and my flow across the rest of the speech is going to drop like dominos. That might frustrate you when it comes to my RFD. But if you do want to go super fast, send a speech doc to me and your opponents.
- I'm tech over truth, read any substance you want
Crossfire is 100% binding. Im going to pay attention. The speech exists for a reason and im being paid to pay attention. It's also a skill that you need to learn and it promotes not being bailed out by a partner if a mistake is made.
- If you believe your opponent has no path to the ballot, you can call TKO. The round is then officially over. If your opponent has no path to the ballot at that point, you get a W30. If you are incorrect, you get an L 25.
- The summary and final focus speeches of the round MUST have a link, warrant, AND impact extended. I have a mid-tier threshold for impacts but an extremely high threshold for the link and the warrant. You must explain the entire link story or else none of y'all will be encouraged to collapse.
- i feel like a lot of debaters had trouble distinguishing in round humor with being a dick so you can mess around but it better be good. and if someone else is being a dick if you just stay chill you're going to make them look stupid and they are going to get their speaks tanked.
There has to be some basic response to the first rebuttal if you want to wash away their defense/turn/DA in the second half of the round. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required. This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. It's your loss (not the actual L but probably the actual L) if you don't. Personally, I spent 2-2.5 minutes in second rebuttals front-lining and then the rest on their case, simply because i already had more time to create a more efficient and selective rebuttal by going second. NOTE: if you frontline their entire rebuttal and you put solid coverage on their case, i am going to give you a 30 regardless of how good/bad the final focus is. I think those types of speeches are the most impressive.
I don't think that defense is sticky anymore with the 3 minute summary, but I don't think this should be a problem and it's probably to your advantage that you extend defense regardless. If you make one or two solid defense extensions that are poorly or not responded to, then that's really hard to come back from, so just do it.
- Obviously the rule of thumb is that you should not bring up new stuff in summary and final focus, unless first summary is making frontlines.
- DO NOT and i mean DO NOT try reading offensive overviews or new contentions, what you all like to call "advantages or disadvantages" in second rebuttal. I am straight up not going to evaluate it especially if you just kick your entire case and collapse on it. FREE ELKINS AP
- If there is no offense left in the round, I presume NEG. Remember, I said I was a policy maker so in super basic terms if I don't see any comparative change as a result of affirming the resolution, then I negate. if its a benefits versus harms resolution then I presume to the side (usually aff) that is also the squo
- take flex prep if needed
- Signposting is crucial or else my flow is going to drop like dominos part 2
- When you make extensions don't just say the author name make sure that you're giving a clear explanation of what the author is saying. Not only is this better practice but I don't get every single author name down so make sure you are clear.
I am an experienced lay judge. I don’t like fast talking and value quality of arguments over quantity. Make sure your arguments are well developed. If I don't understand them, it makes it difficult to vote on them. Same goes for refutations. Please be polite and respectful to your opponents and time yourselves, if possible.
Debate judging paradigm: I have the most experience with LD and competed in this event during my years in high school. I love and have judged all forms of debate, including PF/LD, Congress, Big Questions and World Schools. I value dignity, civility, and respect, in addition to being a flow judge. If you drop arguments or introduce new evidence in a round, I will notice and weigh that in my decision, though it is the debater's job to point this out in their rebuttals.
For LD/PF/BQ: I appreciate good, strong clash, as well as a clear understanding of one's case and evidence, so that debaters not only READ a constructive/card at me but can actually paraphrase and link impacts. I DO pay attention during CX, and weigh the nature of questions and responses as a deciding factor in close rounds, as well as the level of graciousness, assertiveness, and respect demonstrated in CX and throughout. Many can debate well; doing so while honoring the dignity and worth of one's opponent and their argumentation is what sets true orators and diplomats apart.
For CONGRESS: I appreciate speakers that draw intelligently and usefully on prior speakers' points and arguments. Crystallization towards the end of the round should be insightful and weigh impacts. AVOID merely summarizing evidence or points that have been made already. Repetitiveness simply for the sake of getting a speech in will not go over well.
Speech judging paradigm: be bold, original, and thought provoking. Cursing and singing and foreign language are fine with me. Be respectful of other competitors while observing or having your team/family observe you.
I weigh heavily on impacts & flowing arguments through. I can handle fast speaking but not spreading. I don’t flow crossfire but I will be paying attention. Collapse on your impacts in summary first and revisit them in final focus. Summary is important for weighing! Be respectful, be clear with your points. Don't stare at me.
My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff for me. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.
LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)
PF: One integral aspect of Public Forum debate is that it is topical debate. That is a stance that I'm pretty firm on, as such, if you are reliant on frivolous theory, just strike me now. Other than that, feel free to run whatever arguments you like... I don't find that there is ample time to really dive into too much for Kritiks or for theory in general, but if you want to give it a try, go for it... I guess. I just would rather focus on topical debate.
One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw. No calling each other racists or anything like that, it's a learning event, and it's a safe academic space for everyone.
In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun.
I am a mainly a PF Debater but have some experience in CNDF.
1. I am fine with speed but make sure it's articulate, although if you can express your thoughts going conversation speed, it could boost speaker points.
2. I flow and expect teams to extend tags, evidence and warrants. I won't flow dropped arguments in later speeches.
3. Although it is good to be critical and I believe good PF debate should be a relaxed exchange of ideas as opposed to suppressed (or not) rage.
4. Make sure you're asking questions during crossfire rather than give speeches. And I appreciate questions that are asked in a way that is super chill.
5. I appreciate theories. No one expects it and you win because of theory and sometimes you even win on theory.
6. I think Impact turns > Link turns (no risk of a link)
7. I typically vote on what happens in the debate, and not on what I know or think I know.
Online debate: Technical difficulties are bound to happen and all i ask is that you are patient as we work them out! If you're a very fast speaker, i ask that you slow down a bit because computer audio can be bad, and I don't want you to lose because I couldn't hear what you said.
I am a lay judge, but I have watched several rounds of PF before. I will consider arguments if they are made clearly and consistently in the round. Please make sure your voice is clear.
I am a lay judge, but I have watched several rounds of PF before. I will consider arguments if they are made clearly and consistently in the round. Please make sure your voice is clear.
Background: 1 year High School Debate and Speech (Policy, Poetry Interp, Extempt). 1 year debate at Hawaii Pacific University (World Schools and British Parliament). 2 Years Debate at Middle Tennessee State University (IPDA/NPDA) . 5 years teaching and developing high school and middle school curriculum for Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (Policy), 2 years as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High (Policy, LD, Speech), currently Assistant Debate Coach at Boston Latin School (PF, LD)
Overall Philosophy: I believe in quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis are key to winning the round. Narratives are important. I like hearing clear voters in rebuttals . While I don't mind a nice technical debate, I love common sense arguments more. Pay attention to your opponent's case. Recognize interactions between different arguments and flows and bring it up in CX and in speeches. Exploit contradictions and double-turns. Look for clear flaws, don't be afraid to use your opponent's evidence against them. Be smart. You need to weigh arguments.
I am typically a "truth over tech" judge. I think tech is important in debate and I pay attention to it but tech is simply not everything. Meaning unless the tech violation is AGGREGIOUS, you won't win questionable arguments just because you out teched your opponent. Arguments need to make sense and be grounded in some sort of reality and logic.
Public Forum Debate
Speed/Spreading: While I accept speed in Policy rounds; I DO NOT ENTERTAIN SPEED IN PF. I will absolutely wreck you in speaks for trying to spread in PF, and I will stop flowing you. That is not the purpose of this format. Period.
Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent or partner will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you. I recognize that speaking over your opponent in CX is the "cool" thing to do in PF. It is not cool with me. It will reflect incredibly poorly on your speaker points.
Weighing: You must weigh. I need to know why I should care about your argument and why it matters. If you do not do this, you might lose no matter how great the evidence.
Impacts: If your argument has no impact it is irrelevant. Make sure your impact makes logistical sense.
Theory: Paraphrasing theory, dates theory, formal clothing theory and disclosure theory are all inherently whack. Do not waste your time running them. I will not take those arguments seriously. I "may" evaluate a trigger warning theory IF your opponents argument actually has some triggering components. Tread VERY carefully with this and only use it if there is legitimate cause.
I will ignore any new arguments presented in second summary (unless it is to answer a new argument made in first summary), first final focus or second final focus.
Lincoln Douglas Debate
Speed/Spreading: You have no reason to spread in LD. Do not waste your time doing it. I will stop flowing and it will reflect in your speaker points.
Value/Criterion: even if I do not buy a particular side's value/criterion, their opponent MUST point out what is wrong with it. I do not interventionist judge.
Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent or partner will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you.
I will ignore all new arguments after the first AR.
Solvency: THE AFF PLAN MUST SOLVE
Topicality: I am VERY broad in my interpretation of topicality. Thus, only use Topicality if you truly have a truly legitimate cause to do so. I am not a fan of hearing T just to take up time or for the sake of throwing it on the flow. I will only vote for T if is truly blatant or if the aff does not defend.
Ks: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it. I expect solid links to case, and a strong alternative. "Reject Aff" is not a strong alternative. Again, use if you have legitimate cause, not just to take up time or to have something extra on the flow.
Conditionality: I believe "Condo Bad" 89% of the time. Do not tell me "Capitalism Bad" in K and then give me a Capitalism centered CP. Pick one.
Critical Affs: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it.
DAs: Make sure you link and make your impact clear.
CPs: Your CP MUST be clearly mutually exclusive and can NOT just piggy back off of your opponent's plan. Generic CPs rarely win with me. (Basically, "We should have all 50 states do my opponent's exact plan instead of the Federal Government doing it" is just a silly argument to me)
Speed/Spreading: I don't mind speed as long as you're speaking clearly.
Fiat: I don't mind fiats AS LONG AS THEY MAKE SENSE. Please don't fiat something that is highly improbable (IE: All 50 states doing a 50 state counterplan on a issue several states disagree with). "Cost" is almost always fiated for me. Everything costs money and we won't figure out where to come up with that money in an hour and a half debate round.
Tag Team Debate/ Open CX: For me personally, both partners may answer but only one may ask. UNLESS tournament rules state something different. Then we will abide by tournament rules.
Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent or partner will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.
Hi! I did PF for 4 years at Hunter (2016-2020, 2020 gtoc octos) & am a flow judge with pretty conventional preferences. Do what you do best & have fun! I will try to be nice with speaks & give lots of feedback.
Pretty important preferences
- At the end of a round, if I'm choosing between a larger impact and a smaller one, even if the links into large one aren't won as cleanly, I will probably vote for the larger one. In the context of the round, that means it's a good idea to focus on winning the weighing debate.
- To win an argument, it must be in summary and final focus. I'm not a huge stickler on what does or doesn't count as an extension, but you should at least give a basic overview of the link(s) and the impact. Also sorry but "extend Doofenshmirtz 2019" isn't an extension. What does Doofenshmirtz say?
- Depth > breadth. I'd rather hear one or two really good, nuanced arguments than a lot of meh ones, and the same with responses. I love to judge rounds where there's a lot of engagement on a few points, rather than rounds when there's a only bit of engagement on a lot of arguments.
- Well-explained logical reasoning beats a card, a card beats an example.
- I'm receptive to unconventional strategies. For example, going for a turn is often super smart. I am also a big fan of arguments that are creative with what the counterfactual world looks like. If you plan on running an argument like this, see [a].
- Any defense you want me to evaluate should be in second summary, only turns need to be in first. In other words, you don't have to extend link responses in first summary for me to consider them.
- Tech > truth mostly. I won't intervene against an argument just because it's out there. That said, for more on this, see [b].
- Here are some things I think will help you win: Overview responses that apply to an entire case, turns, weighing, and collapsing rather than spreading yourself thin in the later speeches. For more on what I do and don't consider weighing, see [c].
- I don't love theory or other sorts of progressive arguments, but I am willing to evaluate them. That said, I'm not super familiar with them, so if you read them please explain and implicate everything very clearly. For more of my thoughts on theory, see [d].
- I don't like to intervene, but I reserve the right to or severely dock speaks if something truly bad happens. I can't really define what something truly bad would look like, but I know it when I see it. Think: something extremely rude or offensive.
Less important preferences
- If no one has any offense, my default is to vote for the first-speaking team. I'll also evaluate arguments that I should default in some other way too, though.
- Cross may influence your speaks, but it doesn't go on my flow. If someone makes a concession in cross, please bring it up in a speech.
- If I don't have a framework I default util.
- I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's challenged, but not just because it sounds sketchy.
- If you're planning to go around or over 250 wpm, please provide me and your opponents with a speech doc.
- I'm happy to skip cross if both teams agree.
- Per NSDA rules, fabricated evidence is an auto-drop. Evidence that's merely misconstrued will be judged on a case-by-case basis, I'll probably just drop that card.
More detailed thoughts on a few topics I mentioned earlier
[a] On creative arguments: Again, I'm pretty flexible as to what is or isn't topical, you just need to win that your vision of the world is the most likely real-world implementation of the topic (remember: I'm tech > truth). For example, if the topic is whether we should lift Venezuelan sanctions, I'm happy to evaluate an argument saying lifting sanctions is inevitable and doing so now is better/worse, or that sanctions will be lifted then re-imposed and that’s good/bad.
[b] On when I'm not strictly tech > truth: If the opponents tell me to gut check an improbable impact (e.g. nuclear war when mutually assured destruction & hotlines have prevented it in the past), then I won't give you access to it if you don't have strong warranting and just repeat that some random author says it'll happen. Also, if you're going to read high-magnitude, low-probability impacts, it's probably a good idea to meta-weigh and tell me why magnitude is a more important weighing mechanism than probability (I won't give you arguments for this, but they're definitely out there).
[c] On what is and isn't weighing: Here are some examples of things that I DO consider weighing —
- "Our argument impacts the whole world and theirs just impacts X country/region"
- "Our impact happens in the long-term and theirs doesn't"
- "If our argument happens, then we also solve for their impact in X way"
- "Their link chain is super long so it's inherently tenuous"
And some things I DON'T consider weighing, and why —
- Saying your argument is more probable because you think I'll think it's more plausible... you need a reason
- Saying your argument impacts more people because of some "big number" card that isn't specific to your impact, like the 900 million people go into poverty if a recession hits card
- Jargon without an explanation
- Saying that because the impact of some argument is extinction, it automatically outweighs everything. You need to go a step further: why is even a .1% chance of extinction worse than a 50% chance that 50 million people go into poverty, or whatever else the competing impact is?
[d] On theory/progressive arguments:
- I'm receptive to arguments that introducing theory first (or just frivolous theory in general) is bad.
- I also believe paraphrasing is a good norm and don't have strong feelings on disclosure. I try to be somewhat tabula rasa, so you can definitely convince me to vote against these personal views. That said, reading these arguments just probably isn't a good use of your time: you lose time on the substance debate to read something I've said I don't love, and give your opponents lots of potential offense in the process (introducing theory first bad arguments, turns to your shell, & RVIs). I wouldn't, but ultimately it's up to you.
- Also, my bar for winning drop the debater theory is much higher than my bar for winning drop the argument theory. You need to convince me that there's real abuse going on and win your argument quite cleanly.
That's all. Good luck! Email: email@example.com.
Back in high school, I did policy debate for 4 years. Since then, I haven't been involved at all. (It's been a long time!)
I know how to flow, and speed is okay if you are clear. I'm up for any type of argument. That being said, I don't know much about the structure of public forum. You should probably treat me as an inexperienced judge.
Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.
I has been judging for a few years, and really enjoy it. I am a senior manager with a large company, and the author of some scientific papers and a book entitled GIS Technology Applications in Environmental and Earth Sciences (ISBN:9781498776059). I have been speaking at many conferences, including the United Nations GIS conference in New York City, October 2013.
I can handle faster than normal conversation speed, if you speak clearly. I don’t like you read your entire speech to me. Doing so will definitely cost you speaker points.
I evaluate teams based on the quality of their arguments, reputable evidences and sound analyses. Please make warranted arguments why I should prefer your cards over your opponent's cards. No new argument should be introduced in the final focus. I usually do my own research on the topic before I judge it, so I have some knowledge about it. But, my personal opinions have absolutely no influence on my judgement of yours, regardless of anything.
Also, I may pay attention to CX, and judge it. If you interrupt your opponent too much, you may lose points. You win by clearly delivering your convincing arguments, credible evidences and good analyses.
My name is RJ Tischler, and I've been volunteering as a judge for speech & debate for over 4 years now.
For debate: Clarity is key. Don't speak too fast. Weigh the impacts at the end of the round for me. Explicitly state what your voters are.
Prioritize clash. That is the purpose of a debate. I am not inclined to buy sneaky arguments that "the opponents didn't respond" to contentions that you neglected to revisit & therefore didn't result in clash. If your opponent truly doesn't respond to an important contention, be sure to point that out in rebuttal or crossfire. Don't wait until summary.
If you'd like, feel free to send me your case to read along: email firstname.lastname@example.org
I have been judging PF for past 1 year. I don't have a lot of "must do's"
Speak clearly and concisely.
If you are speaking too fast, I might miss some salient points. Although I will not deduct any scores for speaking style.
Please cite your evidences. I appreciate any statement you make if you can back it up with reliable source.
I am a parent judged but have judged before. I can handle fast speaking. Please extend any arguments you want me to consider into final focus.
I expect all competitors to be respectful, know the rules of their format, and follow the needed order of the debate. I would categorize myself as more of a traditionalist versus progressive. I appreciate sound, well-researched arguments and dislike hyperbolic statements. Additionally, I am okay with fast conversational speed, but not faster than that.
Last updated 2/2021 (Penn).
Hi y'all! I did PF for 4 years at Plano West, and I graduated in 2020. I'm your typical flow judge, but debate your regular style and I'll adapt to you.
Don't assume I know anything about the current topic.
- Read racism/sexism/genocide good etc. arguments.
- Read miscut or badly paraphrased evidence. Cut cards are highly preferred. If you take more than 1 minute to pull up evidence your speaks will quickly start dropping.
- Run frivolous theory against novice debaters.
- Act rude/be a jerk.
- Fine with speed, but try to avoid spreading (please send a speech doc if you do).
- Will only vote for arguments that have clear link and impact extensions in both summary and FF.
- Please weigh as much as possible, starting in rebuttal and summary. If you weigh and make things simple for me you are much less likely to get "judge-screwed". If you want me to vote on dropped turns, you must weigh them. New weighing in 2nd final focus won't be evaluated.
- 2nd rebuttal should frontline turns, otherwise they count as dropped.
- 1st summary does not have to extend defense unless it's a) frontlined in 2nd rebuttal or b) a turn that you want to be evaluated as an offensive voting issue.
- I don't like teams that read multiple long DAs/independent overviews in 2nd rebuttal to avoid interacting with the cases.
- I generally won't ask for many cards at the end of the round unless you explicitly tell me to call for them.
- You can read theory and K's, but I have less experience with them. Signpost clearly, don't spread, and use minimal jargon. Do not read tricks.
- Speaks are usually in the 27-29.5 range.
Ask me if you have any other questions, and always feel free to politely postround me!
I competed in PF for 4 years at Oakton HS. Now I'm a freshman at Georgetown.
3 things you MUST do to win my ballot
1. please please please collapse
2. weigh, preferably starting in second rebuttal but definitely in summary (weigh your turns too!)
3. offense MUST be extended in summary and ff to be evaluated (this applies to turns as well)
Not doing these three things will give u speaks no higher than 28
If defense is dropped, I consider it to be "sticky" until the speech immediately after it is frontlined. In that speech you must extend it. For example, if second rebuttal frontlines half the defense, you only need to extend that defense in first summary if you want to go for it. The rest can be in first final focus.
idrk how to evaluate progressive arguments (i have some experience with theory) so run it at your own risk, but i would prefer you not to
February topic specific
A frequent thing I see in rounds is this:
"GDP has gone up 15% the past 10 years"
"No, GDP has shrunk by 4% this year and 30 million are in poverty"
There is a lot of competing evidence. Please do an evidence comparison and don't just say the same card over and over again without any analysis as to why your evidence is better. And fyi, good but uncarded warrants beat cards w/no warrant every single time.
I am a parent judge. I am relatively new to judging varsity debate, so please talk slowly and try your best to be clear. I appreciate thoughtful commentary and response to the other team's position more than a quick statement of facts.
Please keep the debate professional and friendly. I really appreciate punctuality, so please be present on time so that we can have a smooth online debating experience.
I will try my best to give detailed feedback to help you improve. Please take the time to read my feedback notes.
IMPORTANT: (From Tara Bhagat) If anyone reading this feels that debate or the debate community isn't a safe place for them and wants someone to talk to about it, no matter how small the issue, please reach out. If I or someone I know have made you feel unsafe, please do not hesitate to let me know so I can attempt to rectify the situation and/or change my behavior. Email me at email@example.com or just hit me up on Facebook.
TLDR: Tech > Truth; pretty standard flow judge; follow the line-by-line; there's no need to go super saiyan speed; strong warranting + weighing wins my ballot; skip to the bottom to find some fun speaks boosters (please use these and entertain me...please)
Bio: Competed in PF for all four years mostly on the local circuit but also a bit on the national circuit (unfortunate small school tingz :/// ) at Paradise Valley in Phoenix, AZ; currently studying computer science, economics, and math at ASU
- All arguments fly as long as they are well warranted
- Warranted cards >>> Warranted analytics >>> bEcAuSe tHe evIdEnCe sAys sO
- Do not trust me to properly evaluate progressive arguments, I'll probably make a decision that you don't like; if you want to read disclosure theory, then you should probably rethink that strategy
- Weak warranting on an argument means weak responses are sufficient
- Arguments that you want evaluated should be extended with a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus
- Second rebuttal and first summary must frontline, otherwise it's conceded
- First summary should extend turns and key defense
- Do not extend through ink, I will drop the argument if you do
- Road maps and signposting are fantastic, do it
- Collapse and avoid messy rounds; if you want to kick out of something, explain what defense you are conceding and why it kicks out of the turn
- DAs / Overviews are cool, but don't just read a new contention disguised as one
- Just do it. Please. Otherwise I'll decide what's more important and you probably won't like what I pick
- Real comparative analysis, not just "wE oUtwEigH beCauSe 900 mIllIon LiVes iS mOrE tHaN $500 miLliOn"
- Carded weighing overviews/framing should come in rebuttal; other traditional mechanisms can come up through summary
- Speaker points are dumb so I will try to be generous (no free 30s though)
- Slow rounds > fast rounds; I can handle some speed but the faster you go, the more I might miss
- Slow down on argument tags; I don't flow author names
- If you plan on spreading...don't
- Read the author, date, and source, it's not that hard
- I'll call for evidence only if either team tells me to
- Don’t be a dick; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - that's a real quick way for me to drop you immediately and tank your speaks
- I like a relaxed, informal, and chill vibe in rounds. Good jokes are great. You can swear, I don’t care.
- Wear whatever the hell you want. Be comfortable!
- References to the NBA, tennis, Kanye, Kendrick Lamar, or Travis Scott will get you a boost in speaks
- Have fun!
I'm a lay judge. So speak clearly and slowly.
I will judge solely on the arguments and evidence presented in front of me. I will not make arguments or assertions for any team. However, I will not tolerate disrespectful to your opponents and if anyone does this, your individual scores will reflect this principle. Anyone who I believe is being rude will be given one warning.
Hello! I am a lay judge. A few things I would like to see in a debate are as follows;
-Speak clearly and concisely. I cannot handle speed as well as other veteran judges.
-Organize your speeches well.
-The explanation behind arguments is very important.
Normal talking speed helps me understand you better.
I am a parent judge. Have judged about 30 PF rounds.
I value logic and coherence.
I prefer a small number of clear, well articulated arguments over a list of arguments covering every aspects.
Don't speed, you may lose me.
Be nice in crossfire.
Hi I am a parent, and I do not have much experience. Here’s some advice from my daughter.
1. She’s your generic parent/lay judge, so keep the speed low and don’t use debate jargon.
2. My mom is a very logical person, so explain all claims and numbers because otherwise they’re just random statements that she has no reason to believe.
3. Be polite to each other (including your partner) even if you think they’re outrageously wrong. Yelling at them will not get you anywhere and it makes her dislike you more.
Please just be respectful and appreciative in general, she really tries her best to fairly judge the round!
*seating: Pro on her left side, Con on the right and please have the first speaker of each team seated closer to her, this will help in organization and to ensure you get the correct comments.
Debated 4 years of VPF in high school on the national circuit, and did ok.
No exposure to this 2021 May topic. Run tabroom for the Liberty Bell Classic
Time your own preptime. Sign post. Offtime roadmaps are helpful for me.
I'll be able to follow most speeds. I don't intervene, but please speak clearly and don't spread.
I won't flow crossfire, but I'll listen. If you mention crossfire in your speeches, I'll pay attention.
Please be consistent. What's brought up in final focus should be in summary. Extend your warrants and impacts please. If you read arguments that contradict each other I might not drop you, but it'll be a tough sell if its strategy.
When you weigh, try to be more specific than we outweigh on "timeframe, scope, and magnitude." I'll value one weighing mechanism that's more thought out than a bunch of smaller ones.
I'm not good with Ks, plans, or any of that. If you plan on running those in a round, I'm not the right judge for you.
I'm not really a tech over truth guy. Good logic and a good narrative beats some evidence in my eyes. They all work together.
If you make me laugh, I'll bump your speaks.
did PF for 4 years, graduated in 2019 from millard north (NE). currently coaching at Blake (MN).
tl;dr: read cards, tech>truth, collapse to voters, speed&theory ok, extend, and weigh.
I would call myself a flow judge. I am usually tech > truth unless the evidence that is being read is very misrepresented.
As for mechanics, I am pretty flexible and should be comfortable with speed as long as you are clear. (However - I'm definitely not used to a policy level of speed so send me a speech doc). I'm open to theory, as long as it is not frivolous (no shoe theory bs). Ks and shells both ok. I default to reasonability.
Have evidence ready, shouldn't take longer than 2 mins to find it or send it out. Also I will take it from your prep if you're prepping when your opponent is getting a card.
Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in every speech. There's no such this as sTicKy DeFenSe. And collapse on voters in at least FF, if not summary. Frontline & extend in 2nd RB. This means your impacts too! It takes two seconds to say "extend my impact of ___" after frontlining in 2nd RB.
you do not have to extend in 1st RB
About paraphrasing: It takes away from the education of the debate and I understand you cannot change your case for every judge but let it be known that I do hate it, and while I won't drop you (on face) for it, I won't like you any better if you give me 40 one lined cards in case or rebuttal. Plus it just takes away from the round when your opponent has to call for 10 cards because you read them too fast.
I prefer the weighing done for me; as in a bunch of warrants, defense and turns will do nothing for me if they are not contextualized. I expect to hear why I should prefer your side with reference to warrants. I could maybe vote on something left off of FF, but I won't extend something from case/rebuttal to summary UNLESS it makes sense in the round (ie opponent brings it up again)
Overall, I try my best to make the right decision (but I'm nowhere near perfect). If you have ANY questions feel free to contact me (firstname.lastname@example.org) or ask me before/after round. Thank you!
I competed in Public Forum debate for all of my high school years and am now a debater on the university BP/Worlds circuit for Cornell.
When you make you read evidence make sure you make it clear to me what purpose it shows and what it proves, I don’t like when debaters just spit out cards and expect me to make what I will of them.
When making arguments, I need a clear link chain of how you reach your impacts, just because you read me big apocalyptic impacts it doesn’t mean you are going to outweigh your opponent if it is scantily proven.
Make sure you weigh your impacts and compare weighing mechanisms with your opponent.
I am not very sympathetic to Kritik’s or meta stuff like that, I’d rather just see you debate the motion.
I am a parent judge – my daughter competes in PF.
I have no debate experience, but I will vote for the team that most clearly tells me why they win the round.
If you want me to vote for you, EXPLAIN your arguments. Do not just read evidence and repeat author names/numbers throughout the round. I want to hear your own logical reasoning with the evidence, and how it helps build your narrative/why it takes out your opponent’s points. Also, clearly define terms or concepts that may be unfamiliar to most people.
Have fun and be nice to everyone in round =).
PF for 4 years, he/him
warrants > cards always
please please weigh!!!!!!
Speed is okay but please not too fast since it's online
2nd rebuttal should respond to turns/offense from first rebuttal
first summary doesn't need to extend defense
don't be rude
i don't pay attention to cross unless you put it in a speech
not too experienced with progressive argumentation like theory/Ks, but I'll try my best to listen and understand
This is my first year of judging public forum debate. I don't mind fast speeches; just be clear.
Please be respectful at all times,