I am an experienced parent judge. Please go slow and clear so I can understand what you're saying. Please don't use any discriminatory language.

I debated at Ardrey Kell in NC for 4 years. I was aight.

-Anything you want me to evaluate as offense has to be in summary and ff (including warrant and impact)

-First speaking team has to extend defense

-Please weigh

-Racist, homophobic, sexist etc speech will result in an auto L and speaks you wont like

My background is College Mock Trial which requires you to know both your case and your opponent's case inside and out. I expect the same in a round of debate.

Things that if you do and the majority of competitors doesn't will LOSE you (yeah you) points:

- Reading at 1 million words per minute. Are all 100 facts in your constructive really necessary? My guess is no. Cutting those so you can slow down helps improve clarity and gives me a better idea of what you want to get across. As my Mock Trial Coach once told me "who cares what you are saying if no one can understand you"

- Reading off a script. My sister who does high school speech and debate has told me that this is unreasonable for you to memorize a speech for a pf debate but I don't care, if I have to memorize 70+ pages of a made up mock trial case you can memorize a four minute speech.

- Lacking Gravitas. What I mean by this is that within your two prewritten speeches you don't perform these three simple things to make your side stronger

1. Modifying volume: Wanna make a point? Increase your volume, it signifies to me that this is something you want me to care about.

2. Modifying pace/timing: After you just raised your voice and made this epic point what do you do? If you said "speed into another tirade of facts" you are wrong, I want you to let it rest for a second (I promise you have more than enough time), let me have time to think "Wow that was an awesome point!" If you do this your points will improve.

3. Modifying tone: Yes, you have ran through this speech a billionty times. Yes, you want to vomit when you think of the term "rural hospitals." However, this is one of the first times I have heard your case (I only part time judge) so to me this is a wonderful new topic I get to learn about. Share in that experience with me, give me EMOTION, be invested in proving to me why your side is the one I should fill out my ballot for.

Note: All three of the above become SO much easier if you memorize the material.

Here are some things that will GAIN you points regardless if your opponent does this because most competitors will NOT do this:

- Do not say the following things or anything like them: “Like,” “I Guess,” “I Think,” or “Maybe” this signifies that you are confused and being unprofessional

- Offering Analysis: Prove you know your stuff! I do not care how many facts you quote and how many statistics you read if you do not tell me the IMPLICATIONS of them. Yes the deficit will go up if x occurs but SO WHAT? WHAT HAPPENS? That is what you must demonstrate if you want to do well

- For crossfires, have the wording of your questions written prior to beginning the crossfire. I have judged 6 rounds so far and in all 6 at least one participant fumbled the bag on crossfire and took upwards of 15 seconds stuttering their way through a question. You have 3/4 minutes of an opponents speech to write out your question, there is no excuse for wasting valuable time just because you could not form the sentence properly.

- Understanding your opponent's argument: This comes in two forms:

1. NEVER ASK THEM WHAT THEIR CONTENTION WAS IN CROSSFIRE, THIS IS YOUR TIME TO DESTROY THEM DO NOT GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILIBUSTER AND BLATHER ON ABOUT HOW SMART THEY ARE. Instead I'd recommend paying actual attention :)

2. Countering your opponent's points logically. One round I saw had a person go "You say jobs would go down 20%, we say they would go up 40%, therefore the amount of jobs would go up 20%." Now, does that make sense? If you said yes you are wrong. I want for a team instead to say "Their job predictions are apocalyptic and would be countered by our forty percent as our opponent only is taking into account for jobs in a singular sector whereas we are taking into account all sectors. By removing private insurance yes you lose jobs but this creates far more job openings in the medical and other sectors thereby actually increasing jobs." That actually makes sense now doesn't it? This demonstration of knowledge is sorely needed in an event that too often turns into a fact reciting competition.

- Gimme context for your sources. When you say "per Kerry, 13" I have no clue whether that is actually a scholarly source. For all I know Kerry could be something your uncle's boyfriend said at the cookout last September. Instead say "per Dr. Jim Kerry, a sleep researcher from the University of Washington, in 2013" or "per a sleep research study by Dr. Jim Kerry and the University of Washington conducted in 2013"

And that's it, I know this is like super intimidating and you probly (don't laugh at me I don't know how to spell probably) are not looking forward to this round but don't worry I won't bite your head off. If you made it this far just know I admire your ability to read through all my blithering lol anyways here is your reward in the form of a cool video of a panda eating celery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ . Good Luck!

Note: If my first competition is any indication of my judging toughness it appears I am quite a tough judge so don’t be discouraged if you receive a lower score than you expected.

Sophomore at UT hookem!

I prefer if teams run a traditional round however i'm ok with theory if you explain it well.

Don't run a trix case if your opponent is a novice and make sure to share your speech doc if your speaking fast.

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and tell me which evidence I should prefer.

I am a parent/lay judge. I cannot judge fast rounds when I don't understand or comprehend what you are saying. PF jargon will only confuse me so keep it clear and simple. Keep the volume up and the speed low. Do not be rude to your opponent as it will cause me to take off speaker points. Enjoy the occasion and don't be afraid to repeat things to me.

I am currently a freshman at UNCW, and I competed in speech and debate for three years at Apex Friendship High School. I mainly competed in Public Forum debate, but I do have some experience in Congress, OO, and Impromptu. If you're reading this paradigm, I do have it split up by event with an important note at the bottom for all events. Feel free to browse only the content relevant to you and your event. If you have any questions about my paradigm or anything left out of it, feel free to ask me before the round begins.

--------

PF:

I've competed as both a first and second speaker in my PF, so I am familiar with all speeches and your constraints. I am a flow judge, and you can appeal to me as though I have your arguments and extensions on my paper, but please condense as the round goes on and understand that my flow is only as extensive as your clarity which can be influenced by your speed. I want a narrative, so make sure you and your partner are on the same page.

Also note that I am a college judge who is not currently competing. I don't judge very frequently, therefore, I may not be very familiar with the topic you are debating. Feel free to ask your opponents if you can give a brief description of the topic before the round if you feel that clarity is needed outside of timed speeches. This must be a completely unbiased explanation of the topic as this is not part of the round. For example, "The Belt and Road Initiative - or BRI - is the known as the new Silk Road in China. This is a plan for expansion of trade and infrastructure." For more self-explanatory topics such as UBI, this is not necessary.

Rebuttal: You don't need to frontline in first rebuttal, but you are welcome to if time permits. Just remember, speed is always a factor and I look at quality over quantity. I don't need you to ramble off 7 responses to their C1 subpoint A when you can give me 2 responses with reasoning to back them up. Frontlining in second rebuttal is not required, but heavily suggested. I love a line-by-line, but at the very least you must signpost so I can follow you on my flow. For example, "Starting at the top of my opponents' case" or "we have x responses to their first contention" will let me know where you are.

Summary: I will not flow any new arguments at this point in the round. Reading new cards to existing arguments is fine, but if your partner dropped an argument in rebuttal it's too late to bring it up now. Your summary should be an extension of your partner's rebuttal in terms of your arguments and the cohesiveness of your narrative. I want to see you begin to weigh here, especially in second summary. This is when you need to begin to condense and collapse.

Final Focus: Your final focus should be an extension of your partner's summary, I want to see the cohesiveness. Give me voters and continue to weigh. It's too late to respond to an argument you've dropped, I will not flow it to you. If an argument goes cold dropped by both sides it's a wash for me, so focus on the main points throughout the round and explain to me your links into your impacts on those arguments. Make your weighing and voters thorough, this is where my vote is determined. If you don't weigh and don't give me voters I'm forced to intervene and weigh myself based on the evidence presented and that is when you may get a ballot you don't like.

My main things are just signposting, clarity, condensing, and weighing. I will flow everything except cross, so anything important should be brought back up in a speech. I want debate in crossfire, but there is a line between persistent and aggressive, find the balance. I don't dock speaks if I don't like your contentions or responses, it's up to your opponents to call your evidence if it seems sketchy or misleading. Don't tell me what to call at the end of a round, that's up to me based on the evidence and argumentation you have presented.

----------

Speech:

I competed in OO and Impromptu a few times, and understand that speech events are much more commonly subject to unfair subjective judging. I do my best to focus most on the presentation of a speech, and not as much on content - specifically in events such as Dec where you did not write your speech. Yet, I do look for engagement and passion in your presentation regardless of your topic. Even in events such as Extemp, I expect a speech to be a performance of sorts, expressions and body language go a long way in terms of emphasis of your points.

I do have to be particular in some nitpicky ways, specifically in finals rounds, yet I do my best to not judge you on small stumbles or wavering gestures. Make sure you project and enunciate. Fluctuate your tone and energy for emphasis on the points you deem most important. Use large gestures rather than small ones when you are making an important point, and make sure your gestures have meaning. If you gesture without control or do things such as fidget with your glasses, hair, etc you will seem nervous and unsure. My best advice to you is to pause with purpose if you need a moment to recall your next point, if you can make a pause seem purposeful there is a very good chance I will never know you forgot a line and your performance won't appear stunted.

-----------

All events:

Any racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise discriminatory commentary as well as any personal attacks will drop your speaks to minimum and may be brought up to your coach if extreme. Any negative comments against your opponents/competitors are unacceptable. While we are competing this is a community in which all competitors should support each other, and any unsportsmanlike conduct will be brought to your coaches. I expect a civilized round, and none of the previous are acceptable. Good luck competing! :)

Been judging debate (PF and LD only) for almost 20 years. Coached PF at Cary Academy last year. While I try to stay up on the "technical stuff," to me, this misses the point of debate as an educational or, for that matter, a persuasive activity. So, while I can probably follow whatever case you want to run, put me in the truth (vs tech) camp. Running a well executed rhetorically sound argument will be the best way to win my ballot.

As for style, clear communications will win the day. Can probably flow at whatever speed you choose to run, but I don't value quantity over quality, whereas I do value clarity over vagary.

In addition to advancing rhetorically sound arguments, I expect debaters to find the clash in the round and give me a standard with which to weigh it. Don't expect me to do that work for you. You don't want me imposing my sensibilities by picking some arbitrary standard for the round. Moreover, between two sound cases, I will prefer any reasonable standard to no standard at all (even for an otherwise compelling/sound cases). Word of caution, though, don't let the round devolve into a pure weighing debate. At the end of the day, I will vote for the side that presents the most compelling case for affirming or negating the resolution.

I am a parent judge and have been judging PF and LD debates since 2020.

You can consider me a lay/traditional judge for the most part. I will allow philosophy but only if the arguments are clearly articulated. No theory, tricks, prog or spreading at all.

I base my decision primarily on what transpires on the debate floor rather than background information and written cases. You may share references to verify the authenticity of your quotes if challenged by your opponent.

I understand the need to utilize the limited time available to render your arguments effectively. However, please balance that against the clarity of your communication. Unintelligible arguments will be largely unsuccessful.

I will typically allow you to finish your thought if time runs out, but within reason. I will extend the same courtesy to your opponent.

I will monitor your break allotment but expect you to do as well. I may gently remind you if you seem to be running significantly over your intended break time but it is ultimately your responsibility to manage.

The clarity and comprehensiveness of your case and overall framework is obviously important, but admittedly also the most prepared part of of the debate. Your ability to counter your opponent in cross examination and rebuttals, while keeping sight of your own framework, is often what determines the winning side.

I will entertain any arguments which are sound and logically presented, though internal consistency is essential. Likewise, I enjoy watching debaters of all styles and attitudes. An aggressive approach is great if it displays your passion for debate as long as you don’t cross the line into disrespect, while a composed demeanor can often be just as impressive. Think on your feet, stand your ground, be thoughtful, engaged, rational, coherent and organized…and enjoy the experience!

Hey everyone! I did Arizona PF for four years, Congress for two, and sprinkles of other events (so yes, I know what a kritik is). I've also judged "full-time" in North Carolina for four years now, mostly PF and LD. I expect a respectful debate from both sides.

For PF, I'm pretty standard. Make sure to spend as much time as possible in your rebuttal speech attacking the opponent's case with specific attacks relating to points they brought up in constructive.

For LD, I'm ok with progressive stuff, but since all my experience is with PF and traditional LD, know that you're taking a risk there. If you do end up going progressive, please be clear as to why I must vote for you! Spreading is fine, but if you're going to talk super fast, please flash drive over your speech so I can follow along.

I vote off the flow, but make sure to weigh impacts in your final speeches - a little bit of narrative (just a little bit!) can go a long way into helping me understanding your side/arguments and voting for you. By narrative, I mean high level analysis of the round, talking about the big picture and not getting too bogged down in the contention level debate (this especially applies to the last few speeches for each side).

My general rule is "quality over quantity." You've probably heard that a billion times, but I truly have trouble understanding quick, one sentence responses to arguments, especially in rebuttal. Take time to develop each response, giving me the context and all of the logic behind it, instead of saying a couple words and expecting me to do the analysis on my own. Also, the more counter-intuitive/non-obvious/unique the point you're trying to make is, the more you have to "gift-wrap" it - I'm willing to listen to almost everything but I need a little more help on arguments that aren't stock/easily understandable. Again, I want to hear the entire logical picture from the debaters, instead of having to fill in gaps on my own. I specifically like listening to how different responses and contentions interact with each other (i.e. grouping after rebuttal speeches). That being said, if an argument is mostly there and is missing just a frivolous part I tend to be pretty sympathetic, but you don't want to rely on this.

For PF - I don't require 2nd speaking rebuttal to defend against responses in 1st speaking rebuttal, but I highly encourage it. I don't require 1st speaking summary to repeat attacks on the opponents case, unless 2nd speaking rebuttal defended their own case against the attacks.

I have done events ranging from PF (2nd speaker), Big Questions, and OO for 3 years and placing in each. I am currently a student at UNC.

If you don't want to read, this short part is for you: Clear arguments win debates, stick with your arguments. Tell me why something is important and why I should vote for it. Don't be rude, don't forget to address your opponent's arguments. My standards are low for arguments because I would rather have you have a bad case but argue it well enough to win than have you have a great case but unable to argue it.

First and foremost, I do not offer feedback post-rounds. My ballots won't have much. I won't flow the entire round on the computer, (debate) only summary and final focus just so you can see where my thinking is at the end of round, cause that's what matters. If it wasn't addressed at the end of round to tell me to vote for it, why bring it up earlier?

PF-

I will look for clear arguments and line of reasoning. If you're going to tell me to "extend across the flow" or any other debate jargon, which I appreciate, tell me why. I will pay attention to every part of the round, including crossfires (be assertive but don't be rude). Signposting is appreciated. I have my preferences against spreading but I will be able to flow it. Enunciation is vital and so is general clarity. I don't mind voting for the craziest arguments but I do expect that you fully explain your case so your opponent and I can have an understanding. Your case does nothing for me if I cannot understand it. What happens in round matters, if it didn't then judging would be as easy as a side by side comparison of the cases. If you include observations in your case, keep up with them. Now onto speaks. I will drop you if anything comes up that is overtly disrespectful to anyone. I come from an Arab household and I can tell you, yelling does not make you right nor does it make me care. Any sign of disrespect, which includes laughing at the response of your opponent will be reflected in your speaks. TALKING TO YOUR PARTNER WHILE YOUR OPPONENT IS TALKING IS NOT PERMITTED EVER AND WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. We're all taking time out of our schedules and we just want to have some fun. I will try my best to not judge screw anyone over because we all know how awful that feels.

To discuss evidence, it matters. This is public forum debate, you should know this. I expect evidence at every level of the debate. Is one option more economically stable because of potential rise in prices in another? I've taken econ but I'm no expert. If your link-chain-warrant is missing evidence, the arguments falls. That said, I will not judge the round based off how I would've debated it, cause that is just awful. However, if your argument isn't clear to me, I cannot vote for it. I'm pretty lay on the standard of making your argument just because even bad arguments can win a round if your opponent doesn't address it. If I catch you falsifying evidence, you will be dropped. If I catch you misrepresenting evidence, you will be dropped. Where it really matters is when your opponent calls your card. If it becomes a keystone in the debate, I will request to see the card at the end of the round and it will hold influence on my decision. Keep a clean round and keep it exciting.

LD-Value structure is one of the most important aspects. An ought resolution means I need to know why I'm voting for your sense of morality and structure. If you abandon your values and favor your opponents or if they do not connect to your case, this will weigh heavy on my ballot. Tell me why Im voting for you and not your opponent. Don't spread to the point where you are blue in the face-clear and simple. I am less experienced in LD but I know how to flow and what a great round is. I expect respect for each other. As in PF, your case does nothing for me if I cannot understand it. Any type of case is permitted including tricks. Doesn't mean I will fall for it, but I'll allow it. You wanna run a case using moral nihilism? Go right on ahead. Wanna tell me morals don't exist? Why the heck not, you just better be prepared to defend it. In an attempt to not judge screw anyone over, I will not decide a round because I don't like your choice of argument. What I like and don't like are left at the door except for round preferences. Just because I don't like the way you formulated your argument, values, or what have it, does not mean I will drop you. I have allowed arguments in PF to pass by that I absolutely hated, but they were good and were argued well. I allow the same in LD.

Speech-The Achilles heel of many speech performers is the forgotten basics: eye contact, format, movement, enunciation etc. It is necessary for any and every round and that should not be discredited. Above this, I pay attention to comfortability and eloquence. I can overlook simple nerves getting in the way, but that does account for every performance. A round of 5 really awesome people is hard to judge, which is why I want to judge one. Every single speech has the capability to win first, no matter the topic. Delivery is key. Now if it comes down to it, I will rank on excitement, engagement, and overall possible interestibility? (thats a word? right? sure). Just because I do not find the topic particularly exciting does not mean you won't get ranked first. What I find exciting would make for the most boring speech ever so I pray none of you manage to tap into that. The vibe between debate and speech are different and thus I treat them differently. In debate we shake hands afterwards. In speech, we clap before and after. See what I mean? Despite being debate heavy, I will not subject any of you to my debate requirements.

I competed in PF at Nova High School in South Florida from 2014 to 2019. I just graduated from Duke University and am finishing up my fourth year coaching PF at Durham Academy.

For Nats 2023, please put me on the email chain- smith.emmat@gmail.com.

How I make decisions-

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance. This is the place on my flow where I need to intervene the least as a judge in order to make a decision. Explicitly identifying your cleanest piece of offense in the round, winning that clean piece of offense, completely extending that clean piece of offense (uniqueness, links AND impacts in BOTH summary and final focus), and then telling me why your cleanest piece of offense is more important than your opponents' cleanest piece of offense is usually an easy way to win my ballot.

General Stuff-

- Do all the good debate things! Do comparative weighing, warrant your weighing, collapse, frontline, etc.

- Please preflow before the round. Holding up the tournament to take 15 min to preflow in the room is really annoying :(

- Warrants and full link chains are important! I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round and won't do the work for you on warrants/links. Please do not assume I know everything just because I've probably judged some rounds on the topic.

- I won't read speech docs, so please don't sacrifice speed for clarity.

- I have a really low threshold and 0 tolerance for being rude, dismissive, condescending, etc. to your opponents. I'm not afraid to drop you for this reason. At the very least, I'll tank your speaks and write you a kindly worded educational ballot about making rounds unnecessarily hostile.

Evidence-

- I personally feel that calling for evidence as a judge is interventionist. I will only do it if 1- someone in the round explicitly tells me to in a speech or 2- reading evidence is literally the only way that I can make a decision (if this happens, it means both teams did a terrible job of clarifying the round and there is no clear offense for me to vote on. Please don't let this happen).

Progressive Stuff-

- I'll vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them if I absolutely must.)

- I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should ONLY be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse and reserve the right to drop you for frivolous theory. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.

- HUGE DISCLAIMER: My biggest pet peeve in PF right now is the use of progressive args to make rounds inaccessible to teams who don't know how to handle them. Reading progressive args against a clearly inexperienced team to get a cheap win is an easy way to auto lose my ballot. ALSO I am really not confident in my abilities to evaluate progressive arguments. If you choose to run them, you take on the risk of me making the wrong decision despite doing my best. Proceed with caution!

- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a content warning before the round.

I have judged PF debates since 2020. I use computer to take notes of key points delivered. I value the logic in arguments more than style. Balanced defense and offense win debate. I expect each team to show respect to the opponent. Argue with facts and logic instead of rhetoric.

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.

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 =).