I have been an IE judge since 1998.

I have 25 years of experience in speech activities.

I don't like presenters to talk too fast. I am looking for well-developed arguments. I need competitors to read their sources to me (not just a name and a date), and I want speakers to weigh the impacts of the round in their final two speeches each.

I expect competitors to be polite and professional and want a good exchange of ideas.

I assure you I will not vote on my own preconceptions or beliefs about the topic, but make my decisions based upon what is said in the round.

If competitors don't tell me how to evaluate the various arguments, and I am left to figure it out myself, they've done a poor job of debating the topic.

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 try not to go into a round with preconceptions and prefer not to intervene. I like line by line and impact calculus. I was a policy debater and then an assistant coach from 2001-2008, so speed is fine.

Hi,

Here are my expectations/paradigm for the round. 

- Running obscure arguments on your opponents might seem super cool, but showing probability and a clear link chain will probably have a better chance of winning.

- Second rebuttal needs to address turns from first rebuttal, otherwise your rebuttal is a little too late. 

- First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless you think its absolutely necessary for whatever reason. 

- You need to extend BOTH the warrant AND impact of your argument(s) in later speeches if you're serious about finessing my ballot.

- I'm all for taking control of CX/the round but if you are abusive/disrespectful in doing so it will reflect poorly on the ballot. Treat you opponents like human beings and we'll all have a good time. 

-In terms of speed if your flow and delivery is hot and clear I'm writing it down. If you wanna be Speed Racer go ahead as long as you feel a reasonable person can still understand you. 

-Use author qualifications when first citing a piece of evidence (for extensions later on last name will suffice).

-Tate 

Hello Everyone! My name is Beth Fowler and I am an historian and Senior Lecturer at Wayne State University. I am looking for clear, concise contentions supported by solid and specific pieces of credible evidence that builds to a persuadable argument. I also want debaters to listen carefully to their opponents arguments, and to be able to address them clearly rather than simply reiterating their own points. Use the cross-examination to ask probing questions about opponents’ evidence and arguments, and the summation to clearly explain how the argument your team built is more persuasive than your opponents’ argument.

Email: Alliefun9@gmail.com

Policy Debate:

Topicality: If you're going for t, make sure you're going for it, 5 minutes in the 2NR!

Kritiks: I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to specific kritiks besides Zupanchic and the Cap k, so make sure you can explain it well, and make sure to clearly explain the world of the alt and compare it to the world of the aff, an unclear alt is how most teams lose on the K! I'm also not very knowledgeable when it comes to framework, so explain you arguments clearly ex: why should the aff get to weigh their case/why does the neg hurt education and why is that bad for debate. Also, please don't give me 3 minute long overviews of the K using unclear jargon, a lot of that can be done on the line by line. (not the unlearn jargon part, make sure you can explain what that jargon means!)

Disads: Make sure you do impact calc! Disad outweighs and turns case is a powerful argument, make it every time.

Counterplans: I tend to lean neg on 50 state fiat and condo, but if the neg runs like 4 conditional CPs then don't let them get away with that! if you are making a perm, make sure to explain how the aff plan and CP can both be done, I'm not gonna vote on a vague "perm do both because we can/the is no reason we can't".

Public forum:

Never debated it :(, though I have judged it. Be clear and follow some cohesive order, since I'm not very privy to the mechanics it'll be in your best interest to signpost your arguments. Ethos Ethos Ethos! Be confident ;0 you are all dedicated debates, have confidence in you're skills! (even if you think you're losing, sound like you're winning!)

Hi everyone! My name is Emma Gavriliuc and I'm a junior at the University of Michigan (Go Blue!)

Yes, put me on the email chain: eagavriliuc@gmail.com

Experience:

I did PF for one year and am now an assistant coach for our middle school pf and policy teams. I've done policy for four years so I'm fine with speed and just about any argument, but if you're unclear I will not try to decipher your arguments for you. Clarity over speed always.

For Policy Debate:

Top-Level:

• I read along with speech docs and prefer clear, relatively slow, and organized debates.
• Again, send me the docs. You have my email.
• Card quality and recency is huge - evidence quality in general is an important and valuable component
• Share docs with all parties, if it's a new aff I will still chalk non-shared docs up to the aff simply being bad.
• Generally against war-good arguments, I see very little persuasion and relevance. They're just not convincing
• Use Cross-X effectively and bring any arguments through to your speeches, I will not flow cross-x but its valid if it comes up in your speech later

How to sway me:

• Give me a clear picture and clear understanding of the world you are presenting
• Evidence quality is important - so is recency
• I enjoy and will be more persuaded by a slower debate with strong arguments and evidence. If you're faster, I can and will follow - but please
• The 2nr/2ar should spend the first 15-20 seconds explaining how I should vote with judge instruction.
• If you laid a trap, tell me, because I’m probably not going to vote on something that wasn’t flagged as an argument.
• Have, utilize, and explain internal links!

What I don't like

• Word PICs - unless you genuinely think you can make me care and that it will change the course of the debate, I think these are just silly
• Negs that start with 9 + offcase positions, I prefer quality to quantity. It's, of course, fine to start with more than what you end with - but please don't just throw things out there for the sake of wasting time
• Offensive language - don't do it. Don't be rude to your partners, your opponents, or me. If you're rude or offensive, it will drastically impact your points and my perception as well. Just be nice
• No old camp blocks - I've seen them. Try not to use them. It won't lose you a round, but you can do better and the round will be better as a whole with your own blocks as well

Topicality:

• Be intentional with topicality. Make sure you have all components of topicality included in your shell. Make it relevant to the round and topic and please do flesh out any impacts associated
• That said, I like debates that have stories. I like debates about real topics with real clashing of arguments. Use topicality if you want, but not to the extent that the debate loses the essence of the topic at hand.

Critical affs:

• Is there a role of the ballot? Make that clear
• Framework: Explain the topical version of the aff; use your framework impacts to turn/answer the impacts of the 1ac; if you win framework you win the debate because…
• A debate has to occur and happen within the speech order/times of the invite; the arguments are made are up to the debaters and I generally enjoy a broad range of arguments

Kritiks:

• Not a fan of high theory, but I'll listen to them
• Framework is huge - what is the framework for evaluating the debate? What does voting for the alternative signify? What should I think of the aff’s truth statements?
• Please please please be clear and consistent with what your alt is
• Perms are really persuasive to me - if you want to win against a perm be really careful with the arguments you're presenting and how you go about it on the neg. I tend to vote aff on perms but I do get excited by negs that respond well and can convince me otherwise

Disads

• Overviews on disads are good - please do include
• Focus on internal links here please

Counterplans

• Please have a specific and clearly described solvency advocate and solvency mechanism
• Consult and conditions counterplans are probably illegitimate - if you think you can convince me otherwise, please do give it a try

Theory/Rules:

• I guess they're fine but flesh the impact and value of these arguments

*

For Public Forum:

As a judge, I assure you that I will not vote based on my personal beliefs. What you give me is what I will weigh.

I am looking for clear, concise contentions supported by solid and specific pieces of credible evidence that build a persuasive argument.

I can tell if you haven't listened to your opponents arguments so please do yourself a favor and actually flow.

I will be updating my paradigm frequently based on things that I do and do not want to see.

When Speaking:

- Be confident but don't be cocky

- Be clear

- Remember that you're trying to persuade ME not your opponents.

Do:

- Clash with each others arguments rather than simply reiterating your own points

- Extend the arguments that you are winning on

- Use the cross-examination to ask probing questions about opponents’ evidence and arguments (evidence comparison makes me happy)

- Clearly explain to me how the argument your team built is more persuasive than your opponents’ argument

- Defense is good, but don't overlook offense

- Organize your speech strategically please

- Tell me what your winning on and what your opponents have dropped as well - leverage these things

Don't:

- Say anything rude, offensive, insensitive, or derogatory - none of it will fly with me and it shouldn't fly with anyone else either

- Speak over opponents or your partner in round

- Just say that you won without proving to me why I should actually vote for you and why your arguments have won you the round

I look forward to watching you debate!

I am a parent judge.

I have judged for three years.

I like clear arguments.

I don't like speaking too fast to get more information in, but I understand when people speak fast because they are nervous.

I like kindness and respect among competitors.

I am a lay Judge, and new to judging debate.

I appreciate clear and logical arguments that follow cleanly from one point to another. I notice when a debater introduces what they are about to do; I notice when a debater overviews and summarizes. I appreciate clarity and succinctness. From my perspective: Less is More.

I do not appreciate the use of jargon or uncommon acronyms. I do not appreciate being confused by what you are saying or try to say. I do not appreciate any declaration by the debater that they have won an argument or the debate, because - rightly or wrongly - that is not within the mandate of the debater rather it is the authority of the judge.

Delivery and pace are important - I need to be able to follow your lines of thinking and keep clear what you are arguing. If you are a fast talker, please try to slow down and deliver a more measured pace so that I can keep up with your logical sequencing. I will notice civility and respect, then award positively for its demonstration.

Current Undergraduate @ U of M

I debated for Groves High School for two years, as a novice and varsity debater. I spent that time doing policy on both the state and national circuits. I have read both policy, soft-left, and kritikal performance affs. This is my first time judging, so my paradigm is a little loose.

I haven't debated PF ever and do not have in-depth knowledge on this topic, don't assume I do.

Include me on the email chain: kevingruich@gmail.com

TL;DR - just do what you plan to do, I'm fine voting on things I personally disagree on, I only look to base my decision on the debate itself. I may not enjoy Ks a lot but that doesn't mean I can't weigh them, as long as it has a basis in evidence or reason it is good. I really do enjoy reasoned and logical analytics, I find these tailored arguments to be far more appealing than vomiting cards that no one really has a good understanding of. I also enjoy line-by-line debate far more than bloated overviews that just slide past each other. I just want to be told what to do, make persuasive arguments to me, I do not want to intervene and become the arbiter of fact.

In-depth Details:

Speed - You can have plenty of speed but don't assume I will have a perfect understanding of your argument because you muttered it, clarity is king, speed should come second, that doesn't mean I can't flow or didn't spread myself, just make sure you actually articulate your point comprehensibly (do not mutter under your breath or slur your words heavily, it makes a mockery of public speaking).

Topicality - I am willing to vote on T. You need actual reasons on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation. Explain your standards, don't just toss buzzwords out assuming I understand it the same as you. Compare your standards and reasons to the other side, don't just ignore their arguments and move on.

CPs - I'll listen to any CP, any amount of them, I enjoy CPs since they often engage in topic-relevant policy. What constitutes abuse for a CP is always up for debate.

Disads - Gladly, I love a good DA, even if it is generic but there should be a clear link to the aff. It can be zero risk, whether or not that matters is up for debate. The overviews should focus on impact calculus and case turns. Don't spout a paragraph of the DA on the overview, let it be described in the line by line.

Kritiks - I enjoy "simple" Ks, I don't have the best understanding of high theory (though I do have good knowledge on some of them, Baudrillard included). A classic Cap K debate can be fun, though don't just put out generic blocks, make sure you have clear links and clear answers that apply to it. If you want to read a high theory K, explain it well, don't assume I'm read up on the literature (it is preferable you do this even if it is a standard K). The impact has to have actual calculus and not vague mentions of consequences, please compare it to the case so I don't have to. Alternatives need to be fleshed out and properly debated, what is it, how does it solve the aff, what is the world of it, who does it, what is my role in looking at it? I don't like vague alternatives, but I will vote on them if the Aff does nothing. Neg needs to be clear as to what comes first in their framing.

Theory - I don't lean one way or the other (aside from condo, you can get more than 1 single CP). On condo specifically, try to have a more nuanced interpretation rather than, "the exact amount of off-case they have is too much". A theory debate must be more than just reading and re-reading one's blocks. There needs to be impacted reasons as to why I should vote one way or another. If there are dropped independent voters on the theory debate, I will definitely look there first. There should be an articulated reason why I should reject the team on theory, otherwise, I default to just rejecting the argument.

Performance - I'll take a performance debate, not my preference, but I won't throw it out or anything. I would like it if the performative action relates to the topic, but that is up for debate. I am willing to listen to arguments regardless.

Paperless Debate - I will give the benefit of the doubt should a computer issue occur but I cannot give infinite time. I do not take prep time for flashing or emailing, but don't use this as an excuse to steal prep. I will be suspicious of you if I see you stealing prep (notably when a speaker is about to begin and prep is over) and it may result in the loss of speaker points if repeated blatantly.

Misc:

Line-by-line is key in evaluation, it matters far more than overviews

Clipping is cheating. You will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

I have learned about PF through my son who competes in high school varsity debate. I am looking for teams to justify their arguments, rebut and address issues raised by the the other team.

My preference on speaking speed is moderate. If I can't understand you, I can't flow your argument.

I like confidence in a speaker, but please don't be cocky, mean or rude.

I'm a current PF debater. I'm a second speaker so I will be writing down a lot of what you say and I expect there to be direct clash in round. If you aren't responding directly to what has been said and just respond to a rebuttal by re-reading your contention or evidence I will glaze over. Weighing is extremely important- tell me WHY your arguments are more impactful. I don't flow cross but I pay attention. I judge on content not speaking style but if your argument is well-organized I'm going to be more likely to vote on it. Please signpost. I'm good with speed but don't spread. Unless something in your case is very unclear without a definition- don't define words (please don't waste your time telling me what the keywords in the resolution mean). You can finish your thought after time goes but I will cut you off if you go over 5-10 seconds. Don't be a jerk- no racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, etc. Finally, have fun and feel free to ask me questions.

PS don't be afraid to ask me what words in my paradigm mean if you are confused.

Hi! I did public forum in high school, and I'm currently a junior at Columbia University. In a debate, I look for logic, comprehensibility, and overall cohesiveness of your arguments. What that means is that I want your argument to make sense, flow enough to be easily followed, and that your arguments come together to paint some larger picture, either implied or overtly. (Please don't use logical fallacies :) ) I also think impact calculus is one of the most important focuses in a debate--this is how you build that bigger picture! If you have a framework, bring it up in your first constructive, right before you get into the body of your argument. Frameworks are important--if you set one as the basis of judgement for the debate, I will (within reason) adhere to it to judge your debate.

In terms of public forum specifics, I find it more useful to use your rebuttal speech to attack everything your opponent has said (or bring in new syntheses between a point you've made and an opponent's point) instead of restating your argument. For a summary speech, make sure to bring up all the arguments that haven't been dropped, otherwise I will assume you have dropped them. Don't feel like you have to stick to all of the points within your speech--in the real world, one seldom emerges from a debate having won on all fronts. If you find that you cannot win a single facet of your argument, it is totally fine to drop it (and defend it--mitigate the damage!) and focus on the strengths of your arguments.

In the end, I am looking to vote for the stronger argument (and impact, if you can quantify it)! So if you ignore everything I just said yet still have a stellar argument, you'll probably win.

I am a flow judge. If you want me to vote on an argument, make sure it is brought up in summary and final focus. Weighing your arguments is very important; I'll vote for the side that does the better weighing for me. Summary and final focus should explain to me perfectly why you win the round. Good luck!

Name – Joe Kelly

Current institutional affiliation – Hired judge

Current role at institution – Hired per tournament

Previous institutional affiliations and role: East Kentwood, Michigan State University - debater. East Lansing High School, Waverly Middle School - director of debate.

Debating experience

High school and college debater – graduated college more than 10 years ago

If you debated what speech did you do most often? 1N/2A

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate? If you don’t put me in another paradigm, I will default to trying to choose the best policy option. That said, I'm familiar with policy and kritik debates.

Purpose of Philosophy

In what ways do you intend this judge philosophy to be helpful to debaters? In other words, what would you hope debaters would do with this philosophy?

It has been a few years since I debated, and I will recommend that students adapt in a couple ways:

1) Slow down. I believe the ink on my flow will be maximized if you speak at 85-90% of your top speed.

2) Look at me. I tend to be rather expressive. If I’m not writing something down or if I look confused, it may help you if you elaborate on your position.

Evaluative Practices and Views on Debate Round Logistics

Do you take flash time as prep time? In other words, when does prep begin and end with you? Do you expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time?

I don't count flashing /emailing as prep. I will keep track of time.

Do you have teams provide you speech documents throughout the debate by flashing or emailing them to you? Do you have teams provide speech documents throughout the debate by emailing them to you?

If you could email me, that would be great.

If you do, why have you adopted this practice? If you do not, have you made a conscious decision not to and if so why?

I think it provides greater transparency and clarity. I will try to flow your information during the round, and so, I won’t always be able to read your evidence while you are. This is still a speech activity.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

My normal range is 26-29.5. You can lose points by being rude, behaving unethically. You can earn points by speaking clearly, making good strategic choices and good arguments.

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clear. I will also give non-verbal cues. Debaters can check to see if I am flowing or if I look confused.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

I may read evidence if there is a question as to what the evidence says. If evidence is uncontested, I will probably not read it after the round.

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

I may provide commentary about it, but I will try not to let it affect my opinion of the round if it was not brought up.

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

If it is contested.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality

I generally think it is a voting issue, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

Theory is great. I'm generally persuaded to reject the argument, not the team.

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff

I think there are some pretty good arguments in favor of the aff having a stable advocacy.

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

Sounds good.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

Could you list out some situations here?

For example, “I prefer a DA and case debate.”

Counterplan, Disadvantage, Case is a pretty good debate. Line-by-line refutation is important. This is just what I’m most familiar with. I’m open to other debates as well.

I have been judging debate and forensics tournaments for 5+ years.

With a long career in business, my judging in debate tournaments is based on the quality and delivery of information to support your position - solid evidence with an outstanding presentation.

For forensics competitions, the selection of the piece or product combined with your your creative interpretation are the key winning factors.

Email: me@anli.dev

Junior at the Bergen County Academies. I've done 1 year of middle school PF (back in the Long Ago of 2017-18) and 2 years of LD. Pronouns are he/him.

== PF PARADIGM ==

This is my first time judging at an official tournament. I'd consider myself a "flow" judge, and I've done LD so feel free to run progressive arguments.

A few things:

• Weigh and extend your arguments during summary and final focus.

• Dropped arguments (i.e. not addressed in each speech) will not be evaluated.

• I default to CBA/util (cost-benefit analysis, or maximizing benefit while minimizing pain). Feel free to use another framework if you'd like, just make sure to defend, extend, and use it to weigh your arguments.

• I don't flow crossfire/etc.

• (November/December) I've done very little research on the topic so I may not know common arguments. Don't expect me to fill in impacts, arguments, and the like.

• If you are racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc in any way, I will vote against you and dock your speaker points.

Good luck and have fun!

As a judge, I prefer if you try to be as self sufficient as possible. Especially when debating remotely, please time yourselves so you can avoid running over. Also, on crossfire, make sure you are asking questions and not just rambling on about evidence (debaters, if your opponents are just stating evidence please call them out by asking "do you have a question").

As for the content of the debate, please extend all relevant arguments throughout the round. I don't want to hear extensions of contentions in final focus if they weren't extended through to final summary. Also, I want to see weighing of impacts in final focus. You need to tell me what your impacts are and why they matter.

As an old school judge I tend to make my decisions on the clash in the round and how well/clearly the arguments are developed/responded to. A dropped argument does not mean an automatic win for the team if it is not key to the main argument being presented. Evidence is important to me and arguments based on quality of sources, analysis on importance of post dates info, etc are acceptable but should not be the main focus of the debate. I also consider how well the teams treat each other, and rudeness can impact how I view the round. Finally, the last two speeches should be narrowed to winning arguments and articulated in such a way to be convincing. I will make my judgments based on what you say in the final speech, not what I think you meant.

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 high school history teacher, will listen to your round and judge.

I will base my decision on the following 3 criteria:

1) Speech: Speaking slowly and clearly is critical. If you speak much too rapidly or in monotone, it’s hard to understand what you are saying, 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. You should organize your evidence so that similar arguments are grouped together. It helps if you enumerate the arguments.

3) Decorum and Civility: Show respect to your opponent. Disagreements should never be disrespectful nor personal. 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.

Hi,

I did Public Forum debate for all 4 years in high school so I usually know what's going on during a round (though I've graduated college since, so it's been a while).

I like to judge primarily on content and flow of arguments, but if speaking and organization gets in the way of me clearly understanding what is being talked about, that will definitely have an effect on how I judge you (I can't judge on what I can't hear or what I don't understand). I do my best to be unbiased, and if you hear your opponent say something that is clearly a fallacy or illogical, it is your responsibility to point that out to me (unless its absolutely ridiculous, I can only suspend my disbelief so much).

Please also keep in mind that some terms related to the debate topic might be unknown to me, and with this being a *public forum* debate, it is your responsibility to provide that clarity. Otherwise I'll be struggling understanding what you're arguing rather than recognizing how strong your argument actually is.

Extra points if I'm on the edge of my seat by the end of the debate. I love drama.

(but don't be mean to each other I hate that)

she/her. You can call me Carla, "judge" is tacky. Yes, email chain: ramazancarla@gmail.com

I debated policy for four years in high school for Sage Ridge School. I coached Greenhill sophomores for the 2017-2018 season and now work with Gulliver Prep. I do not feel the need to detail my debate career.

Update for virtual debate: If you can, please turn your camera on, and keep it on for the whole debate. I totally get that it is not possible for some, so this is not required.

Above everything else in this philosophy, I believe that debaters must be humane to each other. I will not hesitate to vote against a team for using language that is racist/ableist/transphobic/sexist/homophobic/etc.

I'm not picky about a lot, but here are a few things that you should know.

TLDR: Read what you want. This is your debate, not mine. Do the better debating, and you'll get my ballot. That being said, too many of the rounds I judge are far too similar. If you are looking to try out a new or "risky" strategy, I will likely find that exciting and reward you with high speaks.

Ks: I love K debate. However, high-theory is not my area of expertise. I will listen to you, but you must explain your argument thoroughly in order for me to vote on it. Also, no death good arguments please.

T: I will admit I am probably not the best judge for very technical T debates. I think I am more sympathetic to reasonability arguments than most judges.

FW: If you are reading framework, remember that you are on the side of truth. So use it. Oh, and I actually like to judge framework debates. A lot.

Misc: The best final rebuttals write my ballot out for me. Make "even if" statements!! Tell me how to weigh one thing against the other. This is the easiest way to win my ballot and make my decision as clean as possible. Concessions happen all the time in high school debate, but you can't just say "they dropped this" and expect that to be the winning argument. You have to impact that out for me and tell me why that matters in the context of my decision.

LD judging update 01/09/21: I've judged LD a few times before and found that from my policy background, impact calculus is very, very important to win my ballot. Everything above still applies but the TLDR is you do you, and I'll be flowing.

PF judging update 09/25/21:

Key point: You should take prep to flash evidence. I am tired of it taking 20 years for PF debaters to flash evidence on non-prep time. If you do not do this, I will dock your speaks.

I've judged about 30 PFs debate as of this update, and I found that impact calculus is key to winning my ballot. Tell me why your argument matters. What are the consequences of a world where the pro/con does or does not exist? Why should I care? If you have any questions, feel free to email me.

I debated all throughout high school, so I am very familiar with the mechanics of PF debate. Here is what I ask of you in each round:

1. Be kind and polite to your competitors. Being rude will affect speaker points, and in some extreme cases, the outcome of the round.

2. Talk at a pace that is reasonable to everyone in the round. I can flow speed and will clear you if you are just going too fast, but if I think that you are using speed as a tool to make the round inaccessible to your competitors, that may affect speaker points/outcome of the round.

3. Provide a clear explanation of why you should be winning the round. This will help you to be more sure of the outcome of the round. If you leave me to weigh impacts or compare frameworks, you are giving me a lot of control over the outcome of the round.

4. Provide evidence in a clear and accessible manner. I am totally fine with "Author Name, Year" citations (and in fact, I think this is how you should always cite after the first time you mention the card), but make sure that your citations are consistent and accurate. I will not ask for evidence at the end of the round (unless there is some major disagreement about what the card actually says in the round) because I feel that this is the responsibility of the debaters.

--If evidence is requested by your opponents, you must produce it in 90 seconds, or it will eat into your prep time. When reviewing evidence, that is your prep time. If I think you are using evidence request as a means to steal prep time, I will call you out and it will be reflected in your speaker points.

5. CrossX is a time for asking and answering questions. If I think that you are abusing the purpose of CrossX to respond to your opponent's answers, I will interrupt you. If it continues, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

6. Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have. Debate is an excellent learning opportunity, and if there is anything that I can do to make it more educational, just let me know. I am always available via email: rmreilly@umich.edu.

Thank you! Good luck!

Public Forum Debate:

I competed all 4 years of high school in Public Forum at Dexter High School, and have been coaching/judging since 2018. I mainly judge on use of impact weighing, cohesive arguments and responses, and unique/compelling arguments.

I judge on a mix of tech/truth. I won't necessarily drop a rebuttal or response with theory and no evidence as long as it makes sense, but for larger arguments that your case relies on, evidence is necessary. Decorum during the round (rudeness, interrupting repeatedly during crossfire, et cetera) will affect your score, more on this below. I don't flow crossfire and I don't judge on it, but I will be paying attention for contradictions or lack of knowledge/an answer. I'm not a fan of offtime roadmaps, considering they waste time during the round and serve very little purpose. If you signpost your speech properly, you won't need an offtime roadmap.

At the end of the day, I'll judge mostly on voter issues mentioned in the summary/FF, in terms of what arguments have been dropped, responded to, or are still standing, so make sure to collapse and/or mention your strongest points during the round at the end.

If any of the students in the round are having decorum issues, it will greatly affect my decision. I've noticed that most of these issues happen during crossfire, due to how easy it is to get frustrated with your opponent. While I was competing, I was definitely quick to make a crossfire heated - there's a pretty easy fix for this. Your speeches and your arguments should be addressed to me, and not your opponent. Your job is not to wear down your opponent until they concede, your job is to convince me that your arguments are more important. I hope this reframing of the debate can help some of you, even if crossfire isn't something you initially struggle with. Remember, we're here to learn and have fun, not to get angry at each other over arguments that really don't even matter in reality.

Forensics:

Now that forensics is slowly moving to Tabroom, I'll add a little blurb here about it. I competed in both interp and PA events, but found the most success later on in my forensics career in Broadcasting. I am more inclined towards the PA events and will probably be far more helpful as a judge in those events. If you're in interp and you've gotten a basically blank critique sheet from me, I sincerely apologize (if I have nothing to say it means I had nothing bad to say and didn't really notice you doing anything wrong).

That being said, in interp, there are a few things that I do not appreciate. First, adding too much emotion to lines that don't need that much emotion. If the only way you can come across as upset is by screaming your lines, try something else, like using facial expressions. I know a lot of you have pieces that require you to make loud noises, which is fine, but remember that there are usually people competing right next door. Screaming your entire piece is going to give me a headache and it's going to interrupt the round next door. Secondly, adding in incredibly dramatic scenes that make no sense with the cutting/story you're trying to convey. If you're conveying a character arc that has nothing to do with mental illness or suicide and then out of nowhere your character commits suicide, I will find it in bad taste unless there's a reason for it to be there. I don't take lightly to specifically issues of suicide and it won't give you extra points for having a more "emotional" program. Third, if you can do a cartwheel or a back handspring or whatever sort of gymnastic feat, please do not put it in your piece unless your piece calls for your character to do a gymnastic feat. I once judged a round where three people randomly did cartwheels and I had to decide who had the best cartwheel - please don't make me do that again. Thank you.

Position yourself so I can hear you. Don't speak into your laptop or stand on the opposite side of the room. Don't read typed-out things like they are the text of a card. Slow down and change the intonation of your voice when you're speaking.

I normally look to impact calc throughout debate

If I don't understand something, I will not vote on it even if it is conceded.

I am getting tired of multiple conditional cp's. Seriously, it is getting out of hand. The neg gets 1 conditional cp or Kritik.

I not only look for argumentation but also HOW you debate (aka how well you can convince me).

Clarity is key. If you are spreading and I can not clearly hear your arguments I will not flow them.

last speeches should start with telling me exactly what should be on my ballot.

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR:

Things I will not vote on:

Arguments that suggest students should engage in risky behavior.

Death is good.

Fear of death is bad

Bataille

Baudrillard

Do: Ask me how to win :)

Dont: count down to starting your timer, or tell me when your prep starts, or need time to set up your timer after you were just taking prep. When you ask for prep I'll just start timing then you should be ready to speak when it's done.

I did speech and debate in high school, 3 years of LD and 1 year in PF. I'm alright with any kind of argument you want to read (theory, k's, etc) just explain what you're reading well and make sure you can communicate your advocacy. I'm also okay with speed, but if you are planning on speaking really fast, please email me your case. My email address is msavransky01@gmail.com.

I'm a flow judge and prefer tech > truth but your arguments obviously still have to be true for me to vote for them.

How To Win My Ballot

Arguments should be extended in the summary and final focus speeches, if an argument is brought up in the 2nd rebuttal and final focus but not the summary, I won't vote on it.

Weigh your arguments against those of your opponents, that's one of the most important things for me in the round! In your speeches, you should be explaining why voting for your side has a bigger impact than that of your opponents using different criteria like magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability, and reversibility. This is especially important in your final focus and summary speeches.

Your final two speeches should look somewhat like my ballot, explain the main arguments that the round comes down to and why they should be the key voting points. Say why those arguments flow your away and weigh them against the arguments your opponents.

Don't go for too many arguments in the final speeches, you shouldn't be talking about everything discussed in the debate, only the most important things. Otherwise, the debate tends to get messy as there ends up being a lot of extended arguments that have little interaction with each other.

Cards should be explained through out every speech, when you extend a card, you should not only be saying the name of the author but also the warrant of the card and the implication of it. Also, you should be weighing your cards against those read by your opponents i.e say why your evidence is better quality, why there is more of it, and so forth. When two teams have competing cards, this is what helps me decide which one to believe and side with.

All I'm all, just extend your arguments and cards in every speech, weigh the most important arguments against each other in the final speeches and you'll definitely win the round/get great speaks.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to judging you !

About me: I am a parent judge in LD, PF, and Parli. My professional background is in IT.

Basics:

• Tell me why and on what grounds you’re winning -- this matters a lot
• Tell me how I should evaluate the round. Give me the standards
• ALWAYS make comparative claims about the other teams evidence & arguments (in relation to yours). Direct clash is important
• Speed is good, but clarity is far better. Be efficient with your speeches. If you can’t speak quickly without slurring, don’t speak quickly
• LD and Policy Specific -- Favorite strats to least favorite. Respect this order, but avoid if possible.
• Politics/Case
• Impact turning the whole case
• Topic specific T
• Politics/Process CP
• PIC with internal net benefit
• Ks
• Be nice. I will not give good speaks to people who act inappropriately in rounds or to their partners/team. Being offensive is not funny. I refuse to accept abuse in round.

General

Performance/Non-traditional: I default to traditional.

Speaks: 28 is average. I doubt you'll get a 30. Try not to talk into your paper/flows/laptop because I won't say "louder" unless it's really extreme and I might be missing arguments. Speak clearly and persuasively.

Please do not use progressive arguments in PF rounds; speak at an average rate and be nice to each other.

Sup, I'm Janai (if you're here you probably know that lol).

I debated in high school for Groves, in college for Wayne State University and coached High school policy and some middle school PF.

Basically, do what you do best and trust that will carry you!

Please try your very best not to say anything offensive: racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-queer, homophobic, ableist, xenophobic, classist, etc.

Im fine with every traditional and non-traditional thing we do in debate... dont be rude, debate the best you can, don't drop content if possible, have fun learning new ideas, do you with confidence!

Greetings!

Hi! I am Stefanie Zin.

Please add me to the e-mail chain: zinst4364@gmail.com

If you don't read ANYTHING else, please read the following:

1.PLEASE SIGNPOST

2.PLEASE PROVIDE A ROADMAP

Okay, now that I've said that:

While I debated in high school for four years, and in college for two, it was a while ago. I have VERY LIMITED familiarity with most Kritiks and definitely not as fast a flow as I used to be. That said, you needn't act like you are giving an "after dinner speech". Related to speed, I also appreciate intelligibility. My motto is, "If I can't understand what you said, I can't flow it and if I can't flow it, I can't vote on it." To borrow a statement from my Ex-Husband, David Zin, "Debate is still a communication activity, even if we rip along at several hundred words a minute."

I am a bit of a traditionalist: I tend to have a stock issues approach to the AFF, I like clear and succinct tags on evidence. You can read the evidence as fast as you want (assuming you are intelligible). I appreciate it when the 2NR/2AR not only provide me with justification as to why they win, but contrasts their position to the other team and explain how they outweigh.

Tag team CX is okay, within reason. I award speaker points based on the quality/content of the speeches as well as CX performance. I want all of the debaters to be able to think on their feet and not rely solely on their partner to "carry them through the round". Please demonstrate your independent understanding and mastery of the material (this will be rewarded).

Finally, I have a deep and profound respect for civility in a debate round. Your goal should be to prevail based on the content and quality of your argumentation, not on your ability to subject your opponent to abject misery and totally debase them. (This type of behavior will NOT be rewarded and you will NOT be happy with your Speaker Points as a result).

Please consider the following elements with an "X" denoting my position with respect to the spectrum of characteristics.

No Tag Team CX---------------------------X---Tag Team CX okay (within reason

Tech---------------------X----------------------Truth

Policy--X---------------------------------------Kritiks (As stated above, I have very limited experience with Kritiks.)

Theory--------------------------------------X------Substance

I'll read no cards----------------------X-----------I'll read all the cards

Lots of so-so cards ---------------------X-------- A few good, longer cards

Debate is about ideas--------------------X-------------------Debate is about people

Debate is good/valuable -X--------------------------------It's not

Conditionality bad-------------------------X--------------------Conditionality good

No process CPs ------------------------------X---------------Lit determines legitimacy

Politics DA not a thing --------------------------------X-------------(Good) Politics DA is a thing

Running Kritiks assuming I am infinitely UNFAMILIAR with them-----------------------X- Explain the K and the Alt and Framework

Framework with respect to Kritiks - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOUR FRAMEWORK IS PREFERABLE and how I should weigh it!!!

Clarity--X-------------------------------------------Unintelligibility (Trust me on this!)

I'm a robot-----------------------------------------X-Slow down on tags/cites/analytics/theory

Aff Ground--------------------X-------------------------Limits

Long overviews-----------------------------------X----Articulate positions, line by line

2NRs that collapse ---X------------------------------- 2NRs that go for everything

2ARs that assume I will vote AFF regardless------------------------------X-2ARs that tell my WHY to vote AFF.

I look forward to an enjoyable experience judging you and your team!