35th Annual Stanford Invitational
2021 — Classrooms.Cloud, CA/US
Public Forum - MS, Nov, JV Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am Asma (pronounced Es-ma). My daughter competes in debate which has inspired me to be a judge.
I have professional experience in public speaking and have participated in debate many many years ago.
I will look for the following as part of my evaluation.
- Please weigh comparatively
- Organizational clarity
- Use of arguments
- use of cross-examination and rebuttal
- Presentation Style
- Skill in Analysis
- Use of evidence
- Validity of Argument
- Make sure that the data and statistics are factual and supported by credible sources
- Only collapse your case if you need to - use as a last resort
- Refrain from speaking aggressively or inappropriately during the round. I will lower your speaking average if you do so.
- And, most importantly, enjoy yourselves and have fun!!!
Speaking points average around 28 and are based on:
- How clearly you communicate your arguments and words is critical to my judging. Please speak clearly. I need to understand and comprehend what you are communicating to persuade and influence me.
- A comprehensive and consistent summary
- Effective delivery
- Clear articulation of words
- Clear rebuttals
- A strong defense case
If you have any questions, please make sure to ask before the round starts.
Please do not spread. Lay judge.
New parent judge. I am fine with some spreading. However, if you speak so quickly that I can’t understand then I can’t judge you effectively.
Hi! I'm Josefina.
You can reach me at firstname.lastname@example.org, please include me in the email chain.
I recently graduated from Binghamton University with a degree in biochemistry and a minor in soc.
I'm pretty new to debate, my experience has been teaching online policy style debate and judging at tournaments. I'm still learning, so I'm always open to feedback.
I am neither truth vs. tech. I believe that they're both integral to debate.
You can debate at whatever speed you feel comfortable.
What usually helps me make a decision:
- Case extensions with thoughtful warrants
- A clear path towards a decision. Let me know what I should be weighing, and impact out your arguments.
- Using the evidence to your advantage, just giving a card and a claim are not enough to be an argument.
- I consider both offense and defense in terms of your own argument and answer to opposing ones.
Hello there, my name is Seema Atthar and I'm a fairly lay parent judge who has been judging speech and debate tournaments for 2 years. Through my experience as a judge, I have gained some insight into what I specifically look for when going into a round. Right off the bat, I expect a clean, respectful round where both teams hold true to being mindful of their attitude and tone. While I love to see clash in a round, I hope that nothing gets too aggressive. I like to see strong arguments thoroughly presented with evidence that backs them up. Organization is one aspect of the debate that I analyze when judging, as the better the organization, the easier I understand each point made. In addition, in specific to pace, it would be much preferred if each speaker spoke clearly and at a slower pace. The faster the pace, the harder it gets to process everything of significance, therefore, speaking slower has more advantages. However, I do not mind if the pace is still slightly fast. Lastly, the most important part of the round that will straight up to determine who I give the win to is the back half of the round, where meta-weighing comes in. Weighing and spelling out to me as a judge why your arguments are more important than your opponents is significant and holds worth for the outcome.
Its my 1st time as a parent judge. I am manager in a large company with many people reporting to me so I value well organized and clear arguments. You can go fast if you need to but if the argument becomes unclear due to speed then that is not the outcome you want.
I do not know all the debate jargons so don't use them. Please keep to your time.
Even though its my first time judging I enjoy listening to debates and am looking forward to it.
Enjoy and have fun!
I am a cardiologist in the Washington, DC area and I have no background in debate. I am a parent judge.
Please do not spread. Please speak at a normal pace.
I will try not to vote off of cross but if you can’t defend case in cross/generally are not doing well in cross I will take off speaker points.
Time your opponents speeches and feel free to interrupt when time is up. Please stick to the allotted time frames.
I prefer off time road maps and please stick to them.
Be respectful to your opponents at all times.
Keep your arguments generally socially acceptable.
I have judged 8 PF debates so relatively new. I run a global policy analysis firm and my clients like to argue, so I think I have some grounding in the basics. Some of my preferences:
If its not in the summary it shouldn't be in the Final Focus
I'll vote for the most compelling arguments made in the most compelling ways. My personal opinion will not come into it.
My ballot is decided by the following:
1) A clear and compelling case that is well sourced and argued. I am less impressed with "cute" esoteric cases that are meant to simply confuse your opponent (but often just sound silly).
2) Signs that your listened carefully to your opponents case during rebuttals
3) Some truly clarifying questions in cross
4) Civility during cross
I have over 15 years of experience in the field of education. I taught elementary education for 6 years, have directed several educational programs and am currently an instructor at the University level. I have judged 2 HS tournaments and 4 MS tournaments.
Hello there! I am a parent judge for Public Forum. I am ok with you speaking quickly, but please do not spread. I will not be able to understand what you are saying. Also, do not expect me to be familiar with debate jargon, so feel free to ask me if I need any clarification on anything that happens during the round. I look forward to judging your debate!
Please include me in the email chain in policy debates: Alecbellis8@gmail.com.
4 years college policy, 2 of those years with national circuit competition. Graduated in spring of 2020.
Read whatever you want and I'll evaluate it. I'm more interested in K's, but I do a lot of policy research for JMU still. I'm up to date on the 2020-2021 Policy topic. Liberty will be my first time judging this year. I've judged before, but not varsity.
I consider myself a good flow, but top speed (among very fast teams) is probably going to be too much for me. My hearing got fucked up this summer and I'm not sure how that's going to translate to online debates. I will do my best to communicate with you during the debate. I will say clear and slow.
Truth v Tech
Man this is so hard. A conceded argument doesn't make it true, but it does make it truer. A highly true argument still needs to be applied. My goal is to do as little work as possible for you.
Policy vs Policy
*A lot of your affs are blatantly miscut and/or double turns. Don't make me have to drop you for an ethics challenge.
If you want to read 8 off, fine. I don't think that's a good strategy because case debate is cool and more educational but you do you.
Condo is fine but I'll vote on theory if it's good.
More likely to vote on conceded args in these debates than any other.
These debates are boring, so please try to make them less so.
DAs -- I am probably more likely than an average judge to evaluate well warranted analytic arguments. this doesn't mean that you don't have to read carded impact defense, but it does mean that if you point out logical contradictions in their evidence, use historical examples you can get far efficiently. Uniqueness matters, but it is difficult to assess in absolute terms because there are many warrants for why, say, the economy is high low now. If your uniqueness ev kicks ass and you're up on it by a mile then the DA probably doesn't matter, but the direction of the link is more important in debates where uq is contested.
CPs -- Tricky/smart CPs can/should be the fulcrum of a policy based negative strategy. Again, don't change your wheelhouse for me. Textual and functional competition is important. Fake CPs like the states counterplan or ESR are uphill battles and I like theory against them.
T -- underused against policy affs.
Policy AFFs vs K NEGs
I debated 2 ish years of policy arguments, so feel free to run them. I will evaluate them and I still do topic research for JMU, so I'm pretty versed in that side of the 20-21 topic. That being said, my ideological leanings are heavily in favor of the K.
AFF -- I will do my best to be impartial, but I have a big problem with the way that policy affs try to make framework arguments. Arguments about plan focus are nonsensical. If the K doesn't have specific links to the aff, you will probably win -- that isn't a question of framework. Fairness arguments don't make sense because you read your aff and you still get to defend it. They aren't mooting the aff by disagreeing with your scholarhsip. Your framework should be about what education you produce and what my role in the debate is. Am I a policymaker? Ethical decisionmaker? What does that mean for how I approach impacts?
NEG -- You need to outweigh the affirmative's impacts. You can filter them out through a framework that limits what I evaluate, you can have a reject alt, an alt that legitimately solves portions of the aff, etc. Be flexible. I don't have a problem with kicking the alt -- I did that all the time. But you have to preface what that means in the debate. Ie: what does your link and impact mean in the world of the alt/without it?
If you have a reason to distrust their scholarship writ large, that should be articulated in terms of what it means for me as a decisionmaker. Pulling lines from evidence and explaining why their scholarship doesn't match their explanation of the evidence is very persuasive. Let's be real, most policy evidence is imperialist schlock.
Your biggest challenge is probably going to be defeating the util o/w + perm route.
Policy NEGs vs K AFFs
Cruel optimism vs "you're too pessimistic" debates are very tired and largely irresolvable. Both require winning a theory of power.
AFF -- I like topical K's with plan texts and nontopical affs as well. I prefer if the aff is relevant to the topic, but it doesn't have to affirm the topic. I think you are benefitted by clear counterinterpretations rather than tricky we meet arguments. Engaging the state bad is kind of a generic, I would prefer offense about how those debates produce violence for you and why they enshrine bad forms of education. IE: why your starting point is significantly better than the TVA/their model of education.
NEG -- Framework is the easiest argument in debate. You get to read a ~1 minute or less shell and give a 9 minute 2nc. I did this, so I'm not biased against it. That being said, FW offense should be about how the affirmative creates a bad standard for debates, why it hurts their education, why it hurts broader approaches to critical education. Topical versions of the aff and a detailed explanation of both a caselist in your world of debate and what arguments you lose are important. I don't care if you lost your generic CP and DA because if that's all you needed for a policy team then it's probably on you for not spending more time prepping K teams. You need to be able to articulate what engaging strategies you lost.
If your cap K link is that they didn't engage the state hard enough, what distinguishes this from FW? It's not that you can't make cap args, or this style of K. I did this stuff as well, but you should be heavily in the aff's literature base with your examples in links.
K vs K
Both sides will be benefitted by making distinctions between strategy and tactics when necessary.
My opinion has shifted on critical debate somewhat since I graduated. I think I am significantly better versed in antiblackness literature and more sympathetic to it than before. I was a cap debater -- now am less sympathetic to that K being mutually exclusive with antiblackness after reading more Wilderson. I think I was already pretty well versed in settler colonial and indigenous literature, and very well versed in security and cap literature.
Alts in KvK debates are often very squishy, so I think kicking the alt or just reject alts are a better bet for me. The permutation is just so often a devastator here. Something unexplored is what Baylor did last year by framing their alt as diagnostic analysis of the aff. In that world, links are more difficult for the aff to solve.
I am very open to presumption against these affs.
Hello. I debated PF for four years a little while back. Make sure you weigh clearly and strongly. Roadmap. Avoid crazy stuff unless it's actually something. Everything else is pretty standard. Enjoy.
Arguments with strong evidence with the proper foundation.Well explained reasoning and strong counter argument in support of their views will make a difference.
TL;DR: Flow judge. Speed is fine but please do a lot of weighing in summary and final focus regardless of how quickly you speak. Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm (or otherwise) before the round starts.
In high school, I did Public Forum at Cary Academy on the local, state, and national circuits. Now, I am a Junior at the University of Pennsylvania and I am currently studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics & Criminology. I currently debate for Penn's premier competitive debate team on the APDA circuit (parliamentary) and I compete regularly.
If you want to win, show me the comparative. Try your best to explain why exactly your arguments clash with your opponents' arguments, and why you win on a warrant and weighing level. Teams who clearly explain their frameworks and their weighing mechanisms are more persuasive than teams who assert that their arguments are "winning".
I am a pretty flow judge, and I like to see coverage of all points in rebuttal. However, I'm not going to drop you because you don't address one blippy card in constructive. I'm ok with speed so go as fast as you think is appropriate for Public Forum.
Also, please don't be a dick.
I'm serious. I will hand out really low speaker points if you are condescending or dismissive of any debaters, especially in cross. Don't be afraid to be aggressive or passionate, but please refrain from communicating in a manner that would make others feel unwelcome, as debate is, at its core, a learning experiance that should be available to everyone. I want to discourage bad debate norms, so I will reduce speaks if I feel the need to. Feel free to reach out to me after rounds for feedback or with any other questions.
Hello! I'll start by giving a little bit of background about myself. I am a fourth year student at Simon Fraser University currently majoring in Health Science. University deepened my interest in debate and thoughtful discussion through my time in philosophy clubs and courses, and I have been looking to expand my judging experience ever since. I have volunteered as a judge both at local high school tournaments across West Vancouver, and I have had the pleasure of judging at the University of British Columbia's Spring Debate Tournament.
As a judge, I appreciate speakers that take their time with their points, and speak in a respectful, concise manner. I believe it's important to explore the points carefully, breaking them down in a way that shows their strength from their foundation. Speak to those around you as people, and take the time to explain the truth of your side. The saying, albeit overused, remains exceptionally true: quality over quantity. There is no need to flood the room with sound.
TL;DR: Work as a team, speak with purpose, be respectful. You'll do great if you remember this.
Please remain respectful towards your opponents and your partner, and have fun while debating. It will be my privilege to see you debate. Best of luck!
My background is mostly college speech. I have a little background judging both college and high school debate, but I'm not that familiar with it. So don't spread, and please signpost everything clearly. In addition to the clarity benefits, I consider good signposting a key part of actual, persuasive argumentation, so it's even more to your benefit. I know some debate terminology, but it would probably be best if you assume you need to briefly explain anything more complex than MOG.
I'm fairly tabula rasa; you need to explain to me why your argument/impact/etc beats the other teams, for both experience reasons and structural reasons. I am familiar with Ks, though, and am good with them so long as you justify the rejection of the resolution and outline your args well.
I prefer policy rounds and clash. You run something racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/Islamophobic, expect it to count against you.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round!
I work in the investment sphere, and had a legal career in global finance prior to transitioning to the business side. I taught International Negotiations at George Washington National Law Center, to a mixed class of law, business and government students. In my work I spend a lot of time on strategy and persuasion in relation to making investments, which always have many sides: founders, management, investors, buyers, sellers and clients/customers, as well as regulators sometimes. I have one year of experience judging PF debate at local tournaments, live and on Zoom.
PF Debate: I vote for the advocates who formulate a robust, convincing framework for their arguments, who prepare well and know a wide range of aspects related to the topic, and who speak clearly. Arguments should be logical, based on a comprehensive paradigm, well supported by evidence, and responsive to the opponent’s arguments. I tend not to favor debate gimmicks, rapid-fire speaking, or snarky approaches. I tend to give some weight to showing respect to the opponent where principled. I am not looking for a team looking just to "win", but one that will sway me and an audience, as ultimately the purpose of the debate is to influence a broader society. Civility and professionalism are important.
Please don't speak too fast and focus on your logic and reasoning with clear ideas.
Current Senior at the University of Chicago
Prior experience in PF and slightly in LD
Here are some of my preferences:
I'll flow the round and take all claims into account as long as you have warrants to support these claims. I have some knowledge on the February topic but try to explain everything to the best of your abilities.
Please go at a reasonable speed. I can flow but going too fast is usually just a result of poor word economy. That given, I will try my best to comprehend whatever you say and I'll tell you if you're going too fast.
I don't flow crossfires but I'll listen. If in cross there's anything particularly important, I'll probably identify it but it only matters if you bring it up in following speeches. Otherwise, it carries virtually no weight and I can't evaluate it.
Warrant your responses and try to explain why they are correlative to your opponents' case. 2nd rebuttal should frontline turns.
Whatever isn't in summary isn't in final focus and whatever is in summary should be in final focus.
Try not to use theory, I don't think I'll evaluate it properly.
Speaks aren't only reflective of if you're winning the round. Public speaking, sportsmanship and decision making are taken into account.
Have good evidence ethics, I won't call for anything unless you tell me to look at something but don't mishandle what the evidence is trying to say.
I am a parent lay judge, and have started judging PF events in the past year.
I value organization to help me flow your arguments. I find it helpful if you provide me with a roadmap before the speech so I can follow each of your arguments and their supporting evidence. Reiterate your arguments in summary and final focus and weigh. Tell me what's the most important issue in the round of debate and why I should vote for you in your FF.
For debate rounds, I value clarity and logic. Quality of the argument is more important to me than quantity, and as such, I will look for specific evidence to back up your statements.
For speaker points, I award points based on how well I understand you and the level of the performance. If it seems like you have practiced and rehearsed, I will take that into account. Speak with clarity and pace that a judge can comprehend. Don’t assume I understand debate jargon.
Above all, be respectful. Good luck and have fun!
assistant coach at the Blake School (MN)
cornell '21 - ndt qual
carmel '17 - local circuit pf/policy
excited to watch you debate!
tl;dr: I can keep up with speed (re: policy), but I enjoy clear explanation more. Typically, tech over truth and flow-oriented. Will only intervene if I have to. No racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, and transphobic language or arguments. Do what you would like. I think judges should adapt to the debaters, not the other way around.
That said, preferences are below. I hardly ever judge anything that's not PF these days, so paradigms for other events are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RK_g6krFLxB1sblzfjMlo8OsnV5ip4GLnpRgnKlgKdM/edit?usp=sharing
---non-negotiable rules: one winner and one loser, fixed speech times, and equal distribution of speaking time among partners (unless someone is sick or has to leave the room). Won't vote on what happened before I hit start.
---don't be rude. love sass, but don't ridicule others
---strike me if you are going to engage in sexually explicit performances
---very facially expressive; don't mind me
---slow down for theory
---I know nothing about your rep. I only debated for schools that had 0 rep (and 0-1 coaches). This doesn't make me pull for either the small school or the big school. Arguments are what matter.
---don't steal prep (calling for cards doesn't require speaking to your partner). I do my best to time it. Decision clock is ticking.
---don't clip. L25s if you do. Misrepresentations don't stop a round, but that ev won't count. Fabrication stops a round. Will defer to tournament rules/tab. I dislike evidence that's written by debaters/coaches about debate.
---number and label arguments (turn, non-unique, etc.)
---presumption flows the way of less change from the status quo (but debatable)
---if you want me to catch something in CX, say it in a speech. I'm usually writing comments/reading ev although I'm listening.
---reducing something to 0 risk is possible but very hard. I wouldn't vote NEG if the 2NR/FF was ONLY case defense.
---line by line > cloud/implicit/overview clash. Won't do work for you.
---I only flow off what I hear. I do not read speech docs (of analytics) during the speech or after the round. I will ONLY read evidence. Don't spread what you paraphrase - it's usually incomprehensible.
---care a lot about impact calc (no really like I care a lot). I will always look at frameworks first. Answer turns case/prereq arguments!
---persuasive skills influence the flow (organization, delivery, flowability). I don't care what you wear, etc.
---arguments in the FF should be in the summary. Obvious implication/spin isn't new. No sticky defense. 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline; otherwise, it's conceded.
---to kick a contention, you need to concede a specific piece(s) of defense. Or the other team could still get turns since not all defense gets you out of all offense.
---provide evidence in under two minutes or it's an analytic. Evidence should have full citations, not just a url. Cards > paraphrasing. PF ev often stinks, but it sometimes doesn't come down to ev quality only.
---strike me if you're debating for a social experiment/reading a meme case.
---pet peeves: 1) "time starts [on my first word/now]" 2) not timing your prep/cross 3) asking questions about a judge's paradigm during the round 4) debater math 5) kicking community judges on a panel.
---will evaluate all arguments, including theory or a K. Tell me if I need another sheet of paper. See below in policy section. If you aren't comfortable going for theory/K's, don't do it just because I'm judging. Comfortable voting on disclosure. I think the wiki is good. So does Blake.
I don't think debaters need to discuss most (or perhaps any) of the following to have a (good) theory debate. All of the following are negotiable. But it may be useful to know my preferences.
1) default to text of interp and competing interps > reasonability where the standard is gut-checking the interp for in-round abuse. Explaining your standard for reasonability (if you have one) is helpful. Counter-interps do not require an explicit text, especially in PF, where I don't expect everyone to know all the terminology. Teams answering theory should forward their view of debate. I am willing to accept spirit of the counter-interp if a counter-interp text is not read.
2) theory experience: witnessed (judged and competed in) more theory debates than I have fingers. "Have you won a 1AR in circuit LD/policy?" No, because I was a 2A. In the 2AR, I have gone for (and won) theory such as PICs bad, condo, PIKs bad, and 50 states fiat bad.
3) terminal defense is sufficient under competing interps. Presumption would flip. I would prefer offense.
4) start theory ASAP, e.g. as soon as the violation happens
5) willing to listen to a RVI in PF/LD because of speech times that could mean skews. Default to no RVIs.
6) "theory without voters?" If the voters are made on the standards debate, that's fine. If there's no voters at all, the team answering theory should say so and then I would vote that there was no impact to theory.
7) will intervene against shoes theory/anything that approaches that threshold
4/12/21 - I spelled excited wrong.
FOR STANFORD 2021 REFER TO: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=65515
ignore below for Stanford 2021
I have judged for 5 years at HS level. I will be providing detail feedback including who won verbally right after the debate is over.
I care less for speaking style, but focus more on the content and logic. You can use debate jargon as well.
I am relatively new to judging, though have been familiar with Debate for some time. Please plan to speak clearly make your important points clear. Respect your opponent team. Also, please track your own time and opponent's time.
I have judged a few tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, clear logic, and skills of handling questions.
1. Speak clearly and at a normal pace. Do not rush or I won't keep up. Do not sacrifice your clarity, otherwise I will miss the main point of argument.
2. Always be respectful to your opponents.
1, Do not spread, or I won't keep up. Do not sacrifice your clarity, otherwise I will miss the main point of argument.
2, Always be respectful to your opponent.
3, Keep a clear and consistent narrative throughout the entire round.
I am a parent judge and this is my 2nd time judging debates. Please speak slowly and clearly. Also please explain your warrants and arguments in plain terms.No spreading.
Please be respectful of your opponents and give them a chance to speak. Do not keep interrupting. If not, I will drop your speaker points.My decision will be based on your contentions, evidence, rebuttals, impacts and summaries. I will evaluate all those on both sides to come to a decision.
Thank you and good luck!
I am a lay judge, so no spreading, k's and theory please.
Overall, I want to see clash, but please be polite in round. I will buy your arguments if they are logical and make sense even if you don't have evidence to back it up. That being said, use evidence when you can.
Please do impact calculus when possible, but explain ideas thoroughly, I will not make connections for you.
Most importantly, speak clearly, explain your ideas well and have fun!
Hi, I am a parent judge. I like when the team speaks much more clearly and confidently. I don't like when people talk too fast.
I have been judging Public Forum debate for the last two years. My judging has largely focused on local circuit judging of novice and varsity debaters. At the league level, I have judged most levels of Public Forum experience. I have also judged invitational debate events for PF. My belief is that preparation and research determines a successful debate team.
When judging Public Forum teams, I look for specific areas of expertise in a round. I look for preparation by both teams and clear demonstration that each team has prepared for each round through extensive research and knowledge of both aff and neg sides of the topic. Failure to adequately prepare for a round is evident with the opening argument presented by each team. It is obvious that a team has not done their research or they have an expectation that certain rounds will favor one side or the other. This lack of preparation never gets my decision in a round.
I also look for a clear balance of knowledge and input by each team. Too often, I have seen teams win rounds on the strength of a single debater. As Public Forum is a team event, I expect both sides to present their cases as a team throughout each round. I give less wins in a round to those teams that rely on presenting too much evidence in the hope that a preponderance of evidence will win over the judge by its sheer volume. I look for clear balanced arguments that highlight the position of a team without the need to flood a judge with so much information that it is difficult to understand that sides primary point. Teams that rely on spreading for the sake of confusing the judge in the round do not win rounds with me. I expect that each team will be able to successfully present their cases while holding off the opposing team using well- reasoned arguments.
The final victory for a round in Public Forum goes to the team that has prepared for the round and has demonstrated an exceptional ability to counter their opponents in the entirety of that round.
I did S&D for four years of High School. I did PF, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Duet. I competed on the national circuit in Congress my junior and senior years. I am the three time Arizona Division II State Champion in PF 2016-2018. I am now a junior at Fordham in New York majoring in Philosophy. I have also coached PF, LD, Parli, and Congress. This paradigm goes in the order of PF, LD, Speaks, Congress.
This paradigm has been updated 11/20/20 to consolidate my preferences (so that LDers aren't looking at the PF section for some things -- they are consolidated to the general section) and present them more clearly. Speaks section added on 12/1/20. Change-log: 3/18/21 edited truth skep section for clarity and emphasis. 1/22/21 added minor tweaks to the LD and speaks section for emphasis and clarity, nothing fundamentally changed in evaluation. Updated 12/12/20 to reflect points I want to emphasize after Stanford.
Debate in general:
-I hesitate to say flat out "debate is a game" but I believe that at its core debate is an intellectual activity. Whether or not education is part of that is something to be established in round. Debate is like chess.
-Include content warnings where appropriate to make debate a safe and accessible space. Avoid sexism and other harms that have cropped up in the debate scene. I will vote off theory on this if its ran.
-I've previously had in this paradigm to try to say a full citation instead of the author's last name and year. This isn't necessary. What I want to stress is that I have a hard time writing down names quickly. The rate at which you say Kowalczyk should be slower than your normal rate (dare I say, 1/2 of your normal rate) so I can figure out how to bastardize the spelling when writing it on my flow. Some teams still are having a hard time doing this - If you need an example of what I expect let me know. I will handle any speed, spreading with a doc (add me to the chain: email@example.com), I will give a verbal 'clear' if needed.
-I am not timing in the debate round. You cross-time. It is 100% up to the competitors for flex-prep and/or timed-evidence.
-I will give an oral RFD and disclose at the end of the round.
-If you are running something progressive that will require me to get another flow out, please let me know in a roadmap about the off. Otherwise, OTRMs waste time if its "going down one side then back to the other".
-I will not pay attention to crossfire/crossex. Anything that happens needs to be brought up in a speech.
-If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me to call for it in a speech. Anytime I ask for evidence I will want to see the cut card first, asking specifically for the full pdf if needed.
-Don't extend through ink, and make extensions actually an extension. Extensions should have something new, or at least re-explain what was before. Don't give me "Extend the Worstall card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that because that isn't extending. If your gonna do that the bare bones is to explain what the cards say. You should use the card names while extending because it helps me flow - but don't only leave it at the card name.
-If you are extending an argument in summary you need to include warrant, link, and impact level extensions where applicable. I can't buy the impact calc if the warrant doesn't get extended - even varsity teams have trouble with this.
-every argument has to pass a believablility threshold. Even if it’s not refuted, if I am not convinced or I don’t ‘buy’ the argument, I don’t weigh it (See Truth>Tech). I get a lot of questions on this: Basically - you need a warrant.
-Don't violate the nsda handbook.
-I most likely won't flow final focus. I never did as a competitor so I don't like to as a judge. I was a first speaker. What I am doing during FF is looking around my existing flow and circling/drawing lines/checking things off, etc. The reason for this is that nothing new should be in FF. Anything you are talking about in your impact calculus should already be extended through summary (this includes briefly mentioning the impacts while extending the case). Like if something is dropped by both teams I'm not just gonna pick it up in the FF. Most importantly with this, first summary speaker needs to extend the defense. Defense is non-sticky.
-I prefer Voter Summaries over two world or line by line (with the rule change to 3 minute summaries this is less important but still helpful for my flow, just make sure to signpost well).
-I will truth>tech in PF, my truth is skep. I will not blindly flow anything you say. If you say the sky is green don't expect me to count it on my flow without any warranting. I'm not Tabula Rasa, I default to dropping every argument in the round. If you drop the warrant, I drop the argument.
If you're traditional, read the PF paradigm too.
I am competent with progressive debate but you should keep in mind adaptation to a PF judge. I would rather have a progressive debate than a bad traditional one (read: please don't let the round have me concluding that PF is a more intellectual form of debate than LD).
I have no predisposition towards PICs. If you want me to drop because PICs are "abusive", you must argue that in round.
If you are running something super LD-y you should be watching my reactions to make sure I understand and explain more if needed, e.g. trix/tricks.
Some things, e.g. performance/performative args/Ks, you will need to clearly explain the path to my ballot and what the role of the ballot in relation to the advocacy is in the round. This includes a hesitancy to vote on theory - you will need to have it be explained as clearly as possible for me to vote on it - if it gets muddied where I don't understand why the theory is being ran I'm liable to not vote on it...
If you are traditional please do not misrepresent philosophies. This is an area I am not tab. at all. If you say Kantian ethics justifies murder I will not weigh it. More progressive philosophies are less subject to this as I haven't studied critical theories as much as I have the basics of moral frameworks. I am still very open to hearing post-structuralism and post-colonial arguments like if you want to run Baudrillard, Fanon, or something -- I will be more tech on those.
I assign speaks in what I assume is a non-traditional (and harsh) way. I will not evaluate speaks based on your speaking ability or performance. Speaks for me a purely reflective of how I assess your technicality in debating relative to a varsity debater championing a tournament. Because of this, I will almost never assign a low point win; if you are technically better on the flow you most likely won the round (unless its a "good at everything but impact calc" vs "average enough to be able to win on strong calc" thing). I do not adjust speaks based on tier of debate I am judging. I do not refrain from giving lower speaks in fear of 4-2 screws. I view 30-25 as an A-F scale. I start from a position that 27 is an average debater who is making various errors in terms of addressing arguments and who is missing a lot of what I think could have been argued. Here is how I think the breakdown goes:
PF: 25-25.9 wow you really did some egregiously bad in the round or have missed so much of the fundamentals of debate that if I were teaching a class I would flunk you. 26-26.9 you missed a lot, you could have done something that was on the flow the opposite of what you should have done. You most likely are missing a lot of components of winning the ballot based on the flow. This is a 'D', my way of saying you aren't at the level of debate you are competing in. 27-27.9 is most likely the most common place for me to put speaks. You did things right enough to consider this an okay debate but I still desired a lot more to come out of it. 28-28.9 is the best I can give to a debater that neither stuns me nor shows something beyond normal technicality. In LD: I will almost never give above a 29/29.5 to someone who isn't running progressive arguments. In PF: above 29.5 means I think you are destined to reach far into elims and should be a contender to win the tournament. If your opponent is a 26.0 and you perform at a 28.5 because you couldn't express the technicality for a 29< due to a lack of substance to wrestle with that is a tough break (and perhaps the biggest flaw with my speaks standards -- but I would rather assign speaks this way [as that scenario is mitigated by power matching] to be as unbiased as possible -- away from any unconscious affects towards things you can't control regarding how you actually speak and sound to me).
Good way to get good speaks with me? Surprise me by doing something on the flow I wouldn't think of or don't see coming. Here is an example of something from a round that blew my socks off: A team got up for their rebuttal (2nd speaking) and read delinks/dewarrants to their own case, then full sent a bunch of turns on the opposing case. On the flow it made perfect sense and was a level of technicality I hadn't seen performed before. This was a team that was in deep eliminations at a national circuit tournament. It is the kind of of debate on the flow that affords above a 30.
This is congressional debate, not mock congress or congressional speaking. Clash is the most important thing to this, without clash congress isn't debate.
Know where you are in the round. On the topic of clash, nothing is more boring than a rehashed point on the 7th cycle of debate on a bill. Yes I get you want to speak but please follow the life-cycle of debate on a bill. If we're past the first two cycles, I want refutation, if we're getting late into the cycles I want to hear some crystallization.
By all means please caucus and plan motions together for efficiency, but don't exclude people from this activity because a select number of you have clout from the national circuit or camps.
Questions show if you are truly in tune with the debate or not. Asking questions isn't just more speaking time or to show your activity for the ballot. It's about leadership and continuing the clash. Questions are truly an extension of your speech and they will count toward your placement on the top 6 ranking.
For POs: Be quick and efficient. Your job is to get the most debate done in the fixed time we have. If you are fuddling around because you can't remember the process for an amendment that is a problem. Your charisma and leadership of the chamber are important to your efficiency. Don't expect a top 4 ranking just for POing. You earn that top 6 by virtue of how well you do as a PO.
Hello! My full name is Beatrice, but please call me Bea. I've been debating (mostly in the formats of British Parliamentary and Asian Parliamentary) since my freshman year of high school, and here I am -- still doing that in university.
1. Please avoid responding to a card with another card. Assuming two things can be true at the same time, please weigh why your fact should be worth more consideration.
2. Try not to be rude during the crossfire. Don't talk over others or cut them off. Not only is it disrespectful to the speaker, it also makes it harder for me to comprehend the discussion. If you want me to hear and take into consideration everything you say, please wait for your turn.
3. Speed is not that much of a problem for me, but try your best to go at a moderate pace -- some judges might not be accustomed to fast speakers.
Good luck in the tournament!
I am a parent judge. I would like to see a speech that is fast enough to get all of the points in but slow enough for me to understand. I would like to see logical cases backed by evidence. The most important thing is to have fun!!!!
The key for me when it comes to deciding most debates is two fold. First it is easier for me to vote for a team that weighs what is is being debated instead of just continuing to reiterate what their argument is. Well argued impacts are essential to choosing who is doing the better debating. I will look at the round objectively regardless of what I personally believe in almost every case so the way you frame your arguments and position them in the real world is very important to me.
Second, I think that since I am on the other side of the round, all I have to go on is what you're giving me; I will not do the work for you. In other words, if you make a really convincing argument in the first speech or in cross fire and you don't extend through the entire debate it or you let the other team take out the impacts without you addressing them, I can't just ignore that they're doing the better debating just because you may be right. I hope that makes sense.
As for me, I have a mostly policy background as a debater so I am good with spreading or k debate if you want to take it there, I have no real preference of specific arguments, i will hear what ever you say to me and weigh it as such. Just be respectful of everyones space and time to speak, don't be an a**hole, and truly most importantly, have fun. I'm dead serious, if you're not having It'll just be a rough time for everyone, energies are tangible even over zoom.
I am a first-time judge for PF. I am looking for good organization and confident voices. I will be focusing on evidence and how it will be presented. If you go too fast, it will be difficult for me to keep up, so please go at an understandable pace.
It is an honor to be judging the students in Public Forum.
I've been competing in the British and Asian parliamentary format for 7 years now (all four years of High School and currently active in my 3rd year in college), and my judging priorities stem from this background.
In general, I judge the debate based only what is explicitly said by speakers, and appreciate straightforwardness. In creating decisions, I generally prioritize good links or mechanization between the argument and its resolution. In responsive speeches, I would like speakers to show that have fully understood their opponent's arguments and respond to them accordingly.
Name: Liz Dela Cruz Contact Info: firstname.lastname@example.org PF Paradigm (Updated 021621)
Expirence: I debated and coached Policy (Cross-ex) debate for a number of years. If you want to know what I did, scroll down, I have my Cross-Ex (Policy) Paradigm below.
I am a flow judge! I always want to be added to the email chain. I prefer an email chain over putting the evidence in the chat function. It is easier for me to go back and review the evidence. Take a couple of minutes to set this up before the beginning of the round. I also usually always pop up a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my Paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.
1. Debate is about having a good time and learning, please be respectful to everyone. Just remember that this is just a round and there will be another. Do your best and have fun.
2. Due to my policy background, I like Signposting. Please let me know where to go on the flow. Think of my flow as a blank slate. You tell me what to write and where. Moving contentions or switching from Pro flow to Con flow? Tell me.
3. I will vote for FW, independent Voting issues, and Pre-req arguments. But there needs to be enough substance for me to do so. If you decided to go for any of these, make sure to extend the case evidence that is needed to back it up. If not, it tends to be hard for me to vote on it.
4. I debated both theory and K in debate. If you want to do it, I am fine with it, but make sure to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic and your corresponding side.
5. If there is something said in Cross and you would like to use it in the round I am fine with it. But you need to make sure that you bring it in the speech to make it binding.
6. Just saying cross-apply case doesn’t mean anything. Or extend …. Card from case- give me substance and warrants for why you are extending it for me to consider it.
1. Make sure to extend the arguments and evidence from the Case to the summary and from the Summary to the Final Focus. It is key make sure to extend and explain.
2. You can only use what you extend in the Summary in the Final Focus.
3. I am a big fan of weighing! Magnitude, scope, impact analysis, substance love it all. Makes my job easier.
4. Break it down! Give me voting issues!
1. I did policy, speed is not an issue. Please don’t ask me if you were to fast. I can hear you.
2. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If you are concerned about me not flowing your speech, then slow down and enunciate!
3. I will not tell you clear or slow, those things are for you to work on as a debater. If you are worried about it, then do speaking drills before the round and speak slower.
Policy (Cross-Ex) Paradigm (Updated 041715)
Affiliation: SouthWestern College, Weber State University
Paperless Ish: Flashing is Preferred: Prep time ends when you hit "save on the USB". Flashing is not considered part of prep time. If you take more than two minutes to save on the USB and get files flashed over, I will ask that you "run prep time". If you are going to do an email chain and would like to put me on it feel free. My email is listed above. If teams have spandies and tubs and USE 60% or more paper in a debate, will get some sort of candy or asian yummyness!
Experience: I was a policy debater for SouthWestern College. We run socialism and sometimes not socialism but more often than not it’ll be socialism. Did I mention we run socialism?
Voting Style: Do what you want but make sure it’s on my flow. Be clear and concise and tell me how I should interpret the round. Don’t make the assumption that I’ll randomly agree with your arguments. Spell it out for me so that there is 100% chance I get it. Spend time on the overview or underview. Make it very clear where I should be voting and why. This is something that makes my life easy and the life of all judges easy. Paint me a picture using your arguments. Give me reasons why I should prefer your position over theirs. The clearer the debate is the easier it will be to vote for you. Heck clear up the debate if it gets messy you’ll get nice speaker points. See how I’m telling you all to do the work? That’s because the debaters not the judge should be deciding how the judge should judge. I’m an open canvas. Paint me a nice picture. Just no nemo.
Speed and flowing: There’s fast and then there’s fast. As much as I’d like to admit I can keep up with a giant card dump in the neg block with a billion arguments, it’s just not going to happen. I can keep up with most speed reading. It’ll be easier for me to get your arguments down on my flow if you slow down during the tag/citation so I can actually hear it super well. If you spread your tags and I’m not keeping up, that’s on you as a debater. Arguing when you lose because I didn’t have that card or arg flowed when you made it a blippy mess isn’t going to do anything so don’t even try. That being said, I keep a very concise flow. And what you say in the 2nr and 2ar will be what I vote on. Policy
Argument Issues: Case: I feel like sometimes case debates get overlooked a lot. If you’re aff, don’t be afraid to use your case as giant offense if the other team is only to go 1 or so off. Good cases can swill outweigh da’s and K impacts if done well.
Non-Traditional Affs I evaluate Non-traditional Affs the same as traditional ones. However, there are things I like clearly defined and explained: 1. Explanation of advocacy 2. Role of the Ballot 3. Role of the Judge 4. Why is your message/mission/goal important.
Topicality I don't really care to much for T, but I will vote on it. I haven't voted yet on T being a reverse voting issue, but I do believe that T is a voting issue. I also tend to lean towards competing interpretations versus reasonability. Although, if the argument and work is there for reasonability, I will vote on it. Especially if the other team does not do the work that is needed on Topicality.
Theory Just saying things like "reject the team" or "vote Aff/Neg" typically doesn't do it for me. I would much rather hear, "reject their argument because it … blah blah blah." On the other side, saying "reject the argument not the team" is not enough for me to not consider it. I need solid reasons to reject the team like abuse. Actual abuse in round based on what was run is very convincing.
Performance I like watching performances. Since I judge by my flow, it allows me to separate myself from how I evaluate the round. Please note: Just because I am expressive during the debate does not always mean that I am leaning to your side. I am a very expressive person and thus why I judge strictly by my flow. So if there are points that you want me to highlight, pull them out in the later speeches. It will help with clarification and clash.
Kritiks I like kritiks. That being said a lot of mumbo jumbo gets thrown around a K debate. If you want me to pull the trigger on the K I need to know how it functions. Explain the rhetoric of your K to me in the block. Don’t assume I know what your alt is and what it will do in conjunction to the aff. That’s your job to make sure I know. Explain what your alt is and how it solves not only the impacts you read but also the aff’s or why the aff’s impacts don’t matter. Don’t assume that I’ll vote for “reject the ***” alts. Spend time in the block and in the 2nr how your K works in the round. Give me a picture of what the world of the K looks like and what the world of the aff looks like.
DA Not all disads are created equal. The Aff should attack all parts of the DA. Impact calculus is a must.
CP I believe that CPs should compete with the 1AC. Not only does this give better clash, but it also allow the 2A to defend their Aff.
ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 5 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".
I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!
I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.
Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche`; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!
Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.
Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.
There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".
NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.
In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.
I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!
I like to see clear introductions, summaries and conclusions. Please show me that you understand the topic and then clearly develop your case and impact work. Link your arguments and be specific. Make sure your rebuttals do their job, but make sure your own case is developed as well as your criticism of your opponents. Solid research is usually necessary to win positions. Feel free to ask any questions before the round if there is anything you would like to know about. Good luck and have fun!
I will be paying close attention to the following:
- Do not try to flood the opposition with an overwhelming number of arguments. Instead, focus on your 2-3 strongest arguments and develop them fully. If the opposition does this to you, simply focus on countering their 2-3 strongest arguments.
- It's not sufficient to state that some author has found an association between two things. You must be able to explain, in step by step format, how one thing leads to another (A leads to B, which then causes C, which increases the amount of D, which is undesirable)
- I understand the importance of speaking quickly in a debate, but do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If you have to cut down the length of your constructive in order to deliver the speech at a more normal pace and sound natural, I suggest you do so.
Hello. I am a parent judge. This is my first year judging debate. I competed in what is now called Public Forum Debate and the individual events of Extemporaneous and Impromptu Speech at John F. Kennedy High School in Richmond, California. Our coach was David Dansky and during his 25 year tenure, Kennedy High teams won three state championships.
I have a professional background in law, originally as a litigator and then a transactional lawyer.
I value clarity in presenting one's points in debate rounds and curiosity in listening well to an opponent's points, thinking them through and responding to them.
It's been a while since I competed and thus I appreciate when students take care to spell out things at least once before proceeding to refer to them by debate jargon. My hope is that every student emerges from a round I judged feeling like they gave a great effort and had fun.
I am the CTO of a mid sized FinTech company. I have been judging PF for the past 6 months.
I take a lot of notes during the debate and make my decision on the most convincing arguments.
Please provide an offline roadmap and also do clear signposting so I can take good notes.
PF: I was a competitor in public forum for 6 years and was the collegiate national champion in 2018. I am now a coach in Des Moines. I value accessibility. Public forum ought to be an event that is able to be understood by any member of the public. Clear, concise communication at a reasonable speed is expected ie conversational. I WILL DROP YOU IF YOU TRY TO SPREAD. Each team will be given one warning on speed in the form of a dropped pen or calling out “Speed.” If spreading/speed persists after warning I will immediately drop the team with the most violations. (If both teams accumulate one violation in their respective constructive, the next team to violate will be dropped.) I value complex arguments and respectful clash. Being rude in my rounds is a great way to lose speaker points and a round.
Summaries should SUMMARIZE the round.
FF should Crystalize not line by line, give me impact calculus and weighing.
Summaries and FF should have voters not line by line.
TL;DR, Be respectful, conversational, bring solid evidence and analysis to my rounds and you’ll do fine.
LD/CX: Pretty much anything goes. I absolutely prefer arguments that are directly resolutional (ie not a fan of certain Ks, love me some T and theory though) but if the debate goes a certain way, it is not my place to wrangle it. LARP is chill. I may ask you to slow down a little bit or clear you, but that will not be weighed against you. I prefer competitors send me their cases to ensure flow clarity. I will flow cross-examination if you make important points. Make it worth my while.
I am a parent lay judge.
PF Debate: Be authentic, prepared, and know what you are talking about. Have a passion for debate, it's taught you a lot. Have fun with this, debate is a game!
I know how the economy works.
Please respect everyone you are going against and to your other judges.
Please speak slowly! If that means you have to drop an argument in order for me to understand you, that is fine.
Speech: First time judging speech, so please have fun with it!
Blue Valley Southwest: 2015-2018
Liberty University: 2019-2022
Email for the chain: email@example.com
1. Ignore my facial expressions.
2. Much better for policy than the K.
K on the Neg
1. Short of technical concessions, the Aff always gets to weigh the 1AC.
2. I don't understand high theory.
3. Links should be to the plan.
K on the Aff
1. Defend a material change from the status quo.
2. We Meets/Counter-interps are your friend.
1. Answer case offense.
2. If debate is a game then fairness probably comes first.
3. Topic education and idea-testing arguments are fine, but fairness is the clearest path to offense.
4. I think of TVAs the way I think of counterplans; they don't necessarily have to solve the whole Aff, but your impacts proper (fairness, education, etc.) must outweigh any solvency deficits/DAs to the TVA.
1. Not my favorite debate to watch, but that won't reflect in the speaker points.
2. Reasonability is cringe.
3. Offense should be comparative. I really enjoy impacts about the direction of research for the topic (limits and precision).
4. TVAs are underutilized.
5. Caselists are great. I like having a clear picture of the topic.
1. CPs should be textually and functionally competitive. I lean Aff on Perm do the CP in process debates.
2. CP amendments are okay against new affs and add-ons. Not a big fan otherwise.
3. Perm do both explanations can be clarified in the 1AR, but not the 2AR.
2. Turns-case args should be couched in the internal links of the DA.
3. Good 1NRs line up their speech with the 2AC (impact o/v is the exception).
4. 1NR should card dump if you have the goods.
1. Go a bit slower.
2. Conditionality is good, but performative contradictions are bad. Couch condo bad args through the lens of perf con.
3. Everything should be a reason to reject the team. Why artificially limit the impact of your argument?
Things I've noticed about myself as a judge
1. I highly value explanation of impacts/scenarios/links/etc. This is especially true for the rebuttals.
2. I don't love reading evidence. If you think the debate should be won/lost on evidence, make that known.
3. Impact turn debates are by far my favorite rounds to watch.
4. I am prone to confusion. Try to keep strategies simple and to the point.
5. Long deliberation, quick rfd explanation kinda judge.
1. Good for spark/dedev/co2 good.
2. I will flow/evaluate the arguments made in the debate and totally ignore arguments that tell me to disregard the other team. This includes arguments along the lines of "don't flow the debate". Both (I presume) teams have worked hard to produce their evidence, arguments, and strategies. It would be immoral for me to waste you or your opponents' time.
1. Arguments in the final focus must exist in the summary.
2. I care about line-by-line more than some judges. Meta framing is not a substitute for clash.
3. I'm curious about how the K would play out in an activity where the topic is yes/no to the rez. Framework would also be strange; is it the first speaker who sets the tone for K v. Framework, or is it based on being Pro or Con? I will develop a concrete opinion after judging a few of these debates. *update: nobody has gone for a K in front of me yet. Waiting for the day, lol.*
4. Signposting will get you very far very quickly.
5. I've noticed that some teams do not read evidence in rebuttal - that seems bad, but nobody tells me why.
6. Some teams have expressed that FF and Summaries do not need to extend arguments or do line-by-line. If that philosophy applies to you, then I should not be your judge.
7. I very rarely evaluate arguments from Summary when making my decision. Only exception is to ensure Summary and FF are consistent (i.e. no new FF arguments).
8. Teams that email evidence/speech docs get a .5 speaker point boost.
1. Be polite and don't be offensive. You will lose for discriminatory language or policy.
2. I think death/suffering good arguments are unpersuasive. Arguments about inevitable death/suffering are unimportant.
3. Mark cards during the speech.
For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for appropriate mechanisation of the arguments presented, proper analysis of their full impact and clear cohesion and structure in the way they are presented. I will also be paying special attention to how you explicate the magnitude and time frame of the arguments that you believe best sum your case and help your side and stance.
In terms of style, the most important thing for me is that you are first and foremost respectful of one another. There is nothing wrong with having a strong assertive style, and even a strongly critical when questioning the other team, but you should never attack another's debate person or offend them in any way while doing that. Beyond this, I appreciate clarity and being able to follow your flow from one argument to the next - in other words, slow down!
Finally, I want to be able to see clear evidence of collaboration between you and your teammate in terms of how your arguments build on top of one another without duplication and how you refer to the points made by your teammate in your speech to enhance your analysis.
P.S: my face does weird things some times when I am engrossed in notetaking or deep thought, I can promise you it is no reflection of how you're doing so don't be intimidated and have fun!
I have been judging speech and debate tournaments since 2014. I do not like spreading or technical jargon, but I understand the basics of argumentation. I take notes but I don't flow in a traditional sense. Passion for the topic and respect for the opponents are something I look for. The way the competitors carry themselves in the debate is important to me.
I am most experienced in judging Public Forum debate and am familiar with a claim-warrant-impact structure. I usually make my decisions based on which team better meets the framework of the debate. Off-time road maps are always appreciated, as well as the use of lay-friendly rhetoric.
My name is Daniel (he/him/his) and I competed in Public Forum for six years. I debated at the Institute for Collaborative Education and then at Poly Prep. I'm open to all styles, but I prefer narrative debate: slow speeches with minimal jargon that tell a story. I have also been out of debate for a couple years now, so just keep in mind that I may not be up to date on the meta.
Good luck, and don't forget to have fun! You can find specific preferences below.
I believe that Public Forum teams should disclose. I will not penalize teams that don't disclose, but I will reward teams that do with a 1 point speaker boost – just let me know your that stuff is on the wiki before the round starts. If you do disclose and then remove it from the wiki, I'll be very unhappy You can find the link to the wiki here, as well as a guide to putting your cases on the wiki here and a handy video I made here.
Weighing is the easiest way to win debates so start weighing early, bring it up often, and develop it throughout the round. Don't just make arguments; explain why, even if your opponent's arguments have some merit, your arguments matter more.
Use magnitude, scope, timeframe, prerequisite, and link-ins as weighing, not probability: weighing is valuable because it allows you to win the debate by only winning your offense and demonstrating why that offense matters more than opponent's offense, even if their offense has merit. Weighing mechanisms like "probability, strength of link, or risk of impact" assume that your opponent's arguments aren't true, placing the burden on you to disprove their arguments and defeating the strategic value of weighing. If you say, "our recessions arguments outweighs their nuclear war argument on probability," you've conceded that nuclear war outweighs recessions in every way other than probability, meaning your opponents can win the round simply by winning nuclear war. Don't make me vote on probability weighing because you may not be pleased with the outcome.
Novel and counterintuitive arguments can be great! However, if you run something funky, I'll expect that you put in the work to persuade me. I'll try to be open-minded, but I acknowledge that I enter the round with biases and that I'll have a harder time buying an argument that seems far-fetched.
Should the 2nd rebuttal include frontlining?
I'd prefer so, but don't worry if you don't get to it. The more times you make an argument, the more likely it is to persuade me; it will stick more my head and (hopefully) it will be more fleshed out.
Should the summaries extend defense?
Yes. If you want defense in final focus, you must extend that through summary. Three minutes is enough time for summary speakers to extend defense.
Progressive arguments, critical arguments, and theory?
Go for it! Just know that I (and most likely your opponents) have no experience with them, so I expect you to argue them well and in a way that everyone in the round can understand.
I am a brand new parent in speech and debate. I have never judge before and will need you to go at a slower pace. If I think you're going to fast, I will raise my hand.
I have debated public forum for 4 years and was Captain of my debate team at Paramus High School.
I am currently a freshman in college at the Stevens Institute of Technology
Qualifications: 2 Public Forum Gold Bids (Princeton & UPenn), ToC qualified (2019), and 2x States Qualifier. Now I spend my time in debate by helping with coaching at the Bergen County Debate Club!
Both summaries must extend important defense, if you don't its not a huge issue, I'll probably have it on the flow.
Final focus should be offense centered / reiterations of your own frontlines and weighing on your part.
Idc what happens in cross as long as you're not being super rude
Rebuttal line by line / dropping a ton of responses is cool, just make sure the responses are well warranted / warranted in the first place. I hate blippy responses where I have to make the connection to the argument you're responding to, I won't do that for you. Any responses w/o warranting gets automatically dropped from my flow.
Be very clear about your arguments, do not muddle things up.
Do your best to weigh the debate in a concise and unique manner. Explain why your weighing is true.
Don't be afraid to ask a lot of POIs, it’s great to demonstrate interest and competitiveness!
firstname.lastname@example.org please add me to email chains
from planet debate-
this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.
topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.
cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.
das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.
critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.
others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.
Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.
I am a lay judge who has judged at a few tournaments this year, primarily PF debates.
Rule # 1: Be civil and polite to each other, respect boundaries
Rule # 2: See Rule #1
Rule # 3: Speak slow and steady, do not rush yourself, and do your best.
Strongly advise that you stay within the prescribed time limits. And yes, I will deduct points if that doesn't happen.
Off time roadmaps are appreciated. Eye contacts (not awkward ones), hand gestures and voice modulations would it make more engaging for me.
I do take a copious amount of notes during the round. I intend to provide 3 levels of feedback: overall, individual, and round-specific at the end of every round (if possible within 15 minutes of the finish)
Debated for Liberty University in Policy Debate for a year and a half
Email - email@example.com - I don't need docs unless you're spreading/going fast. If you aren't sure if you'll be too fast, send me the docs.
1. Speed - I'm down for fast speaking - however fast you go I'll probably be fine for - but if you start spreading full speed and the other team doesn't you'll probably get voted down. Talking fast is fine, but this is not policy debate - focus more on persuasion and quality args.
2. Tech > Truth - If one team consistently says something throughout the debate and the other doesn't respond, I'm gonna vote like it's true. There's a brightline there where the more ridiculous the argument, the more skeptical I am of it and the more work you'll have to do. Examples of this are arguments like spark (nuclear war good), where if both sides are debating it well, I'm more likely to default to nuke war bad. De-dev has a lower threshold and I'm pretty willing to vote on it, as well as other turns (especially prolif good, I'vs gone for that several times). If you are good at going for it, read the argument. I will vote on it. If you are not good at it, it's a bad idea to read it in front of me.
3. Warrants - Your goal at the end of the debate should be for me to do as little intervention as possible and be able to point to the specific reason why I thought something was true that was actually in the debate rather than do work for one side or another. Make your claim (if X policy continues that will be bad because it'll hurt the economy) then give me some warrants (X scholar talks about how Y policy that's similar did the same thing, Z factors are similar between the two policies and surrounding context, and here is some additional logic and experts that agree) and I'll be a happy judge. Logical arguments are pretty good, sources are best, but good logic can beat sources and vice versa. I won't vote on dropped claims - claims absent warrants are not arguments, just opinions.
4. Weigh - Compare arguments at a top-level outside of the frame of who is winning what argument, then tell me how I should evaluate things if you win a couple of key arguments, as well as what happens if you don't win them. You can lose most of the debate and win on impact weighing.
5. Judge instruction - tell me how things interact. Weighing/Impact calc is a form of that, but tell me what the effects of you winning an argument are. Sure, you're winning China will steal any technology the US makes, but why do I care? What argument of theirs does it implicate, why, and if that's true what does that mean for the debate? This is one of the more advanced levels of debate, but mastering it will make you go far because you leverage your arguments a lot better. You'll be mad if I tell you at the end of the debate you were winning part of the debate that should have implicated another part but I didn't give it to you. Do the work for me.
6. Have fun! - At the end of the day I love debate. If you love it and show it, I'll be more interested in your arguments and be a better judge for you. Additionally, the more you enjoy debate, the more you'll learn and engage. Also, don't be a dick.
7. Ask Questions! - I love to talk about my opinions, you probably love to learn, it's a perfect match! Ask me what I thought about an argument, what I think you could/should do to get better. If you don't know what to ask that's fine! Tell me that, or say something like "can you just tell me your thoughts about X?" The more specific your questions, the better I know how to answer them and the more you'll get from the debate. If you need to ask several questions before you can finally articulate the one you want, go for it!
- I'm decent for K's you just have to warrant them. Throwing around buzz words neither I nor the other team understands won't get you anything.
- I'll default neg on presumption if there's no offense unless there are sufficient args otherwise.
- If an argument the other team is running is abusive, go for theory. I'm more likely to reject the arg rather than the team, but give me good reasons and I'll listen if I think you're right.
- In-Depth debate is better than spread out debate. The team that collapses arguments down to a core faster is almost always the team that wins.
- Because I'm a policy debater I don't know all the procedurals of debate, so if something is done in the debate that should affect my decision (striking args off my flow because an arg was new in the summary etc) you'll have to do a little work for me.
- Do what you're best at. Paradigms matter less the better you are (though definitely don't ever ignore them).
I have seen many tournaments but I am new to judging. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis, ease of handling questions; communication of ideas with clarity, organization and fluency.
I look for:
1.Clarity over speed .
2. Respect for your opponent.
3. Clear and consistent narrative throughout the entire round.
My debate background is in policy, but at this point, I have experience judging PF and LD as well. Feel free to to do whatever you want and make any arguments you can clearly explain and effectively justify. I am open to anything and enjoy thoughtful and creative approaches to debate as long as you are not being rude or offensive. If you're being a jerk, I will dock speaks.
If I am judging your round, make sure you do the following:
-Keep track of time: I will not be timing any of your speeches or prep, so time yourselves and your opponents-I'd prefer avoiding situations where no one knows how much prep time is left or how long a person has been speaking. Also, please respect when the timer goes off-If your time runs out during prep, I expect you to begin your speech promptly, and begin any of your remaining speeches right away. If your time runs out during your speech, please stop speaking.
-Share evidence quickly: I won't count getting your speech doc over to your opponent as prep time, but please be prepared to do so immediately once you end prep (the document should already be saved at this point). I'm pretty understanding with technical difficulties you may encounter, but you should be able to resolve these quickly and I will get annoyed if you take too long to share evidence. Please include me on any evidence email chains as well.
-Assume I don't know about the resolution: This is super important because I am not consistently judging the same type of debate throughout the year and I have very likely not done any research on the topic. If I'm judging you in PF or LD, be aware that it's the first round at a tournament on a new topic, it's possible that l think it's still the previous topic. This means that you should be as thorough as possible in explaining things and if you're going to be using acronyms to refer to agencies, departments, organizations, laws, policies, etc. in your speeches, you should tell me what it is at least once. If it's unclear, I either won't know what you are talking about, or have to spend time during your speeches to google it.
If you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask me before your round. No need to shake my hand.
Hi! My name is Kyle and I've been doing debate and public speaking for about 5 years now since. I mainly debate and judge using the British Parliamentary format and various 3v3 formats. Most recently, I've judged in the out-rounds of the International World Schools Debate Tournament, Ljutomer, Slovenia. My primary standards for judging include the engagement of material across teams (how well arguments clashed with one another) and explicitly proving to me why your team wins assuming a very generous characterization/frame of the opposing team as well the comparatives launched throughout the debate. I'm also more than happy to provide comments on content, style, and strategy which will be integrated in my feedback when deciding on the round. Please be kind and courteous as well, see you all this weekend! :)
Assistant Debate Coach: Baton Rouge Magnet
Former Coach: Omaha Westside, Lindenwood University, Southern Methodist University
Debated at KCKCC and Millard South High SchoolTop Level
Not gonna lie... kind of a wild card situation.
One year I got to judge finals of CEDA, that was really cool! I sat though...
For some reason I find myself in a lot of 7 off type debates, I think it's an archaic model of debate, but, nonetheless, I am capable of making a sound decision.
I very seldom read evidence unless there is a dispute about the meaning of evidence in the round, or it is an absolute tie breaker situation
THE LINK RULES THE GAME - LINK DIRECTION ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY DETERMINES HOW I EVALUATE AND COMPARE IMPACTS
I evaluate Offense before Defense
I don't believe in topicality; I'll vote for it (I'm Lying) and my teams might run it on occasion, but I don't believe in the idea that we should limit knowledge production to a certain side of the library...
The Framework debate for me is won by Topical Version of the aff solving enough of the aff's impacts to resolve the limits DA... I'll also vote for your framework if you win that it fosters better skills.
Frankly, I just don't care what topic the aff talks about, I only care that the aff does something that changes the way things are... with that being said I am a lot more negative oriented when it comes to theory debates... I don't think the aff should get to tell the negative what to do... none of this is universal... but I just find myself lost in most technical theory debates.Being Negative is Hard
I think the negative has to win a reason why the aff is BAD or WORSE in order to win my ballot... they don't do x is not a link, and in my mind when you rest your hat on that argument the aff has enough room in the debate to say "at least we did something else that's still good"
Your alt/cp does nothing for me without a link... even if the 2ac drops it.. i don't care unless there is reason I can tell the aff that they make the world worse. If it is dropped i still need to understand what i am voting for... i will 100 percent not assume any impact or link that is not explained or understood by me on the flow and from a previous speech.
I have voted on no aff solvency many times but it involved shutting a lot of doors on the aff's flexibility and winning that solving x was key to every advantage the aff can claim.
I like plan flaws, i like pics... i love being negative and a lot of the teams I coach win about equal to or more neg rounds... i just think the negative has to assume predictable pivot points the aff can take via winning an advantage or an external net benefit.
After Grapevine 2020 i've decided to change the way I do speaker points... My base will now be a 28 (previously 27.5) I realized i've been doing a disservice to people who are really good speakers.
Fairness is not an Impact
TVAs are just floating PICS and i find the permutation very persuasive
I vote against my personal beliefs a lot
I think it's a shame
Truth > Tech
BOTTOM LINE IS - I WANNA BE CONVINCED OF SOMETHING IN A DEBATE... I WANNA FEEL ENGAGED... I WANNA SEE A DEBATE WHERE PEOPLE ARE LESS AFRAID TO TRY SOMETHING RADICALLY DIFFERENT...
I am a parent of an avid debater, and I am a scrupulous note taker. I always read up on the topic prior to judging, but explain things to me as if I am learning about it for the first time. I have some prior experience in judging Public Forum debate as well. I like teams which have good evidence to support their claims. Try to tell me a story with your arguments about why your impacts matter in the first place. Links in your logical reasoning should be clearly explained, and I won't consider your impacts unless your links make sense. Also, if it is not in summary, then it shouldn't be in final focus. During Cross-X try be as respectful of your opponents as possible, and being respectful helps your speaker points. If you're going to turn your opponent's argument, make sure there is an impact. Also last but not least, weighing during summary and final focus definitely makes it easier for me to judge your round. Look forward to judging your round!
I was a debater and public speaker from an extremely young age through to the end of university. I have debated most styles including those outside of North America and have experience as a coach and running debate and public speaking programs.
I prioritize the persuasiveness and clarity of argumentation, this should be grounded in the quality and focus behind your case. It is key that the team establishes the superiority of their arguments under the conditions they have set out. Try your hardest not to get bogged down in smaller issues and tangents, stick to the main clashes and make it clear that you win them in your summary and final focus.
I try to be as objective as possible and not credit missing argumentation so comprehensiveness and making logical links is important. Speed is not an issue but if an argument isn't clear it wasn't made, so make sure to enunciate and breathe.
I am a parent judge and I have judged on national circuit for four years.
Please keep track of speech and prep time yourself and for your opponents.
Please do NOT spread. Keeping the word count less than 180 words per minute would be great.
I like arguments that are logical and explained clearly. Roadmaps are helpful as well.
Be civil and respond logically. Don't be over-aggressive.
I am a super lay judge, please do not spread or run anything non-substance.
I like well explained and clear warrants
I equally weigh warrants over evidence. However, do provide and counter the evidence to support the warrants.
Please do not use complicated debate jargon (ex. we outweigh on pre-req, magnitude, and scope)
I generally think that public speaking is a huge part of the debate
I believe delivery with a clear and persuasive articulation is equally important. Do not speak too fast to add unnecessary words.
I've dabbled in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, Congressional, Impromptu, Extemporaneous, Big Questions, and Dramatic/Humorous Interpretation — and have judged a fair amount of Original Oratory, Policy Debate, Poetry, Prose, Parliament, and Duo Interpretation rounds.
- In speech events, more attention is paid to fluidity and engaging presentation; in debate, this is not necessary. I don't mind if you speak very fast, as long as your case is shared with your partner or you pay attention to speaking clearly. The case and its arguments are ultimately more important than presentation, however.
- Point out the weaknesses in your opponent's case, though do not be needlessly impolite. On that note, refrain from demonstrating misogyny, homophobia, and racism.
- Make sure to address your opponent's arguments well, and to defend yours well. Too often, a compelling argument is left uncontested or a compelling argument is not reaffirmed.
- Theory, Kritiks, Counter-plans, Perms, Plans, and DAs are fine to implement/mention, just make sure your logic is sound. If the conclusions/links do not make sense or are needlessly complicated, I won't be particularly partial to them. Critical arguments are fine, too.
- Make sure to provide a justification for impact framing in Parliamentary Debate; magnitude is not as important as the probable and structural impacts of actions.
- Referencing cards in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum makes for a better structured round, and gives tenability to your arguments. I'd recommend doing so.
Hi! I am a parent judge, this is my first time judging-but I have watched PF rounds and I am familiar with Medicare for All. Please speak clearly and no spreading
Hey debaters! Here is some information about me that I think is important to know before you start the round:
- I am a lay judge.
- Assume I'm completely new to the topic so whichever side convinces me the best will be voted for.
- Please refrain from spreading, I will most likely miss arguments if you spread.
- Speak clearly with logic and analysis, not just evidence. Evidence is useful in many situations, but always include logic and warrants to back it up, it's useless to just read cards during a debate round.
- I expect both teams to be timing themselves during your speeches and I'm fine with a 10-15 second grace period for each speech just to finish up your last thoughts.
- Please remember to be respectful at all times during the debate round especially during cross x, I will not accept behavior that is not respectful.
Finally, remember to have fun! :)
Special Section, NSDA Nationals
Welcome! If you’re reading this, then we are definitely going to be meeting each other. I wish you all the best: congratulations on being at Nationals. Below are the Public Forum paradigm, and an expansion of my normal National paradigm (building on the NSDA document you already have).
A lot of what I have in my Policy paradigm (below) applies here. Here’s what to keep in mind:
Audience. Unlike the more technical Policy, I understand Public Forum as Outward Facing whose intended audience is someone reasonably informed. Terms and ideas are expected to be accessible. Rhetoric (diction, vocal presentation) are important factors.
Spread. Keep it rapid and conversational (roughly 150 w.p.m.). Excessive speed violates Outward Facing. With spread clarity about tags and structure is critical, as is enunciation.
Comparative Advantage. I will compare the two sides relative to advantages and how they meet their Framework (below). I expect both sides to make affirmative cases as to why I should prefer their reasoning. You will not win by solely attacking the other side; your case matters. Be clear about your impacts.
Framework. Show how your case fulfills or meets your framework (this is the core of Comparative Advantage for me). If given time you should explain why your framework is to be preferred.
In formal terms I follow an open policy paradigm. I'm a realist; I come from politics and extemp. For me, debate deals with the questions and discussions we (community/society) deal with in the public, decision-making space. Of course, all discussions have social locations, especially with this year’s topic, and thus can be profitably interrogated by critical theory or explored through CPs; just show me why it matters or how it connects to our decision-making.
Leave academic or debate theory arguments outside. I will find them interesting, even entertaining, but not decisive.
Some practical details:
• Impacts do not have to go to catastrophe to be persuasive (especially the N-war move). Plausibility counts.
• I pay attention to how links are made, how the internal logic works. If you call attention to a dropped argument, show me why it matters, otherwise, I will defer to the points of clash.
• Where the argument turns on a key piece of evidence, I may examine to determine how much weight to give it (i.e. reliable, authoritative etc.) I am open to voting on T.
• And last, as a practical matter, I have old ears, so make tags clear. Preferred delivery rate tops out at 180 wpm.
Now for some additional Nationals Specifics/extensions
As noted above I am open to arguments that illumine where an argument is (culturally) situated. I tend to treat Ks as a relative of the DA or perhaps a CP
Ks that I am comfortable with:
structural racism, Afro-pessimism
Neo-liberalism , colonialisms
the Foucaldian suite of approaches, including biopower
Other critical theory approaches: be cautious. I will not be able to track you as fast. Practically this means I will lean into the card re: authority.
Meta theory, debate theory — no. I find these involve a host of tacit assumptions that I may or may not be willing to accede to.
On a continuum of the very focused or limited to the very broad, I lean to the focused side.
as CPs expand, I tend to defer to the Aff
Extensive CPs carry similar burden as the 1AC.
Conditionality — there are strategic reasons to drop a CP, I will accept this within reason. (NOTE on the NSDA paradigm I’m a bit more conservative)
PICs — Use with caution. I hear these as a stepping stone, a way to interrogate the AFF case. The idea of testing the case with a “what about” that isolates an issue… good. When it is a broader form, I want to know how you avoid the DAs of the AFF case
Bright Lines or what’s out of bounds
Abusive behavior in the round (language; overly aggressive CX).
Refuse polarization. Extending abusive behavior to culture. I realize this is a challenge in our polarized culture; stay clear of the easy ad hom attack on “them”.
Cases that advocate violence in order to work.
Arguments that advocate non-democratic solutions. This can crop up in Ks: how does Power not end up in oppressing the many?
Debater for Rutgers University-Newark.
Debated for University High School in Newark where I received 3 bids in LD my senior year. I was top speaker at the Tournament of Champions and made it to semifinals.
Please read what you are most comfortable with. I will evaluate every and any argument.
I would like to be on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
K's/Performances: I mostly run Ks and performances on both the aff and neg. On the aff make sure there is a coherent story that I can follow from the 1AC to the 2AR. On the neg make sure there are specific links and examples that prove the aff is a bad idea/advocacy/policy/action etc.
FW v K affs: I will vote on whoever is winning a terminal that outweighs any costs. It comes down to the debate that was had. Clash > limits on the neg. Accessibility/Education are the best impacts on the aff. I default to competing interps, but can be persuaded to err towards reasonability.
DA's: Prove to me why the DA outweighs and turns case. Do meta-weighing, yes you too aff.
Framework: LD is beginning to shift towards creative, and at times arbitrary framework shells. I'm down, but please prove a violation on a well thought framework shell. How will debate change and/or what will debates begin to look like under the interp/counterinterp and why is this better than debate in the squo?
I am a judge with experience judging multiple debate tournaments throughout the entirety of 2021. I've mainly done LD and PF, but I also have judged some Parliamentary, Congress, and individual events as well.
I believe it is important for things such a debate to be accessible to anyone, so clarity in communicating ideas and speaking at a clear, easy to understand speed will be important to me, as well as clearly articulating tag-lines of arguments, and I would prefer refraining from jargon when possible.
I will mainly try to judge Tabula Rasa, as I believe it is fair and important for the debaters to have control over what the rules of the debate are, and if those rules are mutually agreed upon, then it sets everyone up for the highest level of success. I won't be bringing preconceived notions into the debate, as I would prefer to judge to debaters on the merits of what they bring to each round.
In the last speeches of the round, I want you to tell me which argument you think I should vote on and WHY, and how it compares to the other team's argument.
For background, I debated PF 4 years with MVLA. As much as I might like to think I am a tech flow judge, in reality, I am very flay. If you see anything on my paradigm that you disagree with, feel free to ( nicely ) talk me out it, I'm open to being persuaded.
First speaking teams: unresponded-to defense that you put on their case does not need to be extended, but if it is absolutely crucial to you winning, maybe consider bringing it up again (obviously you must respond to things if they are frontlined). Any offense must be in summary but I'll extend dropped turns as mitigation.
Second speaking teams: Turns and disads coming out of 1st rebuttal must be responded to or it's a drop, you can respond to terminal D in summary.
Both teams: I really do need clean extensions of all necessary links and impacts in summary and final focus if you want offense. This doesn't mean that you need to give me your whole case again, but I do need all the links necessary to access the impact you are going for. Make it clear !!!
You need cards, but more importantly warrants; I will buy a strong analytic over an unwarranted card. Extend logical warranting in addition to links cards/impacts otherwise, I won't want to vote on it
Please signpost by voter, links, or impacts (PLS number them, its greatly appreciated). I don't always catch card names and I guarantee I'll miss content if I don't know where to flow.
- Content warnings: you need to read a content warning if you are discussing sensitive topics or topics that may endanger people's safety. My preferred method is reading the warning before the round and providing your phone number so people can anonymously tell you if they are uncomfortable. You must have a backup case to read if someone is uncomfortable.
- Speaking: Some speed is fine, i'll say clear if I can't understand. Speaks are based mostly on content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well.
-Cross: I generally don't listen at all, but I do catch things if they stand out (i.e. being rude/yelling, referencing "judge"), but if you concede something in cross it can be brought up in speeches. If I didn't hear it happen and the other team says it didn't, I just won't consider it.
- Theory/Progressive args: On the one hand I do think that theory can disadvantage new debaters or underfunded teams, but I also think its really fun and can lead to a lot of more positive changes in debate, so run at your own risk, and think about whether your shell or K or whatever is worth the exclusion. I think progressive args are super fun and I did run some while debating, that said I'm not an expert so if you do run them make sure to fully explain.
- I presume 1st speaking team if I need to. Feel free to disagree, I am open to changing this if someone feels strongly.
- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. Also, please do metaweighing if teams clash on weighing (which is almost always). I really do love a good weighing debate, please weigh.
-Collapsing: please collapse. I get it, sometimes you need to fill up a speech or you just feel like you'll be stronger if you keep all your args, but being able to very clearly defend one arg is really so much better than under covering a couple.
- Evidence: Don't lie. Even if it’s an accidental miscut, it’s still wrong. Find cards within a couple of minutes or I'll ask you to drop them. I'll call cards if you tell me to and if my decision hinges upon the validity of a card that's been highly contested.
- Please be respectful during the debate. I'm not afraid to tank speaks if you're being rude, and I will honestly be more likely to find a reason to drop you.
- If you ignore my paradigm, I'm not gonna drop you (unless it's the bolded parts) so feel free to debate in the way that's most comfortable to you, this is just what I like.
- I attempt to be a visual judge, so if I'm nodding it means I understand and you can move on, if I'm frowning it means I'm confused, if I'm smiling it probably means that I think something interesting is going on.
I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.
My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.
Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.
It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.
It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.
You can speak fast, but clarity is more important. Any arguments that I can not catch will not be counted in the round.
Tell me the reason that I should vote for your ballot.
Respect one another and respect the rules. Be nice to each other.
I am a parent judge with several years of judging experiences.
Please focus on these areas if you want to win a round:
· State your framework clearly
· Substantiate your contention with impact
· A combination of logical reasoning with data/evidence
· During cross-fire and rebuttals, I want to hear the teams trying to challenge and effectively defend.
· Final Focus should be relevant to what happened during the debate
updated Dec 3., for PF topic: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a Non-First Use Declaratory Nuclear Policy-Background-
As a competitive debater, judge and coach of 6 years, I largely have experience with British Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, and Australian Parliamentary formats. Insofar as I have competed in largely a parliamentary varsity circuit, this has informed some significant judging norms I cross-apply to PF. I have been judging and coaching PF for 2 years.
This means I look for logical links made in both constructive and rebuttal. Mechanisms should be present and explained in some detail, rather than just quoted.
My educational background is a completed Bachelors' degree in interdisciplinary environmental studies- meaning I am incredibly familiar and comfortable with economics, finance, environmental science, ethics, politics, computer science, and sociological terminology/ concepts. No argument is inaccessible to me, but I prioritize accessibility within the circuit for debaters from all educational, socio-economic and ability-oriented backgrounds.
I grew up and did most of my schooling in Canada.
I spent a semester in Washington DC, and have had some very valuable and formative education for political psychology there, so America is not a foreign place to me.Judging Praxis
>Argumentation should be clearly mechanized and articulated. Any usage of technical or academic jargon ought to be defined at least once on the first usage because I think accessibility for opponents is key. References to real world events should not just be flagged, but contextualized especially if they are not recent or not immediately available to most people as a reference. (eg. Citing "Crimea", I will know what you are talking about. Most other regions or events probably need context)
> Off Time Roadmaps are encouraged
> You do not need to make eye contact with me
> I will be asking for cards and evaluating the legitimacy and consistency of your sources at the end of the round.
> I do flow cross fire, not just the concessions.
> Rebuttal and link turning should include a combination of substantiative logic, warranting through cards or real world events. It is clear when students make things up, so at least ensure your logic meets the test of being both: valid and true.
> I do not require friendly introductions (good morning to my honourable opponents, judge, chair, etc.), I think it's a waste of time and I don't care to hear it. I'm glad to see you debate too, obviously, but it's implied.
> Using your opponents name or speaker position is fine, avoid referring to your opponents in the third person (gendered pronouns are messy!). This includes me. You can refer to me as judge, chair, panel- but do not refer to me as Madame Speaker. I will not reduce any speaker points for this, I'm just not personally comfortable with this.> Prog/ Theory is fun!
On Theory, I value theory to be limited to a K or a potential a priori lens, akin to a model or critique. Theory is a priori, but does not proceed the value of case. It merely is a lens for me to view and understand case, rebuttal, and the rest of the debate. Run theory alongside contentions with arguments.
On Prog, contentions should. a) identify structural inequality, b) explain how it manifests vis-a-vis the debated topic, and c) how policy change meaningfully deconstructs and combats structural inequality in this instance. To merely recognize it is not enough in providing solvency against pillars of institutuionalized violence. If conditions b and c are not met, I will not count this as a Prog case.> Tech
If an argument is made in case, I do not require it to be frontlined or reiterated consistently in order to 'stand' in my weighing at the end of the round. I realize this is a slight departure from some judging norms. Just because a point is not brought up in summary or final, does not mean you automatically collapse on it. Only if you explicitly state a collapse will I strike a contention. Why do I judge this way? Good question:
1. This is a norm within parliamentary, particularly BP for relevancy to front half.
2. I do not have the alleged attention span of a goldfish. If it's on my flow, I can see it, and I can't ignore it and pretend it didn't happen.
3. I think this is a somewhat unfair PF norm given that debaters do not even prioritize information or frontline it effectively (you're kids, I don't know how much you would consider what an unfamiliar adult may prioritize as constructive in round, especially when we all have different backgrounds you may not be familiar with and judges have different politics/ working knowledge basis...'common knowledge' is an individual moving target subject to anchoring effects)
4. This prioritizes tech over content. I always prioritize substance and content, as debate is default a utilitarian framework unless otherwise contested (theory, kay, phil fw).
TLDR: I am not a tech judge. Spending the second half of a PF round using condensed referential metadebate on tech is a waste of time with me. Comparative analysis should use reference to substance and not floating PF norms as I do not adhere to or even agree to all of these 'norms'. Most judges don't. Most judges in JV don't know what you are talking about.> On Politik
Ideally debate is a space for people all over the political grid and spectrum to share the best ideas from their respective political background. We should be able to use sources that identify their own political biases and agendas without automatically getting rejected. There is no such thing as unbiased in journalism and sourcing. Humans have biases baked in, working constantly, and we are often unaware of them.
Given more information about a subject or policy, it is near impossible to not to preference solutions. Solutions are often coded in political leaning or partisan capture.
In round you can address 'hidden'/ explicit agendas and biases in sources but this does not erase intellectual rigour or research done by the respective institute, journal, or source. If you are to argue that partisan capture or political agenda de-legitimizes the source, explain how. Especially in the instance of this policy, and not just generally.
I identify as relatively centrist so I am fairly open minded about many kinds of arguments. Please avoid appealing to dogwhistling and overly euphemistic language that demonizes groups of people or other ideological camps.
That is to say, assuming 'capitalism is evil' or 'socialism is dystopian'. Or 'China is a threat to the US', or 'Concerns about China are just sinophobia' asserted without explanation.
I openly welcome argumenation or sourcing that may use Marxist critical theory, Libertarian, Socially Conservative, Neoliberal, logic and understandings. Please do not assume my politics or preferences simply based on my education, appearance, gender, or age and try to appeal to them. I find this practice uncomfortable.
To condense this: Do not assume that because of my background I am critically dismissive of legimitimizing American hegemony/exceptionalism or that I buy into it as a critical NATO ally that may benefit from US military deterrence. - please don't ask me about my personal experiences or try to decipher them in round. This debate isn't about appealing to me- it's about the marketplace of ideals at play. :)
Experience wise, I did Parli/LD at a college level.
I'm pretty flay
I am ok with speed but don't go super fast, or just let me see your case.
I'll listen to most positions, I'm not too familiar with K-debate so use at your own discretion
I'm a parent judge, and pretty lay. I don't really like spreading, please try not to do that - I won't be able to keep up. I pay attention to cross, I don't like theory - I won't be able to understand it. And please provide a clear roadmap.
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.
Lay judge with local experience. Please do not spread.
I am a new judge this year, please don't spread in your speeches and talk at a moderate pace.
Follow these guidelines and you will be successful with me as a judge -
1. The Most Obvious - Be Nice!
Be nice to your opponents in round, and if you are rude in crossfire or speeches I will drop your speaker points.
2. Please provide full cards
When giving cards, please send the link to the website, the authors name and date, and the paragraph from the website.
3. I am big on weighing
Please make sure to weigh your impacts to show why you are winning the round and tell me what you are weighing off of.
4. Make sure to time yourself
What I look for in a debate is clear speaking and good refutations to each others points. Also, I look at the magnitude of your impacts and see which one has a more positive effect. Lastly, the summary speech in the debate round is the most important so be sure to emphasize your main points within that speech. I look forward to judging your debate rounds.
Put me on the Email Chain--- Johnson.email@example.com I am a current Policy Debater at Liberty University.
Top level Stuff
-Tech over truth
-Anything else is debatable
The action of the CP and how you solve each IL of the aff must be clearly explained in the 2NC and on if you want me to vote on it
On many process CP’s, Perm-Do CP is rather convincing and is probably a good strategy for you to win the debate
I err to process/agent/consult cp’s being unfair for the aff, unless you can win the theory debate behind those things.
DA’s versus case debates are probably my favorite debates to watch/judge.
Clearly articulate the link and what the impact is
Always do impact calc in the 2NR/2AR if you want me to vote the DA o/w solvency of the aff
Big fan of wack DA’s so run them, but explain them
Besides conditionality, theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Anything else is an unwinnable position for me. Three conditional options is probably good for negative flexibility, anymore more is probably pushing it a little. Granted, conditionality theory is all debatable.
Not familiar with most K bases beyond the stereotypical ones of Cap, Security, militarism, exc, so explain the parts of the K if u want me to vote for you.
Contextualize your links to that specific debate and explain in detail why that they are true
Spend less time reading cards and more analysis on why your argument is true
Long overviews are complicated/hard to follow, instead you should focus more on the line by line.
Explain why the Alt solves
Have Warrants for you argument and don’t just make claims
In Round Stuff
Debate should be fun - don't be jerks or rhetorically violent.
I will vote you down if you do something super offensive
Speaker Points will reflect if I believe you were overly aggressive, rude, or just a jerk in the round
Again, HAVE FUN
In order for me to vote for you Mpxs in a round make sure you extend the link, IL and Mpx in the final focus. Please collapse down to one contention that you go for in the final focus( I promise this will get you better speaks).I believe the second to last final focus is inherently more difficult. So I will give higher speaks when executed well. Also Please Please Please tell me how to write my ballot backed up by warrants. Also I love Impact turns and if you run them well, I will give you great speaks.
Joshua F. Johnwell (he/him/they/them/queer/whatever you want)
NYU Policy Alumni (2016-2020)
Houston, TX / Nat HS Circuit (4 Years) @ Dawson HS
GDI (Gonzaga) Alum - 4WK, 5WK Scholars, 2WK
Email questions to firstname.lastname@example.org
or just ask before round, preferably. oh & YAS, EMAIL CHAIN ME
Current Affiliations: BL Debate & NYU
Past Affiliations: Success Academy HS (2019-2020), Dawson HS (2012-2016)
- You do you
- Respect everyone's pronouns & please don't be violent/ignorant
- Procedural fairness is an internal link, not an impact or voter, but t and fw are good arguments
- Please don't read an anti-blackness kritik in front of me if you are not black
- I am a flow-reliant judge who prefers tech
- I would like a content/trigger warning for descriptive anti-black violence, mentions of mental health violence like [redacted], and anti-queer violence before giving a speech to adjust
- I have really bad internet at home, but will try my best to keep my camera on, and I am always present regardless! Please allow me to verbally "ok" or "I'm ready too" a speech before giving one -- I usually ask for an off-time roadmap before speeches anyways
I understand tech time and difficulties, and will accommodate, so please send speech docs/ev proactively and ahead of time to everyone and just assume that analytics will be sent too -- I will only flow whatever comes out of your mouth tho
- Disclosure is usually good, maybe?
*For PF* / Updates for harvard
I'm basically LARP'ing (live action role-playing) being in this section. I'm a policy debater, with a LD and CX coaching primarily background. I don't expect any policy or LD arguments however. Now, I coach, teach, and judge for BL Debate for PF.
- I value wholesome debates.
- Speed / talking fast is fine, I most likely will be able to understand you unless I say "clear" through the mic.
- I mainly care about clash (how well you cover and respond to arguments and their contentions/advantages, especially in rebuttal), sequencing (root causes, a-priorities, prior questions, pre-reqs, which contention outweighs/first) and framework (how should I weigh impacts/contentions in this debate, etc. - util good/bad? idk?).
- Speaking pretty is cool, but I much prefer tech over truth, but truth can prevail (please do your topic research; I'm writing this during the W. Africa topic).
- Kritiks and theory are fine, but I have a high threshold and I don't think that PF provides the proper time allocation for you to develop this position adequately. Maybe there's more leverage on the con side for these arguments, but again, do you; offense is offense. Please give an impact to theory.
OLD/Dated Paradigm (Most things still stand true)
TL;DR *Updated 10/24/20*: I vote on a lot of things, except theory unless really impacted out (this is not a non-starter tho)-- tell me how to write my ballot -- im fine with speed, i vote on k's and FW -- please read a TVA if T/FW -- I MAKE FACES ON MY WEBCAM during speeches and CX TO REACT/TELL YOU HOW I VIBE WITH ARGS -- if you postround me, i will postround back...
**Updated 4/27/19 for ToC: I expect so much from y'all -- please slow down on theory and your shells for me -- or at least spread through card and go slow for tag. Please read a TVA if you're going for T/FW; just do you -- please don't authenticity check me or make me relive trauma, thanks.
**Updated 10/10/18 for Bronx: hi so idk much about the LD topic whatsoever this semester, so please default to fleshing out the warrants for me, etc. also, please be wholesome; there's a lot going on in my life lately. For those who have me in policy, cool, I debated on the Latinx America topic so I'm sort of familiar, but still you be you.
**Updated 3/3/18 for Lakeland LD/CX: My paradigm was written with policy debate in mind. I'm not too huge on "theory" hacks (just, no, please), I don't like RVIs, I don't like huge underviews, IF THEY READ A CASE WITH A PLAN/ADVOCACY/WHATEVER -- ANSWER IT (Idk why I have to say this). I like T more now than my paradigm suggests (idk why). Also my lit base on the multitudes of LD frameworks are limited af -- i'm a policy debater. Make reference to Beyoncé and queer stuff and I MIGHT boost speakers if you're funny.
Idk why I have to say this either but: yes, I am Black.
If you are not Black (white and non black poc) do not read anti-blackness/Afrofuturism/pessimism/optimism arguments in front of me (aff/neg) if the other team calls you out at ALL you will lose the debate.... same for other PoC arguments that the authors say are for PoC. If it is not your position you don't get to use other peoples bodies to get a ballot.
******* - Jalisa Jackson
Most of this wiki is just a copy-and-paste of sarah lundeen's
This is basically just a TL;DR:
I'm reliant on my flow to dictate where the direction of our debate is going and i'm voting for the team that does the better debating. i desire the community aspect of debate and the friendliness that comes along with that. i dig rounds, and a community, where everyone is comfortable and getting what they want out of the activity, and i will try to accomodate that however means necessary. i live for the sass and clash in a debate, but there's a line to be drawn. also, i'm pigeonholed as asian a majority of the time, even though i'm black, and that annoys me and my psyche, so please don't assume anything -- also feel free to come up and conversate / have a discussion with me; i'm a southerner who loves branching out. i hate stealing prep.
If it's not in my job description, i ain't doing it. Now, i will listen to whatever type of debate you want to have (K, policy, performance, other), just do you boo. i'm not here to make a changes or to impose rules on this sphere. if you're good, great; just stick to what you're good at (i'm a very blank slate judge). i will not call for cards/ev after a round unless there's a fact check claim or just a large issue about the ev. with that being said tho, i'm not calling for ev if the debater is simply like "this evidence is on fire" or "call for this card after the round" - explain the warrants and flesh it out for me as a judge. I will not do the work for y'all, and i reward those who make my life easier.
Timing/Paperless - Speed: fine (idk why people go slow af on tags and an unclear sprint through the cite/card tho...?). Your prep time runs until you are finished prepping your speech - i.e. it is ready to email, saved to the jumpdrive, viewing computer, in the dropbox, whatever your method is. if you do not know how to functionally do these things or how to work your laptop, we're all going to have a bad time. Specifically, I hate people who steal prep (this can be in a multiude of fashions) and will call out against it - i.e. when the prep timer stops, you stop, all parties stop; just chill.
CP – I love a good CP neagative strategy and will give the neg more leverage on theory, but i will still evaluate aff theory (it just needs to be developed) and the neg still needs to defend their world. Conditional planks and multiple cp's is where things are gross for me, however. your cp should have a net benefit and you need to impact it out for me buy it especially if it's in the 2nr. i like "shady cp's" (Richard Min™) if done right– i.e. consult, process, delay, courts lol, but with that said they're probably bad for debate and i will most likely err aff theory. if you can explain the competitiveness in a topic-specific way, textually or functionally, i would live for this. Perms: do them, love them; they are a test of competition. PICS: i'm a fan, personally, but needs to be super specific and not a "throw-away" cp; embed that ish into your strat.
K – slay. me. i love the K; debate the k; live the k. I'm not familiar with the whole lot of dead french guys. Alternatives need to articulate what their world looks like, how it resolves the links, etc. i hold a high threshold for a k debate. my 2nrs in HS were baudrillard (i know, i'm sorry), cap, queer theory, etc. so i'm familiar with some literature, just not super specific. K affs need to be able to explain their framework/warrant to vote aff in a way which provides negative ground and debatability. I love k debate/performance and i think it has a lot of value to bring to the debate community –i prefer judging methodology debates too. pls don't just read blocks done by coaches/backfiles if you're reading these args, i love to see clash with links, da's to different methods/alts, etc.
Topicality – I'm not the biggest T fan, but i will vote on it! i say i'm not the biggest fan because i largely look at plans in a vaccum and reasonability sits well with me. that being said, this usually pertains to topics i'm debating on, and i have no knowledge of china besides helping out former HS teammates this year. a good t debate gives me a case list of examples under their interpretation. i evaluate t debates in a defense-offense type of way especially in competing interpretations debate. give me impact analysis, please.
DA – yaaas. you really can't go wrong with this. i love a good politics debate. give me a link story please for any type of scenario. i love the "traditional" craft and things you can do with a simple disad (turns, outweighs, etc.). most disads now-a-days have become let me just read the weirdest scenario and hope they don't have cards on it-- that's fine, i just want specifics and more specific links/story/argument will buy me more. do the werk.
Theory/Framework – i'm not a big fan of huge theoritical debates, but i can dig framework. FW has been read a bunch of times to my cases and i enjoy the substantive part of these debates. your framework needs to rise above the influence of "we could've done more" or "you need to be [XYZ]" because i feel like those debates are shallow and don't really engage with one another. if it's "impossible for you to debate" at this point, c'mon... if you have some good arguments about why they make debater better/worse in that it makes us better informes/more ignorant, better or worse people, etc I am all ears. Also, condo is okay until it becomes a mess i.e. condtradicting advocacies, taking it all into the block and not specificying your strat, always going for it in the 2ar, etc.
Underview – I would rather vote on how y'all debated, instead of intervening in anyway so i don't get post-rounded. Impact assessment and evaluation of the debate in the last rebuttals are important. a helpful tip is to write the ballot for me in the rebuttals, and most of the time mine will reflect that if you're winning. Speaks are a thing.
I don't enjoy listening to debates in which gendered/racist/ableist/homophobic/exclusionary language is used. At the very least your speaker points will be effected.
hi! i'm sky.
email is email@example.com.
please have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. don't be late.
tech over truth. i won't do work for you. your arguments should have explicit explanations and contextualization. tell me a thoughtful and thorough story with substance. even if you sound pretty, my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.
read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not your presentation. i'm more than happy to evaluate anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!
do note that the only exception to this philosophy is if you make blatantly ignorant statements.
rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you have any questions regarding my feedback, feel free to ask. i also accept emails and other online messages.
topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interp best facilitates that discussion. if you go for framework, give me clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts.
theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interps and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; give me real links, real interps, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate.
counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give me a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calc is your friend.
disadvantages. crystallize! your uniqueness and links also matter.
kritiques. i love these, a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and provide an anomalous approach against the aff. judge instructions make my life easier and can win you the debate.
cross. i'll listen, but i won't evaluate arguments made in crossfire unless you restate your points in a speech. use this time wisely.
evidence. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if you tell me to or if it sounds too good to be true. however, this isn't an excuse to be lazy. narrative coherence is very important to me.
public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. arguments and evidence mentioned in final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!
tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote, thanks.
you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!
Qualification: I have about 4 years of Public Forum debate and speech experience from my high school years and have judging experience.
1. I don't mind the general speed of the debaters but please be clear and coherent while speaking.
2. I would like to see an organized and smoothly flowed debate round.
3. Please support your arguments and refutations with thorough explanation and strong evidence.
4. Please make sure to tell me why you think you won the round by weighing out the arguments and refutations during your summary and final focus. Be sure to connect the dots of the round for me by telling me if any points are dropped or still standing.
5. Please do not be rude.
Hi! I debated for 4 years at BC Academy.
Pretend that this paradigm is mine and that I didn't plagiaries from Mr. McGuigan.
What I look for as a judge
My overarching principle to evaluating rounds is that I can only judge what has been presented in front of me. Therefore, it is completely up to you to explain to me all of the important issues in the round and how your case works to address and resolve those problems. I never bring in my own knowledge or ideas when evaluating the round; however, I am always happy to provide candid feedback after the round as to what I personally did or did not like.
1. I want to make sure that you have very strong logical links between your claims. Assertions are not accepted at face value. If your argument leaves me with a lot of outstanding questions at the end of the round, you have not explained it well enough. It's not my job as a judge to make assumptions and editorialize based on where I think you are going, it is your job to explain each argument and piece of rebuttal to me as if I have the knowledge of an average person.
2. Evidence does not make an argument. Evidence for the sake of evidence is not useful and does not help your argument. I want to see that you use the evidence as an extension of your logic and analysis in order to ground the argument. If the logic behind your evidence isn't explained I won't provide it with much weight.
3. Provide context and characterization for the main actors in the debate. It's not enough to simply tell me that an actor will do something, you need to explain what motivates them to act and what forces may influence the choices that they make. Actors are not static and are multidimensional - I expect you to portray them that way.
4. Do not forget that countries outside of the United States do exist and can be important in the debate. Although this may seem obvious, I often see teams that become so focused on the United States that they either leave out other major actors or miss the major impacts of the debate. It is important that you consider and evaluate all perspectives in the debate and present a global context when the debate warrants it.
5. Word economy is very important. If you are talking fast because you have a lot to say and it is all extremely valuable content, that is excellent. If you are talking fast for the sake of talking fast while being extremely repetitive and/or providing irrelevant content, it will not be rewarded. I would rather have a debater speak very slowly and have every line of analysis mean something rather than someone who speaks at 180 words per minute and does not add much value to the round; however, I frequently see the latter rather than the former.
General stuff made by me :)
1. Please add me to the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
The title of the chain should look something like "Stanford. Round 2. BCAcademy JJ vs BCAcademy CC"
2. Turn camera on unless you have technical issues. If you have your camera off without a real reason then I'm capping your speaks at 26.
3. Don't steal prep. I won't do anything about it, but cmon
4. Read trigger warnings. Offer proper opt out systems.
5. Please time yourself and each other. Most likely, I will forget.
6. I'm not well-versed in progressive debate. If you must, please read theory in good-faith. I will drop teams for using theory as a easy way to win ballots.
7. I will not buy 5 second blippy turns that are blown up in summary, even if its conceded.
8. Cards that take more than 2 minutes to pull up will be discounted from the round.
9. As a debater, wins/losses mattered a lot to me. I will always disclose after the round.
* If there is anything I can do to make the round more accommodating, please let me know before the round*
That's it. Most importantly, make sure to have fun! :)
While I am comfortable with a wide range of styles, I do not prefer spreading in debate. Speak clearly so that I can follow your key points and cards. I like to see good use of evidence in the debate round, making your contentions sound. I'm open to your logical points and in this case try to link your logic directly to your case. Weigh your impacts as you progress deeper in the round and bring focus to the debate round as you explain why your team should win the ballot. Make the most of cross-ex / cross-fire and be courteous to your opponents. Use your time - both effectively, and all of it. I take a realistic view of the world economically/politically, so won't place a heavy emphasis on unrealistic or exaggerated impacts from a policy decision.
Please do not spread. Lay judge.
I judge based primarily on matter and manner. This means I evaluate both the persuasive content and performative aspects of speeches. I have coached and competed in Parli, PF, and BP (World's Style). I find humor to be persuasive, and appreciate attempts to insert humor into speeches. While I am ok with speed, I discourage it in PF debate to allow every round to be accessible and understandable to an average person.
I am a lay judge and this is my first year of judging. I flow the rounds, and I generally have some background knowledge on the topic, but please treat the round as if I do not because I may not know what you are talking about.
What I look for in a round regarding any debate style:
Speaking Speed: Please go at a moderate speed. I don’t want to have to judge a round where I am barely able to flow because of the speed the round is going at. I also want to make sure that both I and your opponents are able to understand your contentions. It’s very time-consuming in crossfires to ask for a summary of your contention(s).
Timing: Please make good use of your time. I would appreciate it if you time yourself. I will be timing, but I think as debaters you need to develop the habit of timing yourself.
Attitude: Please be respectful. I will not tolerate inappropriate language, interruptions, etc., and it would be in your best interest to avoid this. I will dock speaker points if anyone is rude.
Crossfires: In your crossfires, allow your opponents to respond completely and don’t interrupt anyone. Also, please have your cards handy in case your opponents call for a card. It would save a lot of time.
Cherry Picking: Please don’t take a single example and generalize it to the overarching idea. I’ve judged rounds where debaters have done this - for instance, on the PF NSA surveillance topic the privacy vs. security argument - and it’s very messy and hard to judge.
Prep Time: Please don’t take any prep time before your crossfires. I’ll be glad to give it to you any other time, like before rebuttal, summary speech, etc., but I discourage taking any before a crossfire. I am okay with taking either running or set prep.
Technical Difficulties: I like starting as soon as possible, and it would be greatly appreciated if you can resolve any tech issues with your partner/on your own before entering a round.
Speaker Points: I’ll be basing your speaker points on your speed, style, timing, attitude, crossfires, and, of course, the actual content of your speeches.
Clarify any questions you have for me beforehand.
I look forward to judging a clean and interesting round.
This is my first time judging, I judge for the Quarry Lane School. Please be respectful to your opponents during crossfire and please talk clearly and not too fast. I might take light notes but if anything is crucial please emphasize during speeches. Most importantly, have fun!
This is my first time judging. Please be respectful to your opponents, please talk clearly and not too fast. Have fun!
Hello, my name is Anchal! I use she/her pronouns. I have debated policy for three years and PF for a year and a half and Walter Panas High School. I currently attend Rensealer Polityecnic Instuite where I am majoring in Science, Technology, and Society. In college, I have also tutored PF students and helped teach over the summers.
I will be keeping time and I will give you a thumbs up when to start. If you have any evidence you would like to share please send it to: email@example.com
When engaging in the round, make sure that you are impacting your arguments. Your impacts should be emphasized (ensure they are clearly delineated by numbers if you can) and tell me the scope if you can. Slow down if it’s a particularly critical section of your argument so I definitely hear it. Content over style!
Explain the necessary links of how you get from point A to point B as clearly as you can and as time permits. Don’t make any jumps that you can’t back up with evidence or logic. Theory arguments need to be grounded with the topic (tell me why it’s important).
No spreading for the sake of it, although you may speak relatively fast, as long as your speech has structure and can be followed.
If you mention a mechanism, give me at least a little detail on it.
I look for how well you are able to defend your arguments during clashes and refutation.
Weigh your arguments. Your final focus should not just be rebuttal, but a summary of the round. Tell me the important impacts/ weight your arguments, and why your comparative is better. Do not introduce new arguments (although you are allowed to refute).
I'm a fifth year out, am a recent graduate of Fordham University in the Bronx, and am very excited to be judging! I attended Nova High where, senior year, I founded and coached our Lincoln Douglas team, so I have a very extensive, but not completely exhaustive, understanding of LD. I am very well versed in debate events- freshman & sophomore year I competed in congress and junior year in PF. So I'm great at following logic- if you are going to run something tricky I'm totally capable to judge it, just make sure you explain it well.
I'm pretty much open to anything you wanna throw at me. With a few limitations of course. If you are at all sexist, racist, homophobic, or rude to your opponent, expect me to call you out and don't expect speaks higher than 25. I'm fine with speed to an extent- if you want to spread that's completely fine, just don't expect me to get every word down. If it's important, you better bring it up in your later speeches. I love to hear out of the box arguments - in high school, I ran a rage fem K - so I love to hear new and progressive ideas.
I'm sure I left out some things here so I'll be posting updates, but feel free to email me with any questions!
I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.
General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)
Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:
- Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
- Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
- Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
- Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
- Defense is not sticky. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
General Debate Philosophy
I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.
Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of world beyond will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.
Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm
Regarding speaker points:
I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 22 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."
Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.
Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.
In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.
In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.
Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
Regarding the decision (RFD):
I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their respective W or L.
A few exceptions to this rule:
- Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
- Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack didn't happen. It will not go your way.
- Regarding links: I need things to just make sense. Do not use terrible links. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What?” then you have lost me. If using a link chain, link well with appropriate warrants. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.
I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.
I'm not a big fan of theory/kritiks. If it comes up and it's warranted, make sure I know it. But most of the time, I won't be happy that it's happening. I advise against it.
Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.
Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.
I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.
This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.
- No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
Please speak clearly and do not go too fast. I am a parent judge, but I do understand content well as long as it is explained well in all of your speeches.
Please specify your contentions and impacts very clearly in your constructives and make sure to explain the entire argument that you are going for in summary/final focus.
Please do not go for all of your arguments in later speeches. Also, do not make claims without giving a reason as to why it may be true.
Do not make any responses to your opponents’ case if it is not explained properly.
Do not misconstrue your evidence or your speaker points will be deducted.
Have a good round!
I like people debating with solid/strong points supported by the evidence. I would like to see people with passion in their debate, but does not encourage bullying other teams. I look for people making clear/concise statements with clear articulation. I try to be diligent in tracking/flow of contentions and arguments.
All the best!
Lay judge with local experience. Please do not spread.
My name is Prasanna Kumbhare and I am honored to be your judge for this round! I am a flay judge, so I would prefer for the debaters to speak at a slow and understandable pace. At the end of the day, I will be voting for the side that weighs more heavily on the more impactful topic (lives, rights, etc..) Cards should not take more than 1 minute to find. If cards take too long to find, we might as well continue on with the debate. I do care about time, so make sure that you start your last sentence at the beginning of the grace period. However, I will not be timing. I leave that responsibility to yourself and your opponents so that I can worry about the flow. Speaking will affect my decision. The better you speak, the better your chances are for winning the round. And lastly, please at your Final Focus and Summaries weigh as much as possible and give me voters (especially in Final Focus) as it helps me finalize my decision.
Thank you and happy debating! Good luck!
I was a 3 year public forum debater with 4 years of parli experience before that.
I am a flow judge. Tech > Truth.
My pronouns are He/Him. Don't paraphrase or misrepresent evidence. Put me on the email chain.
I would rather you don't do progressive (K's, theories, etc.) because I don't have a lot of experience with it
Don't spread. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist. No slurs. Provide a Trigger Warning if you bring up a sensitive topic
+0.1 speaks if you show a stuffed animal on cam
Hi! I'm Carolyn! I use she/her pronouns
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Paradigm inspired by Kai Daniels, Niko Battle, and Larry Dang
tldr- Tech > Truth. Read whatever you want. When left to my own devices, I lean on my defaults, but prefer to be persuaded on how I should view the debate. CX is binding. Flow-oriented and speed should be dictated by clarity. Ending Speeches: Write My Ballot for Me. Start with overview with offense on top.
LD specific: Did policy debate in high school, so LARP/Policy judging is best. I'm not great for traditional or tricks debates. Most of my policy paradigm should apply. Let me know if you have any questions!
- T > Theory
- fairness is an impact
- will vote on cheap theory shots when dropped unless it's a reverse voting issue
- should be able to run a line between any arg in the 2ar to the 1ar
- Flex prep is okay
- Speaks start at 28.5 and I'll move that up and down. 29+ is reserved for people that I think will break or at least make the bubble.
- Be super clear when reading the plan text
- Don't enjoy affs with a bunch of scenarios that aren't developed
- Affs should have good, well-warranted i/l evidence
- I'm willing to vote on presumption
- Don't enjoy plan flaw debates but willing to vote on it if answered incorrectly
Since I’m not super familiar with the topic, I would advise going a bit slower so I can digest the jargon easier.
- T is about the model of debate. I don't care about in-round abuse.
- competing interps > reasonability 60% of the time
- impact debate > procedurals
- For aff - please have a counterinterp and a clear defense of reasonability. Reasonability is your best friend in t debates in front of me, but winning reasonability is not an autowin. It just lowers your threshold on the standards debate (by how much? you tell me).
- For neg - please have (1) clear impact calc on the standards debate AND (2) a case list. I lean aff on most standards but having those two thing outlined will provide a clear ballot if done well. fx and extra-t are underutilized
- I tend to believe the weakest part of a DA is the internal link(s), so the aff should try to pick at it if true and the neg should be ready to defend it.
- Clear throwaway da's that barely link to the aff will likely cause a slight drop in speaks
- For aff - willing to vote on conceded or solid defense on DA
- For neg - please have offense (i.e turns case). Generics das w/ specific links are great if ran well:)
- Theory can go either way with good ev/better tech/sound education args
- For aff - you should prop ask about judge kick, need to win some offense against the cp AND why that outweighs the net benefit
- For neg - won’t judge kick unless specifically told to (at least by the 2nr). Smart CPs that question/use the aff's mechanism make me :) You should probably have a solvency advocate but don't have a problem with a CP without one unless it's brought up by the aff. Then, both sides have to resolve that.
- Familiar with cap, foucault, antiblackness, queer theory, asian id, and imperialism/set col, but overall have a limited knowledge base of kritiks.
- I tend to vote for k's, because the aff reads generic answers without indicting anything the neg is saying. In general, I think aff teams SHOULD win k debates, since the neg tends to read a bunch of blocks with throwaway jargon words and can't explain the k/alt in CX
- If you can't explain the K in CX in your own words, your speaks will not be great.
- Lean towards aff fw 80% of the time, since most fw debates seem to be a wash anyway. You're not likely going to win that Ks should not be allowed in debate. However, when neg wins fw, all the neg has to do is win a risk of a link
- Both sides but esp the neg need to have historical examples (the more recent the better) that prove their methodology/praxis true. The team with the most convincing real-world examples of their impacts/impact turns/links/link turns is likely going to win the debate.
- For aff - don’t lose your aff (the best form of offense) in most of these debates when you explain why your impacts outweigh or why it's just a good departure from the squo. Don’t be afraid to engage the K and their thesis claims. Please have a coherent strategy. Impact turns are underutilized, but don’t contradict your case. While I don't condone sexism/racism/etc. good, but cap good, fem ir bad, etc is gg. Perm with link turns and alt solvency deficits as net benefits is a cool strat too. Will vote on theoretical voting issues to reject the alt
- For neg - Don't love big overviews. Line by line is key. Ideal: have specific link(s) to the aff, have external impacts for each link, and why each link turns case. At the very least, have a link contextualized to the aff. Find specific lines in the aff. Don’t necessary need to win the alt if the link is debated well enough to be a da on its own. You can kick the alt if you tell me where on the flow you're gonna get offense and win. Treating the K like a da/cp with case push will be rewarded.
Neutral on whether kaffs should get perms and like these debates
- Ending speeches: whoever simplifies the round the best with concrete arguments is likely gonna win the round.
- FW: While I believe "framework makes the game work", I see myself voting against fw because the neg reads a big shell in the 1nc and block and can't write my ballot with clear voters and standards in the 2nr. However, if you're prepared to read framework beyond your blocks, fw is a very powerful argument.
- TVAs: They don't have to solve the aff, but "Carded TVAs with proper extensions are pretty damning for the aff and your good research/engagement will likely be rewarded (either with speaks or the ballot)"- Niko Battle.
- K v K debates are very enjoyable when both teams indict the problematic aspects of the other's scholarship. I genuinely find these debates one of the most educational parts of debate.
For aff - Your aff should have a tie to the topic and a competing model of debate, but what that means is debatable. I should clearly know what the aff is doing by the 2ac, especially if it's based on lit I'm not familiar with. Enjoy k affs w/ a performative aspect. Huge overviews are not ideal. Prefer most work done on the line by line.
- For neg - Please answer the case (don’t need to read cards- analytically poking holes in the aff’s methodology or solvency is great too. I will vote on presumption. Don't be afraid to engage the aff. Also, be creative- in the way Kai Daniels says it: “k affs some of the time can be unfair - so you should be too. read 6 off, 3 counterplans, make them go for condo and then go for t and say it outweighs. read their own cards back at them as piks and take advantage of the fact that they invited a debate that is ~unpredictable~."
I have 8 years experience with WSDC and BP, around 3 coaching and judging PF. I understand all the jargon, so don't hesitate using it.
For PF rounds:
Off-time roadmaps are cool. Honestly anything as long as your speech has some sort of structure.
Enunciate when presenting evidence. Numbers help quantify impacts insofar as the numbers are clear
Logic is the easiest way to win me over, as long as it's paired with evidence
I'd rather you don't spread because it's generally hard to flow that, but if you do, make sure to share your speech doc with me and your opponent. IMO, spreading should be used to fit more material but not to confuse your opponent.
I generally don't love theory arguments, but if you run them, make sure to link them clearly to the motion.
Competed in Public Forum for 4 years and Lincoln Douglas in college for 1 year.
I have not done any prep on the Sept/Oct topic so anything that you read will be new to me.
I am strongly against bringing spreading into the realm of public forum. I am fine with moderate speed. I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. If you want my ballot, you will be better served talking clearly; too much speed will hurt your speaker points.
I do not flow crossfire. Any concessions made during cross need to be brought up in the next speech.
First summary needs to extend defense. Please be sure to extend whatever voters here if you plan on extending them in final focus. Any unextended voters in summery are not guaranteed to be evaluated in final focus. Also, I am not going to do work for you. Please make sure that if you are dropping any arguments or making extensions that you tell here where and when its going to happen.
I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable.
Truth > Tech. I want quantifiable, weighable, terminal impacts. Please make my life easier and don't read cards without warrants and don't ready hypothetical impact scenarios with no concrete warranting behind the impacts.
This covers effectively everything you need to know. Sorry, it’s a bit of a rabbit hole.
Tl;dr — content warnings, collapse and weigh, please collapse and weigh, like actually tho collapse and weigh, warrants > cards
Also, I enjoy things that are silly and funny, but please please please please please be nice (I put five pleases, so at least you know I must be nice too)!
I debated four years of public forum debate in high school for The Altamont School and now do APDA at Brown U.
I consider myself to be a really normal judge and don't have any really interesting demands, but here are some things that can help guide how you take on the round!
1) PRE-FLOW: please preflow before round! I will not let yall do it in the room if the round should have started already.
2) EXPLANATION: contextualize cards; explain why they are important and how they support your point/ interact with your opponents case. not doing this makes it really difficult as a judge to understand how you want the round to play out and usually leads to forced intervention
3) 2ND SPEAKING TEAM: you gotta cover turns in 2nd rebuttal. if you don't cover turns then it is offense for the first speaking team.
4) 1ST SPEAKING TEAM: you can extend defense from first rebuttal to final focus but pls try to have some in first summary. I expect at least some defense in 1st summary, especially since there are 3 minutes for the summary now.
5) WEIGHING: even if something is "clean-dropped" you still need to weigh it. I will have a hard time voting on any argument (no matter how cleanly extended) if I am not sure why it's important.
A)if you are making an argument about harms to countries that are viewed as "developing" by a western hierarchical perspective, or discussing in your case or in weighing, please be respectful and don't make your own uncarded analysis about the struggles these countries have. I would also prefer not to hear weighing analyses about these countries that mention anything about "these countries have so little" etc.
B) if you are running an implementation/process of getting the bill to the public argument, do so at your own risk. I generally do not find these arguments persuasive or topical, and chances are that if your opponent says I should not evaluate those kind of arguments in a debate round I will drop it from my flow. An example of this is "the united states should not pass ____ because it would be torn up in the courts/loaded with riders."
C) if you are running an econ argument, please be sure to explain it really well in extensions in ff and summary. in my experience, econ rounds are the most difficult to judge because of clarity problems in link extensions and warranting, so make sure you spend time explaining it!
7) EXTENSIONS: don't extend through ink. interact with the argument you are responding to and dont just say "my opponents dropped ___" when they really did not. Frequent issues with extensions through ink lead to lower speaker points and a worse round :(
8) EVIDENCE: I will call for cards you tell me to call for if they are highly important to the debate round. I will also call for any card that seems too good to be true. Evidence ethics is very important and I will intervene if I catch faulty evidence
I am a flow judge, but I am "truth over tech," as the phrase seems to be.
I did seven years of middle and high school debate, graduating HS in 2014. As such, I do flow but I dislike spreading and tactics that come from policy. So, if you make an extinction/nuclear war argument or something like it, you'll have to do a lot of convincing for me to buy it, even if your opponents don't spend a huge amount of time on it.
As I said, I do flow, but I also appreciate weighing and detailed explanations of why one argument or piece of evidence preempts our outweighs another. That style of argumentation matters much more to me than simply extending evidence or an argument.
I am a first-year undergraduate student studying at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. I have four years of Public Forum debate experience, participated in major university tournaments every single year in high school. I have various judging experiences in the past year. All in all, I am a flow-judge, and speed is okay with me. Some suggestions are listed below:
1. Do not bring up new points in the final focus... I will not give you any credit for that as it will not appear on my flow sheet.
2. Please please please weigh your impact!!!!!!!
3. If your opponent drops a point/impact/link that you think is important, you better call it out.
4. Make sure to extend your argument throughout the debate to get full credit.
5. If I think a card is too good to be true, I might ask for it at the end of the debate.
6. I am okay with speed, BUT please make your words clear. Also, DON'T SPREAD!
7. Please do not interrupt your opponents during cross-fire...give him/her a chance to finish the response before inserting another question or response.
8. Please reconstruct your argument in the rebuttal.
9. I wouldn't flow crossfire. Therefore, if anything happened in the crossfire that you think is important, such as your opponent making a concession, you need to bring it up in your next immediate speech.
10. If you want me to vote for you, you need to have clear voters and link stories!
11. You have to reconstruct in rebuttal to extend your own argument. Or else I consider that to be dropping your argument.
At the end of the debate, there are three things that I will for sure do: disclosure, round analysis, and personal feedback. Please give me a few minutes at end of the debate to allow me choosing the winning side. During these two minutes I will also call for cards if the round is too close; just want to be careful :)
Hello, I am a parent judge and I have a son who does PF debate. Please don't talk too fast and try to signpost. Make sure you read the dates of your cards and weigh the arguments! Don't speak over your opponents in cross-fire and be respectful. See you soon!
I have been a debater for 8 years and a debate coach for 4 years. Give clear and concise arguments and rebut your opponents directly and exhaustively. Be polite during the round, especially during crossfire :)
Yes on email chain: isaacliu.ludebate [at] gmail.com
Debated 2 years of policy for Liberty University and did LD and PF in high school. I am fine with spreading if clarity is not sacrificed but will default to tournament norms (and there is a chance I will miss arguments if your case is unorganized). Tell me how to vote; I will vote for anything if articulated well, provided it does not cause in-round violence (i.e. arguing for racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.).
I expect you to time yourself and your opponent—I try keep time as well but sometimes forget to start the timer. If you go overtime and I don't catch it and your opponents don't catch it, good for you. If someone points it out, I will dock speaks.
Event-specific things (Skip if policy debate)
Please, please, please don't take too long asking for evidence. If you share evidence in a speech doc like policy does, I will give 0.5 higher speaks (unless the tournament expects everyone to share evidence).
Public forum – full disclosure: my voting record has been favorable to whoever gives the last speech. That doesn't mean always pick second speaker; that means collapse the debate in the final focus and be aware of what your opponents might go for in their final focus. As I believe the second-to-last final focus is inherently more difficult, I will give higher speaks when it is executed well.
I am down with them. I lack familiarity with high-theory post-modernism arguments. I have some familiarity with criticism of anti-blackness and settler colonialism and am quite familiar with kritiks of capitalism and security. Regarding PF and LD, I will default to tournament norms regarding non-traditional affirmatives. For policy, I am 100% down with them, but also find framework persuasive (fairness can be an impact).
More favorable for the affirmative regarding negative counterplans; more favorable for the negative regarding affirmative plans. I tend to find arguments to reject arguments rather than the team more persuasive.
Votes off the flow and how you tell me to vote. Kritiks on the neg or aff* are cool. Don't run abusive affs or neg strats. Spread your heart out*.
*will default to tournament norms for LD and PF
* Multiple years of debate judging experience since 2016. Mostly on PF but also judged Congress and Poly.
* Focused on direct info exchange related to the key issues of the debate subject. Usually reward the team who wins the direct argument on those topics.
* Prefer to have team present in clear and systematic way. Really dislike the info dumping and machine gun style to present the case. IMO. More info doesn't necessarily convince people to agree with your opinion.
I'm currently a university student studying computer science at the University of Toronto. In high school I debated for 4 years, in PF, CNDF, BP, and Worlds style, and I am currently a coach. I have decent experience in judging, having judged at more than 10 competitions so far.
On evidence/logic: I will buy logic over evidence in certain cases, and I'm very sympathetic towards logical analysis due to my background in BP/Worlds. If a logical argument is more substantive and is able to explain why a piece of evidence is reasonably flawed/untrue, I will take the logical analysis. When challenged on statistics, teams should be able to defend their numbers by explaining exactly how those numbers were found or what study produced the numbers. For example, if an increase in the capital gains tax leads to a decrease in the size of an economy by 10%, then a team should know exactly how that 10% was measured, and under what conditions it was measured (if challenged).
On argumentation/structure: I'm very standard on structure. Do all the general things: extend arguments and refutations in summary, and weigh in final focus. I strongly value engagement with arguments: directly respond to arguments and responses, and shift the debate to a scope that better reflects the clashes in the debate. Note that I have zero tolerance for bringing up new material in final focus and I will immediately drop teams that do this. I give lots of credit to teams that can weigh effectively, and paint me a clear picture of exactly what their world would look like vs the world of the other team, and characterize the harms on either side. I strongly believe that a team doesn't have to win every single argument in the debate in order to win the round.
Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, but I will try to remember what was said. If you want me to flow something that transpired in crossfire please mention it during the speech. Example: "during crossfire, our opponent conceded that... "
In general: Treat me as a standard flow judge, but one that accepts logical argumentation and considers it strongly. I am generally non-interventionist in rounds, so I don't have exact speed preferences as I believe that there are times for both fast speaking and slow speaking. Please adjust to your discretion and what you deem to be most effective.
I'm a parent judge who observed over 44 hours of PF training when I administrated those training courses. I judged for CNDF, BP, and PF tournaments at the local, national, and international levels. I started judging at the CNDF tournaments three years ago, and have served as a volunteer judge at PF tournaments within half a year.
No spreading, please. Clarity and logical analysis work better for me. Since the debate is an exercise for critical thinking, I would be happy to learn from you what the fundamental issues/questions should be solved in this motion/resolution.
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.
Former PF debater 2018-2020, LD debate middle school - 2018.
Don't run progressive args in PF. Fast speaking is okay, probably can't handle spreading over zoom. Any other questions ask before round.
PF - I don't mind speed as long as it is clear and proper enunciation. I judge based on how good you make your case, with logic and good evidence and relevancy. How well you do during your rebuttal and how well you do in crossfire and your closing argument. If it come down to a tie, then I will weigh your speaking ability in tone, volume, delivery and clarity.
Please do not spread. Lay judge.
Please do not spread. Lay judge.
I have been judging Public Forum debate tournaments since fall of 2020.
I look for clarity, consistency and quality of delivery. Please try not to speak too fast so it is easier to follow. It is important to be respectful to your opponents. Also, please explain your arguments in plain terms.
Please ensure your data and stats are factual and supported by credible sources.
Finally, don't forget to have fun!
Thank you and good luck!
Make sure you are timing yourself while saying your speech.
Be clear and don't speak too fast.
When someone calls for a card, make sure they receive it.
Lastly, have fun!
This is my first time judging. Please speak clearly and slowly.
Thank You and Good Luck!
Not best judge for theory
The framework debate should be prioritized in EVERY SPEECH. I prioritize persuasion, TRUTH over TECH, and clarity.
Criteria for high speaks: Your arguments are supported by specific evidence and I am able to follow your arguments THROUGHOUT the round (obviously, the winner will get the higher speaker point. I rarely give low point wins.)
Read the policy section. It applies to LD as well.
1. Whether the politic you're endorsing is institutional or communal, please show up with a method that makes sense and works
- you cant just put a bunch of kritikal literature in an aff, say the world sucks, and be like "at least the conversation is good" OR throw me a whole bunch of inherency about pollution in the South China Sea with one solvency card from a Huffington Post article
- I personally have done more K debate but I also admire the style of traditional debates: state action, counterplans, disads, give me all of it. I'll bump your speaks if you read a disad with a terminal impact that isn't nuclear war or extinction lmao
2. If you're going to go for discourse as an impact/voter, tell me how the discourse you provide affects the demographic for which you are advocating and
- In other words, what does "burning it down",or "the libidinal economy", or "post-metaphysical dynamics" mean for shorty in line at the welfare office? What about that white dude in the coal mine in Arkansas?
3. Cross Ex is binding, say it wit' ya chest.
A hack for my ballet: The more simple the better. Aff should do something and the ideal neg strategy should be some case specific case turns coupled with a kritik or counterplan
- I've done PF at several national and local tournaments
- Keep in mind that public forum debate serves to communicate complex messages with public forums so your discussion should ALWAYS sound/seem accessible to those who don't debate. No super special language, arguments about what should be"common sense/knowledge", or bad attitudes.
Quick questions and stuff: email@example.com with the subject line "DEBATE JUDGING"
I'm new to debate judging. Please speak clearly and not too fast - focusing on speaking skills/communication and the strength of your arguments rather than procedures. And please be respectful of each other during your debate.
Parli/POFO: Just ask me in round, I don't have much to say about either of these even though I did them the most. Basic things are: I like signposting, impact calc, plans/cps, coherent policy solutions, and mutual respect. Things I don't like: K's (never ever ever ever run a K in parli with me, if you do, it's a guaranteed loss.) Seriously, I will mark the ballot for the other team the second I hear one. theory, and PICs.
LD: Here are some basic things that I want to see/ don't want to see. But first, my philosphy as a judge. I am a policy making judge plain and simple. Take that as you will. If you think that your out of the box policy solution will work, then by all means run it. If you can convince me, past my better judgement, that nuking China will provide solvency, then you kind of deserve to win. I have been convinced by things like that, and I've run them myself. NO K's. Not now, not ever. You don't need to run a K if your opponent is being racist, I can probably tell. Just make sure to make it known how you feel, and I will weigh that. It doesn't need to be a completely formal arg. Theory is ok if you know how to do it. It's unlikely that it'll be weighed heavily on my ballot. Not a flow judge. I flow, but it isn't a huge part of my ballot. Just make sure to sign post and do some impact calc. If you do no impact calc, I'll go with whatever the most likely impact is, not the greatest magntitude. Please do some clear values and criterion, they're important.
I don’t like progressive debate (I won’t drop someone on this alone, but you run a severe risk with me if you choose to go off the rails.)
I do like traditional debate (take that as you will) and policy making. I’m a policy making judge and nothing would make me happier than if you accommodate. I do have a stomach for outlandish policy if you can prove to me it’s the most advantageous vote in your specific round. Want to nuke the moon? Fine, just prove to me that it is the best option in THIS round.
I DON’T LIKE K’s AND I WON’T WEIGH THEM
I do like proper decorum. Adjust to your round though if it’s an outlandish topic, I will be more inclined to accept outlandish behavior in those situations. In fact, I’d prefer it. Keep it respectful and NEVER get personal or even give the impression of a personal issue being formed. All debate happens in hypothetical spaces, keep that in mind if you start to feel strongly during a round.
If you have any questions after a round or if you want to threaten me after I drop you, email me. firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated for Western Highschool for 4 years, all of which in Public Forum (2013-2017).
I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida.
Currently, working on my Master's degree at Georgetown University.
a couple of things:
- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow
- First summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.
- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically. I'll probably be on Facebook.
- 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.
-any other questions ask me before the round
SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS
"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."
***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***
I do not have a whole lot of experience in debate outside my own debate events when in college/school. I have judged a few events recently.
-- Expect all arguments to be backed by facts and evidence
-- Energy and enthusiasm go a long way
-- Love novel arguments on mundane facts or similar facts used by most speakers
-- appreciate answers to all parts of questions in cross questioning by opposing team
-- Be Respectful and encouraging even in counter arguments
This is the first time I will be a judge for PF. I am looking forward to good organization, analysis, and a clear way to evaluate the debate. Professionally I am an engineer and will focus on the evidence and how it’s presented. It will be difficult for me to follow if the speed is too fast and the content is not articulated.
It’s a privilege to judge the students in the speech and debate team.
I like the topic pro/con laid out for me in simple, easy-to-follow terms, minus the debate-format-specific jargon as much as possible. Then I like the sides' outline of their cases and their attendant arguments concise and easy-to-follow. I do not like overly combative teams who interrupt and needlessly complicate proceedings. I frown on obscure or irrelevant evidence that gums up the flow of the round by creating controversy. I like crossfire rebuttals and final summaries to be on-point and delivered with a minimum of hyperbole. I do not give style points unless a speaker's style makes it easy for me to follow the reasoning. The final speakers for both sides should argue why their team won the round.
Qualifications: I competed in speech and debate tournaments for five consecutive years throughout all of high school. Most of my debate experience comes from public forum and I have extensive judging experience as well.
- I am fine with speed, but please talk clearly. If I cannot understand you, what you say will not appear on my flow.
- Organization is important. If you are organized, I will be able to connect your speeches throughout my flow better and (hopefully) end up voting for your team. Be especially clear with taglines.
- Weigh the impacts and clearly tell me why you win. If you don't, I will end up having to put my input into the vote.
- Impacts are important. Even if you have a clear claim and warrant, nothing will count unless you have an impact as a result of that. I will most likely vote based on your impacts and voters, so make sure they are clear and strong.
- Warrants are important. If you have an impact but no clear warrant or link to the resolution, I will not vote for it.
- Be sure your arguments are backed up by evidence. The better your arguments are backed up, the stronger it will be.
- I do not flow during crossfire. If anything important comes up during crossfire, be sure to mention that within your speeches if you want that to go on my flow.
Any clarifying questions about my paradigm can be asked before the round starts or to email@example.com.
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.
As a judge, it is my priority to create a safe space for speakers to grow and to have fun.
I have been in debating game for 6 years now as a speaker and judge. I have coached a provincial team and currently the shadow coach for the South African national team.
Things I like to see in speeches are a well understanding of the motion, strategic awareness and being able to adapt your case and responses to what is most contentious in the debate.
Hi there! I am a parent judge and this will be the first time judging public forum debate format. I am aware of incredible time & effort debaters put in for preparation and how much they value and look for judge's feedback. I would like to be fair in judging and would suggest following,
1. Speak Clear,loud, confident and concise.
2. Speed - normal/medium pace. No spreading.
3. Please do not bring up new arguments in Summary and Final Focus. Extend your arguments and collapse in Summary and FF.
4. Do not personally attack or use offensive language towards your opponent. I expect this to be a sportive and enjoyable experience.
5. Stick to the time limits.
6. I expect clear evidence and warranting when supporting arguments.
7. Voters - If you want me to vote for you, please make it clear what arguments you are winning on.
Good Luck !
I am a parent judge with limited experience, so please convince me why you win using ordinary terms. I do not understand debate jargons
I did a variety of debate in high school, and did a small amount of parli in university. I currently coach PF debate.
I am basically open to any type of argumentation, from extremely standard debate to perfomace kritiks and beyond. However, I will need you to fully explain arguments in a clear way for me to accept them. I know just as little about West Africa (or what ever the current topic is at the time of your reading this) as I do the intricacies of a specific critical theory argument, so clear explanation is key.
Although I was better with speed while I was debating, my ability to comprehend spreading has definitely gotten rusty. If you do go fast, emphasize key warrants and tags so that they stand out. Unfortunately, if you go extremely fast you will probably lose me.
Please be decent and kind.
My name is Hugo and I’ve been a lay judge for hire for 3 years. I do not have any experience competing as a speaker/debater. Please do not spread or I won’t be able to keep up. Speaking quickly is alright though, but if I can't follow along then I might miss the main point of an argument. Assume I know nothing of the subject. Good luck young debaters.
I am a university student studying Criminology at Simon Fraser University.
Tips on receiving higher points:
1. Please speak SLOW and CLEAR. Because we are having our tournament online, it is very hard for others to comprehend what you are trying to say. If I don't catch your words clear enough, you will end up losing a few points.
2. Please send me your case beforehand so I can follow along. This will give you an advantage during the tournament. Please send them to firstname.lastname@example.org .
3. Once you enter the conference call, please turn ON your video and audio.
Not Do's :
*** Do not yell into the microphone. If you speak too loud, it's going to sound like you are mumbling. If you speak too quietly, no one will hear you!! ***
Lastly, Have Fun:)
Hey everyone, this is my first time judging.
I will be happy to judge for the third time this season. The following are my priorities while judging. My preferred rate on delivery is typical conversational speed with the intent to communicate arguments effectively. The decision on the winner of the round is based on the strengths of the key arguments put forward and on persuasiveness of the overall position. I highly value the use of well documented analytical and empirical evidences coming from various credible sources. During the round, I keep a detailed flow and underline the key arguments of each debater's case. Overall, I value a cordial debate atmosphere based on the desire to advance ideas put forward. Finally, I have great admiration for every single debater's enthusiasm in discussing challenging concepts.
My mic and camera will both be off -- I pulled out my wisdom teeth on February 2nd and I am not allowed to speak or smile until February 10th. I will be overdosed with painkillers because the pain gets worse every day :)) If anyone asks me questions before the round, I will try to answer that in the email chain. Please read this paradigm carefully before so that we don't have delays. Assume that I will always be ready.
I try not to be lazy but just in case I am, disclose your case to me at email@example.com before the round actually starts. That's right -- add me to the email chains while you're at it!
can handle up to 200 words per minute cuz you never know when my wifi will crash <3 , please send me your speech docs if you are planning to spread over my limit
I know the online experience is quite different. If you have any technical difficulties hearing the other side please do not be afraid to intervene in the round by saying "clear".
I don't care if your camera is off or not
Please try to wear headphones so that no one is echos in the debate round -- my personal pet peeve!
My debate terminology is a little rusty
I don't think I have time to disclose because I do type relatively slowly than other people my age to write the online ballot (can't speak either, refer to the "IMPORTANT" section) which is sad because usually I do and I personally think it's mean to keep results secret
I do know the urbanization topic dw
I'm mostly tech>truth, so make sure to call out sus cards in front of me (I will call for cards if this is notably important)
If you're saying something problematic, I automatically give you a 20 on speaker points
If you're rude and not professional, I deduct 1 speaker point every second you keep up the attitude until it reaches 20
If it takes you more than 5 minutes to get the card, you don't have the card
Preferably time yourselves, but don't abuse this
I will keep track of prep though, seen too many debaters tryna pull a fast one on me
Much as I like double drop theory for the entertainment factor, do not run this as the ballot doesn't allow me to do so
extend in SS to be considered in FF I will not extend for u
impact weighing is a must for me in FF, weighing in summary is not required --> if you don't weigh, don't expect to win the round
please do the work for me. I do not like to build bridges or connect messy points together to flesh out what happened in the round nor like to artificially make clashes for debaters
I know that even the smallest speak differences break your chances of even being in the top decile or even quartile, so I will be nice!
If you make me laugh, you get an automatic +0.5
+0.25 for a pun attempt, +0.5 for a good pun attempt (my definition of good is skewed quite subjective)
+0.5 for a NCT reference
debated for a fat bit in hs
i will flow
extend links and impacts
speed threshold ~200 wpm if more then send a doc
frontline in second rebuttal
read content warnings
please weigh - that includes links and impacts
Don't be racist, transphobic, homophobic, sexist, ableist, or exclusive in any way please or we will not b having a good time and i will drop u
ask me for any specifics
also gabe rusk's paradigm is v good use that one
or kyle kishimoto's that one's also v good
In high school, I debated four years in Public Forum in high school at Green Valley (2013-2017), and I have extensive experience and preference for national circuit PF.
In college, I have experience on the NPDA/NPTE parli circuit as well as the NFA LD circuit. As a college debater, I ran mostly kritikal positions, but due to my background in PF I’m pretty comfortable with any style of argumentation. I believe it is my role as a critic to adapt to the debaters in the room, and I encourage debaters I judge to read any arguments they enjoy and debate how they want to debate
***For online debate, please add me to the email chain. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org. I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.
- Fine with most DAs. If reading any politics DAs, I think link specificity to the affirmative is key as opposed to generic Link evidence.
- Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the direction of your DA.
- For affirmative teams, I think a combination of terminal defense and offensive arguments is best when answering DAs and I would have a relatively high threshold to vote only on terminal defense
- I’m fine with Kritikal affirmatives, however, I am also happy to vote on framework. TVA’s are pretty important to me and should be an integral part of any negative strategy, and, conversely, I think the affirmative should have a clear explanation why there’s no possible topical version of their aff. I generally prefer Affs that are in the direction of the topic, but this will not impact my decision if clear framing arguments are presented otherwise. I also am generally persuaded by the argument that the affirmative should not get a permutation in a methods debate, but am open to arguments otherwise.
- I’m fine with most counter plans although I am of the belief that the CP should have a solvency advocate
- I default to the belief that counterplans should be both functionally and textually competitive with the AFF.
- I default to perms are test of competition not advocacies
- I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates and default to competing interpretations and drop the debater on theory. I generally want clear explanations of in round abuse as opposed to potential abuse.
- I generally don’t like frivolous theory, but I’m happy to vote on any argument that was not properly answered in the debate.
- I generally think RVIs are bad in most debate forms, but I do acknowledge the unique time constraints of high school LD so I would vote off of this argument if well warranted.
- I take a tabula rasa approach to judging. I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. I'll pick up the worse argument if it's won on the flow. I recognize a certain degree of judge intervention is inevitable so here is generally how I prioritize arguments in order. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link, conceded arguments, and absent explicit weighing I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.
-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc. Cutting cards encourages good research skills and prevents egregious miscutting of evidence.
-Please extend author last name and year in the back half of the round. It makes it difficult to flow if you are not properly extending evidence. With that said, I strongly value evidence comparison
- In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and I'm open to newish responses in summary and final focus to these arguments if I deem they were unintelligible in their first reading
- Please collapse
- Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus
- Speak as fast as you want. I will yell clear if I can't flow what you are saying
- Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round
Theory and Procedurals
- I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates, and am more than happy to vote on procedural or theory arguments in public forum.
- I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, but I'm open to arguments on both sides.
- I think theory arguments are theoretically legitimate and should play a role in public forum debate. As such, I have a high threshold for voting on "theory bad for public forum debate" arguments.
- While I am sympathetic to debaters who do not know how to respond to theory arguments in public forum, I encourage debaters to seek online resources, or reach out to myself or others at tournaments for a further discussion as to how to handle these arguments.
-You are welcome to ask questions after the round, and I think it's a constructive part of debate. Please note, I will not tolerate disrespect and if you become hostile to the point where you're not seeking constructive feedback I reserve the right to lower speaker points after the round
Lay judge with limited local experience. Please do not spread.
I have been debating for 8 years using the British Parliamentary and Asian Parliamentary format but I have experienced judging in the Public Forum format as well both in training and in tournaments.
I would like to see speeches that weigh arguments and rebuttals in the round as opposed to building arguments alone with comparisons. Explicitly telling me the significance of your argument and evidence compared to your opponents' is preferred as well!
I am not an experienced PF judge. I am mostly a lay judge meaning that eloquence and speaking skill will have as much of an effect as your evidence, though if it comes down to it, evidence will have a bigger impact.
I may or may not flow, but please go in order. I will look for who has won arguments-wise, or I will go by who has better proved the standard (based on who has provided one). I will particularly be looking at weighing impacts. Personally, I find weighing impact super important, so please do that. My expectation for each part of the debate has been posted below
First Speaker Speech
- Pretty Standard, I'd rather you not spread.
- You have fifteen seconds to finish your speech after your time is up
- Ask actual questions
- If your question is related to cards or sources, just check the card in Prep, don't ask them to read it out loud.
- 3 minutes long
- I will pay special attention to this speech; use it well!!!
- Weigh, Weigh, and Weigh! If your opponents don't weigh, and you do weigh, you will automatically be put up in my decision making for the round.
- 2 minutes long
- Anything you mention in this speech I will consider in my decision, so if you had something important, bring it up again here
- Like summary, Weigh!!!
- This will be the most important speech for me.
- 3 minutes
- You can ask for cards here
- If I find your sources fishy or suspicious, I will check them
- If I catch you with fake sources, you will lose the round
- Don't search anything up during the debate
- Don't make things up during the debate
Speaker Points / Cheating
- Being formal and good etiquette will win you some speaker points
- If you get heating up or start yelling you will lose speaker points
- There is a fine line between provoking and straight-up bullying
- If you cheat in any way, You will get a significant deduction in speaker points.
- I will not tolerate, sexual, racial, or offensive statements of any manner.
- Any offensive comments will not only cause you to lose the round, but I will also report you to the tournament officials or tabroom.
Good luck with it and have fun with the debate!
*Any other information I bring up at the start of the debate is included in my paradigm.
- In high school, I debated for around 3 years. I mainly competed in public forum as well as public speaking and I have been judging for about 1-2 years.
- Currently, I attend the University of Toronto.
- Email me at email@example.com if you have any questions.
- I do not mind if you spread as long as it is clearly understood. However, if your speech cannot be understood, I will not flow.
- Please state your taglines for each contention clearly.
- For each contention, please make sure that it is organized. This means that there should be claim, warrant, and impact. These need to be backed up with evidence. However, I will consider logic as well (with evidence, of course).
- Please weigh your impacts and state why you win. Voters are good.
- I don't flow crossfire, so if you think that I should flow the things mentioned in crossfire, make sure you include it during your speeches. Ex. "During crossfire, ..."
- I do consider your speaking styles as well. It will not be a deciding factor when I am choosing the winners but it will definitely be a factor I consider.
- Finally, be respectful!
I am a new parent judge. Don't spread. I probably won't hear all your points. You can talk faster than normal, but not super fast. Racist or sexist behavior or generally disrespectful behavior towards me or any participant is a good way to ensure you lose speaker points and possibly my ballot. Signposting will lead towards my rating your performance more strongly. I will do my best to flow. No new contentions in rebuttals or last speeches will be given credit, but it is good/helpful if the other team points out any such new arguments if they have another speaking opportunity. Once your time is up finish any last sentence and stop. I will either not flow after the timer and/or ask you to stop.
PF: If allowed, I would appreciate your sending me your first speech in advance or in the chat prior to the start. I would like to be on any email chain: rosannepark at protonmail dot com.
Parli: I do not know much about how K's are used. Use Points of Information only if you have true questions or need clarifications. Don't use them repeatedly just as a tactic to throw off the concentration or flow of an opponent. I am ok with tag teaming.
St. Vincent de Paul ‘16
I like to be on the email chain :)- firstname.lastname@example.org
* NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS YEARS TOPIC*
Be Nice, Be Funny, Have Fun.
I debated four years at St. Vincent de Paul, I was more on the kritikal side reading a lot of Fem on the AFF.
Overall: I was a 1A. I Don't know a lot about the resolution, so you can totally shape how I view the resolution. But, don’t leave me in the dust; you’re going to have to do some extra explaining. I am not a judge that will do any work for you. Explain every link, impact, interpretation, ect.
Speed: It’s cool with me
Kritiks: I was introduced to Kritiks early on in my debate career and I like them a lot. All my affirmatives were k-affs and our 1NCs were always kritik. However don’t assume I’ve read of bunch of K literature. Explain you’re argument and explain your link. Don’t hide behind big words and power tags. Will vote on a K, but you must explain it clearly throughout the debate.
Framework: I don't believe fw should be the go-to strategy against K-Affs.By all means, include it in the 1NC to figure out ground and the boundaries of the aff. If the aff is abusive and you honestly think it should be excluded from the debate space, go for it. Paint the picture of a world of your Framework and which affirmatives should be included/ excluded.
Case: I think people completely undervalue the case debate. Spend more time on this, it'll help both sides in cross applications onto off-case arguments. Case clash is rad, Case Turns are also cool.
Disads/Counterplans: Run them, but be clear. They get super technical and so make sure you explain everything, don’t assume I know what’s going on in the world. Make sure they apply to the aff and you have good evidence. Don’t forget the perm. I'm open to all Counterplans and Disads.
Topicality: This can be helpful in policy and kritikal debates.. I default to counter interpretations so make sure your interpretation is damn good if you decide to go for it. More importantly, prove that the other team's interpretation is worse. What would the resolution look like under their interpretation compared to yours? Make sure to explain the impacts.
Theory: Read it when applicable, DONT BE CRAZY. If the argument is farfetched I’m probably not going to vote for it. But if someone is running a bunch of conditional advocacies, you should run condo. Edit you’re blocks for the round, otherwise my flow just becomes a cluster of irrelevant arguments.
Clearly explain the impacts of your contentions, and the internal links within them; the less work I have to do filling in the blanks for your case, the more likely you are to win. I can handle speed as long as you aren't spreading. Use your summary and final focus to explain to me why your side is winning the debate, don't just use them as extra rebuttal speeches (if I have to go all the way back to both team's constructives to decide who's winning because rebuttal, summary, and final focus didn't make it clear enough, there's a lot more room for me to think you out of a win). If you don't extend an argument through summary and bring it back up in final focus, I miiiiiight weigh it but even if I do I'm going to weigh it less heavily than if you extended it through summary and final focus. At least frontline responses to turns in second rebuttal. If you want something from crossfire on the flow, mention it in a speech. Mostly did Congress and Parli in high school (with some LD, briefly), some British Parliamentary in university (don't ask), and I've been coaching Public Forum for a few years now. Speed is fine (make sure to really clearly enunciate names; I can generally figure out a somewhat unclear word, but if the name isn't clear I don't just know all of the names it could have been). Academic background in economics and astronomy (gonna guess one of those is more likely to come up). Fine with K's. Tech over truth. If your off-time roadmap is much longer than "our case then their case" (for example I don't actually care on order) I'm going to be annoyed. Will you a lose a round off of me being kind of annoyed? Unlikely (if the round is so close that me being minorly annoyed actually affects the outcome some strange things have happened). Will you get lower speaks? Yeah probably. I don't need to know everything you're about to do I just need to know which sheet to start on.
I am a parent judge. This is my first time judging public forum debate.
This is my 3rd year as a parent debate judge.
I appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.
I reward speakers - w/ higher points - who make a presentation effort - (eye contact, slowing down on impact work, grouping & weighing in final speeches vs. a line by line, some humor if you're actually funny) but will give high speaks to other kinds of debaters too.
Do not talk over your opponent. Follow up questions can be useful, but be courteous to your opponents' need to question you. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.sesss Dddt
I am a fair open-minded judge who is able to discern a good argument, and have on many occasions awarded the debate win to a contention I do not personally agree with. A debate should be decided on who was more convincing regardless of the judges personal views. It is important I can understand you so that I can effectively judge your argument against your opponent, so speed is not as important as being articulate.
I believe that an argument should be well thought out, well structured, and cogent. I do prefer a fairly bullet-proof framework on which to hang the contentions and I am open to theoretical foundations once that framework has been articulated and defined, but ultimately a contention supported by facts and figures is more convincing as it is more quantifiable and less subjective.
I like to see debaters who challenge their opponents on their points with a crafty and well-timed rebuttals, in other words, able to think on their feet. I listen, take copious notes, and when I give my decision, I clearly state why I picked one side over the other.
I am a parent judge. I value the following:
- Clear articulation of points (if you talk too fast for me to understand it will not help you)
- Well-structured cases and arguments (going point by point and explaining how your point relates to your opponent’s arguments will help)
- Appropriate use of statistics (numbers are important but the statistics should actually prove the point you are making
- Presentation (debaters that shout or don’t modulate their voices will not be scored as highly)
Hello. I am a lay/parent judge, although I have a bit of experience judging. I will not write down arguments so if you want something to stick in my head, be sure to repeat it each speech. I will not tolerate any vulgar language or actions in-round. I would prefer it if you speak at a talking pace. I wish all teams luck in the round and if you have any questions, please feel free to let me know in-round. Send any evidence asked for in chat.
I did 2 years of circuit debate pretty competitively.
I try to be flow, only two things kinda different about me:
1. Terminal defense exists to infinity. If you never frontline an argument your opponents defensive ink still exists on my flow. Them not extending responses is not an excuse. Extensions of terminal defense are never necessary, just appreciated. You will never win an argument if defense against it is dropped.
2. I care more about warrants than impacts. Weighing an impact is irrelevant at the point that you do not win the links into the impact. If there is clash at the warrant level make sure to weigh links and actually explain to me why your warrant should be preferred to that of your opponents.
I'll evaluate any claim backed up in evidence or logic, run crazy shit, it's fun
Hi I'm Swapna! I'm a university debater with 5 years of experience in British, Australian, and Asian Parliamentary but I'm relatively new to PF
Off-time roadmaps are cool. Honestly anything as long as your speech has some sort of structure.
Enunciate when presenting evidence. Numbers help quantify impacts insofar as the numbers are clear. Im fine with speed but make sure that you're still speaking as clearly as possible. This means enunciating as much as possible which is especially important during an online tournament.
I understand that cards are an important part of PF style debate but please state clearly what evidence you got from what source, not just throwing names around. This helps me take clearer notes.
Please make sure you are weighing your impact versus the other side throughout the entire round.
Elkins '20 | TAMU
messenger is preferred
i did PF for 4 years throughout the texas circuit
- Debate is a game. I consider myself to be tech > truth. I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact
- Speed: go as fast as you want but provide a speech doc and go slow on tags if you are faster than what is considered normal for the activity. I’ll yell clear once and allow anyone in the round to call it whenever. Just keep in mind the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something or lag behind so do it at your own risk.
- Signposting and weighing are essential
- I’m fine with flex prep and open cross
- I won’t say that I will not evaluate any any Ks, theory, or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF, but I am incredibly uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these. The only exception is offensive overviews or DA’s in second rebuttal, don’t
- I won’t require you to frontline in second rebuttal, anything not responded to is conceded
- Any defense that you concede to should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was read
o A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with tour argument not just “we concede to the delinks”
- Turns conceded in second rebuttal or first summary have a 100% probability and can only be beaten back by outweighing them
- Caveat on turns. I believe that if you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
- Case offense/ turns need to be extended by author name or source otherwise I will not extend it for you
o do- “extend jones who writes that extensions like these are good because they are easier to follow”
o don't do “remember we tell you extensions like these are good”
- For an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
- New evidence is only fine for frontlining in first summary, defense must be extended since they 3 mins
- For FF, a good friend told me it should include everything you tell your friends/teammates after the round is over. Write my ballot for me.
- Weighing must be made before final focus, the only type of new weighing allowed is responding to it from second summary, second summary is last chance to weigh. Personally I think link weighing is more convincing than impact weighing.
- I do not think weighing is essential in winning my ballot but it definitely helps
- For FF extensions I don’t have a high threshold, all I need is your explanation of your link story and its impact.
- Evidence, I will only call for it if someone in the round explicitly tells me to. I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage. You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked (exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it)
- Speaks, I will reward them based on strategy and decorum
- Cross, it is binding and I will pay attention any crucial point has to be brought up in a speech for me to evaluate it
- Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading (includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices)
- Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/xenophobic and all those ists
- Read a K-style argument dealing with identity when you aren’t a member of that group.
o i.e- dont read a fem K if you’re a male male team and ESPECIALLY dont read it on females if you’re a male male team, that is just trivializing the argument
- having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech
I have many years of experience as both a debater and judge in both high school and college competitions.
Speed is fine as long as you are understandable. Please weigh arguments and explain why you should win the round.
Speak clearly and be persuasive. Be polite and respectful at all times.
I participated in four years of policy debate in high school and I debated four years at Western Kentucky University.
I am open to anything and I try to be as tab as possible. Just use warrants in your argumentation, even if it is theory. If an argument has absolutely no warrant and is just a claim, there is a chance I still won't vote on it even if it is 100% conceded. That is to say, if you just say conditionality is bad because of fairness and education, that is a series of claims without warrants, and thus is unpersuasive even if the other team doesn't address it. However, if a poorly warranted claim goes conceded, then I will not necessarily adjudicate the strength of the warrant as it is the other team's obligation to defeat this warrant, and as such I will take the warrant as true unless it is unintelligible or utterly absurd. I will default as a policymaker if you don't put me in a competing paradigm.
When adjudicating competing claims, it is my hope that debaters will engage in evidence comparison. However, if two contradictory claims are made, and no one weighs the strength of the internal warrants of the evidence, then I will likely call for the evidence to adjudicate which claim is more strongly warranted (assuming the argument may be part of my reason for decision). Same goes with topicality. I am 50/50 in voting for topicality, and I default competing interpretations.
If you are running critical/performance arguments, please be familiar with the argument and able to intellectually defend it. My personal preference when I debate is usually policy-oriented discussions and my personal bias is that switch-side policy debate is good, but I don't let this inform my decision in the round. At the same time, I think that non-traditional forms of debate are an important component of the community and have an important message to broadcast, and as such, I have voted for performance affs in the past.
The following is a preference and not a requirement. It is common for me to judge teams running non-traditional forms of arguments and personally be unfamiliar with the literature base. Thus, it is probably in your interest to ask if I'm familiar with a non-traditional argument prior to the round unless you plan to explain it extensively in the round. An argument is inherently less persuasive when the messenger also does not fully understand it, and the debate is probably less educational for everyone involved as a result. In general, I think you should be familiar with any argument you read before you deploy it in-round, but I've found this is more frequently an issue when high school debaters deploy the critical literature base. If I don't think you are familiar with your argument, I won't hold it against you in my RFD (although it will inform my speaker points), but it will probably influence whether you are able to effectively deploy the argument on the flow, where I will vote.
Finally, you should tell me explicitly how the RFD should be written if you win so I can understand your vision of the round. If you do not have ballot directing language, I will use my own judgment to write the RFD, so it is in your interest to write the RFD for me.
I debated PF for 4 years on the national circuit. While I am a "flow judge" and can handle speed, I would discourage you from spreading if it sacrifices your clarity.
Couple things to consider when having me as a judge:
1. All arguments that you want me to evaluate in the round should be in summary and final focus, although I'm okay with first speaking teams extending defense from rebuttal to FF.
2. Collapsing is crucial. Pick and choose which arguments you want to go for; PLEASE do not go for everything in your case. The ability to collapse on 1 or 2 arguments will automatically boost your speaks for me.
3. This goes hand in hand with collapsing: please weigh your arguments. If you don't, I'll unfortunately be forced to do it myself which may or may not work out the way you would like.
Overall the key to winning my ballot is making the round as EASY AS POSSIBLE for me to evaluate. As the judge I want to do as little thinking as possible, so if you want to explain your arguments to me like I'm 5 years old, I'm game. The best way you can do this for me is with a clear and consistent narrative presented throughout the round. I will always weigh a long, well warranted, analytical response more heavily than a card dump. More often than not, if you just logically make more sense than your opponents, you will win my ballot.
-I hate wasted time in rounds where teams take 10+ minutes outside of their prep time trading evidence.
-If both teams are chill with it we can skip grand crossfire.
-I will never call for cards. If you have an issue with a card, bring it up in your speech.
-I don't vote for anything said in crossfire, if its important, bring it up in your speech.
Software Engineer for the last 20 years.
This is the first time that I've judged this event, and I am new to judging. Please keep your delivery slow and clear, otherwise I will not make notes. Please provide a clear roadmap, do not spread and always make sure to signpost. Thank you!
I am a parent judge and this will be my first year judging a debate competition.
- Please do not spread.
- I don't understand debate jargons and I will only go by the clarity of the arguments presented and the rebuttal provided.
- Please keep track of time.
- Be respectful and have fun.
This is my third year judging Public Forum Debate. I understand spreading and progressive arguments.
The winner will be decided based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account your pace and organization of the speech. Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you are clear, keeping in mind the time.
I do not like students who read off of their laptops. I prefer eye-to-eye contact which exhibits confidence while speaking/ debating. I am very keen on Cross-Examination and you will score higher speaker points if you are effective in cross -ex and give proper rebuttals.
Additionally, good evidence comparison is key but also focus on extending your case as well.
Overall, have fun, and try to do your best! Good luck with your debate!!!
I don't find very quick information dumps, long cards, and short-hand, card-focused techniques persuasive. I would like to hear a brief explanation of the evidence used and why you used them and how they are helpful in proving your point. Cards are good, but they are not a substitute for explaining your own reasoning and analysis.Overall participation is key, and I will be paying attention to the most detailed questions in cross-examination.
would like to hear you explain the central, salient tensions in your round and why you won them.
she/her. You can call me Carla, "judge" is tacky. Yes, email chain: email@example.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 01/09/21:
I've judged about 20 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 am brand new to debate judging and debate. I want simple and clear presentations that do not use a lot of jargon. I will expect students to time themselves and help with administrative needs. I expect evidence-backed arguments so might call to see the background information. I worked in management consulting for many years, and am a professional investor so expect the quantitative aspects to be solid and qualitative aspects to be comprehensive. I do not want rushed presentations that are hard to follow so please slow down and be as clear as possible.
I am brand new to debate and debate judging. I will be looking for simple and clear explanations, without too much jargon around the topic or debate jargon. I have a long professional career evaluating ideas, strategies, and speakers so am familiar with evaluating information verbally. I want arguments that are fundamentally strong and strategic but also use compelling evidence that is well-presented. I expect the teams to be polite and civil to one another, and to be respectful in their language and analysis around the subject. I will ask the students to keep time for themselves and help me with any other administrative issues around format.
I am new to the judge business. My daughter is a 9th grader at Los Altos High. I got involved because of her. I am a real estate agent. I love my job. It gives me great satisfaction serving people with their home needs. Aside from having good arguments in debates, I would also like to see all contestants being courteous and polite to each other. Good luck to all of you!
I am a former Oklahoma Speech Theater Communications Association State Policy Debate Champion (1998) I also debated in CEDA in college and went on to coach in the Southern Oklahoma Jr. High and High School competitive speech teams.
Stock Issues: Legal Model – Topicality – Significance of Harm – Inherency – Solvency – Advantage Over Disadvantage
Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages
Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model – Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.
Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model – Whatever basis for decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.
Game Player: Gaming Model – Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules.
I am familiar with all of these judging paradigms. If you believe I should follow one then present an argument for it and support it with evidence. Without evidence and analysis, I default to being a stock issues judge.
For additional insight on how I judge individual issues please see the following link: https://www.nfhs.org/media/869102/cx-paradigms.pdf
if you're going to not read cards or you paraphrase , you should probably strike me. In addition, it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to find evidence. After 30 seconds, I will begin your prep. If it takes you longer than a minute and 30 seconds or all you can bring up is a 30 page PDF, I will disregard the evidence as though it doesn't exist.
TL;DR- I was primarily an LD debater in high school, debating for Whitefish Bay HS in Wisconsin. I am now an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minnesota. I have different paradigms for different events, so read for the event that pertains to you and all should be fine!
Speed: Typically, I can understand most speeds. Slow down for tags, CP/Plan Texts, and if you’re reading unusual kritiks or frameworks. I want to make sure I spend more time conceptualizing what you’re talking about as opposed to figuring out what you just said. I will say “clear” or “slow” three times before beginning to dock speaks.
Plans and Counterplans: Follow your dreams.I find these debates to be very interesting and a great way for debaters to creatively attack the topic. Make sure to make your advocacy very clear though.
Kritiks: While I do love a good Kritik, make sure you’re running it well. Understand your kritik, don’t just pull one out of your backfiles and hope for the best. Again, make your advocacy clear. If you’re kritik is weird, please explain it well.
Theory: I will vote on theory, but I do have questions about frivolous theory. That said, use your best judgement within the context of the round.
Philosophy: Yes please! Explain it well and you should be golden!
I will pretty much listen to, flow, and vote off of anything. Have fun :)
I do have a high threshold for extensions. Blippy extensions are not my favorite thing, so extend your warrants as well
Clear voters are tremendously helpful!
- theory is totally fine, but make sure it is warranted, and not run absolutely wrong. I also absolutely hate frivolous theory in PF so do with that information as you will.
Provide impact calc throughout the round
- I will not vote on arguments that are dropped in summary, even if you bring them up in final focus, be warned. I may consider them if the warranting is a little bit blippy in summary, and better explained in final focus, but it has to 1) have been in rebuttal as well and 2) basically the only clean place to vote
- CLASH IS KEY
Please read cards. Paraphrasing is becoming a problem in debate and often leads to some kind of intellectual dishonesty. Let's just avoid that.
- Try to avoid Grand Cross becoming Grand Chaos in which there's just yelling. It isn't at all productive.
2nd rebuttal should rebuild!
- extending over ink makes me very sad :(
Do not be a terrible person. Don’t be sexist/homophobic/racist etc. If I see this, not only will I be sad, but so will your speaker points
Please please please weigh your arguments.
Also- please please please give voters!! If you don’t tell me what you think is important in round, I’ll have to decide for myself and you may not enjoy that.
please please please time yourselves and your opponent. I do however have a 10 second grace period to finish arguments you are already in the process of making, but I won't evaluate entirely new args after the speech time
Yes- I want to be on the email chain. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi, my name is Syed Hasan Rizvi.
I am a lay judge, but I will pay attention to the content of the round.
- talk at a speed at which I am able to understand you. I understand that you have a lot to say, however it is pointless if I cannot understand.
- try and stay within time
- be polite to one another. I like heated rounds, however rudeness will not be tolerated.
- Take note that I may not be able to understand debate terminology
Put me on the email link chain email@example.com
Parent Judge. Please speak clearly, identify your main arguments at the beginning, and make clear transitions. I can't follow people that talk too fast, have too many citations or use debate lingo. I spent most of my career on Capitol Hill working on House Financial Services and Senate Banking Committees. I currently am an attorney at Paul Hastings where I represent fintech, crypto and blockchain companies before Congress and the agencies.
I am a parent judge and have volunteered for both speech and debate competitions. Please speak clearly, cover all your arguments, and do not go too fast. Keep your cards ready and promptly present them when asked. I will not be timing and I let the teams be responsible so that I can focus on the rounds. For your final focus, the summary will be very important for scores and my decision. Good luck and have a great round!!!
I value tech>truth in almost every instance, but I'm unlikely to vote for positions that only take advantage of a debater who doesn't know how to respond to them.
I value creativity and ingenuity and I won't just drop a stock case for a novel one, but I will like the more creative one more. If we're honest, nobody is truly objective and the way to get me to like your side is to run a case that I will remember.
I'm flexible on the roll of the judge and ballot.
I'm okay with flex prep, off-time road maps, and I do not count flashing as prep time.
I will keep time, but I don't want to be responsible for keeping you in time. If you go over time too much, I will dock you speaker points.
Hey everyone! My name is Shreya Sahoo I'm a UC Berkeley '20 graduate, go bears!! (sorry Stanford :P)
- I am a pretty new judge. I do consider myself to be a lay judge, however, I can understand complex arguments as long as you speak at a reasonable pace.
- I appreciate before-time roadmaps, so you can tell me what you are going to cover and what arguments you are running. You will also be self-timing.
- Before the round starts please explain debate terms that you are using, anything that seems complex or a regular person wouldn't know just clarify!
- Please be mindful of your opponents, any racism, sexism, or homophobia WILL NOT be tolerated!
- I'm a newer judge so try and make this as easy as possible for me.
- I would really appreciate you sending your cases to my email just so I can follow along, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have any other questions please don't hesitate to ask :)
- 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 -
- Impact turning the whole case
- Topic specific T
- Politics/Process CP
- PIC with internal net benefit
- 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.
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.
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. email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org
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 email@example.com or ask me before the round provided your opponents are present as well. Hated my decision? send all complaints to firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
Background in Parli, LD, PF, and BP.
Spreading will be tolerated, but not encouraged. I will call out clear twice--if it is needed a third I'll put up my hands and stop flowing. If you see that then something has gone horribly wrong.
Run theory at your own risk. It's mostly done poorly and I don't do work for you.
Procedurals are fine, but make sure that you're not wasting my time and please run them correctly.
Please don't run things with the intent of dropping them later. You made me write it down -- use it.
If you ask a question during CX, you need to allow them time to actually answer the question. Being unpleasant during CX will definitely not win you any points with me.
PLEASE HAVE AND USE A WEIGHING MECHANISM/VALUE. Otherwise, you're leaving it up to me to decide what is important in the debate, and you probably won't like the result.
I have judged several debate tournaments but I always find new tournaments as learning curve for me.
Be succinct and clear. I like specific points and counterpoints that substantiate your argument.
Be respectful to your opponent and finish on or before your allocated time.
I have been judging debate tournaments for the past two to three years. I do this as my hobby and passion.
Things I like:
- Presentation skills
- Confidence in your speech and delivery
- Well constructed speech along with your introduction and brief about the speech
- Provide proper arguments and evidence/background of your speech
- Be creative with your arguments and speech
Things I don't like:
- I don't like when you speak too fast. You can speak fast but need to ensure that others can make sense of it.
- Can't show up with the evidence when asked for it
- Not able to answer clearly to the point on a question asked you
I am coming into every debate as neutral as possible. I base my judgement on the content and delivery of your speech. I am looking for well-structured fluent speeches that successfully refute your opponent's case. I enjoy case attacks supported by relevant evidence, scientific data, and facts closely related to the given topic. You need to ask constructive questions when weighing the different issues against each other and proactively respond to your opponents in the round. Make sure your resources are reliable and not claiming something that is otherwise. Do not "bluff" and avoid being impolite especially during cross examination.
I weigh the round based on the following criteria:
- Effectively advocate your positions by well-structured and fluent speech
- Precisely refute the case by explaining why your counter-argument is relevant and important
- I value the tactics as well as the delivery during the debate
- Be confident and proactive, and most importantly be respectful
Here are some of the criteria I would use to judge (some of these are chosen based on what works best for judging in Virtual/online events)
(1) Though I look at both evidence and pragmatic analysis, Pragmatic analysis works better for me in Online debate.
(2) I read rules handbook for a specific event carefully and try to apply that knowledge / theory every time consciously.
(3) I will pay more more weights on analytics to validate reasonability
(4) I would listen to full Affirmative and Neg and before making decision
(5) I prefer normal speed of communication, than fast.
I have four years of PF debating experience and attended many regional and national tournaments (NSDA and NHSDLC) in China, as well as the Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley invitationals. Aside from being on the debate team at my college, I served as a camp instructor in several NHSDLC debate camps and voluntary debate coach at Shanghai Tongji High School.
Besides the winter camp invitationals, I judged the 46th Annual Harvard Invitational as well as the NHSDLC 2021 Christmas Invitational for both JV and Open divisions.
When judging a round, I would prefer to hear more impact-weighing and the evidence from each side. Line-to-line rebuttals with clear (and not too fast) deliery would be much appreciated.
In general, I’m open to debaters making whatever arguments they like as long as it is a coherent argument that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I will default to evaluating the debate by what was said in the debates and not my personal dispositions.
I think that it is important for teams to engage with the others arguments – I like to see a lot of clash and rationale for why your arguments are better. I want to see a good flow. Speak slowly and clearly when you are starting a new argument or reading a tag. If I can’t hear it, it won’t get on the flow. Ideally, I want to be able to evaluate the arguments line-by-line across the flow.
I'll vote how you tell me to, provided you tell me how & why. Ideally, that means I'm given a weighing mechanism(s) for the round, told how to compare them in case of more than one such mechanism, and told how each major argument should be weighed with regards to these mechanisms. If neither debater tells me how arguments should interact with each other and the standard(s) to decide the round, then I have to decide (which isn’t the outcome you generally want!)
If you have any specific questions feel free to ask me before the debate.
I am a parent judge and this will be my first year judging a debate competition. I come with a blank slate.
1. Always speak clearly and slowly. I cannot weigh an argument if I can't understand what you are saying.
2. I don't understand debate jargons and I will only go by the clarity of the arguments presented and the rebuttal provided.
3. I won't keep track of time. I leave that responsibility to yourself and your opponents so that I can worry about the flow. You should be able to tell your time when and if asked.
4. Please try to be nice and courteous to the other team and have fun!
Hello there, My name is Shilpa Singh and I'm a fairly new parent judge who judged 4 Speech and Debate tournaments last year. I am excited about the Stanford tournament this weekend. In my limited experience as a judge, I have learned more about how I evaluate speakers:
1. Firstly, I need to see a mutually respectful chemistry - tone, attitude, and body language
2. I like to see data with clear references to credible sources. I appreciate conviction and passion, but back it with data
3. I am a huge proponent of structured thinking - give me the high points and build your argument in a clear pyramid structure so I can follow. You will loose points if you are all over the map in your debate and take me in circles.
4. Pace yourself so I can understand your logic and process the data
5. Conclude your argument and differentiate its strength from your opponents
6. Finally, have fun! I like to see that you are having a good time.
I'm flow/tech until you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I can handle spreading, just send a speech doc that includes anything you read so I don’t accidentally miss something, I'd hate to vote someone down because audio cut out or my hearing failed me. If you're gonna read primarily analytics or logic include bullet points.
If you want more details read below. If you want the most up to date info, ask me in round.
Important Note: I will not look at any evidence unless it is asked of me to do so in round, once you ask me to examine the evidence I assume you give me full discretion to read the entire article or study and make judgements based on its contents.
I have 4 years of experience in PF, Congress, and LD. I have no exposure to Ks, but I do have experience with and enjoy judging theory debate. I am currently studying economics at Tufts University and have familiarity with urbanization and healthcare. This will not affect decision making, but I believe in the spirit of fairness I should disclose my familiarities with related subjects.
Speaker Point System:
Here's a rudimentary point system
24: You broke a rule or were racist
27: Worst you can get normally, your speeches were messy and impossible to understand.
28: Mediocre, you gave your speech monotone or had several issues with clarity
29: Good, you gave your speeches clearly most of the time and had few issues during cross.
30: Great, you didn't have any noticeable issues
This is what will lose you points
1. Interrupting during crossfire or trying to turn it into another speech instead of asking a question
2. Not speaking clearly(I give a lot of leeway on this)
4. Being rude or disrespectful
How I judge debate:
I vote almost solely on what happens in the round with framework being the first thing I consider and speaking and strategy being the last. So if you impact to only economic downfall but forget to attack the framework that says we should focus on saving lives then that’s an L for you.
While I am a flow/tech judge, if you run blatantly untrue or abusive arguments I will step in because then I see you as just being an awful human being. This hasn't ever happened, but I want it to be known that I reserve the right to intervene in order to be transparent as a judge. This shouldn't ever happen unless you run "racism is good" like that one kid in Oklahoma.
If you hold your opponents to a standard in round you must meet that standard too.
What I like:
1. Thorough and well done weighing
2. Collapsing of arguments
3. Clearing extensions through till final focus
4. Clear and quantified impacts
5. Well written theory
How to annoy me:
Here are a few ways you can annoy me in the round: lying, not giving your opponents the evidence they call for in a timely manner, defining every word in the resolution, acting arrogant, expecting me to weigh for you, running arguments that are immature and demeaning such as racism good or that sexism doesn't exist.
Debate is meant to be inclusive and any attempts to undermine that will lose you speaker points very quickly.
Occasionally I will have suggestions for evidence, cases, or arguments that I do not have the materials on standby for, if you ever want to follow up on an RFD and ask for a clarification you can email me at email@example.com.
How I judge extemp:
To me, extemp is just as much about being a charismatic speaker as it is having good arguments. If I’m not interested in what you’re telling them you’re not doing a great job. There are several ways to get my attention including being humorous or having a good introduction. I’ve had people win rounds despite having weaker arguments because it actually became painful to listen to the other speakers' monotone performances. Your speaking abilities makes up half your ranking.
UPDATE FOR NATS 2021
I follow the points system to the letter. I score each speech as it happens and explain the scores in each team's feedback.
If your case has potentially triggering arguments, you MUST have a trigger warning and an option for your judges or opponents to anonymously opt-out. I will not hesitate to drop you solely on this point. For debate to be effective and for civil discussions to happen, debate has to be a safe space.
I did debate all through middle and high school (PF, WS, & OO) and saw some success at the state and national level (10th at Nats in 2019). I coach for a few different middle/high school programs around the Seattle/Puget Sound Area, write for a brief company, and am the content Manager for TalkMaze. I'm now a graduate student at the University of Essex studying the Theory and Practice of Human Rights.
Have them! I will check evidence in dispute. I will read cards sent in a chain or in chat. If you misrepresent, miscut, insert words, or do anything else remotely similar to that, I will vote you down. It doesn't matter if your opponent brings this up in round or not. Evidence ethics are a pre-req.
i hate strongly dislike (hate) congress
Public Forum Philosophy
Tech > truth, but only barely. Evidence ethics in PF leave a lot to be desired, and if you misrepresent badly enough I won't hesitate to drop y'all.
If your opponent asks for a card, I expect the debate to pause and you to get them the card. If multiple cards are requested, prep time for the requesting team will start once every card has been received. If you're scared that them reading the card during your speech or cross-x will somehow give them the upper hand, you need a better card. They shouldn't be able to disprove your case with what's in your card anyway. It's important to note here that if it takes you longer than two minutes to find a card, I'm striking the argument and we're going to move on. There's no excuse for not having your card file organized and searchable.
Yes, you should be front-lining in the second rebuttal.
Crystallization is extremely important. I really couldn't care less about flowing every single argument through past the rebuttal speech. I'd rather you explain the points of clash and voters and WHY they matter. Just saying "Hendrickson 16 solves" means nothing if you don't tell me why. That doesn't mean I'm going to disregard the flow entirely - You should still make an effort to respond to everything, and dropped arguments in rebuttal matter a lot. All this means is that I want you to contextualize WHY the things you're saying matter. This means don't line-by-line final focus.
Fiat is a thing. Y'all aren't debating "will this thing happen," you're debating "should this thing happen." I will be a very hard sell for any anti-fiat (politics) arguments.
Theory is fine, as are kritiks. You need to be especially mindful of the time constraints in PF, though. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and don't speed through the shell as fast as possible. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is.
Flex prep does not exist. "Open" crossfires don't exist.
Oh, and I don't flow cross-ex, so if they make a key concession, bring it up next speech.
30 second grace period for speeches.
Lincoln Douglas Philosophy
I am fundamentally biased towards deontological ethics. That doesn't mean I won't vote for util, but you need to go beyond "greater good."
For the love of God don't spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read it all the time for class and I still barely understand it, so I'm not going to know what you're saying if you're going 500 words a minute. For theory, if it's a legitimate voting issue, you shouldn't need to get through it as quickly as possible.
I'll prefer tech over truth in most cases, unless it comes down to something that's blatantly false (if that's the case, it's probably an ethics violation and you'd lose anyway).
I don't have (or don't think I have) any biases on what types of arguments you should run (deontology being an obvious exception) except for the standard disagreements (don't bring up new arguments last speech, etc.). I love a good K debate but I'll admit that I'm not the most familiar with a lot of the lit, so try and explain the K and don't just rely on reading the card.
I think theory debates are good and should be promoted, but you shouldn't be running theory just to win the round - Only run it if there's a legitimate violation. I, as the judge, am the ultimate arbiter of what entails a "legitimate violation." That means if there's something like disclosure theory, only run it if you asked them to disclose and they didn't. Meta-theory is fine too.
Framework debates are awesome and I would prefer it if y'all hone in on that throughout the round. One of the best parts of LD is seeing how different philosophies engage with each other.
Condo's good, CP's are good (especially States CP), fiat's good
Paraphrasing's bad, rehighlighting's bad
they're dumb, shouldn't be used as a tiebreaker, and mine skew high
I am a lay judge. I expect everyone to be courteous and polite. Speak at a moderate speed and always show good sportsmanship and. Thank You!
Please extend your points and rebuttals throughout the entire round. Don't ask me if you're allowed to do or mention certain things during the round. Time yourself. Any speed is fine. I'm not exploring or making assumptions based on where I think you are going, you guys have to explain everything to me.
Avoid the excessive abuse of evidences. Well-explained logic outweighs the horde of evidences in many cases.
Don't prefer offensive and disrespectful manner.
I'm a Public Forum coach and big advocate of empowering student voice. It does not matter to me whether you speak quickly or slowly. That's a matter of your own comfort.
I will be impressed by sound research, critical thinking and persuasive argumentation. Outline your intentions and accomplishments clearly. More important than anything is respect for your opponents' and the experience of debating. They will present valid arguments too, so don't tell me everything they said was wrong. Be judicious yourself as a debater and consider arguments that are more convincing in terms of impact.
Most of all, enjoy, reflect and grow from every debating experience. I will try to give you the best feedback I can to help you learn and grow.
The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.
Some aspects that are critical for me
1) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.
2) Arguments must be extended in each speech. This idea of "sticky defense" and not answering arguments in the second rebuttal doesn't understand how debate works. A debater can only make strategic choices about their speech if they base it on what was said in the speech previous to them.
3) Read evidence. I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.
4) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce it in about 60 seconds. At two minutes or so, I'm going to just say the evidence doesn't count in the round because you can't produce it. If I say the card doesn't count then the card doesn't count in the round. If you say you can't produce the card then you risk losing. That is called fabrication to cite evidence and then not be able to produce it. If I ask for a card after the round and you can't produce it, again you risk losing the round. Good evidence practices are critical if this format is to rely on citing authorities.
5) I tend to be a policymaker. If there is no offense against trying a new policy then I suggest we try the new policy as it can't hurt to try. Offense is important for both sides.
6) Use voting issues format in summary and final focus. Learn that this allows a clear story and weighing. A voting issue format includes links, impacts, and weighing and provides clarity to just "our case/their case". You are still doing the voting issues on "their flow" or "our flow".
7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"
8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.
Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.
I’ve debated for over 10 years competitively, but have been out of the high school circuit since I graduated in 2015. The main point of debate is ultimately down to the clash. The debates that will immediately get you speaker points docked are those in which the negative refuses to clash with the affirmative. I’ve seen too many (and even been a part of) rounds in which the negative side tries to opt out of the affirmative cases by either running misdiagnosed topicality or Kritiks without proper links. Don’t make the round harder for yourself by running something that doesn’t clash. That being said however, I do love well run kritikal debates. Make sure you tell me my role of the ballot. Why am I voting for you? The quickest way to get my ballot is to impact weigh the arguments. Don’t just throw arguments against each other. Tell me why your contention 1 holds more weight than their contention 3. The way I assign speaker points is to start from perfect speaks and work my way down with deductions for filler words, rudeness, or things such as bringing up dropped arguments.
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org (REMEMBER send me cards before your speech that you'll be reading. If you're spreading analytics send me that as well. If analytics will not be spread I don't need them in the doc)
1. Speed: Here's my take. I've been debating for a while so I can keep up with speed. HOWEVER, with everything being online clarity has become a HUGE issue. Please go much much slower than you normally would. You don't have to go at a lay pace, but just remember I only say clear twice, before I put my pen down. What I miss will be held against you.
2. Theory: Remember fairness and education come first. Debate is an activity about fairness, and theory is meant to address that. IT IS NOT meant to let you opt out of substantive arguments. For this reason, I don't really enjoy theory and RVI debates. Keep everything on the resolution. Theory just serves the purpose that the debater running the shell, lets me know the violation and why it should warrant dropping the other debater. The debater going against the shell, just defend yourself and move on, don't drop everything and go for winning off the RVI because it won't hold any weight for me.
3. Stylistic: I'm very lenient with speaker points and usually give extremely high speaks. Please give me concise voters in your final speeches. They will have the most magnitude for me because it allows me to determine what the main issues you are going for are. Please impact everything, don't just read random cards and move on. Also don't just card dump, I want to see you construct meaningful arguments.
4. VERY IMPORTANT: Please Read. Before your speeches I want the cards you will be reading. Too many competitors send the cards after their speech, at which point there is not enough time to evaluate the cards because the next speech has started. I want to be able to follow along as you read your cards. Please note that this means sign posting will be VERY important. If you're going 600 WPM, and not sign posting anything you've already lost me. SLOW DOWN On tags and authors. Let me hear those clearly before you ratchet up your speed. Any analytics or non cards not in the case doc need to be at a reasonable speed. You can spread what's on the doc.
5. If you read anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc... You've lost the round and gotten the lowest speaks possible. End of discussion.
6. I do not tolerate petty games debaters play where they send uncut cards or weird formatting to their opponents. I want the files you send to me and your opponent cut exactly how you read it.
7. Argument Evaluations: I don't like Skep or Tricks. Please do not read these arguments in front of me because I don't evaluate them. They either try to get a quick technical win or try to break down really high philosophy in a short amount of time, usually in a very poor manner. I love Kritiks so feel free to run those. Also I love performative cases and do accept Non T Affs in round. Just be aware of a couple of things
a. Your threshold to access my ballot is much higher if you're not linking to the resolution
b. If your position advocates something like automatically giving you the ballot, just note that if I feel it impedes on the negative debater's access to the round, I will be more interventionist in my decisions.
8. Dropped arguments get a certain evaluating method with me. I do think because it shows poorly on the debater who dropped the argument, even if it's not brought up by the opponent, I still evaluate the drop mildly (it will affect my decision but not as much as if someone brings up the drop).
I have judged PF for a number of years, so i'm fine with any speed.
Explain your links, explain impacts, and be polite to each other during cross fire.
Make sure to address the framework throughout the round.
I am a relatively new judge. Please speak slowly and clearly (do not spread). Please be respectful in cross and interact with your opponents' arguments.
Be nice to each other. Don't go fast. Make extensions and weighing clear. If your argument doesn't flow through cleanly, I'm not going to do work for you. Quality of arguments > quantity. Frontline in second rebuttal.
Blueface references are +1 speaks. If you can fit an entire verse in one of your speeches, I'll probably give you a 30. Don't be abusive. I don't evaluate Theory or Kritiks.
Hi, my name is Lavanya and my daughter competes for Honor Academy. I am a parent judge with limited experience, so please convince me why you win using ordinary terms. I would prefer it if you could speak at a slow pace. Additionally, I do not understand debate jargons. Have fun!!
I'm a first year judge and English is not my first language. Talking too fast will likely make it harder for me to comprehend the speech.
I'm a software engineer in a cybersecurity company now. In my prior career, I'm also a PhD in Economics and an enterprise sales executive in commercial / industrial real estate market.
PLEASE ADD ME TO ANY EMAIL CHAIN FOR EVIDENCE OR SPEECH DOCS
Phone (please only use if I don't show up for a round): 408-896-0105
**denotes a joke**
Hello! If you're reading this, I'm either judging your round, you want to strike me, you're looking for meme paradigms, or you're bored and have no life. Regardless, if you're participating in a tournament right now, please take two minutes to stop everything and relax however you find best. I recommend cute animals, Wikipedia Roulette, music, or anything else you do to relax. Tournaments are stressful and life is kind of whack right now so take a breather if you need to. IF YOU'RE IN MY ROUND, I will not start or count this against you if you're running late to do this.
I'm a 20 yo junior in college currently on leave (woo corona) from Georgetown University. If you have any questions about college apps, university life, or anything (things I know about: living in DC, education, traveling abroad, mental health/illness, identity, social justice broadly and a lot of different fields relating), feel free to email me. I'm majoring in psychology and Justice and Peace studies (it's the study of violence, completely not depressing at all :D).
IN TERMS OF DEBATE: I am not regularly exposed to debate rounds, I just judge on and off, but I am a flow judge. In high school, I did 2 years of public forum, about a year of LD, and a few months of parli. I was the best at and had the most success with parli, but I was very, very familiar with LD and PF, so if you want to go fast, go off. If you want to spread I will be fine with it IF YOU SEND ME A SPEECH DOC. ALSO MAKE SURE YOUR OPPONENTS ARE FINE WITH IT. My philosophy on PF is that it should be an accessible event and if you deny that from your opponents with speed, I WILL BE SAD :(.
cancer ⊙ scorpio ↑ pisces ☾
~If my aura doesn't match your I will yeet a purple flower picked during a waning moon through some spiritual water at my laptop to realign us~**
*DON'T MAKE ME GO 'FEH!'*
*KEEP IN MIND I have not been regularly exposed to debate for 2, almost 3 years.*
-BE POLITE, DON'T BE RACIST, DON'T BE ABLEIST, DON'T BE TRANSPHOBIC, DON'T BE HOMOPHOBIC, DON'T BE SEXIST, DON'T BE [fill in the blank]; basically, make the debate space accessible, inclusive, and DON'T BE A TERRIBLE PERSON
-If you make a mistake (think misgendering, pronouns, say something offensive ACCIDENTALLY) APOLOGIZE AND ADMIT YOUR MISTAKE. I PROBABLY WON'T COUNT IT AGAINST YOU IF YOU DO. This is general a good approach regardless the context.
-If there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible or comfortable for you, let me know.
-I will be flowing so please please please sign post it makes my life so much easier.
-I don't care about professional wear, I know rounds are virtual right now so if you want to wear like a hoodie and sweats and be comfortable go ahead because that is what I will be wearing.
-tech over truth, unless you're squirrely or the round becomes ridiculous to evaluate...
-If you want to spread, I will be fine with it as long as you share the speech doc with me and your opponents. Make sure you do it for a tactical advantage and not just because you can go fast haha spreading go brrrrr.
-The second rebuttal speaker does not need to frontline the constructive, respond to the first rebuttal (unless the first rebuttal frontlines and you need to address it to effectively attack), or lay down defense on case. HOWEVER I do prefer if you put some ink on whatever you're collapsing on or at least mention it. Also, this means if you're first summary, please don't go "hurr durr they didn't respond to our rebuttal."
-Please use cross effectively. It won't matter on the flow, I probably won't be paying attention to it, but it's LITERALLY MEANT TO HELP THE DEBATERS UNDERSTAND EACH OTHERS' CASES BETTER, which helps create effective discourse. If you spend cross going in circles or not doing anything productive, I will be sad.
-PLEASE COLLAPSE. I will be very upset if summaries try to extend everything (unless that's actually your strategy, sounds kinda terrible but if you can make it work, i guess) because my take on summaries is that you're supposed to tell me what is most important on your side that makes me vote for you. PLEASE ALSO START WEIGHING IN SUMMARY
-I may have just had a crisis trying to figure out how to spell "weigh" because that doesn't look like a word, if you want to give your speech in a different language because English is stupid, I'll understand.**
-OK BUT SERIOUSLY PLEASE WEIGH. Weighing is how you tell me who to vote for. It also makes the round considerably easier for me considering I haven't done debate recently enough or even on this topic to know what arguments lead to what impacts.
-Extending warrants and link chains can go miles...
-Add me on any email chains for cards or speech docs.
-Any references to Minecraft, ATLA, TFT, LOR, Smash, Pokemon, Skyrim, Slime Rancher, Stardew Valley, Valorant, Community, LOK, The Simpsons, popular Vines (F) or Among Us will get your speaks bumped up.**
-I should be fine with any K's as long as you make clear what the link and the alt are. Those are the two most important parts for me to understand why you're running the K, I will normally understand the K itself alright.
-I am VERY BAD at phil, run at your own risk.
-Theory: not a big fan of theory in PF as something to derive offense from UNLESS THERE IS AN ACTUAL RULES VIOLATION. Even if there is legitimate abuse (think multiple actor fiat, plans, and the like) you can probably just spend a sentence or two explaining that they can't do that and I'll probably buy it. I'd rather the debate focus on legitimate discourse than hear theory jargon for a round.
-IF I EVER HEAR THE WORDS "DATE ACCESSED" OUT OF ANYONE'S MOUTH IT'S -20 SPEAKS INSTANTLY. I may have some unresolved issues with date accessed....**
That should be everything, if you have any questions feel free to ask, I promise I'm not scary.
I am a former policy debater, 4 years in high school (Spring Valley High School, Columbia, SC), and 4 years in college (Harvard). I have been coaching Public Forum since May 2020.
I base my decisions on what I have written on my flowsheet. I flow everything - Arguments, evidence citations and author/journal qualification, evidence content, cross-examination, etc. I will not ask to see evidence after the debate. If an argument or piece of evidence is not on my flowsheet, then it will not play a role in my decision.
The following are the main elements of my judging philosophy: 1) Debate is a game, and the object of the game is to convince a judge or panel of judges that your side wins enough arguments to win the debate; 2) Part of the judge's role is to ensure that each side receives the same amount of time to speak, cross-examine, and prepare during the debate (competitive balance), that the debaters are respectful toward one another and the judge(s) (decorum), and that the rules of argumentation and evidence are followed; 3) Part of the judge's role is to evaluate each side's arguments and evidence as part of determining the winner of the debate: a) Arguments should be grounded in reality and supported by legitimate sources; b) I will flow conspiracy theories or evidence from alt-right sources like Breitbart News or the Daily Caller or QAnon, but the opposition only needs to point out that these are not legitimate sources of information and I will cross them off on my flow; c) I have the most trust in data, the least trust in rhetoric; if you read evidence that says "X will happen", I want to know why the author/source is saying "X will happen", and why I should listen to the author/source; d) Even with flawed evidence, I will not reject the argument unless the opposing side points it out during a speech; the debater that does this will know they're on the right track b/c I will vigorously nod in agreement; 4) I will have non-verbal reactions to speeches, but I will never speak to a debater while the debater is speaking; it's up to the debaters to evaluate how the arguments are going during the debate without verbal feedback from the judge.
Please add me to the email chain at email@example.com
Experience: CX for 5 years (Grade 6-10), PF for 2 years (Grade 10-11), World Schools (Grade 12)
Furthest I’ve Gone in Tournaments: Taiwan Nationals Winner/Top Speaker 2015 in CX and Quarterfinals in TOC PF Silver in 2016
Judging Style: I am a flow heavy judge. However, I will only write down what you say and will make judgments based on your arguments only. For example, if your opponent double-turns themself but you don't address it, I will not count it against your opponent. I will only use my own judgment and experience if both sides have equal arguments.
Frameworks: If you have a framework, I will judge based on it. If you have a framework and your opponent doesn't bring up a counter-framework, the debate will be judged based on your framework.
Theory/Kritiks: I am okay with theory but will need you to explain it carefully. Do not play the theory game if you are unable to explain all your links. It is NOT my burden to understand all the possible Kritiks out there. IF I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT I WON'T VOTE FOR IT. It is your responsibility as the debater to explain the K if you run it. I do prefer DAs/CPs to Ks. I’m generally good with Marxism Ks, Feminism Ks, Ableism Ks, and Race Ks (I ran Afro-Pessimism and Afro-Nihilism in the past) but anything beyond these I’m going to need clear explanations about the theory. I also need you to have an impact on your K or else I don’t see a point in it.
LD debaters: Please do not expect me to understand every single theory thing that pops up. I'm comfortable with the basic ones used in CX, but please play safe and pretend I don't know much.
Impacts: It is extremely important to me that your case and arguments have a tangible impact. If the argument is part of a link game, that's fine but the link game must end in an impact. Do not leave me thinking so what? If that happens and the opponent makes a decent counterargument, I'll give it to them.
Speed is fine but please be clear.
Brief background of my debate experience:
I have been involved in speech and debate since the 90's, having debated policy in high school for 4 years and another 4 years as a scholarship debater at USC (NDT debate). I also coached a LD program in a Southern CA high school a few years back. Now, I run a Public Forum program for HS2 Academy.
I will buy most reasonable arguments as long as they are well-supported. Generally tech > truth
Spreading is fine as long as it is CLEAR. Otherwise, your speaker points will reflect this.
Be courteous to each other. Rudeness will be reflected in your speaks.
2nd Rebuttal MUST respond to 1st Rebuttal or I consider arguments dropped
Prog: No Kritiks in PF for me (I just don't think it's the right forum); I may buy theory arguments as long as they're not frivolous or nonsensical.
I don't flow crossfire, but I will factor it in speaks.
I'll come into rounds with a blank-slate mentality. All used to evaluate your arguments as individual speakers and as a team are all that you are going to say in your speeches. As such, I highly appreciate speakers that are comparative, weighted, and impacted.
I will default into the utilitarian evaluation absent any attempt of framing why your arguments are important.
As with any other utilitarian argument, K's and Theories are welcome and I will give them due respect ONLY depending on the length speakers use it to benefit their cases. This means that I value explicitness over implicitness in order to deliver the most impartial decision possible and avoiding any situations where I have to step in. You need to explain why your Theory or K comes first as a filter versus against all the other arguments that will come after it.
I pay attention to the format specifics and speaker role. As such, I would appreciate it if important "winning" part of your speeches do appear in constructive speakers. It will be hard for me to credit a winning argument/card launched during CF or FF if it is not in the constructive or summaries.
It will be most beneficial for you to narrow down impacting/comparatives in your FF speeches just so you don't leave any room for me to use my own judgements in appreciating impacts :)
I am very open in using the full range of speaker scores. Average is 27.4 and highest I've given is a 29.
Please be respectful, especially in CFs! Have fun :)
firstname.lastname@example.org for email chains!
My Judging Highlights (do note that I've spent all my time in debate under the British Parliamentary/Asian Parliamentary)
- 10th Best Judge, United Asians Debating Championships 2020, (Asian Parliamentary) (Asian Region)
- Overall Best Judge, Proxime Debate Open 2020, 60 Teams (British Parliamentary) (Philippines, open for all countries)
- 4th Best Judge, Macquarie Pre-Australs 2020, 50 Teams (Australs Format) (Open for all)
- 4th Best Judge, Taiwan Debate Open 2020 , 50 Teams (British Parliamentary) (Taiwan, open for all countries)
- 6 Rounds for Stanford Invitational
0 I have been constantly hired to judge and provide feedback for the training rounds of asian JV and Novice teams. I would love to bring my experience over, learn and improve in the PF format.
For other S&D Events:
Debate Champion, National Population Development Debates, National, Philippine Department of Education, 2019
As a judge, I am committed to addressing barriers to accessibility in debate.
I did high school Lincoln Douglas for 4 years, and JV Policy at the collegiate level for 2 years. I have experience judging policy, LD, PF, and some speech events. I don't regularly judge as much anymore, so just keep that in mind.
I judge speaker points based on how clearly you navigate the flow (sign post, please!) and how clearly you articulate your voters in the final speeches. No speaker points will be deducted for stuttering - so long as you sign post (tell me where you are on the flow), have good organization on the flow, and tell me what arguments I should vote on, you will get above a 29. You will get low speaks if you are rude to your opponent or spread without asking beforehand.
My scale is usually:
30-29.7: excellent sign posting, clearly outlined voters, generally good round.
29.6-29: mostly good sign posting, at times a bit unclear.
28.9-28: not enough sign posting, but still understandable.
I like to stay in that range, but if you get below a 28 it's because you did not sign post at post at all.
I will permit spreading ONLY IF all debaters in the round consent to a request – if you wish to spread, please clearly ask beforehand in front of all participating members. If you or your opponents do not want to spread, no reason is necessary, and I will not flow any arguments that are spread.
If all debaters agree to spreading, then please slow down for tag lines – if it’s important and you want it on my flow, then please slow down a bit and provide emphasis. It's been awhile since I did debate, so I'm not as fast to flow anymore.
When extending an argument, you must extend the warrant as well. If an argument is dropped, it gets full weight in the round.
I enjoy framework debates, but they usually aren't enough to win a round alone. Clearly weigh your offense through the winning framework.
Love them, but make sure your arguments are clear. Especially if you're reading denser philosophy, be sure to explain it clearly - I can't vote on it if I can't understand it. Make sure the Alt is clearly articulated.
Love them, and I especially enjoy a good comparative worlds debate.
Topicality is fine, I will vote for it if there is a clear violation and it's articulated well. I am not a fan of Theory. I prefer not to vote on T/Theory - don't just "read it to read it" - but I will vote for it if there is clear abuse.
Everything above applies! Some additional notes:
- If you plan on speaking quickly/ spreading, then please make sure your opponents are comfortable with that before the round - I generally prefer it if PF rounds stay at a conversational pace, but if both teams want to speed up the speeches, that's okay.
- PF is not policy/LD. Remember - one strong argument with good weighing is better than multiple poorly warranted ones.
- I don't count flashing in prep.
- You are responsible for timing your own prep - I will not keep track of it for you.
- If time is up, you can finish your sentence, but do not go significantly over. I do time speeches and will stop flowing when your time is up.
- I will not vote on any morally repulsive arguments.
- Do not be rude.
COVID/ VIRTUAL DEBATING UPDATES:
- Please show up on time to rounds - that includes showing up to whatever "report time" or "check time" the tournament outlines.
- If you think you'll be asking for evidence, collect emails/ create a Google Doc before speeches begin. No prep time is needed to share evidence, but try to be as quick as possible so that we can have an efficient round.If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round begins!
I am a parent judge . This is my second year judging PF debates.
Speak clearly and articulate your points well. Please don’t spread.
I pay attention to cross-X sessions and how your are countering the opponent’s cases/arguments with proper evidences.
Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents.
I'm a parent judge and this is only my second tournament judging. Do not speak too fast and explain your arguments thoroughly. Be respectful to each other and have fun!
I have judged several international judging competitions such as Pan-American Schools Debating tournament 2013 (Bermuda), 2014 (Mexico), and 2016 (Vancouver), as well as various inter-school tournaments. It is safe to say I have developed certain criteria and standards when it comes to judging a proper debate. These can be divided into three main categories:
Will most likely be the bulk of the judging scope, especially in more advanced rounds and with more advanced debaters.
I do not judge based on my own knowledge or criteria, what you present to me is what I know, and only that. Meaning, (in the simplest of examples), if you argue that the sky is green, but I know it is in fact blue, I will not use that knowledge to judge the veracity of your arguments. As far as the debate goes, the sky is green, and unless your opponent argues otherwise and presents evidence and/or reasons to properly contradict that statement, the sky will remain green.
Are your arguments harmonious amongst each other? Are they consequential? Did you provide enough evidence to support your principle/moral grounds/burden of proof? Can you uphold your arguments despite refutation? These are all factors taken into consideration when awarding points for content.
Usually with more novice debaters I tend to pay more attention to style (advanced debaters usually have their style more figured out). Points are given if you can speak eloquently, clearly, and avoid reading too much. This one for me is a big no no. I expect you to be polite and courteous, but sarcasm and wit is also appreciated, and if used properly, a huge bonus in style points. However, do not confuse sarcasm with rudeness. Speaking too fast will do more harm than good, usually, and if you speak too slow I will assume one of two things (maybe both): Either you do not have enough content to meet the minimum time requirements and are speaking slow to gain time, or you really don't have any idea how to go about your speech. Debate is about conviction and confidence, this needs to be demonstrated through your style.
This is important and may be the category that decides the debate if both sides present good and sustained content, and an entertaining and diverse style. Basically, strategy is, did you focus the bulk of your case on your most relevant and strong argument? Did you define the terms properly (super important)? Did you refute the most compelling arguments of your opponent? How long did you spend on your constructive case vs refutation portion of your speech? All of these factors influence my allocation of points regarding strategy.
All in all, I always encourage students to have fun no matter what, and learn from every debate :)
I've judged in the Canadian University circuit for a while. I like cases with clear mechanisms that engage and weigh out against the other team. In general, I award wins to whichever team contributed to a higher quality of debate overall. Feel free to speak fast, although I might not flow everything if you try and speak as quickly as physically possible for a human to speak. I won't credit anything that isn't said in the round, so if a team hasn't engaged with one of your points please do point this out for me or else I may not notice. Off-time road maps are great.
I am a Ph.D in computer science, and I never attended an official debate, and judged an ES debate on Potomac Fall Championships. If you have solid supporting points, and strong reasoning logic, then you will have better chance to win.
I debated nationally and locally in LD from 2002-2006 for Highland Park Texas and St. Martin's Episcopal in New Orleans. I've also coached on the circuit from 2006-2011. Following that, I've coached PF since 2012. I've judged late outrounds at a number of national circuit tournaments in LD and have judged a few hundred PF rounds.
I am to judge with as close to a tab paradigm as possible and try to avoid bringing in substantive beliefs or preferences into the round, to the extent that this is possible. If you make a warranted argument that I know to be false or don't personally like, I will treat it as any other argument without prejudice in making a decision. It's a team's job to prove bad arguments wrong. I disclose outcome and RFD but not speaks.
-I presume neg unless persuaded otherwise.
-I'm fine with speed up to around 275 WPM, at which point I start to lose key details. While I've coached for a long time, by spread flowing skills have gotten rustier. If you must spread, please slow down and enunciate for key taglines, warrants, and impacts. And please please please don't spread theory since theory is much denser.
-I am fine with micropolitics, K, theory, and other forms of arguments that might irk some people. But I expect good link analysis in Ks, warrants in theory, and an articulation of why my vote for you matters for a micro-politics argument.
-If an argument has no warrant whatsoever, I'm very unlikely to vote on it even if dropped and extended.
-In PF I don't think the second speaker has burden of rejoinder in constructive speech, and I think second rebuttals are only on the hook for responding to constructive. So a either team can respond to rebuttal in summary.
-Don't be mean.
-Remember I flow. That means if you go out of order or jump around, I need you to signpost.
-Examples are not arguments; they can serve to illustrate them but there should be an analytical claim independent of the example.
-I don't a priori think that any argument requires cards/evidence; analytics/logic argument can be sufficient to warrant an argument. If you're telling me to toss out an argument bc there's no evidence, tell me what empirical claim the argument makes/assumes that requires evidence.
-Have fun; I'll do my best to adapt to you since I think that adaptation should be a 2 way street.
Extra speaks for:
-A small number of funny jokes
-Smart, well-warranted arguments
-Weighing and clarity
-Issue selection / not extending everything
-Giving speeches that are easy to flow
Speaks penalties for:
-Being late for reasons in your control
-Generics with no clear link to the topic. If you want to run generics, work the topic language into the argument.
-Extending everything and the kitchen sink
-Claiming an argument is apriori when it obviously isn't
-Arguments that are demonstrably false or denigrate the human dignity of other people. If you want to run "racism good", I guess that's your choice, but I'll probably dock you some speaker points.
-New in the 2 / final focus.
For evidence violations or academic dishonesty, I'll tell tab and follow tournament policy.
Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Co-Director and Co-Founder of the Institute for Speech and Debate. Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.
Updated for Online Debate
I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.
email@example.com is the best email for the evidence email chain.
You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:
1. Where am I voting?
2. How can I vote for you there?
3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?
I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.
If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.
One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.
I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my belief first - or striking me.
I am a parent judge and former competitor in Lincoln Douglas and Policy Debate. Please speak clearly. Please number and detail your voting points at the end of the debate.
I’m a parent judge and don’t have a lot of experience judging.
For the november/december topic, I would say that I have enough knowledge on the topic to understand most arguments.
Please do not run any squirrely arguments.
I am more of a truth>tech judge rather than a tech>truth judge.
I vote off of what makes the most sense to me. If you want to win my ballot, then you need to explain your argument thoroughly. I would rather you spend all of your speeches explaining your argument rather than spend the whole time talking about your opponents case.
Weighing is important but Case is the most important thing in the round.
Please do not speak fast, a 600 - 700 word case would be preferable.
I do speaks off of how well I can understand you.
Be nice to each other. DO NO SPREAD. CROSS FIRES WILL NOT BE FLOWED. For specific preference ask before round. Otherwise I'm pretty chill.
if you can make me laugh with a really good joke or just general humor in your persuasion, I will give you better speaks.
Old Paradigm was very long, decided to shorten it. For those who have had me judge before/are familiar, nothing's changed, just more word efficient (hopefully)
Assistant Director of Debate with Binghamton University & Assistant coach for Broome County Debate Alliance
Conflicts- Broome County Debate Alliance, George Mason University, Binghamton University
I prefer you do what you're best at, stuff below is biases, not set in stone. You're far better doing you than adapting to me on most things (though if it's a panel I understand)
Clarity > Speed, but idc about the speed you're talking at I will yell clear if you aren't.
I do want to be on the email chain (dwoodward92@gmail)
Have fun, be cordial
Don't say offensive things, I reserve the right to end debates IF I think an issue has gone too far or is inappropriate for the situation at hand
Online Debate Specific - As of now my WiFi where I judge rounds is mediocre, sometimes it cuts out/goes bad, as a result I don't have my camera on outside of RFDs. Because of my own limitations I do not care if your camera is on or off.
Is good and appreciated, and in this day and age needs to be embraced/helped.
Will generally follow the rules of the tournament as stated, regardless of if I agree with them or not.
Is a voter
Hard for me to vote aff if no we meet/counter-interpretation is extended
Hard for me to vote neg if no standards/interpretation are extended
I prefer competing interpretations over reasonability
End of/Start of Season/Core aff etc. type of arguments are not persuasive
2021-2022 Topics- No current trends/thoughts I have on either topic to be fair
I reward teams punishing aff mistakes. This means exploiting things that aff authors say in the 8 sized font, or later in the article. Not there's no fed action key card in the 1AC.
I don't kick the CP for the neg if extended in the 2NR
Aff leaning on most theory questions
I like smart/specialized permutations versus generic perm do both that morphs in the 1AR.
**Important Theory thing** - Can be persuaded that anything but perm theory = reason to reject, Limited Condo is good, more than 2 condo is bad unless the aff is new. Kicking planks is always bad. New Aff/NDT/GSU means neg gets to do what they want is not an argument.
What I've found since i've been up front about this. I am more strict on what is my line for voting on theory (unless dropped) but still sympathize with aff teams when negs do wacky stuff theoretically. Ask on other specifics, will say PICS are the one type of CP where I lean neg theoretically.
Affs where the 2AC is 20 seconds/10 words on condo -> 3 min of the 1AR are just as unpersuasive as 2NCs to condo that are 15 words/20 seconds.
Are good- I enjoy a clear DA + Case debate (I don't know who wouldn't)
Up to the debater to tell me if the link or uniqueness determine each other and what that means.
I will listen to/vote on politics DAs but general args about how unlikely it is to work or happen are persuasive.
Analytics can beat a bad DA/bad ev.
You will, more than likely know what you're talking about more than I do.
Easiest way to get my ballot is to explain your argument - Even IF I understand what you're saying the burden is on you to explain it. Teams who usually get my ballot with critical arguments are exceptionally good at breaking down their argument and explaining it along with strong line by line and framing. The more specific you make your critique to the aff (evidence, CX questions, etc.) the better off you'll be
If you're aff vs a K, defend your stuff. Aff teams are too cowardly these days- IF you have a specific thing they're critiquing, the first response shouldn't be to no link it- you should have a defense of the state/law/language/your specific impact or solvency mech. Sometimes it's ok to big stick aff our stuff OW's vs a K if that's what you have.
***Critical Affs/Clash Debates***
Aff should be in the direction of the topic and do something
Aff should explain how/what they do, the impact and why I should vote for you - remember I don't know your arg better than you
IF, as an Aff team you say in 1AC CX that X DA links to your aff, it will not bode well if that turns out to be a lie (unless the neg just doesn't read a link)
Offense is good
Fairness/Ground more persuasive on framework than portable skills type of standards.
Aff specific K/DA/case arg > Framework > Generic K in terms of options
Unless it's dropped the aff gets the perm
Overall treat me like a judge who flows but knows very little about current trends/topics.
Parli/Lincolin Douglas Debate - I know little about either of these, other than speech times. at most I have read some random articles, have judged some LD debate but have never coached OR participated myself. Just tell me how to vote, what's important and what is involved. I'm ok with Policyish LD because most of my background is in policy. I will have not done topic research.
Public Forum - Spring 2021 is my first time actively being involved/researching or thinking about Public Forum debate outside of helping at some summer camps/back when I was in High School. I will flow, I don't care about speed but I also am not used to what has changed about PF since 2009.
Based on my judging history I have learned 2 things.
1. I generally vote in a "lazy" way, not lazy as in i don't pay attention/flow but lazy as in the team who best tells me what to do, whether that is via a framework argument, impact analysis or simply the other team dropped x arg, this is most important thing in round, is more than likely to win. You are also likely to lose if your Final Focus is less about why you should win and more on responding to the other team. Points are usually higher in the debates where at least 1 team does the needed work versus ones where the teams do not direct me to a way to evaluate my ballot
2. in the world of online debate I do not like the trend of simply copying-pasting a link, OR a card w/o citations, etc into the online platform chat. As a result I've decided to try something new for PF.
Teams who share evidence in ways that are not simply pasting a link/unformatted card in the zoom/NSDA chat will gain bonus speaks in front of me.
.2 for using/sharing a google doc
.5 for using email chains (for the entire round)
1 full point if proof of updating your wiki/online with the round that was just judged
May keep this bonus to incentivize better evidence practices once we go offline again, stay tuned.
3. I generally am down for whatever yall can justify, just impact it well
But overall, just do what you do best.
***Misc Things that will apply regardless of debate format***
Don't troll debates- we all have invested time into being there for the period of time, would make my life easier if you wanted to forfeit/flip a coin/play a game/something vs running meme/joke args for no reason. If you do so you get a loss 15, if you do it but you're funny you get a 25 instead. Don't waste my and your opponent's time please.
Be nice- you'll see each other many times over the next few years
Clarity > Speed
Tech > Truth (within reason)
Should be a given but don't say rude/racist/offensive things.
Please don't cheat, if you do and you're caught, all proper things via the tournament will be pursued. IF you accuse someone of cheating and are wrong just don't.
Long overviews that attempt to replace line by line are not it, please do not do them - need direct line by line for best results.
Explain your args- spin/analysis means a C+/B- card can beat an A card with no spin. I try not to read evidence unless I absolutely have to, OR if the work to compare the pieces is done
Bonus speaks (to my discretion) to good League of Legends or Smash Bros references/jokes.
I value sound reasoning, explicit weighing, credible evidence and clear communication.
- Speed: talking fast is not a problem, but don't spread.
- Warrant: the most important thing is a clear logical chain of reasoning to convince me with supporting evidence (no hypothesis or fake evidence - I will check your evidence links).
- Flow: I flow everything - try not to drop your opponents' contentions.
- Rebuttals: I like quick thinking when attacking your opponents' arguments and probing weaknesses in important and threatening arguments. Turns are even better.
- Crossfires: don't spend too much time calling cards (yes, a couple of cards are fine) or only sticking on something not too important.
- Weighing: bring those up in both summary and FF with warrant that you want me to vote on.
- Timing: I don't typically time your speeches unless you ask me to do so, but I do time your prep and CX.
Finally, enjoy your rounds!
Good afternoon students! I am looking for good premises that can strongly support your conclusions. Logical fallacies such as bias fallacy will weaken your argument so please try to minimize logical fallacies as much as possible. Throughout your argument, please make sure the premises are true and that they are strongly needed for your conclusions to stand. Also please make sure to work collaboratively with your teammates as teamwork is essential in any debate. Thank you and have fun! I look forward to judging your arguments and I know all of you will do very well!
Hello, my name is Jing.
I am parent judge, and please speak slowly and clearly. Please try your best and avoid technical jargon. Please weigh your impacts, and explain your voters in simplest terms.
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 am a new parent judge and would encourage you to speak SLOWLY and CLEARLY. As we are having our tournament online, it is very hard for others to comprehend what you are trying to say. If I don't catch your words clear enough, you will end up losing a few points.
Once you enter the conference call, please turn ON your video and audio.
I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.
Always be respectful to your opponent.
Keep a clear, structured and consistent narrative throughout the entire round.
I have four years of high school debate experience — mostly in BP, some in PF.
- Don’t mind spreading, just enunciate clearly if you can
- Try to avoid relying on jargon to make a point, I understand most terms but explanations are still helpful
- Please sign-post clearly
- I highly value a good card so if you have one keep emphasizing it
- Don’t be too aggressive, calm down & remember it’s just high school debate :)
I 'm a lay judge. Please:
1. Speak clearly and slowly. I cannot weigh an argument if I can't understand what you are saying.
2. Make sure your taglines are in FULL SENTENCES, for example don't just say "Violence", instead say "___ will Cause a Decrease in Violence".
3. Be polite to your opponents.
4. Please keep your own time. If your opponent's go overtime, let them finish their sentence then cut them off, if necessary.
5. Don't expect that I understand the debate lingo or the topic.
6. If your opponent's drop an argument, you MUST extend it if you want me to weigh it.
Good luck and have fun!
I was a policy debater in high school, and judged a couple of tournaments in college. I'm now returning a few decades later as a parent of a debater. Been judging as a parent for last 4 years. My judging experience has been mostly Public Forum, some Parli, less Policy, and even less LD.
1) Have fun. Enjoy every round. Make friends between rounds. I met my best friends from high school on the team.
2) Assume that I'm new to the topic because I AM new to the topic. Take time to convince me of your side of the resolution. If you use topic specific acronyms, make sure to define them first before using them. I will come to the round with a clean slate and judge based on what I flow
3) You can speak faster than conversational, but you NEED to be clear and articulate. Don't go faster than your ability to speak clearly and persuasively. Make eye contact with me to make sure that you can assess whether I'm keeping up with you and understanding your arguments. If I don't understand an argument, I can't vote on it
4) Whenever you can, establish frameworks to help me weigh the round
5) Help me by giving me a short roadmap before your speech. It's not required, but it can help me (and I think, you) know what you will be doing. It also helps if you are effective in signposting during your speech.
6) Be cordial and polite to each other during cross-ex and throughout the round. Being rude, offensive, or arrogant is no fun and doesn't earn you speaker points. Being polite, smart, inquisitive, and strategic does.
7) Help me weigh the arguments in your final speeches. Tell me why I should vote a certain way. The side that makes it easiest for the judge to evaluate why they're winning the round is often times the clearest winner.
8) I don't really care much for arguments revolving around debate theory as I'm not familiar with it, so try to avoid it if you can. I much prefer clash over the resolution.
9) Read #1 again. :-)
I look at argumentation and clashes. To be more specific, I look at how arguments are carried throughout the debate and how well debaters are able to defend their arguments in clashes.
Please have persuasive reasoning responding to the argument and interactive exchange of ideas where debater is responding to the other's argument.
I do not like spreading.
First of first: Please speak clearly and loudly no matter how tired you are. Otherwise you may lose your game. I know it may be too ridiculous to believe. However, when there are threes judges in a debate, you may find I am the only judge who are trying his best to remember and note every sentence of your speech. Please, do yourself a favor, speak clearly and loudly to let the other two judges be aware of what you are talking about. I wrote this paragraph because I care about the fairness. (To editor, I hope you can understand my kindness and please do not delete my post, Thanks!)
Hi there, my name is Feng Zhang. Although I have limited judging experiences, I am a good learner for debating and judging. Since I got A grade for all STEM lectures from elementary school to graduate school, from China to North America, in Chinese and English, I like logical analysis and data analysis from history facts and economical facts. I am a flow judge and will take notes.
I think that the first crossfire part is the most important part in a debate. Each team will find the opponents’ weakness and ask the sharp questions to challenge each other. The intensive debate always starts from sharp questions. Please do not drop sharp questions and try your best to fight back from there.
Debate is both a game and the real world. Bring real word issues to the forefront within debate rounds is extremely important. I hope it can creates change in our community and, as such, is something I take very seriously. Hence, I will attempt to evaluate every round as fairly as I can, while recognizing I do not check my status as a moral agent at the door.
26-30, unless you do something very rude or exclusionary.
I'm a second year judge. I prefer the participants to talk at normal speed.
I have judged pf for one tournament, but it is my first time judging ld. Please speak clearly and deliver in a pace that a lay judge can comprehend. I prefer you provide me with a roadmap before the speech so I can follow each of your arguments and their supporting evidence. Time yourselves. Good luck and have fun!
Feelings |------------------------------------------X| Dead inside
Policy |-----------X-------------------------------| K
Tech |---X--------------------------------------| Truth
Read no cards |-----------X---------------------| Read all the cards
Conditionality good |----------X-------------------| Conditionality bad
States CP good |----------X--------------------------| States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing |---------X-------------------| Politics DA not a thing
Always VTL |---------------X----------------| Sometimes NVTL
UQ matters most |---------------------------X--------| Link matters most
Fairness is a thing |-------------X--------------------------| Delgado 92
Try or die |X-----------------------------------------| What's the opposite of try or die
Not our Baudrillard |-----------------------------X---------| Yes your Baudrillard
Clarity |X--------------------------------------------| Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Limits |-------------------------X--------------------------| Aff ground
Presumption |---------------------X-----------| Never votes on presumption
Resting grumpy face |----------------X--------------| Grumpy face is your fault
Longer ev |------------X--------------------------| More ev
"Insert this rehighlighting" |--------------------------------------X-| I only read what you read
Reverse voters are a thing |--------------------------------------X| Spare me
Fiat solves |-------X---------------------------------| LOL someone messes w/ your aff
CX about impacts |-------------------------X--------| CX about links and solvency
Who is this Zizek guy |-----X-------------------------| The Phenomenology is my bedside novel
Experience: HS - backwoods regional debate, mostly LD a little PF. College - Policy, 2 years at GMU
I do the flowing thing. I go off the flowing thing.
No disclosure is also dumb. Email me after if you want comments.
My pen is down when my timer goes off.
No I don't want to shake your hand. Sorry.
There is not a world in which underviews are good nor will you convince me there is a world in which underviews are good.
Debate is a game and it should be fun. I'll vote on anything that's not an -ism. Below are just my predispositions that are subject to change.
A lot of people like to outsource violence (oppression, etc.) to other countries when there are a lot to pull from and use in the U.S. Be creative. Many people's struggle and oppression did not end with the Revolutionary War and Civil War despite what the history books try to tell you. Debate is also educational, so educate everyone in the room.
If you show me your fluffy animal, preferably in a sentient format, I will increase speaker point by 0.1 or whatever the equivalent step is for your tournament.
The following will result in a 0-0.5 increase or decrease in speaks
1) Quoting from the band The Wanted.
2) Referring to President Dude in an invalidating manner throughout the ENTIRE debate
Thoughts on progressive: Look to policy. Inserting RVIs and conflating T/Theory will make for a pissy Beth. Don't ask people to delete files you flashed them. That's too extra.
Value/Value Criterion: Need to link to contentions. Obvi. Just the lens on how I should evaluate the round. Conceding this won't lose you the round.
Definitions/Observations: If you're going to talk about it, be self-serving about it.
Contentions: This is where most of the debate is. Everyone seems to be saying the same arguments. Be creative with your argumentation here.
Cross-ex: Make an effort to not look at each other. Please. I don't flow this. CX is binding.
Road maps/Line by Line: Stolen from Sean Colligan. "Debate is a journey and a journey is helped by signpost and roadmaps. Could you imagine trying to find this building without any signpost or roadmaps, it would be chaos."
If email chain: email@example.com
I don't run prep for email/flashing. Don't abuse it. If it takes too long I'll start the timer at my discretion but I'll do you the courtesy of letting you know.
Topic research? What's that? 2A's for life.
T: Default to reasonability. If you didn't get to read a stupid process CP it's nbd but if you lost a core of the topic DA then the aff probably isn't T. If you're running spec args set it up in CX otherwise CX checks. Slow down and show me where the clash is.
Theory: Sans condo, reject the arg not the team. But a dropped theory arg is a dropped theory arg. Can't say I'm the best judge on theory. It would be really helpful if you would slow down and do line by line rather than read block your coach wrote five years ago. You get two conditional worlds and the status quo until the 2NR, otherwise I'm pretty convinced by condo bad.
FW: I understand more now as a judge than I ever did as a debater. I was mostly in policy v. policy debates. Take this as you will
CP: Process/Delay,etc. CP's are stupid. Any other CP is a great way to solve the aff. Planks probably shouldn't be conditional. Solvency deficits and perms are ways to my heart. Judge kicking seems cheating but if the 2A doesn't say anything about it then the 2A isn't very good at their job.
DA: While DAs are important, I think it's getting harder and harder to win with just a DA. Links and impact calc are the most important here. I won't not vote on UQ overwhelms
Case: Case almost always gets try or die so if your favorite 2NR is DA and case you should put some link turns on case otherwise it's an uphill battle for you. A lot of 2NRs seem to forget that case is a thing. Most K's don't work without some defense on case.
K: The extent of my k lit are the cards I read in round. From a truth perspective, the K probably links to the aff and the impacts are probably true, but the alt just seems to be some sort of circle jerk. I'd like to think that my ballot does something and I'm not sure if thinking away the patriarchy actually does anything.
K/Performance AFFs: Do your thing and I will try my best to follow. I lean policy. If you can't adequately explain your AFF by the end of the round its your fault. New debaters just don't know debate well enough to say why debate is bad. Young debaters for the most part do not have a solid grasp to debate these affs well.
CX: I don't flow it unless I catch something important. CX is binding. If knowing that I don't flow CX is a reason that you start making things up that will make for a very angry Beth and will reflect in your speaker points.
Random thoughts I didn't know where to put but might be important: Impact turns are da bomb and I love to watch them. The more outlandish the better. Dedev is love. Dedev is life. If you concede 1AC advs and go for a straight turn DA that is not severance.
I evaluate the round similarly to my policy paradigm, happy to answer any questions before round. Below are things I would like to (not) see happen in the round
Strategy. Going for arguments/impacts/scenarios that your opponent dropped and contextualizing it to the round is the best thing you can do. Too often debaters don’t notice dropped/under covered arguments and it’s super frustrating for me bc I already see my ballot written. If you go for harder arguments you’ve made your job harder and mine so now I’m less happy.
Analysis. I guess it’s called weighing but please do this! Depth > breadth. The more you can contextualize your debate for me, the easier it is to write my ballot.
Time keeping. There should be a timer running at all times, whether it’s prep, cross, or speech. This also means you need to time literally everything not only to keep everyone responsible but also to make sure round/tournament run on time. If at any point you have to ask or are asked “are you running prep” “is anyone keeping time” then someone fucked up
General niceties. I don’t care for them AT ALL and teams that really lean into it honestly piss me off. I get it’s PF or whatever, but I don’t really like it. I’ll list somethings that irk me and why.
A) Introducing yourself and team. For the love of god your speech is already so short, just get to the substance. I promise I will not vote for/against you bc you did/not introduced yourself. If it doesn’t count towards the ballot, it doesn’t matter. If you do it during your speech, I’ll be mad bc I don’t think your using your time strategically. If you do it before your speech your adding more time to the round that I cannot wait to get out of.
B) Roadmaps. Love a good roadmap, but your roadmap should be something along the lines of “aff case, neg case. I’ll be starting on x argument”. anything more than that and you’re wasting everyone’s time.
C) Saying things like “I’d like to take prep time” or anything that signals you’re asking me to use your time. It’s weird. It’s your time. Idc how you use it. Take ownership of your time.
D) Normalize “is anyone not ready” before speeches and “you ready” for cross. This is especially important for online environment where verbal cues are a less common. Things like “is my judge ready” really bother me.
E) This is a catch all. Do not involve me into your debate anymore than I have too. I’m here to evaluate arguments, nothing more. Please ask questions before your debate that you think will help you but once the timer starts I’m chilling.
F) This doesn't mean you get to be mean. Filter out what is and is not necessary.
I am a lay parent judge, and this is my first year to be a judge. I prefer that debaters don’t speak too fast so that I could follow your arguments.
I will judge based upon:
1) solid logic and reasoning.
2) strong advocacy of your position.
3) utilization of evidence.
4) clear communication.
I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.