PF: I only think an email chain is necessary if audio is not the best or you plan on spreading. Email me if there is any way I can make the round more accessible.

email: noorabdallah101@gmail.com

I am a third-year student at the University of Georgia. I did four years of PF at Columbus High School, and one year of policy at UGA.

Policy: I am still learning policy myself, so please take that into account if I am your judge. I will always try my best to make the best decision and I am way more comfortable with DA's and CP's than K's. Just do not expect the same out of me as you would a regular policy judge :)

Speaks:

1. In terms of speed, I can comfortably handle around 250-270 wpm. Online debate might not allow that speed, keep that in mind. I don’t really see the need for spreading, but if you do, ask your opponents and send a speech doc. If you do this to confuse them and win, I will drop you.

2. No judge will get everything you say, so warrant.

3. I am a huge lover of puns. Wit and puns are appreciated in round. However, if you intentionally make any racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low speaks and notify your coach immediately. Assertive and funny debaters are different from rude ones.

Argumentation:

In short, you do not want me to interfere as a judge. Do the work for me and that means to make clean extensions, frontline, and weigh. In detail, here are things that win my ballot:

1. I vote off the flow. I try to interfere as little as possible, which means you NEED TO WEIGH. If you don't, I will have to interfere and use my own weighing mechanism. In that case, you probably won't like my decision. I will do everything I can to ensure a fair round from my part but don't get mad at me if I don't flow a one-second extension that isn't flushed out.

2. Frontline!! You can't just extend your arguments through their responses without telling me why they don't matter and/or why your argument still stands. If they extend their warranted response(s) throughout round and you do not respond to it, you are in a bad position.

3. Signposting is extremely helpful and should be done :) I RARELY flow author names so do not just extend "Smith 19" and think that is you extending something. I should hear what Smith 19 said over and over.

4. I will vote tech over truth. If your opponents make an unwarranted assertion, refute it. Don’t rely on me to do the analysis for you.

5. Summaries - Line-by-line, voter, etc. I have no preference on format (though line-by-line is better to me). Create the narrative, defend, extend, weigh. New weighing in both summaries is fine.

6. NO new arguments in final focus (with the exception of extended weighing analysis in 1st FF). There really shouldn't be any new arguments in 2nd summary.

7. I am not your judge for theory, K's, topicality, etc. I have voted for these things before, and am understanding them as a policy debater. BUT reading theory against a team who doesn't know how to deal with it is abusive.

8. I use cross to write feedback, so anything said is not binding, just bring it up in a speech because I probably didn’t listen. Use cross strategically and for your own benefit.

First-Speaking Team:

1. I do not require defensive extensions in first summary if they have not been responded to. However, you must extend overviews/turns if you expect me to be voting off of them.

2. By final focus, you should know what your opponents are going for. Defensive extensions must be in final focus if you want them to factor into my decision. Defense not responded to by the second-speaking team by second-summary is dropped defense - bring it up!

Second-Speaking Team:

1. The rebuttal should respond to any overviews/turns/disads. The only other time second- speaking team has time to respond is second summary, and that is extremely abusive. You do not have to respond to terminal defense until summary, although it may be strategic to do so on the arguments you’re going for later in the round. To clarify - if the rebuttal does not have to answer all terminal defense, the summary obviously must, or I will consider it dropped.

2. No new weighing in second final focus. It’s unfair and gives your opponents no chance to respond. Also, this is not your chance just to extend through ink because no one will be able to call you out on it.

Evidence:

1. Every card you read within a debate should be cited and available almost immediately (30 seconds is reasonable time) within context for your opponent to read. I will drop your speaks if you are unable to find or provide your evidence to your opponents or me.

2. Any evidence misrepresentations will factor into my decision. If you are blatantly lying about your cards, I will most likely drop you and your speaks. I am very very okay with cards that are paraphrased as long as they are not misused (feel free to have this argument with me)

3. I like logical responses just as much as I like carded responses. But just like a carded response, logic should make sense and be warranted. The card does half the work, do the other half and apply it in round.

Otherwise, if you have any questions, please ask me or email me at noorabdallah101@gmail.com ! Debating is supposed to be an educational, motivational, and fun experience so make the most of it! I will always disclose and give feedback if the tournament allows me.

Good Luck :)

Preferences: 

Please no speeding or spreading. What I cannot understand - aka discern due to speed - will not be judged; clear speaking is therefore a must. 

Traditional judge - or at least what used to be considered "traditonal." AKA (Please read as this is important): NO PLANS, NO KRITIKS, NO SHELLS, NO COUNTERPLANS, AND NO NARRATIVES. Please just debate the resolution. If you do have to use these sorts of cases, please make sure the link is as clear and as evident and flushed out as possible. 

Background:

LD, Congress, PFD, and Interp. 

Anthropology & Human Biology and Human Health major, while I doubt it will come up based on the topic, if scientific literature is read, do not misconstrue it. 

Notes: 

Speaker points will be given on how well you debate AND how you present your case and your arguments. (Low point wins, if we are allowed to give them, may be given.) 

While I have participated in all of the forms of debate - excluding policy - I only judge once a year, so consider me to not be up to date on whatever new debate terminology has come about in the past year. As such, if you do bring up terminology, theory, common phrases, etc., explain what you mean or else you will have a confused judge which may or may not - depending on what you are trying to argue and how important it is to the round - change the outcome of the round. (e.g. if you state a specific theory, chances are high I will not be familiar with it, so explaining it in a manner that is understandable is vital if it is important to your case.) 

If you can crystalize and provide voting issues in the NR or 2AR that would be very helpful and benefical for your case. 

Thank you and best of luck. 

Read Jinsoo Kim's paradigm

Background

I'm a college student (Oxford '23 lets go!!), former national circuit debater, and former PF captain at Ardrey Kell High School. I placed in the top 16 at CFLs 2019, and qualified for TOC Gold in 2020 (didn't attend because I graduated early RIP).

General

- I will not vote on electoral feasibility or electoral probability. You can't prove to me that Trump or Biden will win. Please don't try.

- Be funny, but don't be a jerk. Yes, that includes making faces while your opponent is speaking, using ad-hominem attacks, and shouting over your opponent. I'm not sure how well this applies for zoom debating, but I guess we'll find out.

- Please, please, please speak clearly. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'm not voting for you. This is really important for virtual tournaments because your mic quality is already lower than in person.

- I don't like spreading. There's a difference between speaking quickly and spreading. If you have to gasp for air in the middle of your speech, you're probably spreading. If you're speaking to quickly for me to flow, I'll raise my hand. If you keep speaking quickly, I'll say "clear." If you don't slow down after that then I'm not going to flow what you're saying. Again, speed is fine but spreading is not.

- Tech > Truth with exceptions. If your argument has clear logical fallacies, makes ridiculous leaps, is rooted in bigotry, or if it contradicts undisputed facts, I'm going to take note.

- Weigh your arguments. Please. Please. Please.

- Signpost. I need to know where you are and what you're talking about.

- I believe that public forum is supposed to be a version of debate that anyone could judge. Because of that, I will consider your persuasive ability and presentation in my RFD. If you tell me about something that I know about but you fail to adequately explain it, you'll receive lower speaks.

- If you're going to run theory/k arguments, make sure you do it exceptionally well. I'm not well-versed in theory, so if you can't explain it clearly to me I'm not going to buy it. I'm not likely to vote for a theory case unless it's incredible.

- Minute technicalities will not win you the round.

Evidence

- Do your best to cite the author's last name, their publication, and the year before reading evidence (ex: Burns of the New York Times in 2019 notes that...)

- I don't care if your card is paraphrased, so long as it isn't misconstrued.

- Please have your evidence ready to present. If your opponent calls for a card and you can't produce it, I'll dismiss the card. If that card is critical to one of your arguments, I'll also dismiss that argument.

- If your evidence is egregiously misrepresented, comes from an awful source, or is made up, I'll drop it and I'll drop your speaks. Keep doing it and I'll drop your team. I care a lot about evidence integrity.

- If you have repeated evidence issues and your opponent makes it a voting issue, I'll consider that in my RFD.

- I'll ask for cards at the end of the round if any of the following criteria are met:

1) I have reason to believe you're misrepresenting what your evidence says (ex: if your card says "the coronavirus vaccine will save people that will otherwise die if they're exposed" and you read "the coronavirus vaccine...people...will...die", you've misconstrued it)

2) The source of your card is questionable (ex: Infowars)

3) The card is disputed in round without clear resolution. (ex: grand crossfire is entirely about what one card might or might not say and neither of you can agree)

4) The card sounds too good to be true (ex: President Trump personally saved 3 million people from dying last Thursday)

5) I am asked to call for evidence by you or your opponent (ex: "Judge, call the card and see for yourself.")

Case

- If you have a specific weighing mechanism you want me to use, tell me in your framework. If you don't give me a weighing mechanism in framework, I'll weigh based on a cost/benefit analysis. If both of you present a framework, please tell me which I should use and why.

- Make sure your case is organized so I can follow it.

- Link your evidence to your impacts. If you read me a card and tell me something is going to happen, but can't explain the relationship between them, I'm not going to consider it.

- You use logic to make a jump from evidence to impact as long as your logic makes sense.

Rebuttal

- I prefer line-by-line rebuttals, but if needed I encourage a broad overview that critiques the general flaw in a contention before you go into it.

- If an argument isn't responded to in rebuttal, I'll consider it conceded. You can still outweigh it later.

- Second rebuttal should attempt to frontline.

Summary

- Defense is needed in the first summary if the other team frontlines in second rebuttal.

- Extend turns in summary

- Use summary to weigh your impacts

Final Focus

- Give me clear voter issues.

- If you can, lay out a narrative here. Clearly explain to me why your arguments are more important.

- Don't spend a ton of time hashing out small details here. I want to hear the big picture, not irrelevant turns that don't significantly strengthen your case.

Crossfire

- I don't ignore crossfire. I won't flow crossfire in the traditional sense, but I will take notes.

- If you make a strong point in crossfire (turns, concessions, strong evidence challenge, etc) I will add that to flow. But BRING IT UP AGAIN IN YOUR NEXT SPEECH.

That's basically it.

(If you got this far, tell me you read the note at the bottom of my paradigm before we start the round. I'll be impressed. And I'll give you a .1 speaker point bump)

Carmen Kohn’s Paradigm

I have been judging speech and debate events since 2016. I am also currently the Director and Head Coach for Charlotte Catholic HS in NC.

Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum:

I enjoy both the ethical component of the discussions in LD and the current topicality of most PF topics. I appreciate the informative nature of these debates, especially in the current political climate.

I am a classic flow judge for both events and am looking for good clash between opponents. In LD, I place more emphasis on contentions rather than value, however, that evidence must clearly link back to the VC. I am also more interested in the impacts. A dropped contention is not automatic grounds for a win. It depends on the relevance of the argument. When rebutting, don't just extend the author's card. I am not writing down all of the authors. Please remind me of the evidence that was presented. I prefer the well-thought out, well-paced arguments. While debates are won based on evidence presented, I do find a direct correlation between technical speaking abilities and evidence offered. I also make a note of how professionally debaters present themselves and behave towards myself and each other.

I would classify myself as a advanced traditional lay judge. I am not a progressive judge. Do not run theory shells or any other "progressive" argument with me. While I do appreciate the occasional non-traditional argument, especially towards the end of the topic time frame, all cases should be realistic and applicable in the current environment in which we find ourselves. Please debate the current resolution.

Absolutely No Spreading!!! I cannot follow it, especially with online tournaments. You will lose the round. This is probably my biggest pet peeve. I feel there is no educational value to that in a competitive environment. You run the risk that I will not have caught all of your arguments and may miss a main point in my flow. Please keep technical jargon to a minimum also. Throwing around debate jargon and just cards identified by author gets too confusing to follow. And if you ask a question during cross-ex, please let your opponent answer and finish their sentences. It’s unprofessional to cut someone off. Signposts and taglines are always appreciated. I generally do not disclose or give oral RFD. I want time to review my notes. Debates where opponents respect each other and are having fun, arguing solid contentions, are the best ones to watch.

Congress:

I've just started judging Congress. My "comments" are usually summaries of your speeches. Occasional commentary on the delivery and/or content. Please interact with previously given speeches (by Rep name also) and don't just rehash a "first speech". If you can bring a new point to the discussion 6 speeches in, that is awesome.

I will give points to POs. I appreciate what is involved in POing. During nomination speeches, it can be assumed that a PO will run a "fast and efficient" chamber. No need to state the obvious. However, if that actually doesn't take place, a lower rank will result.

Good luck to all!!

I appreciate a well organized & thoughtful structure to your case. I take a lot of notes, and while I don't mind reasonable speed, please don't rush through your main points. Be especially clear with your value and criterion and main contentions. More isn't always better. Well thought out evidence and your explanation of its impact to your case is more important to me than speeding through citations that don't get much explanation.

Clash will weigh heavily in my voting and usually decides the winner in a close debate. I appreciate a spirited cross ex but expect that students remain civil and respectful of each other. Please tell me your voting points and why you think your case won the debate. If you feel your opponent dropped an argument or was unable to adequately refute a main point, tell me.

I appreciate your giving up a weekend day to debate and will do my best to give you a good round of judging and meaningful feedback on your ballots.

I have judged speech and debate events for the past 13 years. My son was in Congress.

General thoughts

Regardless of the event, I expect professionalism and preparation from all competitors. Showing up unprepared or engaging in unprofessional behavior wastes your time, my time, as well as that of the other competitors and your coaches.

Public Forum Debate & LD

Although I’ve judged PFD more than LD, I feel comfortable with both events. I appreciate assertiveness but actively dislike aggression. Clarity is extremely important. Don’t be cocky: instead, try to convey how deeply you’ve researched the topic. I always leave my personal opinions on the topic aside in order to be fair to all debaters.

Interp/speech

I started off my judging career judging interp, even though lately I’ve been judging debate more. Regardless of the piece, you have to give your best when performing. Delivery must always be clear and interesting. Tech should be smooth and reflect the norms of the event itself (tech in DI is very different than tech in HI).

The best time to invest in a good internet connection was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

I'm a truth over tech parent judge with about 3 years experience, and fairly active in the season. I'm a lay judge that flows, but not to any internationally recognized standard, and definitely not in more than one color. My writing is scruffy, sometimes I can't read my own notes. If you see me drawing big circles or boxes, it's because someone just made some ridiculous claim, and it's rude to laugh - so I scribble a shape instead.

Triangle - only a Muppet would say that.

Rectangle - only a Muppet would believe that.

Oval - only a Muppet would have found this in the deepest parts of the internet and think it was worth repeating with a straight face.

I'm a scientist, a software engineer, and yes, that thing behind me is a tower made from IKEA lack tables holding two 3D printers.

I am a lay judge.

Please speak fluently and slowly.

If you spread I will not be able to understand your arguments which means that they will not end up on my flow.

Debate the actual resolution. I am not a fan of theory based arguments.

If you're using evidence please explain why it is important and what it is saying instead of just naming the card.

Update for Peninsula 2021: I am sick and hence will have my camera off. I would especially appreciate it if you kept your own time and made me speak as less as possible. I would also appreciate if you send your case to rsarwal@gmail.com with your team code on the subject line so I can follow better. Apologies for the inconvenience, have fun debating!

Hey y'all. (If you see a lot of debate jargon here, blame it on my son).

I am a parent judge but that doesn't mean I'm stupid. So disclaimer if you're gonna try and go full "lay" or think I'm going to let an argument past me, you're wrong. However, don't start running K's, Theory Shells or any other of that progressive stuff because if you are reading this you very well know this is a traditional local tournament.

Preferences-

SPEAKING- Be clear, concise. Don't be mean. That's the main gist. If you can't speak in the best way or you have a speaking impairment, don't worry! All I should see is you trying.

-Speaker Points

30- You spoke really well. You demonstrated a well-versed understanding of the topics. You won all the arguments, and it seems as if the world relies on this ballot. You made me smile and gave me new insight.

29- You were excellent. Only very minor flaws, maybe in just not extending an impact or not explaining values that well. Other than that, you were pretty solid.

28- I see a lot of potential. You may lack in certain areas but you put up a, if not good, then reasonable fight.

27- You had a reasonable case. You couldn't defend your case, perhaps only one or two arguments. No solid offense but tried.

26- You need to go over the resolution again, understand it well. Learn to give voter issue, impacts, explain values.

**BELOW a 26**- If you were mean, super mean, violated rules like had a evidence violation or were 'super duper really you should learn how to behave' mean.

VALUES- I really really think values are really important. It gives me a weighing mechanism to judge the round and makes things easier. I expect you to tie back your arguments to your value structures. I generally prefer if you agree on a value premise but if you oppose your opponent's value structure, be clear. Don't use complicated theories of ethics and expect me to nod my head. Keep it clear, simple and explain your stuff.

WELL ORGANIZED ARGUMENTS- I don't want you to be going everywhere making a round hell for me. Be organized, be clear. Signpost. Refer to your card names, tell me where your argument is (ie Contention 1, Sub Point C). I also like Off Time Road Maps.These skills not only help me in round but also will help you as a debater. Also, do NOT drop arguments. I may be a parent but I judge off of arguments.

REBUTTALS- I honestly think rebuttals are very, rather the most important. If you come up with one on spot, that you warrant really well, without any evidence, I will really like that. That being said, if you use evidence or a card, then I still won't mind. Just warrant it out and explain it to me. Just reading evidence is useless.

What I don't like

- You either being super tech or super lay. Talk like I'm a lay judge, argue like a tech one. But not too tech, it will only go against you.

-Being mean. You know the reasons. I will deliberately judge screw you if you are mean or sarcastic. We all know how oof being judge screwed is.

-Super advanced stuff. Maybe you even explain it, I will still not understand it. But at the end of the day, I hardly know what a K or theory or plan is. (This is my son assuring me that I don't know this stuff).

-Giving impacts without reasons. I don't want to hear "Climate Change is bad." Tell me how it is bad and connect your value premise's to it.

In the end, I appreciate you, your time and your skills as a debater. I may sound super picky in this paradigm but my son says it helps debaters. All this is for you to learn.

Good luck debating!

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I flow each speech and, as a result, use my flow as my primary decision-rendering tool. The flow is especially important to me when deciding between two debaters with nearly equal performances. I also value clear, distinct voter issues and look for debaters to use voter issues to connect multiple ideas across the debate. Additionally, I look for clear frameworks to set up the round for each debater and for each debater to use these frameworks to present deep analyses of the main issues in the round.

In general, I prefer you speak no faster than a brisk, conversational pace. Trying to “out-speed” your opponent or overwhelm them by spreading will not earn you points in my book. If you speak so quickly I cannot easily gather your main points, how am I supposed to flow them and weigh them in the round?

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, I am just one judge with one set of opinions. Speech and debate is meant to be a fun and educational activity. I hope your experience is rewarding, educational, and, above all else, fun.

Good luck!

I am the Debate coach at Tift County High School.
I am fine with speed, but you should not speak so quickly that it interferes with comprehension.
Making sure your points are understood is a key element of speech.
I will score substance over style. I can understand debate jargon, but if you're using it to an extent that it is confusing your opponents or seems counter-productive to clear communication, I will not appreciate it.
There should be an exchange of ideas present. If you are debating air, so to speak -- that is to say not actually engaging with your opponents' rhetoric -- you will not be rewarded.

I am an AP Lang teacher and am a stickler for logical fallacies and effective rhetoric. The former will lead to deductions while the latter will, of course, be rewarded. Just because your opponent was not able to expose fallacious reasoning, does not mean that I will give you credit for it.

TLDR: I am a typical college student flow judge who primarily debated in a more traditional circuit. Use that information as you wish.

I did mostly PF for two years with Riverside High School in South Carolina. I'm the current co-president of the Carolina Debate Society at the University of South Carolina, participating in British Parliamentary Debate.

Email: matthewyoon34@gmail.com

1. WARRANTS: Please have warrants. You can have the best evidence talking about Y impact, but if you don’t have a reason as to why that’s true, I’m not going to evaluate it in my decision. Saying an argument isn't valid because "there's no card" is NOT a defensive response and I will be very sad if you say something like that.

2. WEIGHING: Weighing makes the round a lot easier for not only you, but for me as well. Compare the probability, magnitude, scope, and timeframe of your warrants/impacts with your opponents'. Phrases like "even if you believe their argument..." or "although their argument may be true in the short-term..." will seriously clear up the debate and make it easier for me to vote for you. Weigh as early as possible; I probably won't evaluate new weighing in second final focus.

3. ROUND STRATEGY: Second speaking teams should frontline in rebuttal. First speaking teams MUST extend defense in summary if second speaking team frontlined in rebuttal and first speaking teams SHOULD always extend at least some defense in summary, especially with new speech times. Offense in final focus must be in summary. Try to only go for one well-warranted, well-weighed argument in the latter half of the round.

4. SPEAKING STYLE: Can handle slightly higher than average speed, but please don’t spread. During online season, please try to speak slower or at least clearer than usual.

5. EVIDENCE: I'll call for cards after round if told to. Cite evidence with at least last name, year, source.

6. THINGS I LIKE:

- Good Summary Speeches: As a first speaker, I understand how important, yet difficult, summary can be. Proper extensions, efficient frontlining, and effective weighing will seriously help you pick up the round and will also boost your speaker points.

- Enjoyability: Have fun, seriously. Make me feel like you want to debate and not like your tiger mom forced you to debate.

7. THING I DON'T LIKE:

- New arguments: Nothing new after second summary, and my threshold for believing a new argument will increase as the round goes on. Which means I will rarely accept any new responses in second summary.

- Rudeness: Please don’t consistently talk over your opponent in cross. I will dock your speaks.

Again, have fun, and good luck!