My advice to you would be to be very clear in the arguments you are making so that I can follow you. Be courteous and respectful - I cannot abide rudeness, eye rolling or anything that suggests you do not respect your peers. Manage your time well, I don’t expect to have to intervene on a time management issues but I will if I have to. Ultimately though I am a newish judge with relatively brief experience of the topics so... convince me. Make your arguments clear and tell me why you won. Appeal to the ordinary citizen (me) through sound reasoning, succinct organisation, credible evidence and clear delivery. And enjoy it!

Experience: I have been judging Public Forum Debate for 8 years.

I am a professor, and a parent.

Public Forum in essence is the clarity of persuasion. Clarity is driven by ability to tell a compelling story that is supported by effective evidence. What I am looking for is the following:

Speeches

· Presentation of your arguments in a clear and organized manner.

· Slowly speak, do not speed through your speeches.

· Robustly support your contentions with thoughtfully presented evidence.

- Clearly explain your evidence and explicitly state its relevance.

- Thoroughly understand your source. Be able explain how the study was done, the methodology, the rational and the limitations. And be able to explain why this a strong piece of supporting evidence.

· Expeditiously produce the card for your evidence if asked.

· Create a compelling story.

Crossfire and Grand Crossfire

· Propose incisive questions that the other team understands clearly.

· Succinctly answer questions using relevant evidence.

· Expeditiously produce the card for evidence if asked.

· Translate your thoughts into coherent speech quickly.

· Be polite and have respectful exchanges, and please do not talk over one another.

Final Focus

· Analyzing the arguments in a convincing manner.

· Clearly present the weaknesses of the other side.

· Be able to keep the storyline throughout the debate.

Finally, assume I have never heard about anything about the topics given. I want you to explain and debate as if I this is my first-time hearing about the topic.

5 Things to Remember

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include I will be going over my opponents case and if time permits I will address our case)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then dont in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework :

If you dont provide any, I assume there to be a cost/benefit analysis. Whilst a clear framework/voting issues helps, you can not use a framework to overly narrow the resolution or impose an undue burden on your opponent (e.g. unless my opponent does X I win).

3. Extensions :

Don’t just extend card authors and taglines or arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and termanlize your impacts. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation.

4. Evidence :

I prefer if you DO NOT paraphrase. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round.

5. Narrative :

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story or how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents case.

**Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don’t necessarily know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that with some humor and panache.**

Speaker Points

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 im- portant error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

I expect a clear and organized debate. Make sure to speak clearly and loud enough so that that everyone in the round can hear you. Make sure that you are respectful and courteous to your opponents, especially during Crossfire. Cutting off your opponent when they are speaking is not useful or necessary.

I highly suggest you keep an organized flow and go line by line down your opponent's case whenever possible to ensure you address all their attacks on your case and can defend your key points. The win will go to the team that flows through the most points from case to final focus, effectively delinking their opponent's case and defending their own.

Blippy arguments make the debate nearly impossible to judge:

Cards should have warrants and you should be able to access the warrant and reasoning behind the card a quote without context is not an argument. You should be using warrants not just reading a quote. If you are extending evidence you should be reading the warrant, not just a blip.

THE DEBATER WHO HAS BETTER ARGUMENTATION WILL WIN OVER THE DEBATER WHO JUST READS A CARD THAT SAYS WELL ACTUALLY WSJ SAYS XYZ.

there should in general, be more engagement on the framing aspect of the debate. Tell me:

How you link into framing
Why that is good
Why your opponent doesn't
why that is bad

pick one main argument that you are winning and link to framing.

pick what offense the other team has and outweigh it

he/him

I have been a coach at Evanston for 5 years, and have been judging for them for 7+

please be clear if spreading, very important that you pause and sign post during argumentation. I will defer to what I hear in speeches and use the speech doc sparingly. It is importance to change cadence when spreading in order to emphasize warrants and impacts in order to differentiate. I don’t want to have to read the cards to figure out what you are saying in your speeches, you should be clear enough so I can flow

Tricks are pretty annoying and don't really help people learn how to debate, It is on a case to case basis on how I will weigh tricks (long story short, id recommend NOT reading them in front of me)

The most important thing in the round is that your arguments are accessible, and inclusive to everyone. That being said, be inclusive to your opponent inside the round. If your opponent doesn't understand speed, slow down. If an argument is not clear and is hard to understand, explain it. If you don't do these things, I will have a hard time voting for these arguments. That being said, I am pretty much open to any argument (regardless of event) as long as it is warranted, and impacted (as long as it is not exclusionary or violent). This includes critical arguments in public forum. Don't lie about evidence. This is a very good way to automatically lose the round with me, and more often than not almost any other judge, or judge panel.

Decision-Making:

Framing:

If you tell me to look at a certain framework and it is fair and reasonable, then I will do so. If I don't think it is fair I probably wont evaluate under it, but I will tell you why I think it's unfair, and how to make it fair. For LD, it is more about warranted framing. I don’t like/understand phil framing when it’s spread, and I literally have no idea how to evaluate it when it’s read at 200+ wpm

K's are cool.

Decorum: You should do what makes you comfortable in round, if you want to sit down for cx cool, stand up, cool. Sit down for speech, yeee, stand on your head. Let people know if there is anything you need to make the round more accessible or more comfortable for you.

Speaker points: Being kind in round is the best way to get 30's with me. Also, if I learn something new or interesting, you will probably get good speaks

winners get probably 28-30, then the losing team .5 less

30: you were cool in round

I don't always remember to time, so please be honest and hold yourselves accountable.

Engineer by training and profession. So I value clear substantiated logic over style or ethos.

Any evidence clipping will get you dropped. I am serious about this. I may ask for your cards after the debate for my edification.

Speed: Slow Down. I understand the desire to cover as much ground as possible but do not do it at the cost of clarity. Remember, this debate is for someone who is moderately familiar with the topic. If you go too fast, you will lose the audience. This is especially true in the era of online debates. (Plus speed is sometimes used to hide evidence clipping which I strongly dislike - see above)

For Palatine: I feel like these rounds are getting messy and confusing. Please take time in your speeches to explain the WHY behind your cards.

Email: jgiesecke10@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

My fundamental principles:.

• It’s not an argument without a warrant.

• 'Clarity of Impact' weighing isn't real.

• ‘Probability weighing also isn’t real

• Calling for un-indicted cards is judge intervention.

• Judge intervention is usually bad.

view of a PF round:

• Front lining in the second rebuttal makes the round easier for everyone — including me.

• Offense is conceded if it’s dropped in the proceeding speech — a blippy extension or the absence of weighing is a waste of the concession.

• Overviews should engage/interact with the case it’s being applied to.

• Warrant/evidence comparison is the crux of an effective rebuttal.

• Offense must be in summary and Final Focus.

• If they don’t frontline your defense, you can extend it from first rebuttal to first Final Focus.

• You MUST answer turns in the second rebuttal or first summary.

• Telling me you outweigh on scope isn’t really weighing, you need to tell my WHY you outweigh on scope or whatever.
• Comparative weighing is the crux of a good summary and final focus and good comparative weighing is the easiest way win.

Judging style:

• I don’t evaluate new weighing in second Final Focus.

• weighing needs to be consistent in summary and final focus

• It may look like I'm not paying attention to crossfire; it's because I'm not.

• Turns that aren't extended in the first summary that ends up in the first final focus become defense

• Miscellaneous Stuff

• Flip the coin as soon as both teams are there

• Have preflows ready

• open cross is fine

• Flex prep is fine

• K’s fine but can only be read in the second case or first rebuttal.

• I will NOT evaluate disclosure theory

• I don't care where you speak from

• I don't care what you wear

Simon Han (he/him):

*disclaimer: I am a tired and stressed college student out of touch of debate for about 8 months, might be a little rusty*

Update for January Topic: I have extremely limited knowledge about this topic and haven't done much research about it as well. Please adapt accordingly and don't use hyperspecific vocab and assume that I know what you're talking about.

I've debated PF for 4 years at Carl Sandburg (4 in local Illinois and 1 in NatCir). Competed in IHSA varsity state (2x) and Blake Invitational (NCFL Qualifiers 2020 but nat tourney was cancelled cuz Covid). I haven't competed much NatCir but am fairly familiar with the style. I appreciate email chains, simon.h1128@gmail.com

I encourage calling for evidence for whatever sounds too good to be true. Don't call for cards to get more prep. If that happens, say good bye to your speaks. Don't ask for cards before second constructive unless both cases are disclosed on the NDCA Wiki, abusing second speaker prep is unethical and I hate it.

Your speaker points will be independent of your actual content of argumentation. It'll purely be based on respect, articulation, enunciation, eye contact, and (most importantly) humor.

The best way to ensure integrity while waiting for prep:

1. keep your hands visible to the camera

2. stay unmuted so we know you're not talking to your partner

3. don't be reading anything while waiting for the cards you called

General PF stuff:

I consider myself a very traditional flay judge. I like direct, technical interaction with each argument, but you need to tell me why I should care and warrant the links. I talk about this more later in the paradigm.

PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES. I probably will be timing, but it helps not only myself, but your organization in the speech when you time yourselves. Please also time prep.

-general rule of thumb to gain good speaks is to act like I genuinely don't care and try to make me care. most likely don't have to pretend tho lol

-if you want to run crazy arguments, go for it, but I'm probably more likely to buy the defense for the argument if it's not warranted.

-no spreading. I hate policy.

-if I can't understand you, I'm not flowing. I flow most efficiently at around 215 but no more than 225 wpm.

-I'll only take speech docs when there's an actual issue, not if you're going to spread

-if you don't bring up something in one speech, I consider it dropped. I highly discourage new arguments/evidence in Summary, even more for Second summary

-quality>quantity. I prefer 2-3 well implicated, explained, and warranted responses than 7 random reasons backed with 1 card each with no explanation

-second rebuttal makes my life easier, but if they have like 7 responses, group as best as you can. I'll be lenient with dropped defense but you need to emphasize them

-if you make me laugh, I'll give you 28.5 speaks at the minimum

tech > truth

unless:

-you make a really shady link or twist the narrative of your impact later in the round

-you make a really weird argument very explicit. 99% tabula rasa unless you tell me the sky is green or something (sorry if you're colorblind)

-you don't have good warranting. If you argument isn't clear, I'm not going to buy it. too many teams have run squirrely arguments with impacts that are either blown out of proportion, or arguments that don't have anything to do with the resolution. to me, this is both unethical and defeats the purpose of the activity.

The paradigm is split for two circuits:

Local Illinois:

-give me really clear voting issues in summary

-introduce clash really explicitly in summary and weigh the clash clearly in Final Focus

-please use weighing mechanisms accurately, and give me clear analysis as to why I should prefer your argument

NatCir:

-collapsing is good, but make the concession really clear for me on the flow. if you want to drop a contention/impact, tell me you concede to the de-link. if the only offense on the case is a turn, don't collapse and win the turn. if there's a DL and a Turn, just give me a 0.2 second analysis saying that the de-link takes out the turn.

-if you like running theory, strike me. I am not fond of evaluating theoretical debate, but I know what it is.

-do not run tricks, k, theory, or any of the sort

-I believe theory as a concept is good, but is not usually run with the actual intention of the shell and more for an easy ballot. If there's a clear violation, make that clear to me and why the other team deliberately violated good debate norms and what my SPECIFIC ballot in that SPECIFIC round will implicate in the community. if I don't buy your shell, you're getting the L20

-if your opponent runs theory, just bring up a 10 second Counter-interp/RVI on frivolous theory and i'll be more than likely to vote you up

Misc.

-make your offtime roadmaps brief but direct, tell me the order you're going in, and the voting issues before you start

-I'm not a big fan of open cross, but if you want to advocate for an open cross let me know at the top of constructive and I'll let it slide. opposing team must agree sometime before/after their constructive or before first cross.

-wear anything, I don't care as long as its something

-make sure to get rid of any visual distractions

-just call me Simon :D

I would prefer weighing mechanisms being used during your speeches.
make sure to speak clearly, speed isn’t an issue for me. Make sure your attacks align with the flow, don’t jump around.
I do flow through cross fire.

Name: Steve Kroepel

School Affiliation: Belvidere North High School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 8

What is your current occupation? Data Analyst

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery - brisk conversational - no faster

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Big picture

Extension of Arguments into later speeches - If you want me to vote on it, yes

Flowing/note-taking - I am a flow judge as long as the round takes place at a reasonable pace and I am able to keep up, if you go faster than I can flow, and something does not end up on my flow, I will not vote on it

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? As far as the W or L is concerned, 100% argumentation. If you can't articulate your warrant, don't expect to win on it.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes, if the round is happening at a reasonable pace, if one team sounds like an auctioneer so the other team is not able to get to all of their arguments, debating at a reasonable pace, I will not be as firm on this.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No.

Be a kind competitor.

I don't believe low point wins or speaker points are enough to deter truly rude and disrespectful behavior. As such, I reserve the right to only flow and evaluate arguments that are made and extended while maintaining the tone of a friendly academic discussion. Passion is encouraged, but ad hominem attacks, eye rolls, derision, and various "isms" are all very much discouraged. If I'm not happy with the tone of the debate, it will likely be pretty clear that I've stopped flowing you. At the end of the round I will then evaluate all arguments made and extended respectfully and I will consider all other arguments dropped. This is a policy that has impacted my judging in rounds before.

Other than that, I think I'm a fairly standard judge. Anything you want me to understand in your round, state explicitly. Do not imply links or impacts and expect me to infer them. Please fully explain your warrants and all hows and whys if you expect me to buy an argument. Please do not leave me to my own devices with weighing impacts. Tell me why you believe you won the debate.

In LD: Your framework is meant to be the standard by which we evaluate the resolution. As such, I believe it's vitally important. Please don't leave framework off in it's own world at the top of the flow. It should be clearly linked to each of your contentions and you should be impacting through your framework. Please make those links and impacts explicit. Don't leave me to infer them. You can win the debate without winning framework, provided that you successfully prove you better uphold your opponents' framework. I enjoy hearing the philosophy so I love when students take interesting case positions that fully incorporate neat frameworks. I'm okay with a quick-ish speed assuming you are articulating things in a clear way, but I'm not a fan of spreading for spreading's sake. It's worth saying the best debaters I've seen have never been the fastest. Fast often leads to inefficient and imprecise use of language and causes me to think more to process what you've said. In general, the more processing I have to do on my own, the worse for you.

In PF: Please clash. PF can be hard to judge because often the clash is underdeveloped. Please meaningfully engage with your opponents' arguments and then weigh your impacts against theirs. If your opponent provides a framework, I expect you to address it or else I consider it dropped and acceded to, just like any other part of debate; if you drop it, you concede it. It's worth repeating, please weigh your impacts against your opponents'. I strongly dislike spreading in PF and would prefer you don't use jargon. They are not appropriate for the format.

Congress: I expect congressional debate to be reactive to what has already happened in the chamber. Except for 1st pro, I expect that all speeches contain at least one refutation at an absolute minimum. A real refutation needs to interact with what was actually said. MadLibs style refutations where you name drop another debater in a way that was clearly just a fill in the blank without engaging with or responding to them is not going to get you a good score. Extensions are encouraged, but making the same point as if it's the first time it's come up in the chamber will not get you a good score.

Please also explain all the mechanics of how and why in your speech. Clearly articulated hows, whys, and impacts, along with responsive debate, are the keys to a high score. Also make sure links to the bill are made clear. I care a lot about how clean the internals of your contentions are in their organization. Tell me a story and inspire me. Please move the debate forward and cover new ground. No one enjoys listening to rehash. Clean presentation that inspires, quality questioning, and being a kind competitor are all valued.

Your intro is a way to add value to your speech and enhance my understanding of the topic. I have a strong preference for intros that feel specific and unique to the particular bill at hand and your speech. If it feels generic or recycled, then I don't think it's a good use of your limited time.

In a virtual setting, I really depend on having a preview or roadmap as part of your speech. Without that, I find the structure of your speech very difficult to follow.

Authorship and sponsorship speeches are very different from 2nd or 3rd pro speeches. Since you aren't being asked to refute, the expectation is that you frame the debate: set up the problem and how this bill addresses it. Your contentions should be the most important reasons for the bill, not necessarily unique arguments that no one else thought of. 1st con should similarly help frame the debate for the neg side.

All forms: Don't be afraid to be passionate or to be yourself. You've worked hard to prepare for the tournament and you deserve to be here. If you've put in the work, you've earned the right to be confident. Be proud of yourself and have some fun :)

I'm glad you're doing Debate, I look forward to watching your round, and I wish you the very best of luck!

Before all else, I am a FLOW JUDGE. Here's more specifics on what I want to see in a round:

• All arguments need clearly explained logical warrants, as it's not my job to make logical leaps for you
• Claims must be grounded in evidence, and when there's contradictory evidence on both sides, I'd like an explanation of why to prefer your evidence/warrant, because otherwise I'm left guessing
• Structure your speeches how you feel is best, but signpost so that I know where you're at on the flow
• In a good round, both sides will have valid arguments left, so please WEIGH IMPACTS in later speeches
• I don't flow cross-ex, so if something important happens there, make sure it's in your next speech
• I expect you to stand your ground (this is debate after all), but maintain a baseline of respect/decorum
• I would much rather you ask a clarifying question than attack an argument that wasn't made (don't strawman your opponents, ever)
• I'm cool with a little speed, you have a lot to cover, but please don't spread, because that defeats the point of this activity (I also don't like K's/theory/progressive debate)

I'm always happy to answer any questions before or after the round, since this is an educational tool before all else, and you're here to learn (don't lose sight of that).

Have a great day, make a friend, learn something new, and enjoy it.

Name: Karla Nunez

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: Public Forum Since Fall of 2016 - approx. 7 years | Lincoln-Douglass since Fall 2019 - approx. 4 years

⟨⟨ Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: ⟩⟩

Before answering these questions I'd like to express that normally when asked if i have a Paradigm I'd answer along the lines of "I trust that you know what you are doing, so give me what you've got and I'll do my best to fill you in on what you need to improve". I other words, You, your coach, and teammates are expected to work together to ensure you've got what it takes to win the round, and I ensure that i asses and provide you with tools that can help you improve and succeed in the future. If you take anything away from this is that I'd like for you to GIVE ME WHAT YOU GOT! I want you to show me what 100% of you looks like in that moment. and just trust that your 100% now will change with time and effort.

Speed of delivery- During your constructive any speed as long as you are clear and enunciate properly. If it were a range of 1-5, (1 being slow with heavy pauses and 5 being the fastest ever I could call you McQueen and exclaim "Ka-Chow!") I find students do best at about a 3-4, I would be more concerned with your opponent’s preference.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- If your opponent said something that changes the game then address that, but i like big picture stuff.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- ?????

Flowing/note-taking- You should definitely be flowing 1000000%, and I'll flow your speeches as much as possible, I'll lend an ear to cross incase any of my questions are answered, but none of it will flow through.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? ?????

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I believe that if you state "I win on so and so because my opponent is just wrong", you have plenty of work to do.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? makes sense to me.

UPDATED FOR THE THE GLENBROOKS 2023

uclabdb8@gmail.com

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***brief***
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i end up with more judging experience in policy v policy rounds because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. pen time on overviews matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your music volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing debate dialogue

**background**
identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. i now spend my time developing programming for Chicago's urban debate league. you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate (framing, framework, theory, etc). my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3-4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.7 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
this topic has a wealth of amazing definitions and i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack, so much love for the arg. nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik/ k aff. absent a discussion of conditional advocacy, i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to tab and is a prior question to the round. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.

**disads/cps/case**
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system or policymaking and i may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
- chicago
- udl
- coaching debate!

**PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

whats up. I debated at Sandburg for 4 years and now am a student at UC Berkeley.

Teach me about your arguments with some enthusiasm. Imagine I'm a 3-year-old in preschool and you are the teacher. If you blandly read things off a paper, I am less likely to be convinced.

if you want something to matter in my ballot, bring it up in every speech. new arguments in final focus hold no worth to me. furthermore, arguments dropped in summary won't matter even if they are brought up in the final focus

Running squirrely arguments to catch your opponents off guard isn't fun. Run arguments that are good and that are true, not the arguments that make your opponents the most confused. (I'm not gonna buy your arguments and may even dock speaks if I believe your argument is so blown up that it is unrealistic)

I need comparative weighing: you don't outweigh on probability because your argument is really probable, you outweigh on probability because your argument is more probable than your opponents

I'm not listening to cross, just be civilized

Don't misconstrue evidence. please. it's not fun for anyone. Furthermore, I'll probably know if something is misconstrued and won't be too happy. However, I will only call for evidence at the end of the round if somebody says in the round to call for evidence.

if you ask for cards after first constructive, I will dock speaks by a lot. It's not fair.

No spreading unless your opponents can handle it and are ok with it.

if you make me laugh ill bump your speaks

Experience: I have 3 years of debate experience as a coach/judge in Public Forum (1 year as an assistant and 1 year as a head coach). I have experience coaching/judging Congressional, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas Debate.

Organization: I expect clear organization throughout the debate. You present a clear argument using contentions, subpoints, and off-time road maps. Voters issues should be included in the Final Focus. Please be as clear and concise as possible so that I do not have to guess what your points/arguments are.

Evidence: I value the use of evidence within your arguments. You should include clear and thorough citations, which include an author, source, and year. Current sources (within the last 1-2 years) provide stronger citations, unless you are making a historical argument that would benefit from primary documents. Make sure to explain your evidence thoroughly through your impacts.

Crossfire: Do not talk over your opponents during Crossfire. Be courteous to your opponent. Being rude to another team will result in a deduction of points. Crossfire is a time to ask clarifying questions. Make sure to ask questions to your opponents, and do not just make statements back-and-forth. Argumentation and rebuttal should be saved for the debate rounds, NOT during the Crossfire round.

Speaker Points: Speaker points will be based on your overall delivery. This includes the pace of your speech, volume, eye contact, and tone. Make sure to use all of the time given to you for the round. You should also be courteous to your fellow debaters, and not demonstrate any demeaning behavior (i.e. rolling your eyes, talking to your partner during rounds, laughing, being disruptive when someone is speaking, having a rude tone). Generally, just be as polished and professional as possible.

School Affiliation: PALATINE

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 7 years

Speed of delivery- As long as I can flow it I am fine with spreading.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- I like a big picture format for Summaries and a crystallization of the debate. Clean up attacks, let me know what you want to focus on, and introduce voter's issues

Extension of arguments into later speeches- All arguments should be extended if you want me to flow them through.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow the entire round except for crossfires and final focus.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? To win the debate I value argument. To get high speaker points I value style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, that argument should at least be mentioned in those two speeches.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I don't require front lining - I think debaters should be allowed to deal with attacks against their own case in the summary. Unless we add more time to the second speaker's rebuttal this doesn't seem fair.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No.

My name is Breana Spight. I'm a traditional judge. I debated PF in high school at Homewood Flossmoor High School. Since I'm a traditional debater, I don't flow spreading. I base my decision off the flow, so anything you want considered you must flow through. I also don't flow crossx, so if you want any thing from crossx on the flow you must bring it up in your next speech. I also like weighing mechanisms, so please try to incorporate voters and weighing mechanisms in your last speech.

I'm currently a varsity PF debater at IMSA, so I will be able to flow faster cases.

Things I pay attention to:

Address all of your opponents' arguments in rebuttal.

Signpost throughout the debate when referring to each other's arguments.

Bring up voter's issues and address clash in summary and final focus.

Make sure to note if a point flowed through in summary, I'll make sure to weigh it if you mention it.

But most importantly, please make sure to tell me why you win. It's nice to hear about why your opponent should lose, but I'd also like to have at least maybe thirty seconds during summary or final focus just focusing on what your issues are, and why I should vote for you over the other team.

Experience: I have been judging Public Forum Debate for 2 years, and am a former congress and forensics coach.

I am a public speaking teacher and a parent.

Public Forum in essence is the clarity of persuasion. Clarity is driven by the ability to tell a compelling story that is supported by effective evidence. What I am looking for is the following:

Speeches

· Present your arguments in a clear and organized manner.

· Slowly speak; do not speed through your speeches. Assume I have never learned anything about the resolutions given. I want you to explain and debate as if I this is my first-time hearing about the topic.

· Robustly support your contentions with thoughtfully presented evidence. I am a truth over tech judge.

· Create realistic impacts that fall within the scope of the resolution. Do not pretend the world will end if it won't.

· Thoroughly understand your source. Be able explain how the study was done, who did the research, the credentials of the expert, etc. And be able to explain why this a strong piece of supporting evidence.

· Create a compelling story.

Crossfire and Grand Crossfire

· Propose incisive questions that the other team understands clearly.

· Succinctly answer questions using relevant evidence.

· Expeditiously produce the card for evidence if asked.

· Translate your thoughts into coherent speech quickly. Do your best to avoid "like," "y'know," and "um;" you are still speaking and being heard during cross; a judge should not have to ignore what you say or how you sound.

· Be polite and have respectful exchanges, and please do not talk over one another. Both partners should participate in grand cross.

Summary

· Explain which of your arguments flow through and weigh your impacts, noting which of your opponent's arguments you have discredited.

Final Focus

· Clearly present the weaknesses of the other side.

· Be able to extend the weighing mechanisms your partner used in summary to tell the end of the story.

Other Notes

· Make sure your judges are actually ready before you begin speaking. Don't simply ask them out of habit.

· Clearly demonstrate an understanding of the narrowness or breadth of the resolution.

· Oh, and do your best not to use nuclear war as an impact unless the topic is clearly of a military nature.

Hello my name is Levale, I ask that everyone is nice during round (try not to get too heated). I love a lot of clash! For the first speakers I ask that you please give me voters in the summary speeches so I know what to vote on and who to vote for based upon your voter issues and the way you back then up. For the second speakers , in final focus please tell me why I should vote for you based off the voter issues provided by you partner in summary.

I am a former debater I debated all my years in high school as a second speaker in public forum.