Congress:

I rank mediocre extemp speeches above good pre-written speeches. Your mother, coach, or teammate could've written that speech and you simply reading it is just not impressive.

If you waste everyone's time by asking a "friendly question" I will be ranking you in my bottom half.

Each speech should further the debate in some way. Add to pre-existing arguments or make new ones. Respond to others in the chamber. Don't just argue the same exact thing as said before.

Sources MUST be cited. If you are clearly referencing something, but not giving author and year, I will assume you used ChatGPT and rank you at the bottom.

PF:

Do your own evidence weighing. I will not call for a card unless you tell me to call for a card. A reason for you to tell me to call for a card is because of poor evidence ethics, NOT to weigh it or evaluate it versus yours. You should do that in round. If evidence says conflicting things, you should be doing the proper weighing and indicts. Otherwise I will count the entire thing a wash.

You should collapse in some way, preferably in summary. If you are going for everything on the flow in the final focus, you are undercovering something. Either you are not extending something properly or you are not weighing comparatively. It is much better for education and debate in general to engage in clash qualitatively. Debate evidence. Debate warrants. Actually collapse and interact instead of just half extending a bunch of blippy responses. Messy debates are so prevalent in PF and most of the time it is created because everyone tries to go for everything.

Everything you extend in FF should be carried through every speech. If it is not in summary, I will not flow it through. This includes defense (I do not believe defense is sticky). Other than frontlines, no new arguments and evidence should be introduce in summary/FF. A proper extension includes all aspects of the argument. This includes claim, warrant, and impact (hint: "extend my contention one" is not enough). Most extensions I witness are just little blips. I value quality over quantity. This is why you should collapse.

Weighing is a must. There is virtually a zero percent chance I vote for you if you do not weigh (unless the other team also doesn't weigh). Weighing should be comparative to your opponents impact. I will award you higher speaks if you even meta-weigh (such as why our weighing mechanism of magnitude outweighs their weighing mechanism of irreversibility). Properly weighing like this means you must attribute time to it, not just the fleeting few seconds at the end (AKA collapse).

Turns must be implicated. Most debaters think that a turn automatically means you get your opponents offense. A lot of turns are just disadvantages to the pro/con and most times this disadvantage does not negate the offense from the other team. For instance, let's say Team A argues in case that the resolution will create more jobs and Team B reads a "turn" that it would increase cost of goods and services. Team B has just introduced a disadvantage to Team A's argument, but has not negated their offense or even somehow stolen their offense for themselves (unless other arguments were presented in conjunction with this). In this case, both teams have offense on this side of the flow- Team A in jobs and Team B in costs. So the turn itself should be implicated and weighed in the round to be evaluated. If you read a turn that says it actually decreases jobs, again, impact it out and implicate it. You also probably need to do some evidence analysis or warrant comparisons.

One of my biggest pet peeves in debate is when one team claims their opponent did not respond to something and then I'll look down on my flow and see a bunch of responses. If they actually didn't respond, call them out on it, but please keep a good flow so you can call it out accurately.

I presume keeping the status squo (con). If everything is a wash or muddled to the point where it is nearly impossible to evaluate, that will be my vote. This rarely happens though.

Speed- on a 1-10 I would say around a 6 for me. So no spreading. If you go fast through numbers or quick analytics I will probably miss some of it. Go slower for taglines as well.

Speaker points- I don't care about eye contact. I don't care if you sway, twirl your hair, or even sit while speaking. I'd say there are three factors I consider when giving speaks. 1st is how well you deliver. Can I understand it? Do you mumble? Is it clear? Etc. 2nd is your ability to navigate me around the flow. Are you signposting? Do you bounce me around the flow? etc. 3rd is are you making strategic choices in round? Are you actually weighing comparatively? Are you collapsing? Are you actually engaging in evidence and clash or do you just give a thousand blippy responses and create a messy debate? etc

I don't flow cross and view it as non-binding inside of itself. It can be binding but it needs to be brought up in speech. I'm usually writing ballot comments or evaluating a flow during cross but will still pay attention. If you get a key concession or something, you need to bring it up in speech.

K's and theory are becoming more and more of a prevalent thing in PF. I am generally not a fan. I don't understand what we want Public Forum to become with this. I think we are straying away from what Public Forum is supposed to be, which is an accessible form of debate for the public. I understand that debate is a game and will try to evaluate the flow as such, but I am a more of a traditionalist when it comes to argumentation being run in PF and prefer it to just stay on topic.

Northview '21

University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign '25

Debated LD in high school for 3 years and coached for 1 year, 10 career bids, cleared at TOC in 2020 and 2021

I've competed in Policy and PF as well - the below paradigm should be flexible enough across all debate divisions

Doc sharing is good for evidence ethics and accessibility, spreading or no spreading.

I prefer using Speech Drop for docs, its easier.

Email: sreyaash.das@gmail.com

Some quick notes and preferences:

1) I'll call clear/slow 3 times, so do be clear.

2) I like fast and efficient debates, so feel free to uplayer and spit out blippy analytics but make sure they're warranted arguments

3) Tech> Truth. Crazy args are fine, but the threshold for answers get lower. Higher level debates should always incorporate some level of truth behind arguments.

4) Non negotiable: speech times/rules, prep can be CX but CX can't be prep, compiling a doc is prep but flashing/emailing isn't, there's no "clarification time" before CX, clipping and ev ethics.

5) I'll disclose speaks. I think its a good norm to follow.

6) Don't let the type of debater you are facing affect your arguments. Exposure to different forms of argumentation on both sides is what spreads education within debate, regardless of experience; I wouldn’t have joined circuit LD if I hadn’t faced different progressive arguments at locals. Only condition is that you should be nice and reasonable: spread but send docs, be nice in cx, and your speaks will be boosted. Be sketchy and tricky just to get an easy ballot, and I'll nuke your speaks.

7) "If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes." ~ Stephen Scopa

8) I disclosed with good practices - open source with round reports and first/last 3. If your wiki is a model of what I believe to be good disclosure norms, show/tell me before the round and I'll bump up speaks.

9) Arguments and their truth level start at 0 and work their way up based on effective warranting. Conceded claims don't mean I automatically vote for them if they were originally unwarranted.

Prefs Overview

Note: Just because certain things are ranked low, DOESNT mean I won't vote off it, nor does it mean I don't enjoy it. I pride myself on trying to be as flex as possible, so feel free to run virtually anything. 1 = Most familiar/Best at judging this. 4 = Least Familiar/Worst at judging this

Policy/Larp -2

Kritiks - 2

Theory - 1

Phil -3

Tricks -2

I'm serious with these pref ranks - I'm comfortable with judging any form of argumentation

Policy/Larp:

Defaults: Judge Kick, ev > analytics

Be smart and do link analysis

Politics and process args are fine, higher bar for explanation tho

Zero risk is a thing

Explain cards - these debates are won with good analysis AND evidence

Ev comparison is key - don't make me spend 20 minutes reading through all the cards

1ARs - read theory vs CPs, low bar for case extensions if its simple

2NRs - answer theory vs CPs, please structure the collapse

Don't forget to kick out of things

Theory

Defaults: F/E are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, rvis

Standard weighing is dead - plz do it

Paragraph theory is fine

Be clear on standards so I at least have the standard name flowed

Terminal D on a shell is a thing even under competing interps, there has to be offense isolated at the end of the round.

Send interps/counter interps plz

Combo shells are cool, reasonability is persuasive versus them

Kritiks:

Dont be a doc bot the entire time

Link analysis contextualized to the aff is cool, it isn't enough to win your theory of power

Framework (weigh/cant weigh case) determines the result most of the time - win it

Buzzwords don't mean anything - just because the 1ar didn't explicitly say the words "Role of the ballot" doesnt mean there isn't defense on the kritik's theory of power

K Affs/T:

These Affs should have isolated a problem and proposed a method or model

Personal narratives hold little weight to me since the ballot isn't a referendum on one's identity

Reading a K aff isn't an excuse to not be technical, same for the 2NR on T

Fairness/Clash/Research is cool, do weighing if going for T

No preference in a K aff v. framework debate - I've been on both sides

Nuanced framework interps and warrants are cool (sabotage, passive voice, etc.)

Philosophy:

Defaults: epistemic confidence, comparative worlds

I'm cool with anything - the denser the phil the more explanation required

I think this type of debate still requires some level of interaction with actual offense

Spec phil affs are cool and I wish I saw more

Tricks:

Defaults: presumption negates unless the neg defends an advocacy, permissibility affirms

If it's gonna be a tricks round, delineate all arguments and dont be sketch in cx

Rebuttal extensions have to point me to what I am extending on the flow

Slow down on blips - flowability is key

Otherwise, I'll vote on anything explained.

Traditional:

I was a trad lad for a year, so you can have a traditional round, though I'd prefer otherwise.

Substance > V/VC debate

Frameworks are so arbitrary in lay debate, half the time theres no distinction between 2

I vote off the flow, ethos/pathos boosts speaks but won't just get you the ballot. Contrary to most beliefs, even traditional debate is based off of some level of technicality.

Speaker Points:

I think speaker points are based off of arguments made, and the strategies taken to attempt to win the round. As long as I understood you throughout the round, and you made sound strategic decisions in the round based off my paradigm, you'll get high speaks.

He/They

Valdosta '20

Princeton '24

I did LD Debate for 4 years, clearing at multiple national circuit tournaments, and now compete on Princeton's Parliamentary Debate Team.

Add me to the email chain: amkang@princeton.edu

Quick Prefs (I feel comfortable judging any form of argumentation, a 1 just means that I have more experience with the argument at hand)

Larp - 1

K/Theory - 1

Lay - 1

Phil - 3

Tricks - 2

Important

1] Weighing wins rounds.

2] I will disclose speaker points.

3] I won't call slow/clear, it's your burden to be presentable within round.

4] No need to show mercy to lay debaters, I never would have considered circuit style debate if AE hasn't run a non-t aff against me at GFCA state freshmen year.

5] Persuasion, especially in rebuttal speeches is important.

6] Do not assume I know everything about your literature base because I probably don't - i.e. afropess kritiks should have a clear explanation of what ontology is.

Musings

1] I think disclosure is good.

2] Debate is intrinsically valuable, but the topic isn't necessarily valuable.

3] Strategic underviews make me very happy.

4] Not reading off a doc/engaging with the specificities of your opponents case instead of reading pre-written responses is very admirable and will show in your speaker points.

Sasha Kreinik Paradigm

Always include me in the email chain susanna.torrey@gmail.com

I am a pretty straightforward judge and was in forensics way back in the Stone Age when I was in high school. I am a teacher and speech and debate coach first, so I value education, good and creative cases, and expect professionalism and respectful behavior.

I am open to any arguments as long as burdens are being met and I value strong evidence ably applied. Over the past few years I have found myself needing to highlight the items I have listed below most often in rounds.

LD/CX:

Mad spreading skills need to come with mad pronunciation skills. I’m okay with speed, but am even more impressed by the debater who can do more with less. You are less likely to have an issue with my rulings if I have been able to easily flow your round. I am noticing a trend lately (fall 2022) of debaters that goes far beyond spreading to actually mumbling quietly and incoherently through most of the case, only enunciating specific phrases, tags, etc. If you are this type of debater, strike me. Yes, I can read your case, but that's not what debate is about. Your speaks will be the lowest possible. One more caveat about spreading--if you are using it in an open round merely to disadvantage a less experienced or novice opponent, it will annoy me. Have that conversation with your opponent at the start of the round.

LD:

Enough with the disclo theory. Run it and I will probably drop you.

All:

One of my pet peeves is a debater who is obviously seeing his/her evidence for the first time or, worse, sounds like it. Be sure to master the material you are using. If there is a piece of evidence or a theory you are presenting that you don’t understand, we won’t either, and it will show.

I abhor racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and any other language of hate or any language that enables it. They have no place in the debate space and will cost you the round.

In the end, I want you to have fun, learn something, and bring forth truly creative and interesting cases. If all else in your round is perfectly equal, I am going to give the round to the debater who told a better story.

Feel free to email me if you have any more questions.

My name is Scout Malloy. I am more a lay judge than I am a tech judge, but I will flow the entire round, besides cross. As far as speed goes, spreading is fine, I am pretty good with speed, and do not mind it. Time management is KEY. I will drop you, if you get up to speak for 30 seconds and then sit back down. Be prepared walking into the round, and do not speak quietly. Speak with volume so I can hear you, otherwise you will be dropped. Ill go over paradigms prior to the round in person.

* Quality of argumentation

* I don't like people getting angry, personal, or condescending during debate

4 year PF debater

Debated at Lambert

Current Student at UPenn studying Finance/Neuroscience

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Speed is fine, if not clear, won't flow

Stuff said in summary --> FF

I don't really listen to crossfire, so bring it up in speech

Keep your own time and the other teams time

be nice, don't interrupt, if you want higher speaks