I have been coaching speech and debate for 7 years. I have judged Public Forum debate, Lincoln-Douglas debate, and various speech events in that time.

-Make sure you state your taglines for your contentions clearly. It should be easy for me to flow your cases and keep track of your arguments, so the clearer you can be, the better.

-Provide clear impacts, and focus on impact calculus. Stress these (especially in your final focus or your final rebuttal).

-Weighing your arguments against your opponent's is the key to winning the debate. Clearly state how your arguments outweigh theirs, and again, stress your impacts.

-Please do not spread. If I didn't hear it, then it never happened. If I can't keep track of what you are saying, then it is possible that your opponent cannot either. Speaking clearly is imperative to a fair debate. It will also result in more speaker points.

-If you have a framework, stick with it. If you drop it, there is no purpose for it, and that hurts your arguments more in the long run (especially if your opponent realizes the framework was dropped).

-I do not flow CX. It is your job to bring up what happened in CX in your next speech. That is the only way it will make it onto the flow.

-For LD, make sure your value/criterion is clearly explained at the start of your constructive speech. If you and your opponent have the same value/criterion, or they are similar, it is best to acknowledge this and focus on arguments rather than getting into a framework debate.

-For LD, keep arguments traditional. I'll listen to counter plans and kritiks, but I prefer traditional arguments.

-Please practice good sportsmanship. Being snarky or belittling an opponent, especially if it is clear they are new to debate will not be tolerated.

-To prove you have read my paradigm, simply say "Bear Down" or "Go Wildcats" prior to starting the round.

I am a new judge.

Timing:

Please be prepared to time yourself.

For speeches:

If this is a prompt-based speech, please state your prompt before you begin and report your time when you are done.

For debates:

Docs

Please send your case doc or outline - dinaberry@outlook.com

Speaking

. Speak clearly and not too fast. Slow down on major points, value, criteria, framework, definition, etc. What about spreading? If I can't flow, I can't judge. If you need to insert that much material into the round, you need to provide the outline of that material, at a minimum. In four years of judging, I've only seen one round decided on the sheer volume of evidence introduced and counter arguements and that round didn't have spreading.

. Sign post, then stick to it. If you jump around, I can't follow you. If you drop a point, don't pick it up in another speech.

. Provide outline: numbering and lettering points, impacts, etc, so I can track.

Case/Framework/Debate

. If you run an unusual case/framework/K - you have to uphold it. You can't just say here it is and that the other side isn't allowed to argue it. This is a debate, so let's debate.

. If you say the sky is green, fine with me, cite reputable sources, and debate it.

. If you run your case without sources, everything you said is your opinion and doesn't win against even the worst sources cited by the opposition.

- For L/D, if you concede framework to your opponent, and the framework argument from the opponent is clear, then framework above contentions. If you don't want to argue framework, go debate policy.

. All common historical context currently taught in Washington State high schools is allowed (ex: The holocaust happened). All obscure or controversial fiction-as-fact must be upheld with reputable and current sources (ex: Jan 6 was just a misunderstanding from a reputable world-wide source).

Poetry/Art/etc as debate

If a case is presented in a format that you haven't seen before or understand how it is relevant to the topic, please use your cross to clarify. Then debate it. Everyone had the same time to prep/research. Now you need to think on your feet.

Meta such as role of the ballot, drop the debate, drop the debater

Role of the ballot - I enjoy ROTB arguments

Drop the debate - make a very strong case

Drop the debator - there must be a clear and obvious ethical or moral breach in the round. I don't drop the debater because they haven't understood the importance of something you said to them on a personal level within the pressure and speed of the round. If you request drop the debator - then you need to walk me through the violation slowly because you've just rested the entire round on this one point and I need to understand it.

Topicality

Meh - a topicality argument needs to be strong with subpoints. Don't say something isn't topical. Walk me through it.

Voting/decisions

If you skip voters, or assume voters based on debate, then I get to choose. Probably not what you want me to do.

If your opponent doesn't literally concede a point, but instead drops it or doesn't argue it in a way you deem valid, do NOT say they conceded. That is disrespectful to both the judge and your opponent.

(she/her) I'm a senior at the University of Washington and debated public forum for three years. You can run pretty much whatever and I'll vote off the flow. As always, be respectful towards your opponents otherwise I will dock speaker points.

Feel free to talk as fast as you prefer, but the speed needs to be purposeful. Nothing is worse than listening to a fast speech filled with useless info.

As a judge, I will not weigh your arguments for you. When there is clash, I want you to clearly lay out why I need to prefer your side. Any we said/they said arguments with no analysis are going to be a wash. Use impact calc and the specific terms.

Make the debate fun!! Its always better to judge fun rounds, and you should be enjoying yourselves as well.

I am a parent judge from The Overlake School, Redmond, Washington. I have judged public forum form of debate for the last 3 years.

I like a clear and concise flow of arguments that ties to your case and advocates for your position as well as refutes your opponents’ arguments. I do not deduct points on speed and lack of speaking skills unless it impedes my understanding of your arguments.

Offline roadmaps and voters narrow down and bring into focus your mindset so they are helpful. I want you to be telling me why I should vote for you, through your logical construct and why your arguments are convincing enough to give you that win since often at this level, both teams are equally passionate about their respective sides and have worked on their cases.

I believe that through debate, students learn valuable lessons and I seek to be fair so will pull up any student who tries not to follow conventions during cross-examination rounds and are rude. Argue passionately, have fun yet be respectful of your opponents’ ideas and convictions. You are here because you enjoy being here and I respect you for that.

Add me to the email chain: ashleychen@live.com & interlakepolicydebate@gmail.com

Hi! I debated for 2.5 years (9th-11th) for Interlake HS and am currently a first year student at NYU Shanghai. Treat me similarly to a parent judge. I have no topic knowledge and spreading needs to be a bit slower and clear. Lastly, please be kind to your opponents.

Experience:

I was a 2A for most of my time at Interlake. Topics that I've debated on include immigration, arms sales, and a bit on CJR. Affs I read include EB-3s and Taiwan. 2NRs were usually set col during the arms sales topic. I've dabbled in everything but at the same time not too familiar with anything.

Preferences:

1. Warrant out your arguments. Clash, otherwise my vote will just be a matter of my personal opinion. 2NRs/2ARs should present to me a story of the neg/aff and why I should vote for them. Overviews here are great! Weighing is very important - why one impact is greater than the other.
2. Policy leaning, but will listen to everything.
3. Theory. Frivolous theory isn't okay, just remember to answer it.
4. Explain your acronyms. Some acronyms are okay, i.e. NATO, but others might be niche to the topic.
5. Kritiks. Might not understand the literature, but pretty familiar with IR, cap, and set col. Aside from these Ks, I need a clear explanation of the K and its theory of power. There should be a clear link somewhere to the aff, and it must be explained so I can understand.
6. Okay with non-traditional/K affs, but again, I might not understand the literature.

Feel free to email me if you have any questions about the RFD, debate, or NYU Shanghai!

i dropped out of harvard to save the debate game

former PF debater for bellevue, 2x national and elims, state elims too

I flow, expect to see good clash etc. expect respect for your opponent and will dock speaks if you are rude in cross.

as andrew lee said put thought and effort into the words that you say!

I value clearly naming your contentions,

citing reputable sources of data,

making rebuttals that specifically refute the other side's arguments,

and speaking clearly and not too rushed.

I have 3 years of PuFo experience so i don’t mind if you talk fast.

Please signpost, if I don’t know how how something is connected I probably won’t flow it

Weigh in your FF and give me voters so I know why to vote for you.

From the 2020-1 school year:

tl;dr:

LD: flow judge, but you can argue that stuff like CP's, neg fiat are illegit and that durable fiat is not realistic if there are too many actors. You'd need to tell me why of course and convince me. The val/crit debate determines how I evaluate the rest of the debate, and winning that debate just means I evaluate stuff as specified in the victorious val/crit. Also even though I'm a flow judge, that doesn't mean you're locked into line-by-line for every argument-- you can group stuff and some of the best LDers in my judgement are closer to the PF realm than the Policy realm in style.

PF: public forum is like a TV show, like the McLaughlin Group or CNN's Crossfire. The best PF judge is someone who doesn't understand debate, yet these days you have speed and framework in PF. If I saw speed or framework on the TV, I'd change the channel. When I see a PF debate without these things, my heart soars. But if your opponent makes a lot of points, how do you not get pulled into the speed and the mire? Although you should not neglect to answer the opponent's important points, when you get spread, the magic words from a persuasion perspective seem to me to be, "here's what's really important in this debate," or some variation thereof. As with many speech events, in Pufo fluency is also key to persuasion.

longer:

LD — flow judge. Two debates occur in parallel in every LD round: the value/criterion and the contention debate. Usually the winner is the debater who does the better job telling me why their contentions line up with the prevalent value/criterion in the round. I want to see this weighing underway by the NC and a tad in the 1AR so that both sides have time to rebut each other’s assertions.

One debater may attempt to spread the other in LD. When this happens, the other debater can agree to this kind of line-by-line debate by participating in it. The other debater may instead group arguments and bring the round back to a more ‘common-sense’ manner of argumentation. Most times this year I’ve found that when one debater starts with the line-by-line, the other goes along with it. I’ll evaluate such rounds in this way if there is no dissent in a particular round on it. But the other side of this coin is, neg sometimes just reads 10 esoteric arguments at speed. When this happens, if aff says something like “I didn’t understand that and I suspect you didn’t either,” aff is probably right. If LD is debated like Policy, neg just has the opportunity to get more ink on the flow and win 80% of the time. The preceding is more or less my own ROM of LD theory and arguments to the contrary are very unlikely to change it.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON LD:

If you run a val/crit that would make all aff or all neg cases under the current resolution illegit and this fact is pointed out (truthfully) to me, I am very likely to weight the fact that you did that against you for reasons of fairness and education.

Fiat means that we assume an Aff world and compare the aff world to the squo world. Thus, when we say fiat, we mean “for the sake of argument, suppose we did the aff; now, how would that be different that the squo?” It does not mean, “for the sake of argument, suppose we did the aff, the aff worked as planned, and the world was saved.” Fiat does not mean that political repercussions can’t happen. Fiat does not mean that solvency is assured. I already know what aff fiat means and theory arguments about it won’t persuade me— they have not once done so. Neg fiat, however, is another matter. Does it even exist? Are counterplans legit? I’m agnostic on this question currently.

If we are in a world where neg fiat exists, which I will assume (for now) if neither debater disputes it, the mere fact that a perm is logically possible is not enough for me to prefer the aff. If perms are permitted, then I consider that the aff’s advocacy has shifted from the plan to the perm, and I will vote based on whether the perm or the CP best achieves the prevalent val/crit. Let me give you a sense of what I mean by logical possibility. Many negs will say something like “we can’t do something and also do the opposite of something.” Uh, yes we can. I can dig a hole and fill it up again. I can attempt to dig a hole with one arm and refill the hole with my other arm. The Federal Government can do something with the states attempting to do that same thing (e.g. cops arguing over jurisdiction.) The Federal Government can do something with the states attempting to do the opposite (e.g. Oregon permits drugs while the Feds ban them; California has sanctuary cities while the Feds uphold contrary rules.) Someone can set a fire with one hand and also call the fire department. All these things I have stated are logical possibilities. Are any of them wise, in the sense of, is it wise to have different arms of the same government working at cross-purposes? No, I would say not. Would doing any of them be a waste and probably have terrible effects? Seems obvious that they would. Just don’t tell me that something is logically impossible when it is not.

Evidence in many areas of our lives is a good thing to consider. In certain areas of our lives, it may be the only important thing in determining what we should do. But this is not the case for all questions. In particular, evidence may not be salient on all questions of values. Let’s consider a topic that is not yet controversial but that we can imagine might become controversial: the eleventh amendment to the US constitution, which, according to wikipedia as of today, “restricts the ability of individuals to bring suit against states in federal court.” Imagine a debate happening on whether this was right or wrong. One side says more or less, “It’s unjust that you can’t sue states. The judicial system is our recourse, and if states act wrongly, people, foreign or domestic, should be able to sue them.” The other side says, “Federal courts are not the only form of recourse. The Federal government can already sanction and impose restrictions on states, and additional methods to hold states accountable are not needed and would be disadvantageous. Also changing the constitution in this way would open the door to frivolous lawsuits which would hurt everyone. From a utilitarian standpoint, we should keep the 11th amendment as it is.” Now what if a third party came in and said, “Well, according to philosophy professors at Princeton, Yale, and Oxford, you should prefer utilitarianism over justice.” Well, that’s not really how debates on values work. You argue values via talking about why the values you advocate are good. Appeals to authority might work when the subject is something very complicated like molecular biology or quantum mechanics, but for questions of values, citing a source usually won’t work.

PF — The ideal public forum judge is someone who has never seen public forum before. Now, although I have seen it before, I have, and I believe the community has, an interest in keeping it true to its original form. This is the genesis of how I judge PF.

I was asked to write a PF paradigm, but I believe that PF judges should not have a paradigm. Bottom line, when I watch PF, I pretend that the debaters are on my TV and are trying to convince me of their point of view. If someone is trying to convince me of something, running theory or topically are not a good idea. A better idea is, if your opponent is discussing irrelevant things, remind the judge/audience what the debate is about and proceed to talk about it better.

If someone is trying to convince me of their point of view, saying “extend and cross-apply Johnson 2015, I already responded to that” is not going to convince me of anything. Instead, consider saying “as we have stated previously, and as underscored by Dr. Johnson…” and so on.

If someone trying to convince me starts talking very quickly, that does not get them very far. I’m not going to expect the other person to speak very quickly as well. Everyone has similar speech times, and a reply such as “my opponent mentioned many interesting details, but here’s what you really need to know…” will probably suffice.

Courtesy is of course important, but don’t spend to long with the ‘you ask a question first, oh thank you so much,’ game. Most rounds I’ve seen lately have been fine in this dimension, so you’ll probably do well too.

I’m not going to flow PF rounds. I will take notes to help my memory, but if you say, “extend point 3, subpoint b,” I’m not going to know what you mean.

The more you use debate to explain to regular people why issues matter to them in the real world, the more you’ll get out of debate in the long run, I feel confident. So, emerge from the cave of speed and jargon and gaze upon the sunlight of excellence!

Policy - I'm a deconstructionist judge.

I prefer well-structured arguments supported by thorough analysis and credible evidence

SPEAKING: I'm fine with speaking fast as long as you tagline your arguments - if you speak fast and I can't easily flow the argument, I'll drop it. I don't care much about 'stylistic' speaker points - if you give a clear argument that is easy to understand, I'll give you high speaks.

GENERAL: Topicality and impact weighing are massively important for me - don't make me connect the dots between your argument and the resolution, and the final focus should tell me why your contentions matter and deliberately weigh the impacts. That being said, don't get too definitional about the resolution - I prefer if most of the debate is focused on substance.

ARGUMENTS: I'm willing to accept any argument as long as it is based off of solid evidence. I'm not a huge fan of metadebates (i.e., I don't care if your opponent dropped an argument - I prefer instead if you indicate a counterargument of your own that they never addressed and why it matters).

EVIDENCE: I am not a fan of arguments that are based off of 'famous person said x' cards - I want you to explain the 'why' and do your own analysis. No sketchy sources. If you can't defend the reasoning behind your evidence when your opponent gives counterarguments/questions methodology, I'll drop the argument.

CROSSFIRE: I won't judge off of crossfire, but I will take notes. If one side dominates crossfire without giving the opponents a chance to ask questions, I will take it into account.

If you have any further questions about how I judge, feel free to ask.

Background: I graduated from Franklin & Marshall College in 2022 with a degree in Government and Women's Gender & Sexuality Studies and I now work for the Human Rights Campaign in their legal department. I graduated from Gig Harbor High School in 2018 where I competed in Public Forum for four years and qualified for state and TOC. In college, I competed for my school's Mock Trial team and qualified for several national level tournaments. All this to say, I understand the fundamentals of how debates are structured and likely have a general understanding of the topic itself.

Style Preferences: I don't have a stylistic preference do whatever works best for you and speed is completely fine as long as you are still articulate. I care more about the arguments you are making than the speaking style you choose to use. Explain to me why what you are saying matters and what impacts it has. I won't do the work of impacting something out for you, that's your job. Overall just be articulate and explain things to me. Off-time road maps are fine as long as they're concise, you tell me in advance, and make it clear when the roadmap ends. Crossfire is a place to have arguments, but I will not tolerate abusive or overly aggressive behavior. If you think you've crossed the line, you probably have. If this behavior happens I will dock speaker points however I feel is appropriate and I have a low tolerance for it just for your knowledge.

Flow/CX: I will flow the round, but make sure you are sign-posting so I know where things are supposed to be. I won't do the work of extending arguments for you, meaning if you want something extended or your opponent dropped something tell me. I won't flow crossfire, but I am paying attention. If you think a critical argument is won bring it up in your next speech to get it on my flow.

If allowed by the tournament and time permits, I will disclose at the end and explain my RFD. I'll write more specific comments on your ballot for individual speakers as well as any thoughts I might have on the arguments you have made.

If you have any further questions or need clarification on anything feel free to ask before the round starts!

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

i’m a college student who did public forum in high school

try not to run Ks/theory but all frameworks are allowed

i’m okay with speed but be clear - i won’t weigh an argument if i can’t understand it

i will weigh anything if it's on the flow at the end

if you face an abusive argument, just a quick "this is abusive" and a short reason should be enough to knock it off the flow

no new arguments in second summary or later, and no new evidence in either final focus

to me, links matter more than impacts, though if you have both and the other team is missing one, you will almost always win

i may ask to see your evidence after the debate to ensure everything is fair - please don’t cite Quora or Reddit as factual evidence

About me: I graduated 4 years ago. I debated Public Forum for 4 years. Studied Econ and Political Science.

About the round: Speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Warranting/logic behind your evidence is very important. If you're unable to explain your cards that looks very bad and will be very easy to refute. I won't vote on anything that's not brought up in final focus. If your opponents drop something, tell me. Don't just not mention something from your case until your last speech. Its more important to me that you weigh the most important things in the round as opposed to just summarizing everything that happened. Tell me why you're winning in final focus. voters, impact calculus, and weighing are super helpful. If you want to run framework, I like that, but you need to tell me why I should use it. I'll look at any evidence if you want me to, I might call for something if I feel its necessary but I generally try to avoid evidence debates.

Don't be afraid to concede on smaller arguments in the round to give yourself a strategic advantage on bigger arguments. This is crucial in many rounds.

SIGN POST PLEASE!!!!- this is like the biggest thing. signposting will help me help you on my flow.

Overall, do whatever you want, just do it well.

If you have any further questions please ask.

PF: Empirical evidence, specific data, and numbers are excellent for reinforcing and supporting your evidence and claim in addition to general logic and reasoning. The connection between your contentions and evidence to affirming or negating the policy is especially important and is a great way to develop argument for a successful crystallisation

About me: (He/Him Pronouns) second-year law student at UW. I debated PF for 3 years on local and national circuits. I coached for 4 years after I graduated

If you have questions about the round or my RFD, just email me at: rjl2000@uw.edu Or, text me at 253-683-1929

About round: SHOW UP TO THE ROUND ASAP AND I WILL BE HAPPY AND MORE LIKELY TO GIVE GOOD SPEAKS

speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Please do not full on spread though it's annoying.

I won't vote on anything that's not brought up in final focus. If you want to bring something up in final focus, it should be extended in summary as well.

If your opponents drop something, tell me. Don't just not mention something from your case until your last speech. Its more important to me that you weigh the most important things in the round as opposed to just summarizing everything that happened. Tell me why you're winning in final focus. voters, impact calculus, and weighing are super helpful. If you want to run framework tell me why I should use it. I'll look at any evidence if you want me to, I might call for something if I feel its necessary but I generally try to avoid evidence debates.

Throughout the round, confidence, humor, and aggression are good, while rudeness, bigotry, and general meanness are not. If you think that your attempt at the first category will be interpreted as the second category, error on the side of caution.

SIGN POST PLEASE!!!!- this is like the biggest thing. signposting will help me help you on my flow.

I would prefer no theory/progressive argumentation. If you do decide to run something like that, it better be very important and not just an attempt to get an easy W over people that don't know what's going on.

Specific speech stuff: This is what I would LIKE to see in a high-quality round. Do your best to do these things, but I obviously don't expect all of this from novice debaters.

For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet. This goes for both rebuttals, but numbering your responses if there are multiple will help me stay organized on the flow

For 2nd rebuttal: Frontline!!!! if you don't mention the main arguments against your case, it'll probably be considered dropped.

Summary: Same thing as second rebuttal in the sense you should be bringing up the main arguments from the previous speech and refuting them. Anything that you don't want your opponent to be able to say "They dropped our __ in summary" should be mentioned

if you want to bring up something in FF, it must be brought up in summary

Collapsing is a good way to ensure you are able to extend all the defense you need and still get offense.

FF: Voters! tell me where to vote! extend some defense if you want, but this speech should mostly be about the places you are winning on the flow and why

weighing is also good

Things that are bad and you should not do:

CALL FOR EVIDENCE/TAKE PREP BEFORE BOTH TEAMS HAVE READ THEIR CASES1! (ex: taking prep as second speaking team before you read your case) super abusive, try-hard, and annoying. If you do this, the max speaker points you can earn is 26. (yes that is arbitrary, too bad.)

Do that really annoying thing that happens in debate where you just keep restating your argument and then saying that refutes your opponents' argument. In rebuttal, your arguments should have warrents. In later speeches, you should explain to me WHY your argument is better than theirs.

Not signpost

overall, i'm experienced so do whatever you want, just do it well.

if you have any further questions please ask.

I am a parent judge and this is my 2nd year judging PF. I am open to any arguments and rebuttals but will be specifically looking for arguments that are supported by evidence and will rely on you to demonstrate the impact and calculate the numbers (where appropriate). I am looking for you to flow your arguments and rebut your opponents arguments. Please do not leave your opponent's contentions hanging without a rebuttal.

While I will weigh the round, I am looking for you to provide you point-of-view and will certainly take that into consideration.

Lastly, please be respectful (I will deduct points if you are not), have fun and speak slow enough so that I can understand you. Compelling arguments with evidence and impact are more important than speed and volume.

I am a parent judge. I have judged roughly 40 rounds in the last 18 months and I did policy debate in college.

I would consider myself a flow judge and you should expect that I will vote on the flow. I expect clear links as well as impacts, one without the other doesn't mean much. I expect to see debate on both the links and the impacts.

I prefer it when you can explain your arguments in some context. If you just read cards and don't tell how they tie to together, that's likely not to be compelling. Reading me a random set of arguments that aren't really anchored in your case or your opponent's case or reading them in a random order so I don't know what you're arguing against may leave you in a spot where I can't put them in context and, thus, you don't get much value out of them.

Tell me a story in final focus about why you won and about how I should interpret the flow and the weigh the impacts. Repeating your impacts without explaining anything about probability or timeline doesn't have the same impact as explaining why and how your links and impacts outweigh.

I don't mind speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow you. Frameworks are fine as long as they're not abusive and I'm open to theory, although I am likely woefully inexperienced in judging it.

Off-time roadmaps are fine, but just enough so that I have idea what parts of the flow I need to have in front of me.

Public Forum:

The three things I prioritize are clarity, professionalism, and you helping me follow your arguments. Don't use sticky defense, don't bring up new arguments in summary and FF, and stick to questioning in CX. Please don't turn grand CX into a four-way shouting match; that's stressful for everyone.

If you have a question about anything covered or not covered in the paradigm, please ask! I don't mind at all.

Background

I did pf in high school and I do APDA now.

General Stuff

tech over truth + tabula rasa. (this is probably the only part of my paradigm you have to care about)

extending a card in final focus is not the same as a voter. neither is just telling me that your opponents dropped something. weighing and characterization of arguments are important (otherwise I have to intervene and arbitrarily impose my own weighing as a judge-- judge intervention = bad). offense dropped in summary is dropped for the round, defense is sticky but less mitigatory if it's not extended.

90% of public forum is stock pragmatic args carded with questionable evidence. ethics arguments are totally welcome, and in my opinion they make the activity more fun + move it forward. every case has an implicit philosophical framework-- engaging with that framework provides extra depth and allows you to frame-out many of your opponent's ideas. creative arguments are great! but make sure they are well-warranted, well-carded, etc.

evidence is important, but it's not the holy grail. given two competing claims, one of which is carded but not warranted and one of which is warranted but not carded, I am not going to automatically prefer the claim w/ evidence. I was a 2nd speaker in high school, so I know how easy it is to just dump a bunch of your blockfile into a four minute speech and call it a rebuttal-- make sure you actually engage with their case on the line-by-line.

if you're kicking an argument, explicitly concede defense or uniqueness analysis, don't just say "we are kicking x argument"

backlash is usually not a good argument. obviously I will still vote on it, but please please explain to my why I should care.

Evidence Ethics

I really don't want to have to call for cards but I will if necessary (i.e. there are 2 competing claims, neither of which is clearly winning, about a piece of evidence)

It's really easy to get away with miscutting evidence/using sketchy evidence in general. please don't.

Speed

speed ok, but please do not spread in pf.

Theory

I firmly believe that debate is a game, and that the judge's role is to evaluate arguments without unnecessary intervention. that being said, I think some norms are good for the community in general, and while I disagree with the role of the ballot as an "educating" force I think judges ought to check back against some kinds of in-round abuse.

that applies to obvious stuff like outright racism, sexism, and so on-- just don't do it. I will drop you if you do it. It also applies to theory. I WILL vote on theory (obviously), but I am not a fan of frivolous theory in pf (i.e. shoes theory, etc.) I will probably not vote on it, and your speaker scores will not be good.

I honestly don't know how I feel about kritiks in pf. convince me i guess.

Speaks

I give speaks based on your contribution to the round, not your ability to sound like a politician. that being said, the more entertaining the round is to judge the more likely debaters are to have high speaks-- creativity and cleverness are a big part of debate imo.

I have done PF judge for several years as a parent judge. I don't have certain merits what would guarantee a win. Please prepare well, be yourself, try your best, and never give up.

It will be very helpful for me if you could provide signpost, compare evidence, weigh impact and scope. Summary and final focus is very important for decision making.

Enjoy the journey and have fun!

I am the coach of the Eastside Prep debate team. Prior, I was president of the Pacific Northwest Middle School Debate League, and I coached a middle school debate team for 10 years. While I am a flow judge, and I pay attention to what arguments are followed up on and which ones get dropped, I prefer students to act as if I am a lay judge as I think that debaters should be able to fully explain their contentions and their refutations so a "regular" person can understand them. When judging debates, I prefer that debaters focus on the significance and impact of their arguments, making sure that they are fully explaining how their evidence relates to their overall position. It should be obvious that they understand what their evidence means, not just that they can read it off of a card. I appreciate it when it is clear that the debaters are in constant communication with one another, building off of each other's arguments. Debaters should also be polite, yet firm, during crossfire. Public Forum debate is the time to really engage in the arguments and seek understanding by clear explanation of evidence and significance of that evidence to their overall contention.

In high school I competed in most debate formats, but preferred PF. I am very traditional and prefer logical arguments over anything else, but if done well, other appeals will absolutely work for me. While I can generally understand faster talking, spreading does not belong in PF and if I can't understand, I can't flow it. With that being said, my result will be decided by my flow. If you give me a framework and can reasonably explain why I should use it, I probably will. If you choose not to give a framework, I will use what I believe the resolution best calls for. I absolutely love clash, feel free to make the debate engaging for me, but if I feel you were disrespectful, it will be reflected on the ballot.

I am a former high school and college CEDA debater (UofO) and college NDT coach (graduate assistant coach at USC) and former Director of Forensics at SDSU. I am also a former professor of Communication at UW, with an emphasis on argument, persuasion, rhetorical theory and criticism. As such, I will be a critic of argument. I have not been in the field for years. I prefer sound reasoning and analysis to "blippy" superficial tags and points. A quick rate of speech is fine, if it has substance. The quality of your research and sources will be of value; the consistency of your use of a source with their overall position is important; The internal reasoning in the evidence has weight. Have a tag, qualify your source, read the quote. I am unlikely to be persuaded by a tag line, a last name and a date, and something that follows that it not clearly the quote. Make it very clear where the evidence/quote starts and where it ends, and where your analysis/impact statement about the evidence starts. Depth of insight is preferable to breadth of expression. Focus on sound, smart and thoughtful questions in cross periods. Although not necessarily on the flow, it will reflect command of issues, reasoning and demonstrate civility. Enjoy, employ your strategy, show respect for the subject and your opponents. I have noticed what I see to be a pattern. Consistent with the need to understand implicit bias, I will attend carefully to my impressions. However, I see aggressiveness and rudeness/dismissiveness directed at female competitors by males more than I see it directed at male competitors by male competitors. I ask that all opponents be treated with respect and to be aware of your own potential implicit bias in the communication toward and attitude about your opponents, regardless of who they are.

I’m a parent judge and former debater.

For debate events, please note:

• I value thorough research, thoughtful questions, and the ability to defend your contentions.
• Ensure your logic is sound, and you construct a compelling narrative.
• Arguments should be current, evidence-based, and clearly expressed.
• Respect and listen to your opponents at all times. In cross, let opponents finish their thoughts and answer your questions.
• Speakers will lose points for spreading if they are unintelligible or their opponents can't respond.

For speech events, please note:

• Speech organization should be clearly outlined.
• Ensure sources are current and reliable.
• Storylines are important, but ensure that you can link your examples to your topic.
• Have confidence and have fun - it comes through in the speech.

rifatrehman@hotmail.com for the email chain.

I am a parent judge for Mount Si High School, and have been judging locally for 3 years.

A few things to keep in mind:

-Arguing for debate is healthy. Arguing for arguments' sake is not.

-Please be respectful and considerate. Don't be abrasive or cocky.

- Your argumentation should be logical.

-Extend all your arguments. I like a healthy clash.

-List out voters, and weigh.

-Please speak clearly.

-If you take too long to find a card, I’ll start running your prep.

This paradigm is time tested, and daughter approved!

My email: ksinha2@stanford.edu

For Debate in general...

-I do not care about how quickly you speak, as long as you are articulate and enunciate each word. DO NOT SPREAD.

-Before you get into the meat of your case, provide a clear, structured roadmap of what you are about to say. This is helpful for me while flowing.

-Although you obviously need cards, good cards are not enough to win the round. Do not simply say "this card says xyz" - you should be able to explain how xyz makes sense using logical reasoning.

-If you believe your opponent has dropped one of your points, say so clearly. Otherwise, there is a risk I will overlook it.

-At the end, spell out your voting issues explicitly, and explain which impacts outweigh the others (and why they outweigh the others). This is very helpful for me as I make my final decision.

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

I am a former debater and I am a coach currently.

I appreciate clear sign posts. I am fine with spreading. I will flow your round. I do not think absolutely everything you say requires a card and I believe demanding carded evidence for everything is really just a means to make debate more inaccessible.

Primarily, I am concerned with your rhetoric skills and your ability to present clear and thoughtful responses to your opponents' arguments. Can you put together a cohesive case? Do you have a deep understanding of the evidence you are reading and are you able to defend it with passion? Are you able to find gaps in your opponent's logic? Are you able to weigh impacts? These are the things I will vote on.

My name is Evan Sun, I was raised in the glorious country of China where i participated in Forum Public, it was there i learned everything in America was a worse copy of China for example Public Forum(USA) vs Forum Public(China).

tech over truth, tabula rasa(if u don't know what this means, go ahead and ask)

i would appreciate signposting and weighing.

fine with speed but i might be lazy and not flow stuff if u go too fast lol.

I flow theory but would prefer not to.

if you got a rlly good meme case you should send to evan.sun.ca@gmail.com

also if you an ilake team tell hannah to judge more fairly >:(

debate is VIBING TIME

I am a community volunteer, a flay judge. 2020 is my fifth year of NSDA tournament, and the first online live judging.

I appreciate efficiency: well-constructed and clearly stated points with a reasonable pace, more content ≠ quality content.

In today's information world, attention is what everyone is fighting for, so please get your points clear and flow with logic.

I am a global market and consumer researcher, I value facts, data, and actionable insights. When all the info is a click away, please be very careful with what to use as your supporting materials for your debate. Please always use fact-based, reputable and reliable sources.

Enjoy your debate and have fun!

If you want to learn more about me, please connect me on

Linkedin.com/in/janiesun

As a new-ish parent judge so please talk slowly and clearly. Make a rational and compelling argument delivered with clarity. This is a debate so confront and address the side's ideas and don't just talk past them with your own ideas. Have fun with it! :)

At this point in the year, I would like to see eye contact made with either myself or the opposing team member(s). Speak slowly and succinctly. Get your ideas across thoughtfully. It is more important to get two points made well, then 5 points made in a run-on speech.

Most important, of course, is to respond to the opposing team's points.

1. Your arguments should have quantifiable impacts if you want to win; qualitative impacts will not be sufficient in most cases

2. I I cannot hear or compile your argument(s), I might not be able to judge it for correctness or completeness. Therefore, do not spread

3. Use logic to win your argument, pathos will not work with me

Parent judge (college professor) looking for clarity of speech and arguments.

Winners determined by relative impact of arguments that flowed through debate.

This is my first year judging, but I have PuFo Debate experience. I'm ok with speed as long as you ENUNCIATE. In addition, if I'm unable to understand the points you're making I will not flow; be as clear as you can.

Hello! I am a lay judge, and have judged around 4 or 5 tournaments. Afew things I would like to see in a round:

-Clear speaking. I prefer you to modulate your speed.

-Make your points clear and concise.

-When a question is asked in cross, please answer it clearly and address the content of the question. Also, try not to interrupt eachother.

-Please give voters and signpost :)

Clear, concise, logic and interesting.