Here's the best ways to avoid losing a round that I am judging: DON'T read fast. DON'T be rude to your opponents in crossfire. DON'T cite just a name and date without any other information. For example, if you say "Baker 2017 argues ______" what am I supposed to do with that if I don't know who the person is, why they are qualified, who they are writing for and so on? For all I know you could be citing your uncle, but maybe your uncle is qualified to speak on the subject matter. But how would I know without a more complete citation than just a name and a number? If you speak at a reasonable pace, are generally pleasant and have great evidence, you'll sound like a winner to me.

I once debated as second speaker. Now I'm a senior in college. If I'm judging something other than PF, then something has gone seriously wrong.

General

1) I'll flow. Given that, PLEASE signpost.

2) Please extend warrants (reasons for why your impacts occur). No extended warrant means I have no idea on how to evaluate your impact because I don't know why your impact occurs, and then you feel sad because I didn't vote off the 284,193,829 lives that you supposedly save. I don't want you to feel sad, so please extend the reasoning.

3) Please collapse in summary or maybe even in 2nd rebuttal. It makes your life easier, and also my life easier so I don't need to evaluate like four different things on the flow and you don't need to cover four things and then weigh in a two-minute final focus. Oh, in regards to weighing -- please do that. I'll need that. If nobody weighs, it's up to me to figure it out.

Note on weighing: Using "weighing" words like "knowledgeability," "clarity of impact," etc doesn't cut it. I have no idea what that means. You also need to explain your weighing.

Furthermore, if you want me to evaluate a voter in final focus, it must also be in summary.

4) Speed: Slow down if you think a card or a piece of analysis is gonna be important (starting from the card author and date). Furthermore, if I or your opponents tell you to slow down, please do so. Since we're online, please go a little slower than usual -- I'll be lenient with time.

5) Prefer that you don't try to run theory or Ks -- I have little experience with them. If you do try, I'll listen, but you're gonna have a steep hill to climb to get me to understand and vote off it.

6) I can understand jargon, but don't overuse it.

7) I don't listen to cross -- I think it's a time for the debaters to clear up things for their understanding. However, cross is still binding. Thus, if something important comes up, please say so in speech. Also, just because I’m not listening doesn’t mean you should be rude to each other.

8) Paraphrasing and Evidence: I don't mind paraphrasing. However, if I do find that you're misparaphrasing a piece of evidence, I'll strike that from the flow. If it's egregious, I'll drop you. Also, having cut cards isn't a necessity -- a PDF or live link works -- as long as you can find the specific paragraph or two that explains what you said in the round within a reasonable amount of time.

9) 2nd speaking rebuttal: Please please frontline your own case. If you don't, you're going to have a steep uphill battle to win case as I'll give lots of credence to the defense the first speaking team puts in your case.

10) I don't necessarily flow author names or source names, so when referring back to a piece of evidence, do a quick paraphrase of what the evidence said.

Other info

1. I will call for cards/pieces of evidence if

A. The other team requests that I call for it

B. I have a gut feeling that what you're saying isn't what the card says (a.k.a your evidence is too good to be true, or if I've heard it before).

2. Don't be rude to your opponent.

3. Have fun!

If anything is unclear, please ask me before round or email me at rchang24@seas.upenn.edu.

1. I am generally predisposed to teams that feel like they are attempting to persuade me, the judge, vs. exclusively their opponent. Many debates get too deeply into the weeds and fail to provide some kind of clear, overarching narrative — similarly, individual arguments are too often under warranted, with no analysis, and without a clear resolution of existing clash. Debate, to me, feels the most valuable and enjoyable when the skills demonstrated seem transferable / relevant to real-life argumentation and discourse — this means accurately tagged arguments that are developed throughout the round and rebuttals that show clear engagement with the content of opponent’s arguments. I prefer summaries that are not pseudo-rebuttals and that clearly explicate the narrative of the team while also providing offensively-minded voters and substantive weighing.

2. Evidence / in-round ethics are both extremely important to me. If at any point it becomes clear that a team is mis-representing, mis-labeling or otherwise abusing evidence, there will be a severe reduction in speaker points. I am also open to dropping the team if it seems like it’s given them an unfair competitive advantage. Because of all this, I am generally against paraphrasing unless the paraphrased content absolutely adheres to the content of the original source.

3. In-round civility is extremely important to me. Teams that are overly aggressive in crossfire, steal prep, go well over on time, or take forever when pulling up evidence will have reduced speaker points. Teams that cross over from rudeness into racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, etc… will be dropped (this includes arguments that contain racist, sexist, etc...warranting)

4. I understand the necessity for speed and heavily truncated argumentation in some rounds but generally have an overwhelming preference for a conversational pace and clear analysis. As such, I dislike the use of debate jargon and overuse of debate community patter (“A couple problems here” “This evidence is really, really clear!” “Recognize -”).

5. I will do my best to vote strictly off the flow but even within that paradigm it’s impossible to remain absolutely divorced from some degree of subjective decision-making over the course of a round. Thus, as with any judge, whether explicitly stated or not, I’m going to be heavily predisposed to the arguments that make coherent sense to me, starting from the constructive. Too many rebuttals and cases feel like ransom notes in which two or three words from thousands of evidence sources have been copy and pasted together to form something borderline incoherent. To put it another way — I’m not against surprising or novel argumentation but if something seems fake, it’ll feel weaker to me in a round. That being said, I want to limit judge intervention as much as possible and will do everything possible to not incorporate things external to what’s been argued in the round.

The best debates I’ve seen always seem to leave both debaters feeling like they’ve had fun. I’m confident that fulfilling these five preferences will lead to a strong round more often than not. Thank you!

Addition: I’m open to Ks and other kinds of experimental debate. I haven’t had a lot of experience judging them and the ones I’ve seen have generally been deeply unconvincing but I’m not against them at all

Eagan High School, Public Forum Coach (2018-Present), National Debate Forum (2016-2019), Theodore Roosevelt High School, Public Forum Coach (2014-2018)
She/Her Pronouns
Also technically my name is now Mollie Clark Ahsan but it's a pain to change on tabroom :)
Always add me to your email chain - mollie.clark.mc@gmail.com

Flowing
I consider myself a flow judge HOWEVER the narrative of your advocacy is hugely important. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I really dislike blippy arguments so try to condense the round (kick out of stuff you don't go for) and make sure you use your time efficiently.

Extensions
Good and clean warrant and impact extensions are what will most likely win you the round. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. Defense is NOT sticky— defense that is unextended is dropped. Similarly, offense (including your link chain and impact) that is unextended is dropped.

Evidence
Ethical use and cutting of evidence is incredibly important to me, while debate may be viewed as a game it takes place in the real world with real implications. It matters that we accurately represent what's happening in the world around us. Please follow all pertinent tournament rules and regulations - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

Speed, Speaking, & Unconventional Issues
- I can flow next to everything in PF but that does not mean that it's always strategically smart. Your priority should be to be clear. Make sure you enunciate so that your opponent can understand you, efficiency and eloquence in later speeches will define your speaks.
- Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme. I really dislike yelling and super-aggressive crossfire in particular. Understand your privileges and use that to respect and empower others.
- Trigger/content warnings are appreciated when relevant.
- Theory and K debate are not my favorite, but I'll hear you out and evaluate it in the round. But talking to folks I'm pretty convinced that I'd enjoy a round with a performance K! So please consider this an invitation (though note that I really only want to see it if you're really passionate about it and truly believe in it).
- If push comes to shove I'm technically tech>truth with the caveat that I believe strongly that debate has real-world implications. So I reserve some discretion to deal with arguments that are outrageous or harmful in a more traditional PF way.

Speaker Point Breakdown
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. Eloquent, good analysis, and strong organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

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

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

Hello!

I’m Jack (he/him). As a student I competed for Moorhead High School and I have been judging for Moorhead Debate and Speech since 2019. The main thing about my judging is I do not like fluff points. To win the round, a team will need to do more than just flow more points through to the end than their opponent. I heavily favor the strength of arguments over the number of points made or the number of words said, so firing off points without adding real substance will not get you far. I am completely willing to decide rounds based on 1 or 2 points that I believe are the strongest, so it would help to prioritize the opponent's arguments early on. Lastly, I do not take impacts at face value. Even if it goes through with no response you should explain how exactly your argument carries the impact to convince me that it’s stronger than the opps.

As a side note, while I will not directly weigh poor conduct into my decision, keep in mind that you are trying to get me to agree with you, and it's easier to do that when you follow debate conduct expectations.

email: entzi003@umn.edu

Name: Tom Fones

School Affiliation: SPA

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 13

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 33

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 6

If you are a coach, what events do you coach?

What is your current occupation? Retired Teacher and Coach

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

Speed of Delivery: Need to be understandable, prefer slower than most.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Big Picture. Prefer collapse to major issues.

Role of the Final Focus- Show voting issues and weigh.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches- Need to extend arguments to impact them.

Topicality- If needed.

Plans Not explicit plans in PF.

Kritiks- Will listen

Flowing/note-taking- Of course flowing, but the content is important, so a drop is not fatal without significant impact.

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

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? Don’t require, but think it’s generally good strategy.

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

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

I greatly appreciate civility and clear analysis of issues. There is no need for an off-time roadmap in PF.

I was a Public Forum debater at Eagan High School and debated for three years!

TLDR; To win my ballot win on the warrants, narrative, and flow. Be respectful to earn high speaker points.

Here are some things to keep in mind…

1. DO NOT be aggressive. One of my biggest pet peeves in round is when people are extremely aggressive towards one another. If you are aggressive, you will risk losing speaker points.
2. You will benefit from speaking at a conversational speed with me, specifically regarding speaker points. There is no need to spread because this is a public forum round.
3. Do not paraphrase evidence. I want the full credentials for the author(s) which include: Name, Author Credentials, Year. Make sure you have access to article from which it was cited and if you cannot provide the evidence when asked, I will not weigh it in the round!
4. Signpost! Tell me where you are on the flow in every speech to make my job easier. Write the ballot for me! After the constructive speech, every speech should be organized.
5. Embrace the clash and weigh. I need to know why to prefer you at the framework, warrant and impact level. Explicitly say, “Prefer this because….”. This makes my job much easier.
6. I weigh evidence over logic. However, I don’t mind using logic to de-link an argument.
7. VOTERS are extremely important. Please collapse to voters in summary and those same voters must be reiterated in final focus. Extend the narrative and the impacts. The impacts have no weight if you do not extend the narrative.
8. I do NOT condone racism, sexism, or bigotry of any kind. You will risk losing many speaker points.
9. Most importantly, have fun because at the end of the day, that is the only thing that matters :)

Speaker Point Breakdown:

25 or less - Offensive/Rule breaking behavior; paraphrased evidence

26 - Lacks proper speaking skills; made errors

27 - Good speaker; probably made some technical errors but made sense

28 - Good debater; had good technical skills and weighed

29 - Above average speaker; probably set yourself up to win the round

30 - One of the best debaters and speakers at the tournament; wrote my ballot for me

If you have any post-round questions:

andreahagape@gmail.com

What to expect from me:

I debated for 4 years on the Eagan High School debate team. I will be flowing the round, so I will be a bit more of a tech judge. Regardless of how I personally feel about the strength of an argument, I will still evaluate it based on how well it's run within the context of the round. I am okay with speed, as long as it doesn't interfere with the clarity of your speaking. I will vote for whoever has the most offense left standing at the end of the round. I will disclose at the end of the round.

How to win my vote (Road to the Ballot):

1. Weighing

In summary I expect clear weighing mechanisms, and when I say weighing mechanisms I mean you actually have to give a comparative analysis between your impacts and the impacts of your opponents. You can't just say "we outweigh on severity", you need to say "we outweigh on severity because we impact to death by war and our opponents impact to a few million dollars lost". If you give me weighing mechanisms like these I will evaluate your impacts first and then it simply becomes an issue of extending your links into those impacts.

2. Extensions

I will not extend your arguments for you. In order to get me to buy your argument at the end of the round, the entirety of your argument should be extended from Sum all the way to FF. This consists of your claim, warrant, and impact. You need both warrant and impact extensions for me to guarantee an evaluation of your argument. If you are missing any of these, the only way that I will still buy your argument is if your opponents never call you out on forgetting to extend.

Additional note: If you didn't talk about it in Sum but bring it up again in FF, I will not consider your argument. Sum is your most important speech in the round where you go over everything that you feel is relevant, so if it isn't mentioned there it shouldn't be mentioned at all later.

3. Frontlining

1st Speaking Team: I don't expect you to preempt your opponents responses to your case in Rebuttal, so Frontlining should take place in Summary.

2nd Speaking Team: I expect Frontlining in your Rebuttal, and if I don't get it in Rebuttal I won't flow it in Sum. You already know what your opponents have to say against your case by Rebuttal so take the time to defend yourself. Doing that in 2nd Sum is extremely unfair to your opponents because they can only begin to respond during FF and that shouldn't be what FF is for.

Both Teams: I won't accept last minute Frontlining that happens in FF.

4. New Evidence/Arguments

Summary: I am okay with new evidence in Sum as long as it is in support of a preexisting argument. No new arguments in Sum because Sum should be a condensing of the round. The only exception to this is if you are the 1st speaking team and are frontlining in Sum.

Final Focus: No new evidence or arguments should be made in FF. If you do this I will not regard the argument regardless of whether or not your opponent calls you out for it.

5. Signposting

Make sure to signpost and tell me where you are on the flow so it'll be easier for me to follow along. The easier it is for me to understand you, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

6. Etiquette

I don't appreciate overly aggressive speakers. You can condescend your opponents and interrupt them all you want, but that doesn't make your argument any stronger. I also don't appreciate it when people dance around questions in Cross. Your inability to answer questions about your arguments will only reflect poorly on you. Just answer the question and move on.

7. Summary

Summary is not a 2nd rebuttal. SUMMARY IS NOT A 2ND REBUTTAL. SUMMARY IS NOT A 2ND REBUTTAL. SUMMARY IS NOT A 2ND REBUTTAL!!!!!!!! If you start your summary on your opponents case, my brain will start shutting down. Summary is supposed to be about why you have won the round, and proving your opponents wrong isn't the same as proving yourself right. Start your summary on what you are winning on, extend your case properly, and take the time to do weighing. Extending your partners responses from rebuttal is secondary to that (Note: This doesn't mean that you shouldn't also do this).

-----

Speaker Point Breakdown

I will be giving everyone a 28 with 3 exceptions:

1. You are so well spoken that you get a 30

2. You display that you aren't just a bad debater, but a bad person. In that case you will be getting a 25.

3. Idk I'm bored if you tell me something cool I'll give you and extra .5 speakers points because why not.

Credit to Simon Koch for the meme so they can't get mad at me for stealing :)

This is my fourth year judging. My judging is based on quality and accuracy. Students should be respectful and argue in a way that demonstrates this. I enter each debate with no opinion on the subject. It is up to you to convince me to side with your argument. 

These are the criteria that I typically judge:

clarity of case

clearly stated opening argument

use of facts and examples in the correct order - source then evidence

overall clarity of presented argument

crossfire - well constructed questions and answers

G'Day!

My name is Meg Kandarpa, and I am a Cornell ILR student in the Class of '23. I currently debate for Cornell in British Parliamentary/Worlds debate. (It seems counterintuitive to list BP qualifications on a site that is not used for BP but if you truly want to know ask me).

In high school, I primarily partook in APDA/parliamentary debate but also competed in world schools, congress, public forum, and MUN/speech.

Judging Paradigm

My judging paradigm is relatively simple - If the round doesn't say it, then I don't judge in it (this is 100% based off the flow - not my intuition). This includes not pointing out contradictions, missing links, and other case failures. I'm not one who believes in "punishment judging" - eg if a first speech fails to provide a needed definition, I don't take "away" points.

Refutation is also a good practice - direct responses to teams and telling me why you win also does help!

Also - please weigh/impact. I always see myself questioning "so what" at the end of most cases. Don't let that be your case.

If there's any way I can make the round more accessible for you in any way please don't hesitate to let me know before (or even during) the round.

Specificities to Online Debate (Credit to a University of Rochester buddy - Ali Abdullah who wrote this)

Please please slow down a bit; online debate certainly isn't conducive to blazing fast speeds (especially when most of y'all aren't even enunciating properly in person). This doesn't mean you can't speak fast, just be sure to slow down enough that I can make out every word you're saying. I'll try to tell you if I can't comprehend you but chances are by the time I do I've already missed something important.

Please try avoiding speaking over each other during CX; I love heated CX but 2+ people with their microphones on become incomprehensible in an online setting.

On video, you certainly don't have to have it turned on when I'm judging you. There are a multitude of reasons for this from privacy reasons to personal comfort, etc. Basically, you do you. I may also ask you to turn your video off if my internet is being slow, but I'll never ask you to turn it on. I find myself paying infinitely more attention to what you say and the tone/form in which you say it than your facial expressions anyway.

On that note, my video will most likely be on as it makes me stay connected and focused - and for debaters to feel comforted knowing that I am not watching Netflix in round. I never make facial expressions when I'm judging anyway so it wouldn't really be useful to y'all in that sense.

Debate Etiquette

I make it effort when doing introductions to offer a space for pronoun preferences. This is by no means required, but helpful if needed. If someone discloses pronouns or doesn't - always best to defer to the speaking position over assumptions.

I'm all for heated debates, but behavior that can frankly be determined as just jerkish is not something I stand for. This includes aggressively cutting debaters off, excessive facial expressions (if it's that ludicrous, 99% sure I caught it as well) and any generalizations/insinuations towards an entire group of people.

Again - generalizations of groups of people - bad and unpersuasive. That goes for debate, and just life advice while we are at it.

Cheers, and thanks to all who have read this far (good luck if I'm judging you!)

Meg Kandarpa

I competed in PF for four years for Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa, both on the national and local circuits. I coached at NDF in 2018, 2019, and 2020, and for the 2020-21 season I'm an Assistant PF Coach at Eagan High School. I'm now a junior at the University of Notre Dame studying political science.

Don't be afraid to ask me questions about anything on here - I love answering them, and it shows me that you're making a serious effort to adapt to me, which I appreciate!

Add me to the email chain - ellie.konfrst@gmail.com.

How to win my ballot:

Find the cleanest piece of offense on the flow and weigh that. This is probably the most important thing in my paradigm. I want to avoid intervention as much as I possibly can, but if arguments get muddy and don't get sorted out, that's hard for me to do. I would far prefer to vote off a conceded, well-implicated turn than a case arg riddled with ink and conflicting warranting.

You need to collapse in the second half of the round, it's a huge strategic mistake not to do that.

Use the persuasive nature of PF to your advantage. I evaluate the round off the flow, but that doesn't mean I'm not a human and can't be persuaded. Ultimately, your job is to convince me you're right. In close rounds, sometimes that's less logical and more emotional.

In the spirit of persuasion, you should be collapsing on a clear narrative in the second half of the round.

You have to weigh. If you don't weigh for me I'm forced to literally just pick things I think are more important, which means you lose control of the round, and I'm forced to interfere. Weighing should be clear in summary and final focus, and it might even be helpful to start weighing in rebuttal. (NOTE: In order to weigh your argument, you also have to win the argument. I've seen way too many teams weigh arguments that they lose, and that leaves me forced to intervene just as much as if you don't weigh. Remember, you need to extend warrants and impacts).

Extensions:

If you want it on the ballot, it needs to be in summary AND final focus.

Extend warrants and impacts. Make a point to especially extend impacts - I have literally no reason to vote for your argument if there's no impact, and failing to extend impacts in final focus can be fatal.

Defense you need to win needs to be extended in first summary. Especially with 3 minutes for summary, y'all - if you expect defense to be sticky from rebuttal to final focus you are not debating well.

You need to respond to your opponent's rebuttal if you're speaking 2nd. I prefer defense and offense, but I'm significantly more forgiving with dropped defense than dropped offense. If you speak second and you drop a turn read in first rebuttal, I consider it dropped for the round. With that said, please do not "extend" your case in 1st rebuttal, I will probably just stop listening.

Extend card names along with what the card says.

Conduct:

I know debate rounds can get heated, but I think it's important to respect your opponents. If you're unnecessarily aggressive, patronizing, or rude, I'll definitely dock your speaks. I'm not telling you to not be assertive or loud, but I can tell the difference between someone who believes their opponents are wrong and someone who believes their opponents are not even worth their time.

If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. I'll drop you and tank your speaks.

This is a small thing, but I really dislike when teams call out strategic errors made by the other time in cross, i.e. "didn't you drop this in summary?" It's a waste of cross-ex time and it feels rude to me - tell me in a speech, don't turn it into a cross question.

Arguments:

I like interesting arguments a lot! Obviously squirrely/unwarranted args probably won't win you my ballot, but judging 6 double-flighted debate rounds in a row can get super monotonous, and I'll probably reward you if you at least make the round more interesting.

I'm open to any type of impacts, as long as you weigh them.

However, I have 0 background in policy or LD, so if you want to run theory/Ks/pre-fiat arguments you're gonna need to explain them to me in the simplest possible terms. To be clear, I have rarely encountered any kind of shell when debating or judging, and only rarely encountered ROB args as a debater. I am pretty uncomfortable evaluating these arguments and while I'll evaluate them as best I can, you run them at your own risk.

Framework:

I will evaluate under whatever framework is presented to me in the round.

That means, if you drop your opponent's framework, I will weigh the round based on that.

I'm super hesitant to use framework brought up in 2nd rebuttal, especially if it fundamentally alters the way I need to evaluate the debate. If your framework is something very different from a CBA (e.g. deontology) it needs to be in constructive.

I love weighing overviews and will 100% evaluate them as long as they're brought up by rebuttals.

Evidence:

If you tell me to call for a card OR seeing a card is necessary in order for me to make my decision, I'll call for it.

When sharing evidence with either me or your opponents, the evidence should be in cut card form or a highlighted PDF. Sending just a link is unfair to your opponents and annoying to me!

Don't paraphrase, however I tend to be pretty lenient on evidence ethics. If evidence is bad, I basically just evaluate the round as if the evidence didn't exist. I'm not opposed to dropping teams solely on terrible evidence ethics, but you'd probably have to act pretty awfully in order for me to do so.

Other stuff:

I talk really fast in real life, and I talked really fast in debate, so I can handle max PF speeds. Spreading is harder online and early in the morning - I'll do my best, but remember that if I don't get stuff on my flow because you were talking too fast that's your fault. With that said, if you are clearly speaking too fast for your opponents, I'll probably dock your speaks - I think that's rude and exclusionary for an event that's supposed to be open for anyone.

Please time yourselves and your opponents! I am not timing and will let you keep talking if no one else stops you, which just makes the round last longer and is unfair to everyone else.

This is an unpopular opinion, but I LOVE roadmaps. They should be brief, and I can tell when teams use it to steal prep, but if you do it well I will love you. I don't think it ever hurts to make sure you and your judge are on the same page.

This is also why it's crucial for you to signpost. There's nothing worse than you giving killer responses, but me missing them because you lost me in your speech.

You should be using voters in summary/final focus! It's not a dealbreaker for me but it will make me like you more and I'll probably boost your speaks. It also just makes for better debates, so do it!

If you have any questions I'd love to answer them, just ask me before the round!

(Public Forum, Classic, Congress) and 2 years in speech (Discussion).

I will vote for the team that can impact and weigh effectively. Don't just tell me all the great things about your side and/or the bad things about your opponent's side. Tell me why your side is better than the other team. WEIGH!

Speed: I don't mind a little speed as long as I have enough time to flow your arguments.

Evidence: Read me direct quotes, don't paraphrase. I want a proper citation for your source (Author name, credentials, where is the source from, date).

Summary and/or final speeches: Tell me what is the big picture and what I should be voting on.

Experience: 7 years of judging PF and Congress, Juris Doctor with Legal background.

Philosophy:

I approach debate as an educational activity that fosters critical thinking, effective communication, and the exploration of various perspectives. My role is to evaluate the round based on the arguments presented, the quality of evidence and analysis, and the overall coherence of the debate.

Roles of the Debaters:

1. Clarity and Organization: I value clear, concise, and organized speeches. Debaters should articulate their points effectively, signpost, and provide a clear roadmap for the round.

2. Argumentation: I prioritize well-developed and supported arguments. Provide strong evidence and analysis to back up your claims. Quality over quantity; I prefer a few strong points to numerous weak ones.

3. Rebuttal and Clash: Engage with your opponent's arguments. Effective rebuttal involves addressing the core of the argument, not just the surface-level claims.

4. Flexibility and Adaptability: Be prepared to adapt your strategy based on your opponent's arguments and the direction of the round.

Evidence and Sources:

From my legal education and background, I pay very close attention to sources. Cite reliable and credible sources. The quality of evidence is more important than the quantity. If a source is questionable, make sure to highlight this in your argumentation.

Cross-Examination:

I consider cross-examination to be an integral part of the debate. It's an opportunity to clarify, challenge, and extract concessions from your opponent. Effective cross-examination can significantly strengthen your case. I will pay close attention to challenges to opponents' arguments and how it is used to strengthen your case.

Speaker Points:

I will assign speaker points based on clarity, argumentation, strategic choices, and overall contribution to the round. Be respectful and professional throughout the debate.

Role of the Judge:

My role is to fairly and objectively evaluate the arguments presented. I will not inject my personal opinions into the decision-making process. I will assess the round based on what transpires in the debate.

Speed and Delivery:

While I can handle a moderate pace, I value clarity over speed. If your arguments become unclear due to rapid delivery, it may hinder your overall assessment.

Respect and Decorum:

Maintain respect for your opponents, partner, and the judge throughout the round. Be mindful of time limits and follow the established rules. I do not tolerate arguing over each other or unnecessary interjections as it muddles and slows the debate.

Final Thoughts:

Remember, debate is an educational activity, but don't forget to have fun! Embrace the opportunity to learn, grow, and engage with different perspectives. I look forward to a productive and insightful round!

2020 Update - I've been out of debate for a few years now, and my judging is still pretty much reflected on the huge block of text below. Keep in mind that I don't really have topic knowledge on most topics that are currently on circuit, but you do you and I'll be able to follow along. Debate is a fantastic activity and if I can help people enjoy it and learn then that's what my goal is. Feel free to email me after any round I judge with questions if my RFD is unclear.

About Me:

Email (for chains or questions after rounds): lolud272@gmail.com

Ex-Varsity policy debater for George Mason University, debated for 3 years at GMU (started as a Novice, woo most important debate level)

I'm flow-centric and I vote only off of what I have flowed. I'll flow cross-ex for the most part, but unless concessions/arguments made in cross-ex make it into a speech I won't evaluate them at the end of the round. Clarity is more important to me than speed, and a word of warning to machine gun spreaders - I'm receptive to the old-school arg that if I can't understand the arguments being spread, I shouldn't evaluate them. This isn't my default, and I'll do my best to adjudicate based off of what I have, but I can sympathize with that argument. If I can't understand you, then I'll likely be uncomfortable voting on an arg that I never heard articulated in the first place.

Tech > Truth or vice versa is kind of silly - I think like most things a moderation between both is where I fall. What this looks like in my mind is that I'm pro techy args on things like Ptix DAs like link turn debates or a cross applying of the opponent's theory standards to take out other theory offense, as well as other stuff not listed here, but I also think that uncarded analytics that can press on the real world happenings around the world on certain issues can be very convincing to mitigate offense, and I think that the best answer to shit politics disads can be a 2AC block of 4-5 lines telling me why their ev is terrible and makes no sense. Basically - do you and I'll follow. I personally think an internal link press on a sketchy advantage or DA is the most convincing place to push back against other teams,

I read a lot of evidence post round, at least compared to other judges I've seen in high school debate. I do this maintain to verify that the arguments a team has been making are substantiated by the warrants of their ev, but in a scenario when an argument is dropped, this is mainly just to verify the ev is close to what was argued. I try to lean less towards judge intervention when it comes to considering evidence in my decision, as in I will vote off of the flow first, and use the reading of evidence to assess how strong an argument is backed up. In extremely close debates, I will often find myself voting on one ev versus another, but this is contingent on winning a risk from a flow level. I try to do evaluation this way to avoid decisions that are based somewhere in "you've argued your position this way, and your opponents haven't contested your quality of ev, but I think their ev is better so you lose."

Cross ex is binding friends, but if you try to fish a link in the last few seconds and your opponent is trying to clarify their answer while you cut them off (something I see/experience a lot), there's some wiggle room there.

Debate can be a game or it can be an educational space, I'll frame the debate space and myself as a judge however I'm told. This doesn't mean "conceding RoB means you vote thru our lens" - to quote Joe Patrice, the RoB is more just like a sort of impact framing, not an immediate "vote for team that concedes our artibrary RoB". If neither team gives me a RoB or other framing, my default to evaluating the debate is a judge in a game; the winner is the team that does the better debating.

I'm down for recutting of evidence, but if it's not a gamechanger then you're probably wasting your time. Recutting politics DA cards for UQ that goes the other way is fuego though, and teams should do that more. Reading your opponents ev and pointing out how bad it is in C-X is great, but that arg needs to be in a speech for me to eval it as part of the overall debate.

Impacts/Impact Framing:

I tend to default towards magnitude to evaluate different impacts, but that can mean different things in different debates - if higher magnitude means prioritizing structural violence first instead of faake newwwss policy nuclear war impacts, ok sounds good. In a policy debate the default is what causes most harm, which can be interpreted or debated in different ways. The point is that I will adapt to the debate and how each debate plays out, but including elements of magnitude/timeframe/probability in your overviews for framing will make things a lot easier for you to pick up my ballot. Impact turns are the SHIT and a great way into my ballot, I think they're very underutilized in high school policy.

Condo:

I hold the line for my fellow slow debaters - I'm of the opinion that more than 3 conditional worlds are not necessary, and 1-2 line CPs without evidence are straight shit. I'm a hard pass on mega-7 plank CPs that solve the aff in like 8 different ways ALSO being able to kick planks. If you want to try to read more than 3 condo, go ahead, it's a debate and you might be able to convince me, but I'm skeptical of the need to read that many to begin with. I don't have any opinion on multiple Ks or CPs, just that they don't ideologically conflict, ie. running two identity politics Ks that say for example "native focus first" and "black violence focus first" then just kicking what you're losing - that's conditional ethics which I think is a separate but also bad method of debate and I'm extremely sympathetic to aff args to reject Ks based on that.

Counterplans:

Totally fine with counterplans. I'm a *big* fan of multiplank CPs that do a lot of things to resolve the aff in creative ways, especially against soft left type of affs. If a counterplan solves an Aff better than the aff and has a risk of some sort of net benefit, then it's hard to vote Aff in that situation. I'm kinda iffy on teams tossing out "sufficiency framing" as a "ehhh cmon judge it's good enough," and I'm more receptive to aff teams telling me to hold down the fort, especially when it's a question of large CPs versus the aff. IMO the most underutilized args against the CP are analytics why the CP can't solve the internal links of the aff - as well as other solvency deficits. Aff teams should use these types of args for sure.

PICs are good if using the Aff evidence as ways to solve, I think that Aff teams should be responsible for the ev they cut, and if it says there's a better way to do it, yeah I'll vote on that. However, PICs can be abusive sometimes and I'll vote on theory against PICs if the debate shakes down that way, but that's a question of doing the debating. Any CP that absorbs some sort of mindset shift/change of epistemology that the Aff uniquely does is closer to actual cheating and you'd have a hard time convincing me of that legitimacy without carded ev. I'm down to vote on CP theory if it becomes a big debate, but it's still kind of an uphill battle, especially if it's a random blippy theory arg without being fleshed out.

Da's:

For the aff: I'm very accepting of non-uq and no link args and think they should be made often. Link turns can be the best pieces of offense against DAs, just be clear on the story of the turn in the rebuttals, starting in the 1AR. Reading only impact D is not the best way to handle DAs but they aren't death sentences. Leverage your aff versus the DAs often and thoroughly, and winning Aff impact mitigates DA risk is something I think can be credible in the right context.

For the neg: The more coherent the Link and Internal Link story the better, contextualizing your evidence to what the aff is and why it triggers your links is the best way to weigh your offcase. Even if the aff drops an impact, you need to point it out and frame why they lose because of it, impact calc on DAs is just as important as on aff advantages.

Ks:

As mentioned above, not typically what I run. Alts are important, and I'm not a fan of teams that kick the alternative, but it's strategic sometimes and I get that. If you want me to kick the alt, I'd like some framing about what the neg world looks like without an alt and why the Aff doesn't matter. Got no problem with voting on the K as long as it's explained well. To quote numerous others, I'm not comfortable with voting on something I can't articulate at the end of the debate, so keep that in mind if I'm in the back. This for the most part includes high theory word vomit and literal nonsense like Baudrillard, so be wary. Specific links to the Aff's direct ACTIONS, as opposed to injustices in the squo that the aff doesn't get rid of will make voting on the K a much easier time.

T:

To be honest, T was never my forte as a debater and I am not the best for these debates - but:

Fairness is an impact, and proving to me what ground you lost and it's easier to get a ballot. Winning your interp is a prereq to any ballot, and having reasons why I should prefer your interp will greatly improve your chances. The limits debate is the most persuasive part of T/FW for me, I feel there's (for the most part) always ground that the neg can shift into. If you can prove that the aff interp makes the topic unmanageable and unpredictable, brownie points.

Framework is a option that I am willing to vote on, although it's not my strongest suit despite being a policy 2N (lol, rip.)

Spec arguments generally are not convincing and I'm likely not going to vote on them. It's an uphill battle for you.

TL;DR:

You do what you want to debate and I'll evaluate as the round is framed - I'm more partial to techy policy debate since that's what I did but I'll work out the round as it unfolds without incorporating my own opinions into the external truth level of some arguments. I read ev post round so don't read bad ev - especially things that you are likely to go for in the final rebuttals. K things are good but I'm not as deep in the lit base for high theory, so extra laymans-level explanation in the block and final rebuttal are the most important thing to consider.

Non-policy debate types:

PF:

The default framing I use is basically util, whatever I feel will do the most good overall, unless I am given any other way to evaluate the round. I'm not going to vote for any theory argument about how Pro should have to go against a double-negative res because they're Pro, so it'd be best not to waste speech time on it. If you've read this far, you can see that I'm a policy debater, so overall I prefer magnitude framing and impact comparison as ways to sway my ballot more. This doesn't mean it has to be a big stick war impact or anything, but being mindful of what your opponents arguments are and why your impacts are more important is a good way to pick up my ballot.

I don't have any preference to standing/sitting during Crossfire, whatever both teams are comfortable with is fine by me. More of a suggestion rather than paradigm thing is to use all of your prep time. I've seen teams go into the Final Focus with more than a minute left, and taking extra time to focus on what you need to say will help immensely, there's always a better articulation or some way of framing arguments better.

LD:

I don't judge much LD nowadays, but you do you and I'll follow. Framing against your opponent's VC will help provide clarity for me on how I should be evaluating the round.

Congress:

Same with LD, I don't often judge Congress but do your best and I'll give my full attention.

hey there

i did debate for 4 years in high school, ended up around #7 in npdl before quitting due to boredom.

i dont intervene on flow, i hate it, i hate everything about it.

if you make an outlandish claim that your plan will cure cancer, even with zero evidence, i will flow it unless they opponents point out why thats wrong etc etc.

i value rhetorical ability and good argument making above all else, i dont care if you are aggressive towards one another so long that you dont end up cursing each other out or using labels that are questionable (sexist, racist, etc).

if you make a claim and you dont impact it out, means nothing to me, i dont care if your plan solves world hunger, tell me why world hunger is a problem and why we should solve it, what mechanism are you using in order to show me that world hunger is a problem i should care about, what ethical system, etc.

i like signposting and good structure, on time roadmaps are very much endorsed, no off time roadmaps will be allowed, so just tell me what youre doing before you do it, make it clear.

evidence and logical deduction will be required for your arguments to seem legitimate, i need proper connection between evidence and impacts, called a warrant.

i dont like theory or kritiks, but i understand their value in a round but please only run them because you genuinely feel like some sort of injustice is occurring.

i value logos, then ethos, then pathos on the flow, emotional arguments dont matter and anecdotal stories dont matter to me, i need evidence with a strong voice behind the evidence that can explain it.

pls impact everything out and tell me y it matters or i wont care.

cant think of anything else so just ask me, i love rhetorical ability, be theatrical yet efficient (dont overdo it we arent in a shakespearen play)

I have been judging debate in MN regularly since at least 2004. I judge at invitationals, Sections, NatQuals, and State. I started judging LD debate, but as PF has grown in MN, I now judge mostly PF debate. I also started coaching PF in 2017.

When judging debate I want you, the debaters, to prove to me why you should win my ballot. I listen for explanations as to WHY your contention is stronger or your evidence more reliable than the opponents' contention/evidence. Just claiming that your evidence/arguments are better does not win my ballot. In other words, I expect there to be clash and clear reasoning.

I listen carefully to the evidence entered in to the debate to make sure it matches the tag you have given it. If a card is called by the other team, it better have a complete source cite and show the quoted material either highlighted or underlined with the rest of the words there. The team providing the card should be able to do so expeditiously. I expect that author, source, and date will be presented. Author qualifications are very helpful, especially when a team wants to convince me their evidence is stronger than the opponents. The first time the ev is presented, it needs to be the author’s words, in context, and NOT paraphrased. Later paraphrased references in the round, of course, is a different story.

The affirmative summary speech is the last time new arguments should be entered in the debate.

If arguments are dropped in summaries, they are dropped from my flow.

When time expires for a speech, I stop flowing.

I expect that debaters should understand their case and their arguments well enough that they can explain them clearly and concisely. If a debater cannot respond effectively to case questions in Cross Fire, that does not bode well.

I expect debaters to show respect for each other and for the judge. Rude behavior will result in low speaker points.

PF and LD are separate debate events, but I don't think my view as a judge changes much between the two activities. I want to hear the resolution debated. If one side basically avoids the resolution and the other side spends some time answering those arguments PLUS supporting their case on the resolution, I will likely lean towards the side that is more resolutional. In other words, if one side chooses to run something that does not include looking at the pros and cons of the actual resolution, and chooses to ignore the resolution for the majority of the debate, that choice probably won't bode well for that team.

I only give oral critiques and disclose when required to in out-rounds. I promise I will give a thorough RFD on my ballot.

Hello! My name is Calvin McMahon. I am one of the LD debate coaches at Wayzata High School. Before coaching at Wayzata, I debated LD at Champlin Park High School for five years and served as a volunteer instructor at the Minnesota Debate Institute for four years. Just writing this paradigm to lay out a few preferences:

• First and foremost, The style of debate and argumentation that is most comfortable to you is probably the style you should use in a round. Twisting yourself into knots to appease a judge is generally a bad idea.

• No need to include me on any email chains!

• Yes I can handle speed/spreading, but in general, the faster you read, the less persuasive I find you. Slower speaking gives me more space to process your arguments emotionally.

• No, I will not tell you to slow down in a round.

• I will not inherently vote against theory, but my burden of proof on those arguments is high, Especially on disclosure theory, which I think should only apply where undeniable issues of equity exist.

• I will not inherently vote against a K but I ask that you as a debater engage in these issues of social justice in good faith as opposed to using them as a cudgel to surprise opponents.

• I will not inherently vote against plans/counter-plans, but I believe that 90% of them could just be normal cases and are needlessly confusing as they are.

• I don't care if you sit or stand.

• If you think you can use your opponent's framework, you probably should.

• Most importantly, always be as kind and courteous to your opponent as possible. Do not laugh at them. Use the correct pronouns. Err on the side of caution when cutting them off in cx.

I am a senior at the University of St. Thomas. I have participated in 2 years of public forum debate, during my high school career. This is my second year of judging public forum debate.

When it comes to debating, I strongly value speaking. I really appreciate debaters who speak calmly and collectively, rather than at a rapid pace. Likewise, I encourage signposting as much as possible in speeches.

I tend to give the win to the team who makes it easiest for me to flow.

Be respectful. Do not interrupt other team members. Speak as clearly as possible and do not rush. Use signposts. Have fun!

Hello! I'm Ben, I've debated in PF, LD, and Congress, though my main category when I competed was LD. I've been judging since 2018.

My primary rule is to please be respectful. I cannot award those who disrespect their opponent, and the practice of debate itself, by being disrespectful. Aggressiveness, and/or assertiveness is okay: disrespect is not.

Things I Look For When Voting:

- Clear Frameworks: Debate topics are often intentionally vague. How I should understand the topic is paramount for building your case. Further, if you give me a Value and Criterion for that value in LD, make sure your arguments flow back to it or I won't know how to weigh anything.

- Weighing: You've made your argument, now how important is it? This is mainly how I vote in rounds. A winning debater will have clearly weighed impacts that are explicitly defined in opposition to their opponent's.

- Clarity: it's okay to have complex arguments, or numerous sources to make one claim; the caveat here is that it's necessary for these to be clearly communicated. This means establishing a clear logical chain between your arguments and their impacts. Don't make me make arguments for you.

Signposting: Please make sure to communicate to me what aspect of the debate you are talking about whether its Framework, Values/Criteria, Contentions, or Weighing. This makes voting easy.

Things I Dislike:

Spreading: I cannot think of a single venue in "real-life" where spreading is a legitimate tactic that will get you ahead. Having 2 or 3 airtight contentions is much much better than having 6 so-so contentions that your opponent cannot possibly contest because you gave 9. Debate is about debating-the exchange, interplay, and conflict of ideas-as such, don't sidestep debating in debate by spreading.

Abusive Frameworks: Pretty much defined as a framework in which your opponent cannot conceivably win. Importantly, there is a distinction between clever or unique frameworks and abusive ones. I can tell the difference; I was in LD.

Disrespect: I've already mentioned it but it bears repeating: I innately have a distaste for the denigration of your opponent. You're not debating your opponent's personhood, you're debating their arguments.

Kritiks: As my former debate coach said: you all were given the topic well in advance, debate it.

FJG NOV/DEC 2020 TOPIC - if as the negative you argue "the fact that the unemployed do not have skills" or "they won't want to work hard" is an impact and do not elaborate on that point i will be fairly upset. think of a better way to phrase your argument.

yes, i want to be on the email chain: izzieosorio3@gmail.com

bio: i use they/them pronouns. i'm three years out. i debated 2014-2018 in sioux falls, sd. i have experience in both trad and nat circ ld and policy. i was a 4x natl qualifier, state champion my junior year, state semi-finalist my senior year, top 50 my senior year at NSDAs and top 8 at NCFLs.

i mainly ran analytic phil (kant), critical literature (anzaldua, butler), and pomo (braidotti, haraway). i'll probably be familiar w what you throw at me (ask just in case), but as long as you have a warrant, we'll be good.

prefs:

1 kritikal/performance/non-topical (high theory 2/3)

1 phil

2 larp

4 theory/t/tricks (but feel free to challenge this)

short version: tw's are necessary, pronouns are encouraged. 6/10 on speed. i'll vote on most any argument/position as long as there is a warrant. if it gets too techy, be explicit on the flow or else i'll draw the conclusions for you. pref me if you run deeply critical/philosophical positions. i'm hesitant towards theory and if it's your a-strat you need slow down - i have more thoughts later down. send me the speech doc. be nice.

long version: as an overview, my job is to adjudicate the clash between the ideas that two debaters/teams - i'm not here to tell you what to run, i'm here to listen to the arguments you present.

that being said, run your strat and run it well. i want to hear arguments that have warrants, are impacted out in the round and interactive w your opponents args. preferably these args should be impacted to an established weighing mechanism . if neither debater does this at all, i will try to discern a decision based on the arguments in round and you probably will not be happy with how i vote.

i like critical literature, i like western phil. i like high theory, but slow down so i can catch everything. i did policy in hs and can appreciate a good aff plan/solid cp+disad strat. p much i'll listen to whatever you have to bring to the debate, so run what your most familiar/confident/strong with.

with t and theory, i didn't debate it ~incredibly often~, so i am not the most qualified to judge and have a higher threshold for voting on it. however, i have less preferences/beliefs when it comes to t/theory and will listen to whatever you have as long as it's thought-out and developed. i like strategy, but don't be absurd/unreasonable (a good t shell against a plan aff instead of a generic "aff can't run plans" interp). regardless, you're gonna need to slow down for me to catch all your args. i'll vote on spikes, but if it's your a-strat, you prolly won't get high speaks (don't do 6 mins of "they dropped 'x' spike, vote them down") - give me at least one other route to vote.

speed: if i have a speech doc, we'll be good. if i don't, just be CLEAR and LOUD and i can flow. either way, if you're like the fastest spreader on earth, bring it down to like a 6. i'll yell clear if i'm completely lost on the flow.

speaks: don't be offensive/run offensive args (e.g. racism good), you'll get an L-20

high speaks are gonna be given to well thought-out positions that are utilized in substantive/nuanced ways. debaters will have interacted w the opponents arguments intuitively and made thoughtful/strategic decisions.

just be nice to your opponent, debate is not that deep to be mean about it. if it's clear your opponent has no idea what your position is and you intentionally steamroll them i will tank your speaks.

if you have any questions, email me or ask before round. glhf :)

i debated PF for 4 years at eagan high school and graduated in 2020. I've been coaching for PF since then for wayzata high school.

***add me to the email chain! (email chain > doc) feel free to ask me questions before the round or to shoot me an email: shailja.p22@gmail.com

general:

- offtime road map: My biggest pet peeve is when you give me an offtime road map and then don't follow it. keep it short and really I just need to know where you are starting unless you are doing something weird.

- speed: i consider myself a flow judge. tech>truth. a case doc doesn't replace your speech. i can flow pretty fast but don't spread. naturally, the slower you go the more i comprehend. so do with that as you will.

- ks, theory, etc... : I a) i don't have enough experience with these kinds of arguments and thus don't feel comfortable evaluating them and b) think they create a barrier in the debate space.

- framework: this is pretty obvious - if a team gives me a framework I will vote off of that (as long as it makes sense) - if you have a FW and the other team doesn't that doesn't mean you win.

plz do not aggressively post-round me :) ask me questions but don't yell at me - i'm not going to switch my decision

how to win my vote:

- weighing: say the words " we outweigh because..." it makes it easier for me.

- signposting: just do it.

- voters: have them and write the ballot for me.

- evidence: evidence ethics have gotten so bad in debate these days. don't take forever to find evidence (speaks will go down). make sure you have cut cards. do not paraphrase.

- extensions: don't just extend through "ink". don't just say "flow Smith over". explain to me what smith says and why it matters in the context of the round. make sure if you say something final focus it is/actually was in summary and vice-versa. if you are the second speaking team you must respond to offense from 1st rebuttal. defense is not sticky. this is given, but if you want me to vote for it at the end of the round have it in every speech.

- overall, please have fun while still being nice and respectful. no one likes to watch an aggressive debate round.

Last update: December 2022; a few clarifications, a few additions based on things that have come up recently, removed bullets that were specific to virtual debates (long may they remain unnecessary)

Debate Background and General Info:

I did PF for four years in high school (I graduated in 2014). I consider myself a flow judge, but I will still drop for offensive or inappropriate behavior or rules/ethics violations even if you "win" on the flow. Details on my preferences below, I'm also happy to answer questions before the round.

Details

1. Frontlining: In most rounds you should probably be spending at least a minute on your side of the flow if you are giving the second rebuttal, but I'm willing to be a little more generous in how I flow a "response" given the time constraint (e.g. I would view saying "cross-apply Card XYZ from my response to their C2" without the full level of analysis/impact as a full response, assuming you did actually give a full response to their C2). A good rebuttal that covers the entire flow will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

2. I like to see the round start to condense in Summary, but I understand that in some rounds you need to cover at least part of the flow line-by-line. I leave it up to your strategic discretion how to balance those two approaches; similar to above I will reward you with higher speaker points if you can effectively respond to key points made in the rebuttals but also start to crystallize the round.

3. I like creative arguments, I don't like non-resolutional arguments (and I won't vote for non-topical arguments). If you aren't sure how I would categorize the argument you are planning to run I'm happy to answer questions before the round.

4. If you are giving me "voters" still tell me where you are on the flow.

5. You should be responding to the specific warrants within your opponent's contentions, not just to the taglines.

6. Signpost. Extend arguments fully. Weigh. Impact. Don't be rude.

7. I'll assume CBA if neither side has an alternative framework. Don't introduce a new framework out of nowhere late in the round.

8. I don't flow CX, so you should mention important points in your next speech. I am still paying attention though, so don't lie and say something was said in crossfire that wasn't.

9. I'm really not a fan of offensive overviews in the first rebuttal that don't relate to anything said in the constructives. I'll still flow it, I might even vote on it, but you will probably get lower speaker points if you're doing this.

10. My default speaker point score is 27; I will move up or down from that based on if you impress or disappoint me relative to my expectations for the tournament/pool (i.e. a Novice 29 is not equivalent to a Varsity 29).

11. I don't usually have an issue with speed in PF, so unless you are an outlier you are probably fine. That being said, if your entire speech consists of blippy, one-sentence cards I am probably going to miss some of them if you are going fast.

12. I hate evidence exchanges that take forever. At a minimum you should be able to show them the card immediately because you just read it. I get it might take a minute to pull up the article, but part of your prep should be organizing your evidence in a way that makes it easy to find in round. We shouldn't be sitting around for 5 minutes waiting for you to find something.

13. If you are doing an email chain, I'd like to be on it, BUT I will probably only look at it if there is a question raised in the round as to what a card actually says. I don't view the email chain as a substitute for a clear flow, and I don't want to spend a ton of time reading through your cards if I don't have to.

Personal Pet Peeves: (I won't drop you for doing something on this list. But if you want a 30 these are some things to avoid):

1. I seem to judge a lot of teams that are rolling their eyes or openly scoffing at things their opponents say. Don't do this. Maybe their argument really is bad, but that's my job to decide, not yours. I will dock your speaks if you do this.

2. Spending significant time in all speeches and crossfires on a framework debate and then using an unrelated framework (or no framework at all) to weigh the round in FF.

3. Yelling. I've really never understood why people think this is necessary.

4. Having one mega-contention with a bunch of unrelated subpoints. If your subpoints don't relate to each other they should be separate contentions.

5. Saying "Partner ready?" before you start your speech. If you are stopping prep it's assumed your partner is ready.

6. Talking to or passing notes to your partner during speeches and/or solo crossfires. You have prep time for a reason, you should make sure you are on the same page before you start speaking.

7. Speeches that go over time, especially in Varsity. I will stop flowing once time is up, so trying to squeeze in one more card when you are 10 seconds over isn't going to help you and I will dock speaks for this.

Hello, I'm Mark. I debated in PF and Congress for East Ridge, and have been judging since 2017.

If you read nothing else: be respectful to one another. You will not win if you are not kind.

I judge based on the evidence and arguments presented in the round. That means if your opponents argue that the sky is green, and you don't question them or their evidence, then the sky is green.

It is the job of every competitor in the room to keep the debate evidence-focused. If a team introduces evidence that is found to be outright falsified, the round ends in a loss for that team and a discussion between myself and their coach. It is every competitor's responsibility to ensure your teammates and your opponents are properly using evidence.

Things I like in debate:

- Clear frameworks. This is how I will vote, and usually means defining key parts of the resolution and presenting a weighing mechanism.
- Weighed impacts. How do your impacts stack up against your opponents'? Tell me explicitly, especially in summary and final focus.
- Organized arguments. Signpost. I can better keep track of organized arguments, helping you win.
- Critical thinking. Point out logical inconsistencies, make sure your opponents aren't misrepresenting evidence, etc.
- Unique arguments. As long as your evidence and logic are solid, these can be fun. Make sure they're in the scope of the resolution.

Things I don't like in debate:

- Non-topical arguments. Sometimes called "Kritics," these do not fly with me. You have a resolution, debate it.
- Shot-gunning evidence. One good source is always worth more than a dozen poor sources.
- Argument spreading. As above, one solid argument is always better than many shaky ones.
- Talking too fast. Slow down. There is no need to yell. If I can write down everything you say you'll be better off.
- New arguments after rebuttals. I may consider new evidence if you are asked for it, but brand-new arguments won't be considered.
- Falsifying evidence.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have before or after the round. We are here to grow and learn new skills.

Lastly, good luck and have fun :)

Looking for logic. Your argument can be non-conventional but has to be logical. Also I would give you points if you can found the logic weakness of your opponent and attack right at them. Will consider talking styles and prefer calm and reasonable over too much passion, but to a lesser degree than the first one.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

I have three years of experience debating Public Forum at Millard North High School, and coached for three debate seasons from 2018-2020. Since then, I have gotten a degree in forestry and am currently working in that field. I have not been involved in the debate world since 2020, so I may not be up-to-date on circuit norms.

Speed: I am not good with speed. Do not go above a fast conversational pace/a speed you would reasonably expect reporters on say, CNN, use to communicate with the public. Talking slightly faster than normal is fine, but if a random member of the public would have trouble following what you are saying I probably will too. All my experience is in PF, with a sprinkling of Congress, so please pace yourself accordingly. I will put something in the chat if your speed is a problem for me. Additionally, make sure that your speed is accessible for your opponents.

Virtual Debate Issues: If you are having problems following a speech because of your own/another debaters' Internet connection or related tech issues, SPEAK UP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. If you have these concerns during your opponents' speech, please put them in the chat as soon as they arise. I have no problem stopping mid-round to work around technology issues.

How I vote: I vote off my flow and what is said in the round, but I will accept "nope" as a sufficient answer to arguments that are obviously, wildly false or implausible: (like if someone is arguing, idk, that Turkey is protecting NATO from a zombie apocalypse). If someone provides an argument for a role of the ballot that is different from the usual norms of Public Forum, I will consider it and vote based off how well you defend the ROB, and, if you are successful, which team best meets that role. It's possible to win on framing but lose the round.

2nd speaking Team: I expect you to rebuild your case in rebuttal.

If an argument isn't in Summary and final focus, I will not vote off of it. The sole exception is if everyone drops all the important arguments in summary/final focus and I need to re-examine dropped speeches to decide who wins.

I always disclose and give oral feedback.

Speed is fine (but must be crystal clear for high speaks), jargon is fine. Whatever you put on the flow I will evaluate but prefer evidence to analytics.

I have judged for 10+years on the local Minnesota circuit and competed in LD before that. My knowledge of specific higher level national circuit strategies is limited as I haven't judged many national circuit rounds but I am confident that I can follow as long as you keep the round clear.

Please add me to any email chains: alsmit6512@gmail.com

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

I competed in debate for three years in high school (one year of classic and two of PF), and have been coaching PF since 2013 in Minnesota. I have intermittently coached classic, and formally starting spending more time coaching it in 2023.

I value clear argumentation and the development of a strong narrative around the resolution. The strongest debaters have clear claims, warrants, and impacts that relate to a larger idea, and they are able to communicate them through all speeches.

I highly value citations and evidence ethics. I do not like paraphrasing evidence. Evidence read in the round should accurately represent the conclusions of the author.

I don't like speed.

I often find that jargon is used as a short-cut to ideas, but those ideas are never clearly developed, so the arguments get lost in the round. I highly value clear argumentation, which means jargon should be used sparingly. Clear tags will help your arguments more on my flow.

PF: It is necessary to rebuild your case in 2nd rebuttal. Summary speeches are goofy now that they are three minutes. Either line-by-line or voters is fine, but within the line-by-line you should be starting to weigh and show the interaction of ideas in a "big picture" way. If you want me to vote on an issue in final focus, it should also be extended in summary. Extension doesn't mean a name and year only, you must communicate the idea.

I will flow, of course, but the ideas need to be clear for them to mean anything on the flow.

Please no theory or Ks.

Generally speaking, I really appreciate clear analysis, don't like blippiness (fast, short, poorly developed arguments that have limited warranting), and don't like paraphrased evidence. Treat one another with respect and civility. Feel free to ask me any questions if you have them.

Hi! I am currently a paralegal and used to be a PF debater :)

TLDR; To win my ballot win on the warrants, narrative, and flow. To get good speaker points, be respectful. Please don’t run any theory in round, this is public forum.

Here are my preferences in round:

1. Be nice. I absolutely hate when debaters are super aggressive, it's unnecessary in my opinion. One debate round isn’t the end of the world, calm down and be respectful.

2. Reference your flow! This is extremely important, in every speech after constructive. In your speech, make sure you tell me exactly which contention, argument, or card you are referencing. Remember, my flow will contain only what you tell me.

3. I am okay with a little speed, but make sure that it isn’t as fast as a policy round.

4. Don’t paraphrase evidence. Always cite each piece of evidence you read (author, qualifications, and date), and make sure you have access to the full article. If evidence isn’t provided when asked, I will not weigh it.

5. I weigh evidence over logic, but you can use logic to de-link evidence.

6. You should extend terminal defense in the first summary, and should collapse to voters in both summaries. These voters should be repeated in final focus. Create a narrative and extend it. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you.

7. WEIGH. “Prefer this because…”. Make sure to respond to clash. Debates without clash aren’t fun for anybody, especially the judge.

8. If you're racist, sexist, or bigoted in any way you're speaking points will reflect your behavior.

9. Feel free to ask me questions before round :)

Speaker point breakdown:

30- best speaker at the tournament

29- above average speaker

28- pretty good speaker, but could be better on analysis or speaking

27- good speaker, but needs improvement in both analysis and speaking

26- lacks proper speaking skills, or made an error in round

25 or less- paraphrased evidence that isn’t true or was disrespectful in round

When it comes to judging a debate, I look for several different things.

The first is following a general code of conduct. I expect competitors to be respectful to one another, as well as respectful to all who are viewing or judging the event. I feel like that should be a given, and any time I have seen competitors behave in a way that I would consider unprofessional or unkind, I have criticized them for doing so. Any disrespect to opponents will not be tolerated. I have stopped time in the middle of a round and demanded a competitor be more respectful to their opponent, and I am not afraid to do it again. Persistent interruption, purposeful or micro aggressions, blatant disrespect, leaving the room or round, mockery, or any other form of unkindness will not be tolerated in any way.

The next is understanding the topic and information at hand. In my opinion, if you cannot put any of the issues at hand into your own words, you do not understand the content well enough. Having the sources and quotations is great, but I need to see fluency in your case materials. Further, I expect competitors to be able to ask questions about their opponent's case that relate to the subject at hand. I find all of the time frames of debate to be very valuable and I do not tolerate wasting that time.

I also look for quality of the case. Specifically for Lincoln-Douglas, a case should be based on legitimate and provable substance. Too many times I have seen competitors build an entire case based on a Red Herring fallacy, and it is extremely apparent that these competitors do not understand the material, nor do they understand the structure of debate. For Public Forum, I look for legitimate and factual evidence that enforces the case, as well as questions that point out weaknesses in their opponent's case. There are times where competitors ask a question that has almost nothing to do with the matter at hand and is only asked to confuse their opponents. These are signs of a debater who is not deserving of a win.

Similarly to the above, I draw a hard line between debate styles. Public Forum cases should be based on facts and empirical evidence. I do not want to morality discussed in a PF round, unless it can be proven with fact in some way. Lincoln-Douglas cases should be based on moral values that are supported by fact. I do not want to see anyone ask for a plan to fix a problem in an LD round. I do not support blending of debate styles. Ultimately, if your goal is to debate on a particular style, you must be competing in that event.

Additionally, I look for competitors who are able to act quick on their feet and roll with the punches. As a former debater, I'm able to relate to these competitors. I've competed against people who have broken the rules, people who have no case to debate against, people who are difficult to understand for various reasons, people who have become enraged and/or violent, and people who were absolutely better debaters than me who were able to ask questions that got me tongue tied. I expect competitors to able to work with what they're given. If your opponent asks for a definition and you don't have one, provide one of your own. If there is still time in crossfire and you don't have any more questions, come up with more or ask your opponent to restate something. There is ALWAYS a way to defend your case.

My final decision on who wins the debate will always go to the case that holds up the best by the end of the round. Which side had the strongest contentions? Which side was able to defend their case from attacks the best? It is not common that any other factors will swing my decision. However, if I feel it is necessary to criticize the strongest team, I will do so.

Experience

One year of policy, three years of public forum as a debater. This will be my eighth year as a judge, mainly for public forum.

Definitions/Framework

Don't take too long here outside of your case, unless the resolution deems it necessary. For a straightforward resolution, a framework will not have a significant impact on how I judge a round. I'll listen, but it is very rare that the framework will win you the round by itself. Same with definitions. Unless the resolution is vague and definitions are required, they won't have much effect on the round.

Argumentation

Case Speakers - Not much to say about a pre-written speech except to use all of your time and read through your speech enough times that my round doesn't sound like the first time you are seeing the case.

Rebuttal - First, don't restate your case. Your partner just read it, I don't need to hear it again. Second, make sure to signpost. I can usually follow where your arguments should go, but the more I'm focusing on where to flow your point, the less I'm focusing on the actual point.

Crossfire - Similar to the framework, a round usually isn't won or lost in crossfire. I typically use this time to take a break from flowing and begin to process the various points that have been made in the round. Questions posed by debaters can help clarify points, but don't often turn things around too much. However, if you do discover something big that could change the course of the round, make sure to follow it up in your next speeches. As I rarely flow crossfire, a significant point could be lost if not expanded upon later. Be polite to one another, don't interrupt your opponents and try to ask more in depth questions than "What was your first point?".

Summary/Final Focus - Start to condense the round into the main points that you think will be the most important. I will flow either way, but if one team starts to focus on the main voters while the other just gives a second rebuttal speech, weighing the round can be a little difficult. Be specific in your main voters. Tell me which points are important, why they are more important than your opponents, and how much weight I should give them.

Delivery

Speed - With my one year of policy and relatively young ears, speed isn't too much of an issue. I can still flow just about anything, but I do recommend that you slow down a hair when reading your points and subpoints. My shorthand does get shorter the faster you go, so the likelihood that I can't read my flow or miss a key factor of your point goes up as speed increases. Similarly, don't attempt speed just to throw more arguments at the wall to see what sticks. I prefer good points versus a deluge that allows you to say "my opponent didn't respond to ___" at the end of the round.

Additional Notes

Public Forum is not Policy. - I don't want to hear K's or DA's, and depending on the resolution, teams need to be very careful that the case they are presenting does not fall into the realm of plan/counterplan. The only holdover I will take from policy is topicality. If a case very blatantly does not comply with the resolution, I will hear the argument and weigh it accordingly. However, be warned. If it is not obviously outside of the confines of the resolution and you are trying to pull one over on me for a quick win, it implies that you do not have enough legitimate arguments to defeat their case.

Be Professional - This just kind of applies in general. I have yet to personally decide a round based on a debater's attitude or how they treated their opponents, and as long as both sides exude proper decorum, I hope I won't have to.

Timer - For a speech, when the timer goes off, I will listen to the end of a sentence, but will stop listening and will not flow whatever comes next. During crossfire, if the timer goes off during a question, I will allow the opponent to answer the question, but there will be no follow-up and crossfire is over as soon as the answer has concluded.

Roadmaps - I'm fine with roadmaps if they are necessary. But if your roadmap is "I'm going to go down our flow and then down my opponent's flow', no need to make a big deal out of it.

Questions

Feel free to email me at wilsontj@sio.midco.net before or after the round if you have any questions.

I look for clear speaking and reputable evidence. I will not intervene unless something is rude or offensive