Hi debaters,

I have three years of judging experience and have been very active in the speech and debate circuit this year. If I am judging you in public forum, please don't speak very quickly- I won't get everything you say if you spread. I am a flow judge and use it when making decisions in PF. Please don't speak over your opponents in crossfire in a rude or unreasonable way. When asking a question, please give your opponent an opportunity to answer.

During the debate, you should make your main arguments clear, and make it clear what you want me to vote off of. Weigh in summary and final focus, and if you want something to be a voting issue, put it in both summary and final focus. I am a fan of clear and smart frameworks.

Thank you and good luck! Enjoy the tournament.

Hello!

I'm a first time parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, avoid debate jargon, and I do not know anything about the NFU topic so please warrant and explain everything well.

Don't forget to weigh.

Have fun debating!

Hey, guys. I want to congratulate you all for all of the hard work you have put into this season so far.

Some background: I was on my debate team in high school for all four years and was the captain my senior year. My main event was public forum, although I also competed in congress when I had the opportunity. I am currently an assistant coach at Huntington High School.

I will only be judging public forum, so my paradigm will only be guided by that event.

First speeches: I will be paying attention to your framework provided in your first speech to make sure that it is carried throughout the round. If you are not consistent, your case will look weak. If you spend too much time during the round taking down your opponent's contentions and do not spend enough time upholding your own or do not discuss your own beyond the first speech, I will assume that you have dropped them. In general, I will be flowing everything from this speech to make sure that you remain consistent throughout the round and carry it through to your final focus.

Rebuttal: First rebuttal must address all points made by the opponent's first speech. If anything is left out, I will assume you have dropped it. Second rebuttal must address all points made in the opponent's first speech AND the opponent's rebuttal. If anything is left out or you do not defend your contentions, I will assume you have dropped them. Make sure you make time in these speeches to uphold your own contentions while still responding to your opponent's contentions. If a contention is not addressed by either party in the round, even if it is only brought up again in the final focus, I will assume it has been dropped.

Summary: Make sure you use this speech to actually summarize the round. I know how tempting it is to make this a second rebuttal speech. While you can have some of those elements, make sure you are effectively summarizing what held up on your end, the arguments you already made against your opponent, and why you are winning the round.

Final Focus: Anything that is not flowed to the final focus will be dropped. No new arguments can be made here, and no new evidence will be considered.

General notes: Sign post. Evidence is important to me, but paraphrasing is alright, as long as you can provide the evidence if your opponent asks for it. Weigh your arguments thoroughly. Prove to me why your argument is generally more important than theirs or why your conflicting evidence is more important. Lay out your impacts. Prove to me that your arguments are unique. Make sure all weighing and impacts are provided before the final focus. To re-cap, your final focus should be laying out exactly what happened in the round and why you won. I flow cross. Don't grandstand during cross and make sure you answer the question. Ask questions. Use your time wisely.

Post-round: I will provide feedback if I am able. I will not ask for sources unless absolutely necessary. Do not try to argue post-round or in between speeches.

Good Luck!

I debated PF in high school

Paradigm adapted (copied) from Thomas Zhang's.

Please try to keep track of your own prep time.

Tech > Truth

Case - Don't go too fast if possible (starts to get hairy around 200wpm+). Specifically slow down for tag lines (including warrants/impacts), author names, institutions, dates, and statistics.

Off-case args - Never debated them. If you are going to run an off case arg, I'd pref it not to be frivolous (i.e. actually nuanced/interesting/strategic)/just used to pick up a dub, esp if it's against novices or people who can't spend thousands to go to camp and learn progressive argumentation.

Crossfire - Anything you want me to evaluate from cross needs to be brought up in a speech.

Rebuttal - Start signposting here please. Number your responses. Label what the response is at the beginning e.g. de-link, turn, non-unique, etc. If you read an overview, tell me before the speech + where I should flow it. Given the new summary rules, I want to see rebuild in second rebuttal. New frontlines in second summary are too dang sketchy (the only time to respond is first FF, which creates insane time skew).

Summary - Off-time roadmaps appreciated. At the very least, tell me where you're starting. Don't just say "extend Moore '19" but actually make an effort to walk me through your warrant/impact story again. Signposting in the later speeches is really key.

Final Focus - Anything you want me to vote off of has to be in FF. Anything you want in FF has to be in summary. I'm only going to vote off of something if you extended both warrant and impact in both speeches (the warrant debate is more important for me though). It would probably be in your best interest to collapse and weigh at some point.

Presumption - On resolutions that call for an action, I presume neg. On value resolutions, I presume first speaking team. Both can be changed if you make it a topic of debate. I try to look for any offense to avoid presuming tho (risk of offense args are great for this).

Disclosure - I'm not voting off of disclosure theory. If you disclose to your opponents, include me in the chain sahila@princeton.edu.

Evidence ethics - I'll call for evidence if it sounds sus af, someone tells me to, or what you say it says changes throughout the round.

Don't be rude or problematic (please).

I am a parent judge from Hunter College High School. Please speak slowly and clearly and articulate your points. In the summary and final focus make sure to highlight your most important points in the debate and emphasize why I should vote for you. Please make sure you are respectful to your opposition throughout the round.

Hi! I’m really excited to be your judge today!

A few notes:

1. Sign posting is an absolute must. If I cannot follow you, that’s a problem.

2. No spreading, this isn’t policy debate.

3. I will reward you for being clear and impacting all of your claims. Tell me why this argument matters!

4. Be civil! I will give you low speaks if you are rude and talk over the top of one another.

5. Be clear on why you believe you have won the round. Evidence, Evidence, Evidence!

I competed for four years, so I am functional on the flow, but please speak intelligibly.

Hello, my name is Nicole. I am a parent judge, and this is my first time judging in a tournament. Please speak slowly so I can absorb what you are saying. Please signpost all of your rebuttals and frontlines and avoid debate jargon. I would rather hear a few arguments that are clearly articulated than lots of arguments that are not clearly linked. This means you should collapse and delve deep into an argument rather than give a summary of lots of points in your case. I need to understand why everything that you say matters and so you should weigh frequently. I look forward to your debate.

Hello. I debated PF for four years a little while back. Make sure you weigh clearly and strongly. Roadmap. Avoid crazy stuff unless it's actually something. Everything else is pretty standard. Enjoy.

While I have not formally done debate, I have participated as a judge multiple times, and I work as a Professor and Dean at a University. In debate, I am fine with speed as long as I can understand what you are saying and the arguments are coherent. I vote based on who is doing a better job with the argument. I preference a better debater over an argument that I agree with. The presentation of data and the use of strong sources is important. I will not vote on racist, sexist, homophobic arguments. I appreciate the strategic use of cross-examination, not for personal attacks. I am not familiar with the use of theory and it will not be a successful strategy.

I'm a "lay" judge. I am looking for logical arguments clearly presented at a measured pace and in a measured tone. Please be civil to each other, as you would in any debate or discussion outside of a tournament.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

I am a parent of a PF debater and have judged a number of PF rounds at both local and national tournaments.

Please speak clearly at a normal speed, identify your main arguments at the beginning (roadmap) and make clear transitions between your arguments. I will flow the arguments, so it will benefit you if what I flow makes sense when I look back over it before filling out the ballot.

Clear rebuttal of points is appreciated. Also, be clear in your FF and explicitly identify the main reasons I should accept your argument and, (if appropriate for the particular debate) why I should not accept your opponent's argument.

Clash is good and much appreciated in CF rounds but keep it civil, respectful and, substantive. Be clear in CF rounds about what you are asking and what you are disputing. Let your opponent have their chance to ask/respond.

Fewer, well-developed contentions and rebuttals will always win over numerous, hurried, or difficult to comprehend contentions and rebuttals.

Debate jargon is fine in limited quantities, but please don't get carried away with it. The arguments you pick, the effectiveness of your rebuttals, and the development of both will win or lose the debate, not so much your characterizations of your weighing or impact. Similarly, avoid disputing your opponents' arguments based primarily on procedural technicalities rather than their substance.

Call for evidence selectively and strategically when you think or know it will benefit your argument or rebut your opponents'. Use evidence carefully and be prepared to produce it quickly if asked. Make sure the time in the debate is (mostly) spent debating, not exchanging cards.

Be professional and prepared, but please have fun.

BACKGROUND:

Hi! My name is Alyson Brusie and I debated in PF in high school from 2014-2018. I first-spoke throughout my high school career pretty exclusively. I attended Colgate University in Hamilton, NY where I am majored in International Relations and minored in Peace and Conflict Studies and now attend Georgetown Law. After competing in high school, I worked for the Emory National Debate Institute (ENDI) in 2018/19 and NDF in 2019/20 (Boston/Des Moines and Session 2/3 online in 2020).

Feel free to ask me anything before the round starts, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. If you have additional questions that for whatever reason are not asked after the round, feel free to email me at abrusie@colgate.edu.

PARADIGM AS OF 10/5/20:

FOR ONLINE DEBATE: I expect an email chain to be set up at the beginning of the round for evidence exchange (use email above). I expect you to send cut cards promptly when requested to the email chain. Please don't be aggressive in cross, online debate is hard enough to debate and judge. Speaking quickly is not the best over Zoom, keep that in mind.

I am assuming that you are doing things you should be doing (weighing, collapsing, giving me voters in the final focus, etc.) and that you're not doing things you shouldn't do (extend through ink, take too long to find evidence, being overtly offensive, etc.), so I'll just continue with some "quirks" about me as a judge:

1. DO NOT LIE ABOUT OR MISCONSTRUE EVIDENCE! This is my biggest pet peeve. I WILL drop you if you do this. It is quite literally cheating and incredibly dishonest. If you typically run shady evidence, you should STRIKE ME. If you paraphrase, DO IT CORRECTLY. If you don't know how to correctly paraphrase, don't do it, end of story. If both teams misconstrue evidence, I will most likely drop the side that has the more egregious offense or the team that has that faulty evidence more integral to their advocacy. I am not shy to call for any evidence that I suspect is suspicious at the end of the round and expect it presented to me in a timely manner when requested. I did this a lot in high school, if you run faulty evidence by me and I pick up on it, expect a drop in speaker points, probably a loss in the round, and me to get quite angry and, if the tournament allows it, an angry/annoyed oral RFD (if you know me, you know that I don't get angry easily/often).

2. Don't be overly aggressive (you'll know it when you see it). Through my debate experience, I have become extremely perceptive and sensitive to sexism, especially in the debate community. Keep that in mind.

3. Don't spread. I can follow some speed, but if you go too fast for me, I will miss a lot. I flow on paper so it will be pretty clear when I'm not flowing something. I will try my best to follow as closely as possible though. This is especially true when it comes to rounds online. If there's a connectivity issue, I will miss more if you speak faster and it will be harder for me to tell you if I am missing anything if you are going too fast etc.

4. There is a very good chance that I will vote on the easiest path to my ballot, so provide very clear argumentation. If something goes untouched by the other side and you extend it through every speech and weigh with it/make it a voting issue, there is a very good chance you will get my ballot. I love a good narrative :))) this includes collapsing on main args, weighing, and fully extending every part of the argument.

On progressive argumentation:

Overview: I didn't have much experience seeing progressive debate in high school, nor have I seen it run very often through judging. My knowledge on the matter is limited because I never had the training to fully understand the inner-workings of progressive argumentation so if you run it, I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it correctly unless you specifically make an argument as to how I should evaluate it. Make it very clear for me :) . That being said, I am adaptable and am open to hearing it if you know what you are doing. Please keep the debate accessible to everyone though, don't run progressive arguments on opponents who are less experienced than you.

Theory: please don't. Only use if and only if there is a very clear and distinct violation that you find it absolutely necessary to derail the round to call your opponents out AND you have past experience running theory. If you think that all judges would buy your theory argument, then go for it I guess? Don't expect I will evaluate it the way you want me to evaluate it.

Kritiks: I am open to it, but please only run a K if you have a direct relationship with the argument.

Hi Debaters: Looking forward to hearing your arguments. I'm new to national debates and virtual debates, but have judged a few local debates. Please be very clear about your contentions and when you are providing your argument, be clear about which contention you are discussing and how it supports your contention. Same with discussing the other team's contentions-- be clear which one are you discussing and how is what you are saying reduces support for their contention. Thank you.

I have been a parent judge for PF for six years. Though I take a lot of notes, please do not be fooled into thinking I am a flow judge. I am most definitely a lay judge and appreciate debaters who do not speak too quickly or use a lot of jargon. For example, if you must use a term like "non unique," please specify what part of the argument you are referring to, or better yet, don't use the short-cut term "non unique" at all, as it is more informative if you are more explicit in your reasoning. If you speak so quickly that I do not catch the details of your arguments, you may lose the round, even if your arguments are superior, since I will not have heard them in full. Lastly, if you are dismissive or rude toward your opponents, your speaker points will suffer, and it will impact my decision for the round. Rounds that are conducted in a respectful and collegial manner are much more pleasant for judge and competitors alike, and they tend to result in much higher quality debating all around.

My core belief is that the winning team should make a logically better argument than the other team throughout the round and convince a lay judge like myself. The arguments need to be made logically, and with solid evidence. Speaker points will be judged based on clarity and appearance in cross. Rudeness/speaking over others will immediately bring your speaker points down! I also believe in teams taking the responsibility for ensuring opposing team's prep time and card management and in addition to managing their own.

No spreading please.

I have debated for four years in high school in Public Forum, British Parliamentary, World Schools, Cross-Examination, and Canadian National Debate Format.

I do not currently debate, so I may be a bit rusty on jargon.

I am a first-year parent judge without much experience, so please make it as easy for me as possible. Explain why your points or arguments make sense, don't just push evidence in my face. Cards do not replace logic, they should support it. Please weigh through the entire debate and tell me exactly why I should vote for you. Explain why your impacts carry through and why the matter.

As mentioned above, I do not have really any experience so please signpost each speech and speak clearly and carefully (I will let you know if you are speaking too fast). Make sure your speeches have structure (you can roadmap them out off time if you want) -- it makes everything much easier to follow.

Finally, keep the debate civil. I will give low speaks to people who insult or demean their opponents. A clear path to under 26 speaker points is by being rude or offensive. These tournaments are for fun, so I do not want anyone to go home after being personally attacked.

I am a parent judge without much experience, so please make it as easy for me as possible. Explain why your points or arguments make sense, don't just push evidence in my face. Cards do not replace logic, they should support it. Please weigh through the entire debate and tell me exactly why I should vote for you. Explain why your impacts carry through and why they matter.

As mentioned above, I do not have a lot of experience so please signpost each speech and speak clearly and comprehensibly (I will let you know if you are speaking too fast). Make sure your speeches have structure (you can roadmap them out of time if you want) -- it makes everything much easier to follow.

Finally, keep the debate civil. I will give lower speaker points to people who insult or demean their opponents. These tournaments are for fun, so I do not want anyone being personally attacked.

I am a student at cornell and I did PF in high school, which means I will be flowing throughout the debate. Here are some things that I think are important:

- since I have debate experience I understand debate jargons, but I don't keep up with resolutions so be clear if you're gonna use acronyms/ resolution terms.

- make it easier for me to judge. weigh your arguments, have clear but concise signposting, extend points, which points to vote on, etc

- make sure your evidence is WARRANTED

- don't yell during cross please. it especially annoys me when debaters throw passive-aggressive/rude remarks.

- speak CLEARLY. I don't mind if you speak fast as long as it's clear and comprehensible.

- most importantly, be respectful and be honest. i usually don't like to keep time so be honest about your prep time

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

I competed in mostly Congress and extemp in high school, but I dabbled in PF. I also have a tiny bit of Policy and Worlds experience. Since graduating high school, I have judged locally in Northeast Ohio and on the Circuit (for Hawken), mostly in PF and LD but also a little Congress, since Fall of 2018. Here are some thoughts; I often update them after a tournament if something stands out to me.

Congress:

I flow Congress rounds, and I expect you to treat it like a debate event. I won't rank you if you're not a good speaker/presenter, but you also won't rank if you're not a good debater.

The top people on my ballot will need to do a few things:

1) Know your place in the debate. Are you giving a 1A or 1N? Set up the issue and relate it to the bill. Early-Middle of the round? You can give me a new point or two, but make sure you're refuting (and, for the record, just name-dropping somebody doesn't count as refuting). Late-middle? You should be mostly refuting. Last? Crystalize, summarize.

2) Show me that you're versatile. All other things equal, I will rank the person that gave an early and a late speech (see Point #1) higher than the person who gave two early speeches or two late speeches. That being said, I will probably think more of you if you give two late speeches vs two early speeches, because I think refutation is more impressive than a canned speech.

3) This line appears in my paradigm for every debate event I judge: You should not use evidence without logic. You should not use logic without evidence. If you read evidence and do nothing to contextualize it or explain it, I will likely not weigh it much. If you go on a wild logical tangent with no evidence, I will likely not weigh it much.

4) Impact.

5) Be good at answering questions. Be good at asking questions. Do both things consistently.

6) Don't be a jerk. I'm not going to describe what being a jerk entails, but you know it when you see it.

I'm also more than happy to rank POs, and I do it often. I judge the PO in the context of the round, and will rank anyone (often highly) if they maintain control of the round and are fair and quick. I really can't give more detail than this, but you know who's a good PO and who's not.

PF:

Full disclosure: I loved PF in high school, but I've cooled on it a bit as a judge for one reason: I cannot stand the debates that come down to cards, args, and impacts that don't clash or aren't weighed. There is too much talking at each other that goes on in PF, to win you need to make sure you clash and tell me why you beat your opponent. You'd think this goes without saying, and I guarantee that many of you reading this think you don't do this, but I promise many of you will. I need you to do impact calculus. I need you to tell my why your card is better than your opponents' if they clash. I want to do as little work as possible, so clearly tell me why you win. Also, don't extend through ink--this tends to be something PFers struggle with a lot.

Framework is important, but winning framework doesn't mean you win the round. You should not use evidence without logic. You should not use logic without evidence. If you read evidence and do nothing to contextualize it or explain it, I will likely not weigh it much. If you go on a wild logical tangent with no evidence, I will likely not weigh it much. Impacts are important, I want to see weighing and impact calc. I like to vote on impacts. Tell me a story in FF about why you win.

For the record, I flow and can handle speed. I won't be happy if you spread, but short of that I'm fine. I love CX, but I probably won't flow it, if there's something important bring it up in your speech or I likely won't weigh it. I won't ever call for a card unless you tell me to and tell me why; if you tell me to call for a card and there was no good reason for it I'll be unhappy.

Hello!

I am a parent judge. Please don't speak too quickly, I will try to flow but I am not very experienced. I understand most terms and arguments so no need to simplify terms. I also do not flow crossfires.

My daughter is a Varsity debater and I have watched many of her rounds, but am relatively new to judging. Please do not spread. While I will be flowing throughout the round--utilize summary and final focus to explicitly tell me what you are winning on and why I should vote for you.

I am a parent judge and a lay judge. Please keep your speaking speed reasonable and be clear.

I am a former Public Forum debate coach. I like to see good clash, linking, and weighing. Please listen and respond to one another!

I am a parent judge. I am an attorney for a health care system in South Florida. This is my first time judging. I like weighing and I want the debaters to collapse as the debate goes on. I would like the students to not speak quickly.

NOTE FOR THE 2021 PRINCETON CLASSIC: I have not judged debates on this topic or done *any* research on it, so please do not assume any background knowledge on crypto or regulations surrounding it. Try to explain everything in as much detail as possible, and do not use acronyms or reference events that I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Debated PF for all 4 years of high school and do Parli in college.

- Decent at flowing, but please don't go too fast. Also signpost a lot (i.e. clearly/explicitly say what you are responding to at every point in your speech).

- No experience judging theory/Ks. Probably don't run these kinds of arguments in front of me, but I won't automatically vote you down if you do.

- No need to extend defense in first summary unless the second-speaking team frontlines in their rebuttal.

I am a teacher from Mountain Brook Junior High School. I've judged in two national circuit tournaments, but it's been a couple of years. I have no formal debate experience. Don't go too fast, time yourself, and stay on topic. Other than that, as long as you clearly weigh and explain why you should win the round, you should be good.

Weigh or else I will be sad :(

Samford

He/Him

Updated as of Indiana 2024

Add me to the chain: maddoxforfun@gmail.com

TLDR: I judge off the flow. Clash is great. Being prepped is awesome, not flowing and debating off of a script is not. I can only flow what I can hear, speed is fine but never sacrifice clarity for it. Start slower at the top of the final rebuttals. Don't change the args you go for in front of me, do what you wanna do and what you think you're best at. Do not ask to give a road map just give one. A roadmap is just the order of the flows, not what the arguments are. If there are more than 3 cards in the speech you should send a doc. Please be nice and have fun!

Above everything else be respectful to everyone involved in round. If you cannot be nice at least be polite. Respect isn't something that should be an added bonus but a norm. If I find that anyone regardless of ability is disrespectful of someone else involved in the round, then speaks will drop like the Nasdaq and I'll probably find it harder for myself to be persuaded by your args.

Everything else:

DA's:

The most important aspect's of the DA to me are comparative analysis, impact calculus, and contextualization with the aff. I don't believe in 100% risk or absolute defense/ 0 risk of the DA but I will vote on arguments near that threshold.

CP's:

Counterplan's should be both functionally and textually competitive. I think you can win with internal NB's, but that it's much harder to evaluate WHY the cp is an opportunity cost of the plan, and makes me err aff on the perm debate. I think that PIC's that steal the aff can be abusive, but not always a reason to reject the arg or team.

T:

I am not the best T vs policy aff's judge. I think teams need to be way slower and more deliberate when going for T, especially in final rebuttals. Reading pre-written speeches at full speed with the assumption I am catching all of this and understanding the deepest and most intricate nuances of the topic has not fared well in front of me. There should be clear ground loss and abuse stories presented in the debate, with contextualization to the plan text and the counter interpretation. I am a 70% reasonability 30% competing interps judge. T is a swinging gate, so if you win that the aff should be weighed/ is topical, you win the debate.

Identity based args note:

I have absolutely no tolerance for anything related to authenticity checking, invalidating anyone's identity based off of some silly game we go to camp for, or anything of that nature that would discourage people from partaking in this activity. Identity rounds have the potential to get personal and I am wholly uncomfortable letting any debater internalize negative things said about their identity, all for a ballot. I reserve the right to vote down any team regardless of how good they think they are based off of this premise.

K Affs:

I believe USFG should: is a norm and not a rule, so I have and will vote on aff's outside of that actor. How to win my ballot with a planless aff: Explicitly lay out what exact harms the affirmative aims to solve, be good on the flow as to why your implementation of X is sufficient and necessary, commit a fair amount of time to judge instruction and impact out what winning each part of the flow means. Be clear as to why my evaluation of X should come before standard policy framing/whatever the 2nr is. vote aff to affirm us because X has/probably will never be persuasive to me. that also applies to k's on the neg.

K's:

K teams who routinely win my ballots are great at explaining what offense me voting for them solves, via post or pre-fiat means. Impact out what winning an arg means, and what args you need to win to come out ahead on flows/which flow matters most. Point to 1ac and 2ac evidence and show me the link, it's really easy convincing me that an aff links when I see the exact verbiage and rhetoric in aff evidence when the neg points it out. Super long 3 minute overviews struggle to find cohesive spots on my flow, yet in speeches that go straight to the line by line I find myself losing the meta-level crux of the flow, so try and toe the line of over-explaining but also efficiency. Impact calc is still a necessity. Overexplain the alt's necessity/sufficiency, and how it correlates to the ballot. Oftentimes teams overinvest in the link debate, and I just don't know what I'm supposed to do with whatever is left of the alt. I don't find aff frameworks that exclude the K to be even slightly convincing. Paired with that I think I will pretty much always weigh the plan's impacts vs the k in my decision unless there is a tremendously lopsided debate had on this that concludes neg. Floating piks are probs bad, and if you kick the alt and go for it as a disad in the 2nr, the aff will get to respond accordingly.

Theory:

True neutral on condo. For condo bad args I don't think its how many worlds were involved in round that signal an aff ballot but what they justify. The difference between 3 and 4 or 5 and 6 conditional worlds isn't that big. but what the negs framework allows and prevents is what gets me to sign off. That being said, you probably never need more than 3 condo. Anything more and you're overloading the 1nc and are gonna link way harder to any in round abuse args. If aspec was hidden on another flow it gets a new 1ar answer. The moral of the story is don't be a coward, let us know youre going for aspec. If you are that scared of the 2ac answering it then it's probably not that good of an arg in this round. Perf con is not an independent voter, but rather an extension of condo or something that gets you ground somewhere else. Think about flowability and pen time before you blaze through multiple paragraphs of analytics.

Framework:

I will almost always weigh the aff, unless the negative forwards a better way of evaluating the debate. You do not have to win the entirety of the framework to win the debate or K flow. I'm fairly convinced by fw perms. Cross applications are key, and 1 dropped warrant could change the way I evaluate the rest of the flow.

Clipping:

If a clipping accusation is made the round immediately ends and is determined based off of the veracity of the accusation. If the accusing team is wrong they will lose, if the accusing team is right they will win. I will adhere to the tournament rules, if provided, pertaining speaks. If no rules are posted I will give 0's to the losing team, and some speaks in the low 29's to the winners.

Card doc:

I am not a card doc heavy judge. My ballot will be reflective of the argumentation on my flow and in round clash, and the card doc is merely supporting the flow. If you think a piece of ev is critical to my decision say so in speech, but do not expect me to recreate the debate based on ev.

Speaks:

A very easy way to lose speaks is to have a lot of downtime in the round where a clock is not running, if there isn't a speech going either you should be running prep, or have announced that the doc is being sent out. Especially after 2+ years of online debate, egregious stealing of prep will be harshly punished speaks wise.

Debate shouldn't be one big meme thread, but humor makes you more convincing and personable(if it's funny that is). I am a big fan of sports or pop culture references.

Be nice to the other team, have fun, and make friends!!! I promise you when everything is said and done you will remember the friends you made and the fun had in the activity more than the rfd's you get

If everyone in the round has a well-updated wiki with open-sourcing, I will give everyone a + .1 in speaks

Hi everyone! My name is Bhupinder Gill. I have some recommendations if you want me to vote for you:

a) Speak with articulation

b) Don't use abbreviated terms without clarifying its full form.

c) Be polite to your opponents

d) Don't interrupt your opponent unless you haven't gotten the chance to make your point.

e) I'm judging based on argument, not tone. Make sure whatever you're saying makes sense.

f) Have fun!

If you have any questions for me, please do ask!

Previous coach, tab director (be on time!), and judge of long ago. Never debated. I can flow arguments made at slightly above conversational pace and appreciate when winning arguments are made clear enough that I don't have to think too hard.

• Don't time torch the round - there are guidelines in the Live Doc about prep time deduction if your evidence takes an excessive amount of time to find. You should be able to find your cards within ten to fifteen seconds in our digital age. Use hyperlinks to your advantage!
• There are also specifications about no prep during evidence finding since, if it's as fast as it should be, that time isn't deducted from prep.

Theory: Debate is a game that should be equitable, educational, and played respectfully. I'll listen to arguments that impact to the shortfalls of the debate space in any of those domains.

I am a parent debate judge, but competed in both LD and policy debate in high school and at university. So I have significant experience, but it's been a long time since I sat in a round. I generally judge PF now, and most of these comments are tuned for that event. I enjoy judging and am always eager to hear what both sides have to say.

Speed: Any speed is fine, but do not try to spread unless you can speak clearly. I flow what I can understand, but if I don't follow the argument I cannot flow. Clarity is really key, especially if you want high speaker points.

Arguments: Both sides should not only clearly present their arguments and be able to explain why your contention is better than the other teams.

Rebuttals: In your final speech, you should say what you would like for me to write on the ballot. Clarity and coherence often sways my decision.

Culture: Please be collegial with everyone in the room at all times. Rude behavior, abusive crossfire and disruptive behavior will lower your speaker points. Please be organized, and do not spend a huge amount of time searching for a card. Also, please don't ask for cards just to give your partner extra prep time.

I am an Americorps service member with less formal debate training.

My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation. I default to cost-benefit analysis unless told to do otherwise. I’m not a heavy flow or line-by-line judge.

Speed and jargon are a no. Please don't immediately presume I know the intricacies of deep research on the resolution. The point of public forum debate is that you should be able to break down the debate on the resolution for anyone, and convince them why your side is right. Humor goes a long way with me in terms of ethos and speaker points. Being mean or a bully does the opposite.

Be sure to time your own speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.

I flow rounds. Alerting me to clear contentions and off time road maps assists me in completing my flows. I am absolutely not capable of flowing if you SPREAD, in fact, if you choose to SPREAD, I will stop flowing and listen. I prefer to hear you present your arguments verses reading your prepared material. The documents will provide me the name of your source when I review before making a final decision. I favor up to date resources as changes happen daily, when presenting your argument I focus on the year of the evidence to include in my flow. Cross fires should be civil. I generally look to typical speech characteristics when determining speaker points, such as speaking with clarity and articulation. I also consider the general characteristics of giving a speech such as how you present yourself through your demeanor both individually and as a team, as well as with your opponents.

Background:

I am a mathematician at The College of New Jersey who participated in Parliamentary Debate in college. Highlights included serving on the organizing committee for the World Universities Debate Championship when held in Princeton, NJ, and arguing in a debate that the New York Times should have a daily sports section (it didn't then, but does now!).

Preferences:

Fred Astaire did not have a great singing voice, but he was a good singer as he clearly enunciated the wonderful lyrics of Irving Berlin and Cole Porter. Similarly, arguments are most effective when they are clearly articulated and can be understood. Also, it is the quality of the argument, and not just having abundance of facts, that is most convincing.

Paradigm:

I am mostly a traditional Flow Judge and will minimize my intervention in the round. Please give me a clear way to vote for you and remember that a persuasive argument succeeds on both the intellectual and emotional levels. Do not exceed your time limits and in the crossfire, do not talk over the other debaters and allow the other side enough time to ask their questions.

Specifics:

Case - Don't have any clear contradictions. I will vote off glaring flaws, though small flaws need to be pointed out by the other team. For example, don't have C1 be promoting X and C2 be getting rid of X. Put your strongest foot first. I don't approve of time sink arguments.

Cross - Please don't interrupt. Both teams need to share the time. Speaks will be deducted.

Rebuttal - Don't overuse jargon like "turns." Explain the logic. I care more about a clear and logical explanation of your warranting than 10 different responses on each contention.

Summary/Final Focus - Must extend in at least one of these speeches.

This is my 39th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all portraying legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

Argument Impacts: Please identify who or what is impacted. Be specific. In CD, please explain real world impacts. The narrative of impacts is as important (if not more) as the numerics of impacts.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix. If I am judging a top round, I suspect that all speakers will be amazing! That means the final ranking will come down to relevance in the round. If all speeches were brilliant, questioning and answering were spot on, and knowledge of topics is at the top, who stood out as the genuine, 'real deal'?

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the first speaker can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins the election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad. At its heart debate is a communication education activity; I take your education seriously.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. However, a well thought out K that communicates the impact of the issue must be answered in any debate! In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29.5s and 29.9s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

Hi! I am a parent judge, this is my first time judging-but I have watched PF rounds and I am familiar with Medicare for All. Please speak clearly and no spreading

Lay Judge that takes into account the total argument from either side and how each side presents their facts as well as attacks the other side's arguments.

While I feel that cross says a lot about a team's ability to take control of a conversation, the main focus of scoring is based on Summary and Rebuttal. Also, I see no value in spreading when all it does is try and cram a number of facts instead of strongly asserting the more powerful points.

Stay focused, support your arguments, and form good counters on rebuttal and crossfire.

Social studies teacher that appreciates the value of an organized and well articulated debate, meaning, clear contentions with strong supporting evidence. I am conscious to put my own subjective bias on the back burner and will intently listen to your case. You need to be able to understand the evidence aside from just blatantly repeating it from a card. Speed should be appropriate for full articulation and processing for the other team and judge. Spreading should be avoided.

Framework of your speech should be based on common sense to a point but should also show some building significance as you move through the round.

Not attacking all of an opponents contentions isn't a deal breaker in my final decision. Rather, teams should present a strong case that doesn't simply rely on disagreeing with opponent but should refute it and use that refutation to advance your case, thus earning points. That said, this attack should maintain decorum and civility in the round. Teams that break this decorum and civility are highly frowned upon.

Off time road maps, eh. Your speech should be clear enough for me to figure that out. Road maps will be on your running time.

Finally, in in your final focus, I need to hear you articulate a "so what?" that crystallizes and wraps up your overall argument while bringing in final information that was brought up in round.

I'm a trial attorney. I judge the overall flow and effectiveness of presentation and argument. I'm not a fan of running Ks.

-Paradigm for Ash-

updated February 18th, 2022

-Background-

As a competitive debater, judge and coach of 8 years, I have experience with:

British Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, Australian Parliamentary, Public Forum, World Schools. I prioritize clear mechanization in case above all else. Explain your links/ mechs and give as much context as you can.

> Off Time Roadmaps are encouraged

> You do not need to make any kind of eye contact

> I may be asking for cards

> I do flow cross fire

>I prioritize substantive rebuttal over metadebate/ tech responses.

> I do not require friendly introductions

> Using your opponents name or speaker position is fine, avoid referring to your opponents in the third person (gendered pronouns are messy!). This includes me. You can refer to me as judge, chair, panel- but do not refer to me as Madame Speaker. I will not reduce any speaker points for this, I'm just not personally comfortable with this.

> I may give low point wins.

On Theory, I value theory to be limited to a K or a potential a priori lens, akin to a model or critique. Theory is a priori, but does not proceed the value of case. It merely is a lens for me to view and understand case, rebuttal, and the rest of the debate. Run theory alongside contentions with arguments.

On Prog, contentions should. a) identify structural inequality, b) explain how it manifests vis-a-vis the debated topic, and c) how policy change meaningfully deconstructs and combats structural inequality in this instance. To merely recognize it is not enough in providing solvency against pillars of institutuionalized violence. If conditions b and c are not met, I will not count this as a Prog case.

TLDR: I am not a tech judge. Spending the second half of a PF round using condensed referential metadebate on tech is a waste of time with me. Comparative analysis should use reference to substance and not floating PF norms as I do not adhere to or even agree to all of these 'norms'. Norms can be made up by students on the fly to their advantage on unsuspecting judges, or be norms in some schools and regions and not others. Debate is not fun when you want to make up rules on the fly in order to gatekeep wins/loses. Just convince me. That's what this sport is about- persuasion- not hidden rules. I don't adhere to any norm you could throw at me in speech. Most judges don't. Most judges in JV don't know what you are talking about. Debate is a worse sport for meta-debate/ tech prioritization.

Please avoid appealing to dogwhistling and overly euphemistic language that demonizes groups of people or other ideological camps.

I openly welcome argumenation or sourcing that may use Marxist critical theory, Libertarian, Socially Conservative, Neoliberal, logic and understandings. Please do not assume my politics or preferences simply based on my education, appearance, gender, or age and try to appeal to them. I find this practice uncomfortable.

GG!

I will deduct speaker points for:

> -.5 speak for: "Good morning/ Good afternoon/ Good evening" as an introduction.

I am a volunteer judge for Wilcox HS (Santa Clara, CA) and this is my third year of judging. I have judged multiple formats (LD, PF, Parli) at both the novice and varsity levels.

Here are some things to keep in mind:

- Speak slowly and clearly. Spreading won't help if I cannot understand what you are saying.

- Keep your own time.

- Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver organized speeches, based on your off time roadmap. It's easier for me to keep track that way.

- I do take notes throughout the round so make sure you emphasize your important contentions/points. Clearly state voting issues in your final speech to tell me what to base my decision on.

- Overall, remember to remain respectful during the round (to your opponents, and to the judge). It is important to be assertive in your arguments but no yelling, interrupting, etc. I will take away speaker points if I have to.

- Please try to stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon. If you are going to use a technical term, it is imperative that you explain it to me (as the judge) as well as in the debate space.

- Lastly, remember that the goal of debate is education and productive discourse. I prioritize inclusiveness over overtechnical strategies. This means that if your opponent is a relatively new varsity debater, and cannot engage with theory, K, etc, do NOT run them. If you do run those strategies, simply to gain an easy win rather that engaging and arguing the topic with your opponent, I will NOT vote for you because you are making the debate space exclusive. I would much rather see a strict case debate (value, framework, counter plan) rather than judge high level arguments (theory, K), because at the end of the day, we want to become more educated and better informed in our society.

Otherwise, good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging. Speak slowly and clearly with a respectful tone. Keep your own time. Off time road maps are preferred. Stay away from overtly technical, high-leveled debate jargon. I do take notes throughout the round so emphasize your important contentions/points. Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

I have judged middle school debates in a local league for 5 years (2015-2019) and one PF debate this year (2020)! I look for clear presentation and linking of your team's arguments and your responses to points the opposing team brings up during a debate.

Hello, I'm Rohan - welcome to my paradigm! :)

About Me:

Ridge '19, Princeton '23 (NJ love <3)

he/him pronouns (in case it comes up in round)

I primarily competed at the local and national circuit in extemp + parli (and occasionally Congress) in high school. Now I compete in parli (APDA, BP) with the Princeton Debate Panel.

Preferences:

I am very analysis-focused/flow - feel free to make jokes/use eloquent language, but this likely won't influence my decision compared to an easy-to-follow, clearly linked argument.

If you're making a complicated or highly nuanced argument, please walk me through it. In general, the strength of links > impact size.

Quality of evidence > quantity of evidence. You don't need to card dump (and please don't unless you have a good reason to) in rebuttal, but also please warrant your arguments or it will be difficult for me to vote for you.

I'm not a big fan of tech or theory arguments - if you're going to run something in this category, please explain it clearly. I won't vote off what I don't understand.

I can take any PF-appropriate speed, but please don't spread or I'll probably miss key links/points that you want me to hear. Perhaps check if your opponents are okay with speed.

Signpost, signpost, signpost! The cleaner my flow, the more likely I'll make a decision that you will like.

Weighing is extremely important and can make or break the round! Explain to me both why your arguments are more important than those of your opponent(s), and why they matter in the context of the resolution.

Please do not use any racist/homophobic/sexist/etc. arguments, or otherwise demean your opponents and/or historically marginalized groups. If you're unsure whether an argument falls in this category, you probably shouldn't run it.

Be nice to your opponent(s)! They are students too! :)

Speaks: I'm pretty generous! Just make the round enjoyable for both me and your opponent(s).

A final note: high school speech/debate can be super intense, but it's also very rewarding. Have fun with it! (If you aren't enjoying the activity, why do it?) :)

Hi! I’m writing this for my dad (who doesn’t believe in paradigms). A couple things you should know:

He’s a parent. Treat him as such; you know what to do.

He’s a professor who gets paid to evaluate students. You’re debating in front of someone who definitely can tell a good and bad link chain apart.

He says he understands speaking quickly. However, he doesn’t think that fast speech is persuasive. I wouldn’t go fast, and definitely not spread.

He doesn’t know any debate jargon. Use at your own risk.

He is a historian, and knows a lot of history. Same for public health -- be careful that what you run would be accepted by an academic in the field.

Be polite & fairly formal. He just spent 15 minutes complaining to me about informal paradigms.

He wants debate to be fun. I'd recommend smiling.

He doesn't believe in off-time road maps. He says that he has never seen them in the rulebooks, and that debaters simply say "first I will rebut the opponent's case, then I will make our case" -- which isn't either surprising or helpful.

Overall, debate like you would in front of a teacher ready to edit your case. Good luck and good debating!

I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013. I have also been a practicing attorney for over 35 years. I am looking for a thoughtful exchange of ideas. I do not emphasize technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate. I do not like K’s.

Speak clearly and avoid spreading. I cannot credit arguments that I miss because you were speaking too fast. Arguments should be supported by evidence.

I like signposting and prefer quality of evidence and argument over quantity. Teams should do their best to collapse and weigh.

Explain why I should vote for your side, including why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't, or why your arguments are better than theirs.

Qualification: I have about 4 years of Public Forum debate and speech experience from my high school years and have judging experience.

Judge Paradigm:

1. I don't mind the general speed of the debaters but please be clear and coherent while speaking.

2. I would like to see an organized and smoothly flowed debate round.

3. Please support your arguments and refutations with thorough explanation and strong evidence.

4. Please make sure to tell me why you think you won the round by weighing out the arguments and refutations during your summary and final focus. Be sure to connect the dots of the round for me by telling me if any points are dropped or still standing.

5. Please do not be rude.

Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)

2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.

3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.

4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.

5. Don't be rude.

I am a parent/lay judge. I appreciate clarity over speed, as well as respectful disagreement. I expect you to synthesize and apply your research, not simply provide citations.

I am a parent judge and may not follow a lot of insider verbiage. I know you are trying to convey a lot of information in a very brief amount of time, but the slower and clearer your arguments the better I can follow and remember them. Although I am an attorney the arguments I hear every day are brief, clear and measured, not rushed.

I am a parent judge, and I appreciate well thought out, intelligent arguments & logic. I will vote for the team who presents the stronger arguments supported by clear logic. I would request you to not use too many technical debate terms or speak too fast, I will be able to follow a medium-speed. I am a good listener, and I am eager to judge your debates!

Email is zkaufmann24@gmail.com if you have any questions or want to be pen pals. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to make a round better for you!

Some general notes:

* Make strategic decisions!

* Please, for the love of all that is holy, put a warrant in everything you say. If your argument lacks a warrant, it's not an argument. I don't feel comfortable voting on things which I would be unable to explain to the opposing team as part of an RFD. Good logic > decontextualized quantitative evidence.

* Please, please weigh. Make fewer arguments and weigh them more. Please explain explicitly how your arguments interact and do weighing that is good, nuanced, and makes sense within the context of the round. Quality > quantity.

* Rebuttal should answer turns on case and include weighing; generally I think that you should respond to offensive arguments in the next speech, case obviously excepted. You need to extend defense in every speech, conditional on your opponents' having answered it.

* If you want me to vote on something, it needs to be cleanly extended in both summary and final focus (i.e. link, warrant, impact, even for dropped arguments). Extend turns in first summary if you’re gonna hinge your whole round strat on it, basically. If I don’t know what I’m voting for, I’ll be sad and your speaks will suffer.

* Debating the way you want to debate and having fun is great, because otherwise there’s no reason for any of us to be here.

* I appreciate non-util framing and making arguments that you actually care about.

* If you feel comfortable, add your pronouns on tab.

Things I am Fine With:

* I am okay-ish with speed. I'll say "clear" if I can't understand you, but if you want me to flow important analysis or author names you should slow down.

* I'm fine with theory which checks back for actual abuse and which is articulated more like a traditional PF argument (i.e. paragraph form, which I find much easier to evaluate. If you start spreading, I will have no idea what is going on). I don’t know a ton about theory/Ks/etc, so if you want to do this explain it clearly and a little slower than usual and you should be fine.

In the words of Harry Bagenstos: "I think it is probably possible to debate nontraditional PF arguments such that even an opponent who has no prior familiarity with the style can understand and make technically valid responses to them, and I think you should try to do that rather than presuming the existence of highly-developed theoretical principles imported from other events." In general, just debate how you want to debate, but make a good-faith effort to include your opponents.

Specific Things Which I Dislike:

* Bad evidence ethics. Good logic beats bad evidence. If you want me to call evidence, tell me.

* Card dumping with no warrants. Also, extensions with no warrants. Basically anything without warranting. If you don't warrant something, "this isn't warranted" is an acceptable response.

* Exclusion generally. Debate fails if it’s not accessible to everyone. If you’re spreading to make sure your opponents can't flow or reading arguments that exclude the other debaters in the round, I will not be happy. This also means that I am open to progressive arguments if they check back for this.

* Debaters not treating other debaters like real human beings. Joking around and being snarky is great, but anything blatantly offensive/ mean/ dismissive will get your speaks tanked and you possibly dropped. I debated as a female second speaker with a male partner and I encourage everyone—especially male debaters and those on all-male teams—to consider how "perceptual dominance" or humor can come across as demeaning.

* Co opting issues for a strategy. Care about the issue and make the debate productive for everyone. Consider content warnings and flexing contentions if someone objects--sensitive topics don't exist in a vacuum and can affect the people around you, so be conscious and you should be fine. IF YOU DO NOT READ A CONTENT WARNING ON A SENSITIVE ARGUMENT AND YOUR OPPONENTS OBJECT IN ANY WAY, I WILL DROP YOU. IF ARE RACIST, SEXIST, CLASSIST, ABLEIST, ETC, I WILL DROP YOU. I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO TELL YOU THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE COMPASSION FOR OTHER PEOPLE. If you don't know how to run a content warning, you can ask me before the round starts.

Things I Do Not Care About:

* What you’re wearing, how you're sitting, etc... Debate is stressful and you should be comfy.

Judging Philosophy

-The winner of the debate is normally the team with the best arguments, not necessarily the best speakers (speaker points).

-However, keep in mind that a poor presentation can detract from the way the judge (me) might perceive the strength of your arguments. Likewise, even a weak argument can seem better if presented in a convincing manner.

-Fast-Talking ("spreading") is OK, but you'd better ensure that I can understand what you're saying. Also, speaking quickly in order to get a high number of specious arguments out there is counterproductive. If you've got a lot of strong points, by all means speak quickly so I can hear them all. But if you've got an array of weaker and stronger arguments, I don't need to hear the weak ones. If in doubt, err on the side of speaking more slowly.

-Be sure to answer your opponents' weak arguments. I am not going to judge arguments based on my own experience and knowledge; I am relying on YOU to do the research, to bring strong and supported arguments to the debate, and to point out your opponent's weak arguments. Even if an argument seems outlandish on its face, you need to at least mention it on rebuttal (and hopefully cite a card of your own that contradicts it). Of course, no need to cite a card to contradict obviously lousy arguments (certain things are contrary to common sense, i.e. the sun won't rise tomorrow).

-CIVILITY over ALL. I feel very strongly that public discourse across a wide range of fora (in academia, in politics, and just communicating with others in general) has been overtaken by an "us against them," tribal mindset that encourages ad hominem attacks that substitute for rational argument. Meaningful debate cannot occur when such conditions exist, and we cannot allow such practices in our competitions. I expect strong and honest airing of the best arguments for and against the resolution. However, if I feel a team has violated the standards of respectful, civil discourse, they will lose, no matter how strong the arguments.

I am a parent and fairly new to judging a debate. Please try to keep your delivery clear and slow, assume I don't know anything about the topic being debated, and avoid using jargon (unless you define it first).

Rose's are red

Violets are blue

Ask me my prefs

Otherwise good luck to you

PF Paradigm

I am highly conscious of my role as a judge to put my own bias aside, to listen intently, and to come to conclusions based on what you bring to a round. If you and your partner prove to me that your warrants, evidence, and impacts weigh more heavily in the round than your opponents then you win, plain and simple. Please don't tell me the burden is on the other team to prove or disprove or whatever else. Public Forum Debate focuses on advocacy of a position derived from issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.

I have a serious problem if you misconstrue evidence or neglect to state your sources thoroughly- you have already created unnecessary questions in my mind.

Rebuttals are a key part of debate and I need to hear a point by point refutation and clash and then an extension of impacts. Refuting an argument is not "turning" an argument. Arbitrary and incorrect use of that term is highly annoying to me. A true turn is difficult at best to achieve-be careful with this.

I cannot judge what I can't clearly hear or understand-I can understand fast speech that is enunciated well, but do you really want to tax your judge?-Quality of an argument is much more important than the quantity of points/sub-points, or rapid-fire speech and it is incumbent upon you and your partner to make sure you tell me what I need to hear to weigh appropriately-it is not my job to "fill in the blanks" with my personal knowledge or to try to spend time figuring out what you just said. Also spreading is a disrespectful tactic and defeats the purpose of the art of debate-imho- so don't do it. (See Quality not Quantity above).

The greater the extent of your impacts, the greater the weight for me. If you and your partner are able to thoroughly answer WHY/HOW something matters more, WHY/HOW something has a greater impact, WHY/HOW your evidence is more important, that sways me more than anything else.

Lastly, be assertive, not aggressive. Enjoy the challenge.

No need to be too slow, but speak clearly so I can understand you. If I cannot understand what you're saying, I can't evaluate the argument.

During crossfire, if one side asks the other a question, do not interrupt the other side when they are giving an answer.

Advocate your position through logical reasoning and support it by presenting evidence clearly.

Hello! I am a lay judge. While I don't have any debate experience, I am not a stranger to debate. I have been in legal practice for over 20 years and currently a patent examiner. I am familiar with looking at ideas, reviewing and examining evidences, and considering arguments before drawing conclusions.

Please add me yanlilylan@gmail.com to the email chain. Please include at least the cases and call the email chain like "TOC Round 1 - Team AB vs. Team CD". I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.

As a judge, I prefer for the debaters to warrant out all their arguments, do not make an assertion and not give the reasoning. Make sure to weigh, if you don't I might make a decision you aren't happy about.

You can run anything, so long as you are clear, weigh it, and tell me why it’s the best way to adjudicate the round. I prefer evidence over just logical reasoning but logic is a very good tool to supplement evidence or for other responses. Please make sure you signpost.

In terms of speed, talk normal speed. I only flow what I can understand. If I can't grasp the arguments due to speed, it is your loss. 

At the end of the day, debate should be fun and debaters should enjoy the activity. Heated arguments are expected, but rudeness is not good.

I have 8 years experience with WSDC and BP, around 3 coaching and judging PF. I understand all the jargon, so don't hesitate using it.

For PF rounds:

Off-time roadmaps are cool. Honestly anything as long as your speech has some sort of structure.

Enunciate when presenting evidence. Numbers help quantify impacts insofar as the numbers are clear

Logic is the easiest way to win me over, as long as it's paired with evidence

I'd rather you don't spread because it's generally hard to flow that, but if you do, make sure to share your speech doc with me and your opponent. IMO, spreading should be used to fit more material but not to confuse your opponent.

I generally don't love theory arguments, but if you run them, make sure to link them clearly to the motion.

This paradigm was written by my son, who is a sophomore in Public Forum. However, this is my fifth time judging PF.

I am a "lay" judge. Please do not spread or speak quickly, I want to be able to understand your arguments. I prefer that you time yourselves. Please be nice and respectful to one another, that counts so much for me.

A lay judge who's been judging for a few years now, I'm not a big fan of frameworks and I absolutely do not do Theory.

I am a junior at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, majoring in Statistics and Asian studies. I have four years of Public Forum debate experience and participated in major university tournaments every single year in high school. I have judged over 13 tournaments in the past two years. All in all, I am a flow judge, and speed is okay with me. Some suggestions are listed below:

1. Do not bring up new points in the final focus... I will not give you any credit as it will not appear on my flow sheet.

2. Please please please weigh your impact!!!!!!!

3. If your opponent drops a point/impact/link that you think is important, you better call it out.

4. Make sure to extend your argument throughout the debate to get full credit.

5. If I think a card is too good to be true, I might ask for it at the end of the debate.

6. I am okay with speed, BUT please make your words clear. Also, DON'T SPREAD!

7. Please do not interrupt your opponents during cross-fire...give him/her a chance to finish the response before inserting another question or response.

8. Please reconstruct your argument in the rebuttal.

9. I wouldn't flow crossfire. Therefore, if anything happens in the crossfire that you think is important, such as your opponent making a concession, you need to bring it up in your next immediate speech.

10. If you want me to vote for you, you need to have clear voters and link stories!

11. You have to reconstruct in rebuttal to extend your own argument. Or else I consider that to be dropping your argument.

At the end of the debate, there are three things that I will for sure do: disclosure, round analysis, and personal feedback. Please give me a few minutes at the end of the debate to allow me to choose the winning side. During these two minutes, I will also call for cards if the round is too close; just want to be careful :)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Relatively new to debate

I am a parent judge

Please make your arguments clear and articulate

I will understand most arguments but sorry if my RFD is not too clear

I am a parent judge who has been judging for three years. I find the topics interesting and love hearing the rounds, but I never debated myself. I value logical arguments, but I find it hard to vote off of far fetched arguments that have long link chains. I flow but if you talk too fast I won't be able to follow. I'd appreciate it if you didn't use too much jargon. And most of all, be sure to have fun!

I am a lay parent judge from Centennial High School in Maryland. I work as a scientist in the Biomedical field. Please speak clearly and articulate your points, and support your arguments with evidence and data. Highlight the points why I should accept your argument. Please make sure you are respectful to your opponents throughout the round.

I prefer that you do not speak quickly. You must be respectful to your opponents. If you are not respectful to your opponents, your speaker points will fall substantially and you may even lose the debate entirely.

I am a previous PF debater, so I value logic and clarity in arguments (no long link chains) and no spreading.

I am a fairly new parent judge and follow the guidance that was given to judges in terms of what to evaluate - specifically, “the clash of ideas...communicated in a manner persuasive to the citizen judge”. To me, this means plain English, reasonable pace and organized, well explained arguments supported by relevant evidence and a constructive countering of the arguments of the opposing team.

I currently work in the non-profit realm, and I have degrees in both Government and Accounting. I have less formal debate training.

My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation. I’m not a heavy flow or line-by-line judge, but I will do my best to take notes as we go along!

I don't respond well to speed, especially if it's difficult to follow your argument because of it. Public forum debate is about breaking down the debate on the resolution for anyone and convince them why your side is right, so make your arguments clear and be confident!

I'm a parent judge who has judged 3 tournaments, so I'm familiar with format and approach. I am not a fan of fast talking...I prefer to hear the cases and arguments clearly.

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

Former high school debater, but I'm new to judging. Go easy on the debate jargon.

DO NOT SPREAD, I can't understand you

Keep it slow and clear. Good communication goes a long way in terms of furthering your argument

Don't say either side has a burden to prove something at the start of the round. Neither team starts off on top for me.

I work more on logic. If you have evidence or numbers, tie it to an impact and then give me its importance instead of just presenting it. That's what I'll remember it by. Don't expect me to perfectly recall evidence if all you give me is the author or source name. I also really like it when teams weigh impacts.

Clearly highlight what your contentions are centered on with a certain phrase or term

Please be polite to each other. A crossfire with everyone yelling doesn't look good for either team

If you give me a road map, please actually stick to it.

I am a parent judge. I look for roadmaps, clear contentions, and thorough rebuttals. Watch the speed, be respectful of all, and have fun! Good luck to all at Princeton!

**Updated October 31, 2023

Hello everyone!

My judging history will show that I’ve primarily tabbed at tournaments since the pandemic started. However, I’ve been keeping up with topic discussions across LD, PF, and Policy and am looking forward to judging you all!

I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now, and have been coaching with Lexington since 2016. Starting this academic year, I also teach Varsity LD and Novice PF at LHS. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged mainly policy and LD since 2016. I also judge PF at some tournaments along with practice debates on every topic.

TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round to frame my ballot. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.

Email: debatejn@gmail.com

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES

In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech and throw you off, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important.

I usually use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.

MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES

If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.

LD PARADIGM

In general: Please also look at my policy paradigm for argument specific information! I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates. I am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.

On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.

A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.

On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.

On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.

On Ks: I think that the NR is a difficult speech - answering the first indicts on a K and then having to collapse and go for the K is tricky. Please make sure that you're using your time effectively - what is the world of the alt and why is my ballot key to resolving the impacts that you outline?

PF PARADIGM

In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents.

On Paraphrasing: I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence. However, if you must, please slow down on your analytical blocks so that I can effectively flow your arguments - if you read 25 words straight that you want on my flow, I can't type quickly enough to do that, even when I'm a pretty fast typer in general. Please also make sure that you take care to not misrepresent your evidence.

General Comments On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.

On PF Theory: It's a thing, now. I don't particularly love it, but I do judge based off of my flow, so I will vote on it. However, I really, really, really dislike frivolous theory (feel free to look at my LD and Policy paradigms on this subject), so please make sure that if you're reading theory in a round, you are making it relevant to the debate at hand.

POLICY PARADIGM

On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.

One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.

On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.

On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.

Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow

On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.

One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.

Stay on topic. Make sense. Have your evidence ready to share. Do not speak so fast that I can't understand you. Watch your aggressions, above all respect yourself and your opponents.

I am a parent judge from a school that practices traditional debate. I am taking copious and structured notes in a flow sheet and will in the end check which arguments are still standing unchallenged. Therefore, I am not a fan of rapid-fire delivery of arguments, but rather appreciate well-structured and evidence-based arguments delivered at a moderate pace. I trust that your evidence is from well-reputed sources and will not call for cards during the round, but will rather leave the job of examining cards to the opposing team. I also expect that you keep your own time. On speaker points, I tend to give higher points for debaters who provide not only the best evidence to support their arguments, but that also make a compelling presentation effort (e.g., eye contact, slowing down to make impact points, grouping and weighing in final speeches).

Clearly explain the impacts of your contentions, and the internal links within them; the less work I have to do filling in the blanks for your case, the more likely you are to win. Use your summary and final focus to explain to me why your side is winning the debate, don't just use them as extra rebuttal speeches (if I have to go all the way back to both teams' constructives to decide who's winning because rebuttal, summary, and final focus didn't make it clear enough, there's a lot more room for me to think you out of a win). If you don't extend an argument through summary and bring it back up in final focus, I miiiiiight weigh it but even if I do I'm going to weigh it less heavily than if you extended it through summary and final focus. At least frontline responses to turns in second rebuttal. If you want something from crossfire on the flow, mention it in a speech. Speed is fine (make sure to really clearly enunciate names; I can generally figure out a somewhat unclear word, but if a name isn't clear it's a lot harder to figure out from context). Fine with K's. Tech over truth. Don't make your off-time roadmap much longer than "our case then their case" (i.e. "I'm going to weigh our first contention against their second and then..." is too long). Mostly did Congress and Parli in high school (with some LD, briefly), some British Parliamentary in university (don't ask), and I coached Public Forum for a few years. Academic background in Economics.

I am a parent judge.

Please speak at an understandable pace and have fun!

I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging public forum. Please speak at an understandable pace and remember to have fun!

I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging. Please speak at an understandable pace and remember to have fun!

1. Speak slowly and clearly. If you speak too fast I won't be able to understand what you are saying.

2. Speak in coherent sentences. Please avoid words such as "like" and "um."

3. Frame your arguments in a logical flow. Don't make scattered points and expect me to put them together.

4. Be courteous, polite and respectful to your opponents. Being condescending or arrogant will not be viewed favorably.

Technically a senior on leave from Harvard, I debated 4 years in Public Forum for The Dalton School.

For 1st Speakers:

During Constructive: Please make eye contact with me during your constructive speech. You have ideally read your own case at least 2 times before round, so I want you to at least try to make a personal connection (i.e. genuinely try to sell me on your case).

During Summary: Please start boiling down your points. I want you to start weighing during this speech, and tell me how you're winning.

If you go for every single point in the round, you will lose 0.5 speaker points. Your job is to start condensing it for me. Also, don't just do it for me; as a former 2nd speaker, I remember how much easier my job became when my 1st speaker would deliver a very clear and effective summary. So, please do it for your partner, too!

For 2nd Speakers:

During Rebuttal: Please start out with an overview, explaining why I should listen to your framework / overview over your opponents, not just telling me why your framework is valid.

If you're the 1st speaking rebuttal, just go down their flow. Don't just dump evidence; you could read me all the evidence in the world, but I want you to provide me with the logic behind such arguments. Explain any turns you may make clearly.

If you're the 2nd speaking rebuttal, I want you to not only go down their case, but also respond to any turns your opponents make on your case.

During Final Focus: Write my ballot for me. Do this, and you will win. Explain to me what arguments you are winning on; hammer in on things I should extend in the flow and explain to me why they're important. Don't just read me evidence I should extend, or else I have no justification for doing so. Anything that you say in final focus that wasn't mentioned in summary will be ignored.

General Stuff:

1) PLEASE SIGNPOST. Tell me where you are on the flow, or else I will be lost, which will be very frustrating.

2) I don't actually flow cross, so please provide crossfire analysis at the beginning of subsequent speeches if you want anything said during cross to be weighed in the round (concessions, turns, logic explanations, etc.).

3) Any disrespectful or racist, sexist, inappropriate, etc things said in round will lead to an automatic 25 speaker points or less, and depending on severity, may even lead to an automatic win to the other team.

4) At the end of the day, it's just a debate round where you guys are arguing a topic you've spent hours researching. Have fun, WEIGH, and enjoy!

Put me on the email chain: drewpeterson2002@gmail.com

For some background, I have previously competed for 3 years on the national circuit, been coaching / judging for 4 years nationally and also served as the the Tournament Chair for the Florida Blue Key Speech & Debate Tournament.

I strongly prefer hearing smart arguments over a large quantity of them.

My threshold for warranting and explanation is likely much higher than you think. Warrant is severely lacking in PF. In order for me to vote on argument, all parts must be clearly extended and explained in the later speeches.

Do not just do impact calc just for the sake of doing it. Impact calc is not nearly as relevant / important to most of the decisions I make as it can be. Make your analysis truly comparative.

However, all of my rules and preferences are negotiable. Debate is up to the debaters. Go for whatever type of argument you want, but stick to what you do best. That includes theory and kritiks.

I have judge at the local level for both junior varsity and varsity debates.

Clarity/Speed

It is very helpful to speak clearly accurately a rate of speed that the judge can understand. This will help how I can evaluate you as well as get an understanding of your position and knowledge of topic. It is also important that you enunciate as well as speak in volume that can be heard very clearly.

Knowledge and Arguments

it is important to have a good understanding of the topics being debated as well as being able to convey the information in a way that I can understand. Please provide arguments that are accurate as well as understood by the opponents and the judges. Address all issues that are raised by the opponents. Most important please give the courtesy to the opposing team of being respectful of what their position is.

Email: bpowersbeggs@gmail.com

Background: I debated in LD, PF, and occasionally congress for Lewis and Clark HS (Spokane, WA) from 2014-2018, as well as competing in a range of speech events. Currently, I am a Materials Science and Engineering student at Case Western Reserve University (Cleveland, OH) graduating in 2022. This is my second year judging for Hawken, but I also have done some judging and coaching for Lewis and Clark HS since graduating.

Paradigm: Progressive or lay are both fine, but please don't go full policy on me. I am fine with speed (especially now that online school has me watching all my lectures on double speed), but I prefer if debaters leave spreading to policy because there is a risk that I won't understand you if you go too fast.

I'm generally down for any argument or interpretation of the resolution as long as it is well-supported.

Theory is OK, but I prefer it be used appropriately as a tool to improve the debate or the debate community as a whole, not just as an easy way to win by playing the a priori card.

My favorite part of debate is cross-ex, but make sure to bring up the relevant points gathered from it in your speech.

K's are fine but please explain them

I have a soft spot for counterplans as long as they don't steal all of the ground of the debate to the extent that it is unfair to the other debater.

I love impact calc and strategic debate. Don't be afraid to go all in on one or two points towards the end of the debate if they will win you the round (but you also don't have to collapse to one contention). Make sure to tie the arguments back to the weighing mechanism/framework/Values/VC's, or whatever you are calling it that round.

Please roadmap!

Cite sources with at least author and date

Treat your opponent with respect

TLDR: I'm a flow judge who is down for any argument but I want you to tell me why to vote for you at the end (KVI's!!!)

I am a librarian and in my 7th year as a Public Forum and Parlimentary debate judge. I believe a well-presented argument relies on speaking clearly and thoughtfully, rather than rushing to present every piece of information. State your contentions clearly and use this to create a reliable, well-structured argument.

Be courteous and enjoy your event. I'm a volunteer and new to judging

- If you spread I will give you the loss automatically

- Collapsing is best, make the decision for me. If you want something considered weigh it throughout the round not just once.

- I have no experience with K's or progressive args

- I don't flow cross so if something important happens bring it up again. Cross is to question your opponent and make your arguments stronger.

- I will not flow new evidence brought up in final focus

- If you want me to read evidence after the round I will but make sure it is a contested piece of evidence and both parties agree

- Off time road maps are cool but if you say one please stick to it

- If you bring up a piece of evidence tell me why it is important. Do not refer to a card with just the tag and expect me to remember the impact, explain why it is important.

- I am cool with debate jargon but doing it just to confuse your opponent is not cool

- Being annoying, offensive, or overly aggressive will be looked down upon

-Framework is cool, just flow it through

-Weigh impacts throughout the round, I view that very favorably

I take detailed notes (flow) during the debate. I do not flow cross examinations. If seeing a specific piece of evidence is relevant to the decision I will ask for it. I care about logic and the strength of link chains. The quality of evidence matters. Please extend arguments through the debate. A dropped argument will not hold. The speed arguments are delivered is only an issue when words become garbled and unintelligible. Thus, be very careful spreading if you chose that method. Please try to use all of the time allocated to you. It is easier for me to follow a debate when I can see the debaters. Have fun and respect the art of debate!

First time judge, former debater and current undergraduate student at Yale. Biggest thing for me is civility, I have no problem docking points if you are condescending or rude. Also not a big fan of spreading, I would rather listen to a few clear and concise ideas delivered well than many delivered in an extreme rush. Don't leave me to interpret anything, spell out all arguments clearly and logically, and weigh impacts. I'm a Public Forum purist, and I don't like when LD style debate leaks into PF.

According to Google I'm a lay judge. I like cards a lot so it would be to your advantage to name cards whenever you can.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE JARGON, AVOID IT OR EXPLAIN IT BEFORE USE.

Clearly identify your main points and supporting evidence. I judge off clarity and the quality of supporting evidence. AKA structure and cards.

+.4 speaker points to each individual who can somehow naturally incorporate snails into the debate. Don't mess this up.

I am a traditional debate judge.  I like clash, weighing of arguments, and substantive, not blippy arguments.  I do not believe that Kritiks and other cases like that have any place in PF debate.  Speed should be reasonable.  I can handle speed, but again, I don't think it belongs in PF.  

Best of luck to all the debaters this weekend.

I am a lawyer from Miami, Florida, and have practiced law for over 28 years. My practice is primarily in commercial litigation. I have previously judged a number of Public Forum Debates in South Florida.

I will be flowing and will judge the flow, but will also account for nonflow aspects of the debate and factor them into the round. Personally, I find that debaters who speak slowly and try to get across key vital points as opposed to trying to jam as many points in during the debate are far more persuasive. Collapse on your strongest arguments early in the round and use them to tell a story. Weighing must be done and use the weighing to tell me how I should be voting in the round. Presenting the BEST arguments as opposed to as many arguments is preferred. Simply put, quality over quantity.

I am strongly opposed to K's and believe the resolution debated should be the one chosen by the NSDA.

Again, I wish everyone luck and look forward to a healthy debate!

Background:

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Flanagan in South Florida. I'm currently a junior at Duke University. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge.

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. These two speeches should be very similar in that they re-iterate the same points that you think win the round for you.

- Weighing. You're probably not going to win every single argument in the round, so I want to give me tangible reasons as to why the argument you should win the round based on is more important than your opponents'. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I really like teams who get more creative with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost.

- Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. The 2nd rebuttal should answer all offense, including turns.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I spoke relatively fast when I debated but hated it. I can generally flow speed but anything close to spreading shuts me off. You can usually get the same quantity of arguments out by just improving your word economy instead of picking up your speed.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ie read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). You don't need to read full shells or anything for me, I'm totally fine with paragraph theory.

- Making absurd arguments. This event tests your ability to gain and disseminate knowledge and that needs to be done with integrity. If part of what makes debate an activity is discerning between misrepresentations and realities of the world and communicating them to the general public (in a forum), then I reserve the right to disregard silly arguments that blatantly misrepresent how the world works in my attempt to tell who has done the better debating. For example, impacting strictly to GDP growth as a good thing would be an argument I could not evaluate (ask me in person for why this absolutely makes no sense).

Going for TRUTH is not as incompatible with the TECH as you'd like to think. It's harmful to think they're unequivocally at odds.

Hi! I'm Kim Smith, and this is my second year judging both speech and debate. I am a short story author, former journalist, and playwright, and work in international advertising. My daughter is a second-year on the Newton South PF team.

For Public Forum: I definitely fall under the category of a "lay" judge. I will write down the main points of your contentions and their impacts as long as I am able to follow along with them. Make sure to weigh!! Explain how/why your points are more important than your opponents. It's easier for me to follow along if you create a clear narrative.

Speaker points: Eye contact is key. Make sure to make eye contact with me when talking about points that are really important (ex: impacts, turns). Please try not to speak too fast, as online/virtual sound is not as crisp and clear. However, I understand how that can be a challenge for some people. I say this because the slower you speak, the more likely I am to catch what you are saying and be able to write it down.

Good luck!

I am a lay judge, but have been taught to flow and have five years of experience judging PF. I prefer clear, slower speaking. Signposts are also super helpful. I don't intervene; I will judge your contentions by your ability to extend them and your opponents' ability (or lack thereof) to undermine them. I look for a logical argument. I like summaries and final focuses that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I've never called a card, but if an email chain is created, I would like to be on it. I'll give my email in the chat during the round. Speaking with passion is cool; aggressiveness is not. I do not like debates run on theory.

WEIGH. WEIGH. WEIGH. Otherwise I will be forced to do link/impact comparison for you, and you may not like how I do it.

This is my third year as a lay parent PF judge.

I am usually familiar with the topics as I am judging tournaments that my daughter participates in, and the AFF and NEG are discussed around the dinner table.

Speed is fine, but I find it much more interesting to listen to people talking rather than listen to people reading out loud.

When using statistics or quoting numbers, please explain why they are important and how they support your contentions and arguments otherwise I usually find those meaningless.

Intense crossfire is great, but please keep it polite and respectful.

GOOD LUCK!!!

I appreciate section titles to help me follow your argument.

Experienced judge, I have judged at local and national tournaments.

In a round I expect to hear well developed cases with strong and logical arguments as well as credible references.

It is always helpful to summarize your case at the end and convince me to give you the win.

Enúnciate and Project your voice so I can Clearly hear and understand you.

I coached Public Forum starting from its beginning in 2002 until I retired from teaching in 2011. I have continued on as an active judge: judging at the local, state, and national levels. Nearly all of my judging in recent years has been Policy but with Lincoln Douglas and some Public Forum in the mix.

PF:

In the traditional spirit of Public Forum, the debate is best presented in a clear, understandable manner.

PF is a relatively short, quick-paced form of debate. Complexity is fine but be judicious. Stay focused and relatively succinct. Communicate well. I judge Policy, but spreading has no place in PF - at least for me. If I can’t follow what you are saying, well…

Base your contentions on reliable evidence. Draw conclusions using sound reasoning. Clash (of ideas) is great. Obnoxious, aggressive behavior, if it gets ugly, may cost a round.

Limited tag-teaming during crossfire is OK.

A strong final focus can often win a close round.

LD:

Questions worth considering are: What is good (or at least the greater good), and what form should it take in the real world? Philosophers have had a lot to say about this. But so does common sense. Consider me the man on the street who sometimes digs philosophers when they also have their feet on the ground. Using a good strategy can be a winner. Getting beyond philosophy and reason, within limits, emotional appeals can be persuasive.

Moral, ethical and philosophical considerations should be a foundation for your case.

Policy:

I characterize myself as a "Policy Maker Judge." I can handle a modest amount of spreading but don't overdo it. It's more effective to rely on the quality of arguments and evidence than on quantity. Substance counts and so does style. Limited tag-teaming is OK. It is a real art to be confrontational while also being genuinely respectful of your opponent.

While Kritiks are a worthy part of Policy debate, I have never found them to be a decisive, or sometimes even a relevant, factor in my decisions. For some judges they are significant so when there is a panel, feel free to use them. Just be sure to present a strong arguments that support or negate the Affirmative case.

Learn from your experience.

Do what you do best.

Enjoy the competition!

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

I am new to the debate world and as such am a lay judge. I'm a college student and believe I can handle somewhat faster than conversational speeds, but it would be helpful to check in with me after your first speech. Debate how you debate, I'll do my best to evaluate, but ultimately I'm going to vote for the team that I find most persuasive.

Humor is appreciated, try not to be overly loud or rude. Good luck!

I am the coach of Scarsdale HS and have been in the activity for 20 some odd years

LD

These days I tend to tab rather than judge so I am generally out of practice. Treat me as you would an educated parent judge. Go slow and clear. Signpost. Weigh

As a more traditional judge, I prefer to hear arguments that are actually about the topics. I will listen to any well reasoned and explained arguments though although voting on argument not about the topic will probably make me want to give poor points.

PF

i would prefer fewer cards and stats that are actually contextualized and explained than a slurry of paraphrased nonsense. Anyone can make individualized stats dance, but a solid debater can explain the context of that work and how it links to other pieces of info

Hi everyone,

Son here. Hopefully I am able to explain his preferences in terms you can probably understand.

Speaking is key. He values slow, clear, and concise speaking very highly, which shouldn't be surprising. As your speed goes up, so does your chances of losing. He won't choose a winner based on who speaks prettier, but better speaking means a better chance of winning. He'll probably give speaks somewhere in the range of 28-29.5.

He flows decently. He'll get the tag lines and will remember your arguments if they're well-warranted and make sense to him. Don't worry about him missing an entire contention or something, but if you're reading a lot of very nuanced links, maybe cut down on those.

Limit debate jargon. Instead of saying "delink," "uniqueness," "defense," or something along those lines, explain what the response/weighing is and use good evidence. The name of the response/weighing shouldn't represent any important content that he would miss out on if he didn't understand the jargon.

Good luck!

I've judged in the Canadian University circuit for a while. I like cases with clear mechanisms that engage and weigh out against the other team. In general, I award wins to whichever team contributed to a higher quality of debate overall. Feel free to speak fast, although I might not flow everything if you try and speak as quickly as physically possible for a human to speak. I won't credit anything that isn't said in the round, so if a team hasn't engaged with one of your points please do point this out for me or else I may not notice. I will not read evidence unless it becomes a point of contention, so if evidence is bad please tell me why. Off-time road maps are appreciated. Any type of theory is completely fine with me.

I did PF for four years at Evanston Township HS, and I'm currently a senior at Columbia.

I'll flow, I can handle speed, and I'll listen to anything as long as it's not offensive/violent -- I won't vote for your argument if it's either of these things.

I'm most likely to vote for you if 1) your argument was extended in its entirety (warrant and impact) through summary and final focus, and 2) you weigh. The best weighing is comparative, so just repeating an impact from case, even if you're doing a great job explaining why that impact matters, isn't enough if it doesn't engage the other half of the debate.

Have fun & make jokes if you're funny :)

Make sure to be clear no matter what speed you speak at, ensuring that your mechanization and weighing are explicit so it's as if you are telling me how to see the round and how you compare to other teams. Deliberately deconstruct all important points made by the other side, and have very systematic refutation.

Any arguments based on generalizations or stereotypes are not persuasive, so don't be hateful or discriminatory. Remember that whilst you are competing with each other, it is also not persuasive to attack anything but the content of what is brought up; be respectful!

PUBLIC FORUM

I judge as if I were someone who reads the Economist/The Times twice a week and watches CNN or Bloomberg News on occasion. With that being said--content needs to be explained clearly and developed deeply. When it comes to the traditional argumentative structure (Claim, Warrant, Impact) you should spend about 10% of your energy on the first, 20% of your energy on the second, and 70% of your energy on impact analysis.

The constructive should be delivered clearly with frequent eye contact. The rebuttal can be line-by-line or big picture. I have no specific preference but if you are grouping arguments I need to know why those ideas can be responded to at once. As for summary speeches and final focuses should be more big picture speeches on the main topics discussed in the round. Clarity is still very important.

Please be respectful during crossfire. Nothing is accomplished through sass, anger, and talking over one another.

If sources become a major point of contention in the round, I will weigh the credibility of source A over the credibility of source B so either explain why one is more credible/preferred or I will have to make that decision myself.

Any other questions should be asked before the beginning of the round.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

Principle > practical. I need to know why one way of thinking is preferred over another.

I am a tabula rasa judge meaning the most important thing in the round is a clear explanation of why a certain theory/philosophy/guiding principle is the best way for a person to act.

I am comfortable with speed--I just ask that you vocally signal when something you say is particularly important (i.e. a tagline or an important sentence from a card).

All other questions can be asked before the round.

EXTEMP

I judge extemp based on the following characteristics listed in order of importance: developed, well thought out content; clarity and confidence of the speaker; accurate, credible sources of information; a variety of sources (both outlets for news and types of information); physical presentation (if you are a person with a disability that impact how you move/speak please let me know before the round if you feel comfortable so that I don't unjustly and unconsciously hold that against you); creative approaches to the topic.

If you have specific questions or the event I am judging is not above, ask about those specifically before the round if you would like to receive those paradigms.

Background:

I am a professor in the department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources at Rutgers University. I have a BA in political science from Dartmouth College and Ph.D in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology from Princeton University.

Judging Experience:

This is my third year as a parent debate judge in PF. Thus I have a reasonable amount of experience in PF including judging TOC. Nonetheless I am definitely a lay judge, not a tech judge; see further notes below. If I am judging you in an event other than PF, please be aware that I am unfamiliar with the type of speech / debate you are doing. I will do my best to evaluate the round according to the instructions judges are given for your type of event, but I will likely be evaluating at a naive level, e.g., are you articulate and clear? I will almost certainly miss the finer points of a non-PF event.

Preferences:

As a scientist in an environmental field, I interact frequently with policy professionals and the media. This experience has taught me the importance of focusing on the most likely and important impacts of a decision (as opposed to getting lost in arcane, less likely impacts), of contextualizing the arguments being made (i.e., providing justification for why certain issues are important or not important to the issue at hand), and presenting evidence that is unbiased and evidence-based (as opposed to failing to critically assess ones sources, or exaggerating the evidence and/or the likely impacts). My debate judging follows these preferences.

Please do not spread. If you speak too fast for me to follow your argument then I cannot give you credit for it. Also, be aware that I am not a tech judge, and may miss the more technical aspects of the round, such as offense and defense for example. What I will notice and reward is appropriate and unbiased use of evidence, contextualization, logical reasoning, and higher-order thinking.

Hi,

I am a parent judge who looks for a thoughtful debate in which each debater thoroughly addresses his/her/their opponents' points.

Please do not speak too quickly; I want to be able to follow along with each of your points.

I put focus on mutual respect, clarity and evidence.

Thanks and good luck

I am a parent judge. I am looking for a thoughtful debate in which each debater thoroughly addresses his/her/their opponents' points. Please do not speak too quickly; I want to be able to follow along with each of your points.

I am a lay judge, so speaking slowly will be to your advantage. I like simple, easy to understand arguments that don't have extremely nuanced links. If you go too fast, you risk me not understanding your arguments.

Use lay friendly jargon. I don't understand when people say pre-req or things of that nature.

Please don't interrupt each other during crossfire, and be respectful. Please be courteous and polite during rounds. Respect the time limits that you are allotted during each speech and keep track of your own prep time(I will interrupt if you are abusing this).

Please don't bring in subjective things such as politics into the debate.

My average speaker point range is between 28 and 28.5.

29 and above - I thoroughly enjoyed hearing your speeches.

This is my first year judging. Please do not speak quickly or use jargon. I look for clear logic in the arguments and sensible links. For major impact arguments, I would like to see clear evidences for that. I prefer a few well articulated points than many superficial points.

Hey, I'm Joy (she/her/hers)! Former policy/pf debater. Ask me for my email before the round starts. Also, please try to keep your volume at a reasonable level. Thank you for accommodating me. :)

Check with your opponents for any accessibility requests before the round starts. And don't be a jerk! You can be an excellent communicator without getting aggressive or using demeaning language.

Make my path to the ballot easy. Explicit voters/weighing, resolution of clash, and consistency across the flow will garner you a win. I'm going to call for evidence if you highlight/dispute it. While I'm not a fan of blippy extensions, it's still better than nothing to make sure you don't get lost in the LBL. Content/form/style deviations from the norm aren't an issue for me as long as you do it well - debate is socially constructed to an extent. Buy into the choices you make and make sure your opponents are okay with it too.

Procedurals: Tend to default to C/I unless the reasonability claim is actually fleshed out. Outline immediate consequences for abuse claims and how my ballot plays into that.

Ks: I'm probably not familiar with your literature. Fully articulate the world of the alternative and how the perm can't access it. Usually can be persuaded one way or the other on axiomatic good claims but only if they come early enough in the round - can't be a 2nr hail mary.

I'm currently a university student studying Political Science at University of California - Berkeley. I started doing Public Forum in 7th grade, so I have around 8 years of experience in debate.

What I'm looking for in debate rounds:

I will definitely flow all your arguments, and the arguments I have written down on my flow will be the most important factor when I'm deciding who won the round. But more specifically, I am looking for clear, quantifiable impacts that I can consider when weighing.

If you drop an argument during your summary/final focus, I will not incorporate that into my voting issues. It is your responsibility to extend through all evidence and arguments to the very last speech if you want it to win you the round.

I was also a second speaker during my time as a high school debater, so I am looking for direct clashes to arguments in the refutation speech. I want you to directly attack the links and analysis to an argument when refuting.

In terms of speaking style, I am okay with speed, as long as it is not spreading. If you spread, especially in an online tournament, I will not be able to understand you as it is much harder to understand through a zoom call compared to an actual in-person debate.

Other than that, speak clearly and persuasively, but at the end of the day, if you have better arguments and evidence, speaking style comes second.