I am a parent PF judge, and a practicing attorney with more than 25 years of experience.

I believe a sound debate is about a fair, intelligible and intelligent dialogue. Speed reading off a computer screen or spreading is incompatible with such a process. Fast speakers assume the risk that I could miss some arguments/points/evidence. Additionally, if in my view you've spoken at a fast clip, I will not view unfavorably your opponent failing to respond to an argument that you have advanced.

Do not resort to speech docs. Make your case orally.

I flow arguments and strictly rely on my flowsheet. While I do not take note of points made/unmade in crossfire, I pay careful attention to astute questions and answers. Please bring up crossfire points that you would like me to flow in a subsequent speech. I am persuaded by well-structured, logical and linked arguments that are honestly supported by key pieces of evidence.

In addition to making your case, you must meaningfully engage with your opponents' case. The team advancing a contention must rejoin the issue and tell me why the opposing team's rebuttal/counter/block does not work.

In crossfire, please avoid questions with long preambles.

While, for the most part, I don't get into the weeds with cards and evidence, I may on occasion call for a piece. Teams should feel free to assail each other's evidence during the debate.

Please do not use debate jargon.

I do not like theory and K's. Hew to the topic of the day.

Keep the discourse civil. Incivility in any form will hurt your cause.

Enthusiasm for, intensity, and passion regarding the proposition you are espousing is welcome. Discourtesy or aggression against your opponents is not.

Tactical and strategic thinking in arguing, rebutting, and in crossfire is always delightful.

I appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus. Further, the final focus should have all that you would like me to vote on (akin to writing my RFD for me - pros of your case and cons of your opponent's.) Lastly, all arguments and evidence that are in the final focus must have been in the summary and no new arguments in the summary speech - it is a matter of fairness.

Happy debating!

Public Forum is a debate category in name and in design intended to be accessible by the public forum. It was created to as a solution to the excessive technicality, esotericism, and unreasonableness that had grown systemic in Policy and Lincoln-Douglass categories by 2002 because of a win-at-all-costs mentality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_forum_debate

Remember that there are more important things than winning (thinking critically, communicating effectively, being civil, substantively engaging with very real policy questions, and being honest with yourself and others). The debate community (and the world) does not need another category where the desire to win tramples all other values.

Lay judge with limited experience.

Suggestions for contestants: Be respectful, stick to the facts, watch the timer.

Parent judge with no prior experience.

Please be respectful and speak clearly.

Try to avoid using debate jargon and make sure to explain your arguments thoroughly, as anything that goes unexplained may not be taken into consideration.

Hello.

I'm currently a sophomore in university. I competed in all levels of LD as a student at Chaminade High School, as well as extemp. I've judged Novice PF a handful of times before.

Please don't read too fast. It's bad enough we're doing this digitally. Also, I'd appreciate if you provided off-time roadmaps.

I don't flow during cross, so if you want a point brought up in cross to count for your side, you have to bring it up in your rebuttal speech.

I vote off the flow.

I prefer a traditional debate style.

Don't be afraid to ask me any questions before the round starts. Good luck.

I did public forum debate for 4 years when I was in highschool (2 years ago). It has been some time since I have debated so my flowing abilities aren't as great as they used to be so please treat me as if I were a lay judge.

I am the dad of a third year debater. I do flow your arguments, but speak at a rate that I am able to understand - do not spread. Please be civil during your round; your speaker points will be heavily impacted if you talk over your opponents in crossfire. Do not use overly technical debate jargon or read arguments that I will not know how to evaluate (theory, K's, etc.). All of your evidence should accurately represent what you say it does.

Clean extensions and telling me how I should weigh the round will be the easiest way to win my ballot. I will vote on the narrative that is best-explained throughout the debate.

Quality over quantity is preferred when hearing arguments. Your interest in the debate, in terms of preparation and active listening, is important. Using your time wisely by making relevant comments supported with facts is crucial. Speaking more doesn’t equate to a better score, but rather, speaking clearly and using the time provided in the most efficient manner is key. To that end, a coherent summary is very helpful for me to organize and be reminded of your key points. Passionate and enthusiastic comments are engaging, but yelling is not. Be gracious to your opponents, this goes a long way.

TLDR: I like smart narrative tech debates. But you do you!

Hi! I'm Zara (she/her) and my email is zarachapple (at) gmail.com. I debated PF for Dalton (C)Y from 2017-2020, ran Beyond Resolved, coached for PFA, and now I study Public Policy and Sociology.

Don't be bigoted, don't be mean, respect pronouns + use content warnings. If I make this round/tournament safer or more accessible, please reach out, and I'll do what I can!

.·:*¨༺ ༻¨*:·.

Debate is a game and that game is Jenga. Collapse!

Procedure: Preflow, track your prep, and don't skip cross. I'll disclose decisions/speaks/comments as the tournament allows and give feedback, but don't post-round me.

Getting Good Speaks: Signpost everything, especially weighing/off case args. Implicate weighing/responses to your opponent's case. Crossfire shows how well you know your own arguments. I strongly prefer analytical responses that go after the structure of your opponent's arguments to prep-outs and card dumps.

Speed: Check with all teams/judges. My limit is ~220 WPM and I won't flow arguments I didn't hear.

Evidence: Your evidence probably isn't as good as you make it, but I won't evaluate issues with things I'm not asked to look for. Good analytics >>> unwarranted evidence. I'm chill with paraphrasing when it explains something more efficiently.

Theory: I am familiar with and will evaluate theory. I have high standards for reasonability, and argumentation still matters. Please don't make me intervene on vibes because your theory arguments aren't extended, warranted, and/or implicated. Theory isn't an RVI unless you make args otherwise.

Ks/Progressive Arguments: I really believe most policymaking approaches are problematic, so I welcome these arguments, and I'm familiar with most authors read in PF. That said, I have more experience judging LARP rounds, and I see their educational value too. PF's structure isn't conducive to Ks so I understand if you just explain the role of your argument, but I would encourage you to focus on strong links and alternatives.

Misc: I'm a Cancer Sun, Scorpio Moon, Pisces Rising. I judge nothing like Ben.

Good luck, and have fun!

I'd prefer a solid debate where content comes before style.

Please don't be too aggressive, we're here to have some debate!

I'm pretty chill so take it lax guys.

Hi everyone, I am a university debater who has 3 years of experience with Public Forum and am currently doing a business degree. In addition, I have 6 years of debate experience with debate formats such as CNDF, BP, WSDC and Asians and now I coach debate as well. PF jargon mostly is fine.

Content

Warranting/logic behind your evidence is very important. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you. I do expect a case that has more than just a list of cards so please make sure you have that.

Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, which means there should be more explanation. Any voters need to be extended through to Summary and Final Focus.

Weigh the round so I don’t have to. You don’t want to be in the position where I'm weighing arguments for you and putting the decision in my hands.

Cross-fire ends as soon as the timer goes off. You may finish your question but DO NOT go on for another minute. I do not flow cross-fires, if you want me to keep anything on my flow, you need to mention it in your next speech.

If you go over time, I will stop flowing, if you go over by 30 seconds, I will verbally cut you off and it will reflect on your speaks.

Style:

I don't prefer spreading especially online because of technology if you want to spread please send me a speech doc.

Please let me know when you are taking prep time so I can also keep track of time.

I am pretty nice in regards to speaks, usually, I don't give over 29 or below 27 but obviously, that depends on the round.

I love debate and am a debater myself, so please have fun. I'd love to give everyone feedback after the round, feel free to email me at emilyy.cyn@gmail.com. (please include me in your email chains)

Flay judge

pepperomint@gmail.com for email chain

• do not spread!
• weigh impacts

Hi! This is my first time judging and I don't have that much debate experience, so a slower pace of debate would be appreciated. Thank you and good luck!

I am a new parent judge.

Please speak clearly & not too quickly.

For public forum, please speak slowly and clearly. I prefer well-structured arguments with fewer sources of evidence as opposed to an overwhelming number of sources that are not clearly linked to your argument. As you present your case, define terms and abbreviations as if the audience has little to no background in this area. The final focus, closing argument, is important as I develop the Reason for my Decision.

· Focus on making a sound, well structured argument – 2 or 3 strong points will go much farther than 5 or 6 weaker arguments

· Avoid acronyms and jargon that are not widely known – if you must use them, clearly define them

· Do not speak over one another – respect your opponents time – this is particularly important during online tournaments

· Speak clearly and at a regular, speaking pace

As a parent judge I value crisp clear language. Especially in the beginning when presenting contentions, be succinct but speak slowly. This sets the foundation for the whole round so if I miss a few sentences or misunderstand, this will not work in your favor. No "spreading" please. I value logical reasoning, strong presentation, respect for the topic and each other.

For remote/online tournaments, it is helpful to state your name prior to beginning to speak on Contentions, Rebuttal, Summaries and Final Focus. This helps me flow the round and assess speaker points quickly upon completion. Thank you!

This is my first time as a debate judge, but as with most people, when judging a debate it is important to look at:

1) Level of details and quality of facts presented.

2) Quality of emphasis in the speech.

3) How convincing the argument was.

4) Whether the arguments provided can provide a logical conclusion to the cause.

5) Please do not paraphrase when you first introduce evidence, as our school institutionally believes it a terrible norm for PF debate

6) Very important: Treat your opponents with respect.

• Lay judge. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus. Quality over quantity and truth over tech are very important to make my decision. I also appreciate debaters that are able to present their cases not reading at them; a real presentation style with prompts if necessary.

Experienced judge; I have judged at both local and national tournaments.

Speed/Clarity

Please speak at a speed where I can understand what you are saying, so that I can evaluate you properly. Enunciate and speak with enough volume to be heard clearly.

Arguments

Make sure you address every issue raised by your opponent. Provide logical arguments with reliable evidence for your arguments. I am going to vote for good arguments. Be respectful when attacking your opponents’ position. Show the same courtesy you wish to receive.

Parent judge. First time judging. Speak clearly and slowly.

I like to see clear introductions, summaries and conclusions. Please show me that you understand the topic and then clearly develop your case and impact work. Link your arguments and be specific. Make sure your rebuttals do their job, but make sure your own case is developed as well as your criticism of your opponents. Solid research is usually necessary to win positions. Feel free to ask any questions before the round if there is anything you would like to know about. Good luck and have fun!

Hello!

The short version on how to win my ballot:

-Be clear. If you can't spread then please don't try.

-Warrant. Repeating author names does not make your argument more important in the round, warranting why it is more important/valid does.

-Weigh. Please. Just. Weigh.

If you have any questions, my email is freundmikas@gmail.com

How I evaluate rounds in more detail:

Constructive: I really do not care what you read. I am less familiar with progressive args and therefore less likely to vote for them. If you paraphrase, please do so with integrity. If I think a piece of evidence is power tagged or flat out misconstrued I will call for it. Send me a speech doc if you want before or after your speech.

Rebuttal: The second rebuttal has to respond to the first rebuttal. Please warrant your response, if you simply dump I will not grant you any contextualization you decide to suddenly add in second summary or final focus. Be strategic, frameworks and weighing overviews are usually a good idea especially in second rebuttal. No Offs in second rebuttal. Overall just be clear and strategic.

Summary: Defense is not sticky in first summary. Weighing should at the very least be present here to be an active part of my decision, however, it really should be briefly mentioned in rebuttal. Please collapse, it will make the round cleaner and more interesting for everyone involved. No new arguments in second summary unless you are FL something new from first summary.

Final focus: Anything that was not in the summary should not be in the FF. This is the time to really emphasize your weighing and win my ballot based on that. Extending a ton of responses and going for coverage while sacrificing contextualization will be a mistake.

Cross: I don't care what you do. However, please don't take advantage of the situation if your opponent clearly has very little experience or is a novice. We should encourage younger debaters to stay in the activity! Either way cross won't affect my decision.

*Obviously I will not tolerate any arguments or comments that are condescending, hurtful or straight-up racist/sexist/discriminatory in any way. Comments as such will award you with the lowest speaks I can give as a judge.*

Also, please don't postround me. As a debater myself I know the frustration that comes with disagreeing with the judge's decision. However, I am doing my best to make the "right" decision and hope that you can accept it, even if not wholeheartedly. Overall if you have a question that will help you learn from the round don't hesitate to email me I will be happy to help!

Use your Strike Fu wisely!

+ Test your tech

+ Be prepared, ready, and relax by just being yourself

+ Give respect to each-other by not talking when it's not your turn

+ Have fun and be humble

What I will be doing during the rounds:

+ Manage the flow by keeping time (best that I can)

+ I will be taking notes

+ Might enter comments on tabroom between speeches or during prep time

+ That’s it. I will not ask questions, answer questions, comment on arguments, or get involved in the debate in any way

This is my first year as a parent judge. I value concise presentation, persuasive arguments and logical thought in debate. I am a fan of the Plain English Campaign, which promotes crystal clear communications in business and academia, without jargon.

I am a parent judge who has been trained. Please don't speak too quickly and please listen to your opponents and respond thoughtfully.

I am a parent judge. I have been judging PF for the past 3 years. I debated LD in high school many years ago. I prefer students to speak at a reasonable pace and not race through their individual speeches. I expect all students to respect their opponents and not make derisive remarks about arguments. When you ask a question allow your opponent to respond. Obviously, I prefer when arguments are addressed at least at some level rather than just ignored. I am often more persuaded by the logic of an argument rather than just counting pieces of evidence.

Hello! I'm Zakiya and welcome to my paradigm.

About Me:

Competed in PF for 2 years during high school.

Currently debating parli as a sophomore at Princeton University.

General Expectations:

Please do not spread. Please signpost.

Please keep track of your time while speaking and during prep time. I will stop flowing if you go over time, although "over time" does have a few seconds of leeway.

I am fine with most arguments, as long as they are well warranted. Please avoid tricks.

Passion about your arguments is always welcome, but unnecessary aggression is not. Please do not make xenophobic or bigoted arguments. Please be respectful of people's pronouns.

If you have any questions for me post-round, you can reach me at zhelm@princeton.edu

Have fun and happy debating!

I'm a Varsity Debater from Miami, Fl.

- I Will not flow/factor in cross into my decision (If something important is said it must be brought up in speeches)

- You can call cards but do not call for every single card

- try to avoid "my card vs their card debate" (I will look at cards if it is that important)

- Weighing is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT + weigh against their case

- Humor is welcome because we all need it right now. (DO NOT TAKE IT TOO FAR)

- Need to extend even if the other team concedes

- Signposting is helpful if you want to ensure that i'm following your speech

- Collapse... I promise you will not win everything.

- BE RESPECTFUL

Speed: I debated all throughout high school so I am fine with speed within reason (i.e. don’t spread)

Cross: Let your opponent answer the question. There is a difference between being aggressive and being rude. I'll take off speaks if I think you've crossed a line.

Rebuttal: If you’re speaking second you don’t have to frontline in rebuttal. You can, but don’t sacrifice making responses to the opponent’s case just to do it. Also, card dumps are less effective than giving a few very logical responses so I would prefer for you to stay away from them if possible.

Summary: I was a first speaker so I think summary is the most important speech in the round. I would strongly prefer that terminal defense is in both summaries, but if it isn’t in the first I will live. Frontlining, however, is not a preference. If you don’t frontline I will flow their responses through and probably drop the argument. This is especially important for turns - if a turn is unresponded to it is offense for the other team and a reason to vote for them. Lastly, you must weigh in summary.

Final Focus: If it isn’t in summary it should not be in final focus. Also, weigh.

Other: I don't flow cross, so if something important happens in cross please bring it up in another speech.

PF PARADIGM:

I am one of the Assistant Speech & Debate Coaches at Montville Township High School. This is my fourth year judging. I have judged all aspects of speech and debate.

Please provide me with a clear case of why your side is the winning/more powerful side based on the resolution. I am looking for clear explanations. Context is key here. I vote off the flow. It needs to be in a speech format for me to flow it. Crossfire will not be used/counted for flow.

Please speak clearly and at a normal pace. The faster, more aggressively you speak, the less I will be able to follow, retain, and flow. Be aware of the speed you are speaking at.

Signposts are super helpful especially if you tell me where to flow.

I'm not the biggest fan of tech, although I will take it into account if used.

Speaks:

You will be deducted points in speaks if you are rude to your opponent. Please be respectful of each other. No need to be mean!

Cards:

I usually will not pull cards unless they are mentioned numerous times and/or challenged.

Greetings!

I am a parent judge and new to Public Forum Debate. I am a former trial lawyer. I am looking forward to judging and will be looking for certain things as the rounds progress.

Most important to me will be a respectful and courteous exchange of arguments and ideas. Convincing arguments are much more persuasive when expressed with confidence and strength versus negativity and condescension.

Please speak clearly and slowly. It is more important to me that you express your position in a concise and measured manner versus speaking extremely fast and trying to pack in multiple arguments. There is more strength in less arguments expressed clearly and convincingly rather than more arguments delivered in rapid fire.

Time management is a critical skill. To that end, please keep time for yourselves. I will be keeping time, but your ability to keep within the time constraints of the competition is relevant.

It is incredibly important to me that you enjoy the process of interactive exchange of ideas. This is a life skill that will serve you all well in life, whatever path you choose to pursue.

Parent judge.

Hi I'm Bofan Ji, a current Princeton student and a member of the Princeton Debate Panel.

Prefer debaters who speak slower and clearer

Prefer logic to evidence

Pay extra attention to rebuttals, specifically whether you can engage with the other side's arguments

Always tell me why you win at the end and remember to weigh impact of your and your opponents' contentions

Good luck!

I was trained in LD debate when in high school, so I am experienced with the finer points of debate (i.e. I'm not a parent judge don't worry, I won 2nd at the Princeton Nats for LD).

Run whatever you want (methods debate, performances, theory, it doesn't matter); I'll flow it and pick the team that I find most cogent. Nothing else really to say just be entertaining.

Note: I will give you the lowest possible speaks if you bully during cross fire. Be firm, be sassy even, but be respectful.

I like it when debaters provide logical reasons for why their assertions are true.

Do not just rely on cards please.

If you have a critical piece of information that you need me to hear, make sure to speak more slowly during that portion of your speech so that I actually pick it up.

I prefer argument that have concrete impacts and do not rely on speculations and hypotheticals.

Make sure to be comparative.

I have 6+ years experience between debating, judging, and coaching debate. Started out with WSDC, various Australasian formats, and BP, but have picked up policy along the way. This means I understand all the technical debate lingo, but overuse annoys me. Being able to explain yourself clearly shows greater mastery of the material than spouting jargon. Numbers help quantify impacts only insofar as the numbers and link work are clear.

Re. online debate: I cannot score you fairly if I cannot understand you.

Tech issues are completely normal and we all experience lag from time to time. Enunciate when presenting evidence, emphasize critical links, and take a breath where required - especially during cross. If you have a critical piece of information that you need me to hear, make sure to speak more slowly during that portion of your speech so that I actually pick it up.

PF/Policy:

Off-time roadmaps are cool. Honestly anything goes as long as your speech has some sort of structure. Logic is the easiest way to win me over, as long as it's paired with evidence. I generally don't love theory arguments, but if you run them, make sure to link them clearly to the motion. I would prefer you provide logical/structural reasons for why your arguments are superior instead of simply making assertions.

Open to take questions and give feedback if there's time. Just ask!

Debate, at its core, is the ultimate challenge in resource management. You spawn on a tiny island in an empty universe. All you have is a case, some supplies, and some evidence to stand on. You have to treasure every card, because if one falls into the void, there is no way to replace it. At the same time, the island is shrinking and you're forced to keep your most important supplies, but if you try to keep all of them, you risk losing all of them. With nothing but some cards and bootleg briefs, you slowly transform this empty expanse into a world of your very own.

At the end of the round, as a judge, I'm forced to pick which island has the most resources to survive. Don't forget, an empty box takes up space but doesn't help you.1

I'll evaluate the round using the Rhetorical Judging Paradigm - Corbit '17 2: https://ir.ua.edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/3535/file_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

I'm a pretty straightforward judge, nothing weird. Ask me in round if you have any specific questions.

/

Facial Expression Dictionary: 3

Scrunched eyebrows: I don't know if what you just said makes sense

Nodding: That makes sense

Eyes in the bottom left or right corner: I'm thinking about the claim

Eyes in the upper left or right corner: I'm thinking about the warrant

Laughing: That was probably funny

/

Pre/During/Post Covid-19: Please don't shake my hand

Works Cited

1. Andre Kwok, Tabroom (Paradigms, 2020).

2. Kenneth W. Corbit Sr. "A Theory-Centered Model of Debate Assessment: The Rhetorical Judging Paradigm" (PhD diss., University of Alabama, 2017) 88-91.

3. Some random post on Reddit

This is my first time judging, I judge for the Quarry Lane School. Please be respectful to your opponents during crossfire and please talk clearly and not too fast. I might take light notes but if anything is crucial please emphasize during speeches. Most importantly, have fun!

This is my third year as a parent judge for Public Forum.

A few tips:

1. Enjoy the experience and have fun.

2. Deep breaths are helpful.

3. Stay hydrated--it helps your voice and your brain.

4. Please don't be afraid to ask questions--I'm always happy to answer them.

5. Be respectful towards one another--you've all worked hard to get here.

6. I'm excited for you--best of luck!

When engaging in the round, make sure that you are impacting your arguments. Your impacts should be emphasized (ensure they are clearly delineated by numbers if you can) and tell me the scope if you can. Slow down if it’s a particularly critical section of your argument so I definitely hear it. Content over style!

Explain the necessary links of how you get from point A to point B as clearly as you can and as time permits. Don’t make any jumps that you can’t back up with evidence or logic. Theory arguments need to be grounded with the topic (tell me why it’s important).

No spreading for the sake of it, although you may speak relatively fast, as long as your speech has structure and can be followed.

If you mention a mechanism, give me at least a little detail on it.

I look for how well you are able to defend your arguments during clashes and refutation.

Weigh your arguments. Your final focus should not just be rebuttal, but a summary of the round. Tell me the important impacts/ weight your arguments, and why your comparative is better. Do not introduce new arguments (although you are allowed to refute).

You can call me Judge or Josie. pronouns: she/her/hers

I'm a first year college student, but I went to Half Hollow Hills East for high school.

I will be flowing, however, I am probably closer to lay than tech.

I debated both LD and PF in high school.

with that being said, I have NEVER debated progressive before. I would strongly recommend not running it on me.

things I prefer:

-signposting

-traditional debate

Things I don't prefer:

-excessive card calling (do it if you feel like it's necessary)

-spreading

I do NOT tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or ableism (you will automatically lose for this)

PLEASE HAVE FUN

Hello,

My name is Bharat Krishnan and I'm a student at Duke University. I have been a national circuit PF competitor for 4 years and I qualified for the Tournament of Champions in both my junior and senior year. Having competed in the past, I know how nerve-racking and anxious tournaments can be, so I encourage all of you guys to relax and not to stress at least during the rounds that I am judging you. I am very familiar with PF technicals and I flow rounds, but this does not mean to entirely rely on high tech strategies that are overloaded with PF jargon and it definitely does not mean spread. Coming from a school with a small debate program, I don’t enjoy when teams use their advanced knowledge of PF to gatekeep the activity from others since Public Forum was literally a format created to be open to the wider public. Likewise, while I will be able to keep up with you if you choose to use tech, I would very much prefer it if you kept your debate jargon to a minimum and to speak at a reasonable pace. At the end of the day, PF is about arguments, research, and logic and it should not be about how much you know about the PF format. I also expect everyone to be respectful to each other, but a little bit of aggression in crossfire is expected.

Content Preferences

• Please re-warrant your contentions in summary and final focus because if you simply tell me to extend some random card name (author, year) without explaining what that card is, I won’t have any reason to do so.

• I don’t usually flow crossfire so please bring up any points that happened in crossfire in a main speech for me to count it as an argument

• Please extend defense in summary definitely and if you can final focus as well.

• Please weigh. This should seem obvious but it’s incredibly easy to forget in round.

• Collapsing in Summary or Final Focus is great since it's easier for me to vote for you off one fleshed-out argument than two half-baked ones.

• I don’t usually call for cards so if a card is contested, please just recommend that I look it after round in one of your speeches.

Logistical Preferences

• While I will be keeping time, I prefer if it competitors could manage their own time and to stop speaking when their time is up so I don’t have to interrupt speeches

• You do not have to ask if I am ready before a speech, just assume I am

• I give high speaker scores so unless you say something openly racist, sexist, or unnecessarily offensive, you should be good.

• I pretty much always disclose so please just wait a few minutes after round for me to make a decision

Overall, just have fun and relax. Don’t take rounds super seriously and just try your best. Good luck guys!

meow

Debated 4 years on local NJ circuit + National circuit (2014-2018)

Judging Ohio Local Circuit + National Circuit (2019-2024)

1. If you use prep time, clarify how much you've used so that we are all on the same page and can hold one another accountable.
2. Grace periods of up to 10 seconds. If you abuse it more than that, I will not listen beyond that.
3. First summary is not expected to extend defense, but terminal defensive responses SHOULD be brought up.
4. Second summary should extend defense and likely discuss important responses from First Rebuttal
5. I do not flow crossfires. It is your responsibility to reference crossfire if you think an important concession or argument was made.
6. If it takes you longer than 3 minutes to pull up evidence, you can dip into your prep time to continue looking or drop the evidence
7. Speed doesn't matter to me. If you are not understandable, I will yell "CLEAR" once so that you know I cannot follow along, but will not do so again afterward.
8. No new arguments in final focus please. It's abusive and I will not evaluate it!
9. Whatever you discuss in final focus HAS TO be in your summary, or that is an extension through ink!
10. Any questions - let me know!

tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.

--

Below is my detailed paradigm:

• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.

• I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.

• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.

• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison. Tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. The clearer, the better and the more likely I am to vote for you.

• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments. I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision should I evaluate them.

• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument. You must have an alternate case if they aren't. I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space.

Im chill, off time road maps, and things of that sort are chill, take it laxxxxxxxxxx, flow judge btw, unless its before 10 am,

Don't need content warnings btw.

ik everyone says this but be polite. my email is lisunnie03@gmail.com

VDA/Semiahmoo 21 & Durham Law School 24

[she/her] i am in first year law school at Durham University in the UK who did PF for 3-4 years (2018ish-2021), I have also done Worlds Schools, British Parliamentary and various types of Canadian debate so I’m a flow judge. Extremely technical terminology might confuse me but normal stuff works fine. I did a bit of online debate so I'm fairly familiar with how it works.

TLDR :

- be nice ( not necessarily passive but polite, don’t be an bad person)

- no misogyny, racism,homophobia, xenophobia or I will automatically give your team the loss and tank your speaks

- try with people’s pronouns, refer to them as “1st neg speaker” instead of she/he or her/him

- if your opponent drops an arg, tell me

- WEIGH IMPACTS!!! the less i really need to use my brain the better

- i might call for cards after round

- I’ll disclose if tournament allows

- i’m good with speed but be clear

- i am very unfamiliar with K and theory so you will probably lose me. pls don’t run that :)

- if u just read a bunch of cards without analysis, i will be sad

- “extend” this arg does not mean you’re actually extending it.

- humour is cool but like not rude

-i love voters in final focus but no one ik does them so if u do i’ll like u

Long version

• like i already said, being nice is so crucial. while i completely understand that debate is a fairly aggressive activity, you can be technically aggressive while still being a good person. Attacking the argument until it’s in shreds is lovely, attacking the opponent in any way is unacceptable. Any form of misogyny, racism, homophobia, xenophobia is unacceptable. I understand that pronouns do take a bit of getting used to so try to address your opponents by speaker positions rather than by your perceived opinion of their gender

• even though i flow, the round is messy, the more clear you are with what your opponent has done wrong while meta debating, the better. If you opponent drops an arg, pls tell me. Doing this makes my life easier, if you make my life easier, i will like you more, hence, better speaks. HOWEVER, i still flow so don’t just say they drop something when they literally did not.

• Beyond mechanization of your arguments, impacts really do matter. I know it’s oversaid but i really care about impacts. If your argument is flawless and not refuted but has no impacts, I will not weigh it. I will only weigh argument that have impacts. With that being said, you need to weigh your impacts to the impacts of your opponents. Just saying “they kill 100 people but we kill 10” is not sufficient. Do you outweigh on scope? severity?

• In summary and FF, if you say “weigh our impacts against theirs, we outweigh” i will genuinely be very very sad. Even though I flow and I am a debater, i don’t have magic memory, remind me what your impact that you are weighing against theirs is. Talk about the consequences, I generally prefer arguments with concrete impacts that are measurable HOWEVER, I understand some things just aren’t measurable and if you argument of impact has that, I won’t hold it against you. If your consequences if “happiness”, i understand you can’t exactly measure that. But try to have quantifiable impacts especially if your oppponent does so I can actually make a comparative.

• I WILL WEIGH ON A UTILITARIAN BASIS UNLESS I’M TOLD TO DO OTHERWISE (most benefit to most amt of people). If you tell me to weigh on a different basis, tell me why. Why should i prioritize that over this.

• if your card seems way way way too good to be true, I will probably call for it. If I am just curious about a card, I will probably call for it.

• IF YOU MISCONSTRUE EVIDENCE, OR LIE, OR SEVERELY CHANGE THE MEANING, I WILL TANK YOUR SPEAKS SO LOW. pls have some integrity. If you literally fake a card or something, at that point, just use it as analysis. If you feel the need to lie about cards, this is not the debate format for you. Look to worlds or parliamentary styles that don’t require you to do research.

• i will disclose if i’m allowed to, i don’t see a purpose in y’all guessing for the rest of the tournament. UNLESS i genuinely need a long time to stare at my flow but i’ll disclose if i can

• speed is cool but please remember wifi does die, microphones are not clear sometimes. so keep that in mind, speak a little slower than you would in person. However, as long as your microphone and my wifi are good, i don’t see a problem with speed. Additionally, please remember that online debate means that there is lag and often audio gets wacky. If you are literally going to SPREAD, send me a copy of your case.

• if you run theory or a K, I’m very very sorry but it’s unlikely you will get my vote. I am very unfamiliar with them and will get very confused. Use it in other rounds, in this round, please don’t. I understand that PF has been changing but I graduate this year so I don’t realllly need to keep up. I also just don’t think they are useful or fair since the majority of teams who run Ks or theories come from large schools with so many resources and I don’t see it benefiting the format overall. Any debate can be equally interesting or productive without them. If you really need to use them, re-evaluate how you approach motions.

• Cards are easy to find (sorta) anyone can basically compile 4 minutes of cards, therefore, please explain them. I like analysis! Reading 1000000 cards will not get you the win unless your cards either have explanations in them, or you explain them

• please try your best. that’s the most important thing. Even if you hit a team who you think is unbeatable, try to beat them. Try to learn. Going to tournaments is often most helpful to actually learn. Even if you don’t win, learning from the loss is so important.

• i don’t flow cross so pls bring up concessions and such things

• i like humour. with that being send, jokes at the expense of anyone is not cool. if you reference bojack horseman or grey’s anatomy or taylor swift i will be happy :)

• good luck if you have any question feel free to ask :)

I am a parent judge, speak slowly and clearly and explain all your arguments efficiently. Avoid using debate jargon.

Parent judge; informed about the debate world and how it works.

Speed/Clarity

Please speak at a speed where I can understand what you are saying so that I can evaluate you properly. Enunciate and speak with enough volume to be heard clearly.

Arguments

Make sure you address every issue raised by your opponent. Provide logical arguments with reliable evidence for your arguments. I am going to vote for good arguments. Be respectful when attacking your opponents’ position. Show the same courtesy you wish to receive.

I will not flow arguments that are not extended. I will work hard to be unbiased. Most importantly, have fun!

Hello! I am Esme. I debated PF for Durham for 4 years and I’m attending McGill. I use she/her pronouns. really dislike blippy arguments, but I guess I'll evaluate them, I'll just give them a LOT less weight. no warrant = VERY LOW CHANCE OF ME VOTING OFF IT. like near 0.

Ask me questions before round, I don't mind (I know sometimes there's not enough time to read paradigms). Also, please let me know (send me an email/ tell me in round) how I can accommodate this round to make you the most comfortable!

Also please include both members of a partnership. Talking about "carries" and excluding someone who has taken their time to put work into and be somewhere sucks a lot and often hits people already left out of debate the hardest. In round and out, make sure you're acknowledging and supporting work put in from everyone and reaching out to everyone as well. <3

Also don't call speeches "bad" ex: "their summary was really bad" just point out the flaws in it. ex: "they don't extend a warrant/ they never weigh..." etcetcetc

Sexism/ racism/ homophobia/ harassment/ etc. isn't cool. I will drop you and you will get low speaks.

Specifically for the debate, though, here are my preferences:

1. WARRANT AND IMPLICATE ARGUMENTS - by this I mean go one step further to explain your arguments -- tell me why A leads to B and B leads to C and WHY IT MATTERS. IF AN ARG HAS NO WARRANT, I PROBABLY WILL NOT VOTE OFF IT Don't just say "Medicare for All equals less money for pharma companies", explain why (and why it matters) : warranting ex - "under Medicare for All, the government negotiates down the prices of drugs with pharma companies, cutting into their profits". Implication might be - "pharma has less cash for R&D". It doesn't even have to be wordy lol just tell me why your arg is happening and why it matters. I also love warranting for uniqueness in case (People seem to forget to do this often). Essentially, the more you can give me earlier in the round, the stronger your arg will be.

2. WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS - even if you're losing 2/3 of your arguments, if your 1/3 is more important than theirs', the round is not lost! Tell me why I ought to care about that 1/3 and why it's more important than anything else. I will evaluate what you tell me, so if you tell me poverty is more important than climate change and give me sound reasons why and it doesn't go touched/ responded to with warrants, then I will buy it no matter my personal beliefs. You don't want to take a chance and let me do the weighing for you. You have control over where I vote, you just have to do the work and tell me why. On the other side, even if you're winning your arguments, WEIGH! You can tell me that your argument is more probable or has more warranting or has a larger impact, etc. just do the work.

Also, don't just say "we outweigh on magnitude" go further -- explain how, and (preferably) tell me why it matters

Also metaweigh pleaseeeee (if they're talking about their argument being more probable and you're talking about yours being having a larger magnitude tell me why magnitude matters more than probability!!). I LOVE good metaweighing, it makes me so so happy. I also love pre-emptive metaweighing, so tbh as soon as you introduce weighing, ideally I'd love for it to be metaweighed. (i reward hella for it - check the speaks stuff at the end)

If you haven't ever heard about weighing, I will teach you before round, just ask me please. I'd much rather take 5-10 mins to explain it and have a good round than dive into a messy round with no weighing

3. SIGNPOST

i'm happy as long as you let me know when you're moving on to different parts of the arg. ex: "on their link" suffices for signposting.

4. CALLING FOR CARDS AND EVIDENCE ETHICS - Call for cards if something feels sketchy if u want, I don't care how many you call for, it's your prep time. If you find something, point it out in the next speech. I'll call for contested evidence later on if it's relevant, but feel free to remind me. If you don't call for something sketchy, then that's on you (oof), I'll have to consider it even if I don't want to. Sometimes I'll call for a card after the round just because I'm curious, but that shouldn't factor into my decision and usually I only call for ev that's disputed.

As for evidence ethics, I'm totally fine with paraphrasing, but if you powertag or misconstrue evidence, I'm going to be really upset and you will know in your speaks. As a debater, I took evi ethics really seriously. Ev exists for anything, you just have to find it. Also indicts don't mean game over, they're like any other arg, respond, weigh, etc.

5. COLLAPSE - This is SO underrated. You start with 2x 4 minute speeches of args on the topic, then get 4 more minutes. The round can't contain all these args in a 2 minute final focus. I don't want it to. I don't want it to in summary, and often even in second rebuttal! I want you to collapse! Pick strategic arguments and (frontline any offense on them first obviously/ weigh against) but drop the ones that aren't as strategic. Just do the weighing and don't forget/ abandon an arg you drop.

Ultimately, you get control over the ballot, I want to do the least amount of intervention possible as your judge so it is on you to make this a clean round!:)

6. EXTEND - uh this should maybe be obvious but here are my thoughts on this. Obv you can drop case, but if you do make sure you weigh against / frontline offense they put on it and have some sorta independent offense/ default neg/aff strat

IF YOU EXTEND YOU NEED THESE PARTS OF THE ARG FOR IT TO BE A FULL EXTENSION - UNIQUENESS/ LINK/ INTERNAL LINK(S)/ IMPACT (TERMINALISED) if parts of your arg are missing, I will be MUCH less likely to vote on it. If both teams don't have parts of their args, then,,, uh,,,, i'll be uncomfy and stress out about my decision lots and probably look for the path of least resistance. Please don't put me in that situation

You DON'T NEED TO EXTEND CARD NAMES, I'm fine with analysis as long as all the parts of the arg are there. Of course, you're welcome to extend cards, but I find it takes a lot longer and doesn't add much unless you're doing specific evidence weighing. Also, please weigh your extensions! Including turns, like why does your link overpower theirs?

ON PROGRESSIVE ARGS

I believe that prog args are a way to change the debate space and make it a better place for us. This means a) I'm really uncomfortable voting off "friv theory", especially run on opponents who don't know how to handle it, so if it feels like your theory is an EZ path to the ballot to trip up an opponent, I'll usually try not to evaluate it as much as other arguments. basically, the more friv the theory is, the more u need to make sure ur opponents are ok with it. i know that sounds super objective, i'm sorry, but rounds where high level varsity teams who have the privilege of going to camp and resources run theory on teams who don't have those resources are unfair and make me uncomfortable. BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID - b) if there's something that makes the space unsafe/ a violation of something u think is important and you explain that in your theory, progressive args are fine with me. I never ran Ks/ theory as a debater, but I get how they work and can evaluate them, just explain them well ofc. if you're unsure if the thing u wanna read theory on is friv or not, feel free to ask me, i really dont mind.

i dont like tricks much

I'll evaluate RVIs if you want to read them, but u have to warrant why im evaluating them ofc. I'll eval competing interps and responses to "must have competing interps". I'll eval paraphrase theory LMAO but I don't like it! I disagree!!! Paraphrasing good. Anyway.

Other notes

I think every debater should watch this video.

If you're reading an argument about a sensitive topic, please read a content warning. Personally, I'd prefer if these were done anonymously thru a google form or another anon method so you don't have to put the burden on your opponents to ~expose~ themselves if that makes sense.

Put me on the email chain please! You don't have to shake my hand. Please preflow before the round. You can flip without me. Pls give me an offtime roadmap if you can!! won't penalise u if u don't tho! Wear what ur comfortable in.

I presume neg, I guess, but if default neg is part of your strat, prolly include a line of warranting cuz i will be uncomfy otherwise

Analysis> ev if there's an unresolved clash.

Defense isn't sticky, but I give some leniency to first summary speakers, cuz obviously it's impossible to have perfect coverage otherwise.

Second rebuttal should frontline offense, and I'd PREFER it if it frontlined defense, but like,, it's up to u. The later things come, the less weight I give them.

I am tech > truth but obv no one is tabula rasa. I'll vote off what's on the flow like nuke war or LONG link chains if you win them. I wanna evaluate what you give me with as little intervention as possible, so I'll try and stay out of how I feel about it lol unless it's really problematic. idk what then.

I'm okkkkkkk with second rebuttal offensive overviews but i don't love them and if you wanna call it abusive, I'll evaluate that too. Although, ngl I'd like it if you actually respond to it as well. Grouping responses is excellent. I'll give you some leniency, sure cuz time skew.

I hateeee blippy and unwarranted responses. Like, yeah, I'll flow and eval them, but I will give them a LOT less weight. You can go fast I'm down and cool with that, that doesn't mean you get to leave out parts of an arg though:( that makes me v sad. Don't go fast without explaining/ implicating pls.

calling me "judge" is annoying

Please send me a speech doc @ esmeslongley@gmail.com if you want to spread. I can handle most pf-speed ok, but I might miss something. If I miss something, I'll probably just ask you to clarify when you're done speaking or ask for a doc, but that's not an invite for you to go really fast and hope that I'll do the clarifying.

I won't time you, but I'll stop flowing after a bit if your opponents hold up their timer and it's obvious you're over time. Don't abuse it.

Pls don't postround me, but please do ask me questions if you have any!!

Fun stuff

I will give extra speaks (+.2 each) if you

- call turns "no you"s (+.1 per signposted "no you")

- Make me laugh (especially with puns, especially spontaneous ones)

- Reference Beyond Resolved

- Auto 30 if you make a Minecraft arg. Like not an analogy, a full blown Minecraft-based argument.

- auto 29.7 if u metaweigh decently with warrants and i'll boost it if ur phenomenal

- +.4 If you tell me your Subway Surfer's high score and it's higher than mine

- Reference Nick Miller from New Girl/ any1 from BBC's Merlin/ kate bush (I LOVE HERRRR)

- If our star signs are compatible - just tell me urs before round and i'll KNOW.

- Auto 30 if you rhyme your entire case

- Auto-boost to a 29.5 + if you Rhyme 25 seconds or so of your speech?

Don't worry, though. I'm pretty easy on speaks and usually give around a 28+. I'm personally not the prettiest speaker, so I totally get it and that shouldn't be a point of stress. More importantly, people get marginalised by the speaks system in ableist/ xenophobic / etc. ways.

I will take off speaks (-.1) for

- Unnecessary obnoxiousness (basically, if you're very mean. Joking around is totally fine lol)

- If our star signs are incompatible

- If your Subway Surfers score is lower than mine, I'll take off .1 points and I will automatically lose all respect for you.

I love debate this makes me happy. Have fun. Ask me if you have questions before or after the round!!

I’m a new judge. Moderate speed, clear evidence, and logic arguments help support the position. Please track your own time. Have fun!

I'm a first year student at Princeton who did a bit of Public Forum debate in high school.

General preferences:

-Anything you want me to consider from CX should be mentioned in a speech

-All offense in FF should be in summary

-Please don't run theory

-Please do weigh!!!

This is my fourth year as a parent judge. I value clear and convincing arguments, both in the context of debate and my day job as a professor. I want debaters to interact respectfully, and I appreciate it when you don't talk too fast.

Hey everyone! I'm a current VPF debater and senior at Hunter College High School in New York City and have been debating for three years.

I am tech > truth, but don't make factually incorrect claims. I will vote entirely off of the flow, so be sure to be extremely clear with signposting and weighing; it is your responsibility to tell me what the most important points in the round are and how they compare.

Extend your offense (warrants, evidence, impacts) through summary and final focus. I will not be flowing cross, so if you make important points, bring them up in your speeches or they won't count.

I do not tolerate any heckling, disrespect, sexism, racism, etc. and will give you low speaks and drop you if you make such comments. Additionally, I discourage spreading; debate requires speaking quickly to a degree, but going too fast only hurts your case. Have fun!

I am a former competitor in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas. I competed in the NSDA from 2004 to 2007, and in the NFA from 2007 to 2011. At one point, I thought this background made me a seasoned judge. After a decade of relative inactivity, I'd consider myself more of a trained lay judge, able to keep track of the logic of a flow, to deliver a clear ballot (whether or not you agree), but not necessarily able to keep up to date with the current expectations, trends, and speed of contemporary debate.

As much as possible, I like when competitors help make my ballot clear; they ought to emphasize the key issues in the debate - tell me my paradigm and what issues should be most important to me. In a qualified debate round, both teams or debaters are able to articulate the clear distinction in their positions (a la "the ballot comes down to whether X or Y is true"). Lack of clarity often opens the door to intervention, which I try to avoid but tend to believe is unavoidable to some extent. We can at least mitigate the risk of intervention by keeping clear and pre-emptively declaring our biases.

In the absence of a clear focus on paradigm, I default to a policymaker perspective. I want to emphasize for competitors however that I am willing to abandon the policymaker framework at the drop of a hat, and that this is merely a default that I choose when I have to fill out a ballot and have been given no other tools in the round.

As far as evidence is concerned, I endeavor not to ask for evidence at the end of the round, and put the onus on competitors to highlight and crystallize concerns about their competitors' evidence where possible. I am certain that there are marginal cases for which I might be inclined to ask a question after the round, but I believe it is a judge's responsibility to keep this to a minimum.

I award speaker points as an incentive to competitors to model the behaviors we expect from this activity: clear, precise, insightful debating which is nevertheless respectful to the competitors.

Lately, I've had to reflect on the cases where bias may be a valuable means to protecting the activity; I'm far from perfect in my ability to create an anti-racist, anti-sexist, equitable format, but I am persuaded by the contemporary argument that judges should not hide behind a faux-neutrality which at times creates structural biases against marginalized competitors (or even simply competitors working to advocate on the behalf of marginalized people). As such, I don't want to give weight to arguments made from racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic/transphobic perspectives. As a former debater, I'm aware that this still leaves many questions open - what counts as those things and what doesn't? Alas, I can't say I know exactly where the line is, but I'm content to intervene at the point that the arguments are clearly based in such biases - and am open to a meta-debate about the above for those who wish to leave the tabula rasa paradigm behind and engage in a substantive and at-times difficult argument about them. I wish I could make this paradigm clearer, but I'm afraid this is the best I can offer in the blurb that I'm able to write. Suffice to say, I take accusations of exclusionary tactics seriously and think that those sorts of accusations exist outside the scope of the tabula rasa paradigm - make those accusations ready to invite intervention and accept that reading, because those sorts of things are not a game to me.

Please try to keep this round cordial. I like evidence, but it is far more important that you explain your links. A fully logical case with a few pieces of good evidence is super convincing to me. Please remember to give an overview of what's important and unclear in summary; make sure to emphasize impacts with some warranting in FF. Also, try to have fun!

I am a parent judge who has been judging since the 2020-2021 academic year. I do not like speed in debate - if you speak too quickly I will not be able to follow your contentions. Please speak clearly and be clear about where you are on the flow. I do not like off-topic debate. Please debate the topic at hand. Also, I do not like theory arguments - please debate the topic at hand.

*Most of this was written like 2-3 years ago.* 03/04/2022

I debated for 4 years in pf for Sequoyah High School. Now I debate in IPDA at Mississippi State University.

I’m very technical when it comes to judging rounds and I really could care less about speaking ability given that’s what speaker points are for. If you can effectively get an argument off then I will 100% get it on the flow.

As much as I enjoy it, I don’t flow cross and unless you bring it up in another speech I will not extend or flow arguments.

I can handle speed just make it to where I and your opponents can understand.

I will accept new arguments up to 1st summary as you might need to respond to 2nd rebuttal but if you give a new argument in 2nd summary I will not flow it. However, I think defense is sticky.

What I expect in a round. Constructive: In case I really don’t want anything specific but a pet peeve of mine is to give a CBA as the FW (I won’t dock speaks or vote because of it but I just don’t like it as it’s already implied in the round). I really like a well-labeled case with obvious subpoints.

Rebuttal: For your own good make sure you respond to every single argument because If the other team extends that argument that’s unresponded to I will most likely vote off of that as that’s the easiest way to decide the ballot.

Summary: I believe summary is the most important speech in the round. This is where you collapse on the arguments that you think are the strongest and show me why you win the round. If you do not extend your argument in summary I will not weigh it in round. Don’t bother bringing that argument up in FF at that point as I will just not weigh it.

Final focus: All I really want in this speech is just effectively extend everything said in summary with a lot more weighing. I like weighing words. If you don’t bring up something said in summary I won’t evaluate it

Ethics

As the judge, I really don't want to see you guys fighting during cross. If it gets really dirty ill probably dock speaks a little so keep it civil.

If you have an argument that is a lie (whether intentional or not) and I know about it while the other team doesn't bring it up, I will point it out at the end of the round and not weigh it.

—————————————————————————

I want you to tell me why you won this round so weigh a lot.

I like line-by-line

Make me laugh and ill add speaks

If you have any questions feel free to find me and ask or just talk to me in round. Email: patrickmckenzie13@gmail.com

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

I like the topic pro/con laid out for me in simple, easy-to-follow terms, minus the debate-format-specific jargon as much as possible. Then I like the sides' outline of their cases and their attendant arguments concise and easy-to-follow. I do not like overly combative teams who interrupt and needlessly complicate proceedings. I frown on obscure or irrelevant evidence that gums up the flow of the round by creating controversy. I like crossfire rebuttals and final summaries to be on-point and delivered with a minimum of hyperbole. I do not give style points unless a speaker's style makes it easy for me to follow the reasoning. The final speakers for both sides should argue why their team won the round.

Hi there! This is my fourth year debating in Public Forum; I also have minor experiences with CNDF, BP, etc.

For email chains, please remember to include me at b.moon@columbia.edu!

Preferences:

Content comes before style for me; I want to see a solid debate with credible cards to back up your claim. With that being said, I would also like you to cut your cards at your pace, or else I'll be cutting them for you at my own discretion.

I hate debaters that spread, so please don't spread.

When you extend your argument, explain how you're extending your argument instead of saying "extend". I won't take it into my consideration if I encounter this during the round.

Weighing does not mean repeating your arguments, but please weigh your arguments so that things are easier for me.

Time yourself, especially during the crossfire. You may finish your question, but the opponent will not get a chance to answer. I won't be taking notes, so if you want me to put something into my flow, mention it in the next speech.

I am fine with speed but do not rush during the round. That's how I lost all my arguments from my own experience.

I prefer impacts over warrants.

Pet peeves

“Okay... time... starts... NOW”

“As an off-time roadmap I’m going to be extending the turn of their third contention, then going to our case and extending the CBO evidence off of our first contention and responding to the delink, and then outweighing on timeframe and magnitude.”

"Honorable judge", "They dropped the argument so that means they agree with it"

Nitty-gritty

Debate is all about having fun. Refute your opponents' arguments, but refrain from personal attacks. You'll experience magic in your speaker score if you don't.

My speaker score ranges from 25-29.5; a meme reference (not an attack though) or a physical 'turn' will get a 0.5 speaker boost :)

Be respectful to your opponents and your judge. As a debater myself, I don't want a rude opponent coming up with random numbers without any logic and evidence whatsoever.

I love giving feedback - feel free to email me after the round at b.moon@columbia.edu with your team name, and I'll be more than happy to provide you with feedback! Make sure to ask specific questions as well, or else I'm going to ignore your email.

Cheers!

Good luck winning your round, and have fun!

Hi everyone,

Just want to start off by saying that I am a debater and have been doing PF since my sophomore year of high school so feel free to ask me questions about debate before or after the round. That said, I will be making my decision based off of the flow. If you have any questions about my paradigm before the round feel free to ask I will be happy to answer. I apologize for any grammar or spelling error's that occur in this.

Please do not run a K or a Theory argument. I will most likely not listen to you if you run these types of arguments. Theory and K's are typically not applicable to the topic and don't make for a good debate. Please do not run one of these arguments. If you do not know what these types of arguments are, do not worry and you can disregard this paragraph.

Please weigh. Weighing is one of the main ways that I will be making my decision so if you do not weigh it will be hard for me to give you the win. It does not matter how good the rest of the round was if you do not weigh and I do not want to have to drop a team because they did not weigh so please weigh. Discuss with your partner what you will weigh on during summary. I have been both a first and second speaker so I know how important it is that both of you are on the same page when choosing what to weigh on. Second speaker, please follow the weighing format that the first speaker used in summary. Please leave time in both summary and final focus to weigh and give me actual reasons as to why you out weigh your opponents do not just say "we out weigh on scope and magnitude." Say we outweigh on scope because of .... Remember that probability is a weighing mechanism.

Other than that I do not really have any other big preferences besides just speak at a good pace and do not go more then 10 to 15 seconds over when giving a speech.

I have been doing public forum since my freshmen year of high school. Feel free to ask me about anything that I write below. (sorry for any grammatical or spelling errors)

Mechanisms and Arguments

1. Weigh. In the majority of rounds, both sides end up with offense. Meaning if you do not weigh, I simply do not know who won. Saying "We outweigh on scope and magnitude" is not weighing. In order to properly weigh, you must explain what nuances about your arguments makes them more important than your opponents' arguments. A really good weigher will explain why their weighing mechanism is more reasonable or better than your opponents. Probability is a weighing mechanism, but if you use it, I need to understand what exactly in your opponents' arguments makes them improbable.

2. Theory and Ks. I highly recommend that you do not run these types of arguments. I do not want to say that I will not listen to it, on the off chance that it is applicable and/or valid; however, the vast majority of time, theory and Ks are genuinely dumb. If you do not know what these types of arguments are, then do not worry.

3. Turns. Turns function as delinks if their impacts are not explained and weighed. Do not read both a turn and a delink, if your opponent does read both, It does not look bad to me if you kick out of the turn by conceding the delink. I love turns as much as the next guy, but if they are shaky, then just read other responses.

4. Dis- Ads. If your "turn" is clearly a Dis- Ad then I will not weigh it, despite whether or not your opponents point it out. That being said, sometimes it is hard to tell, in which case I will weigh it, again, despite whether or not your opponent points this out. I have this policy, because I think it is a waste of time to argue whether something is a Dis- Ad or not, and I would rather debates be educational.

5. Frameworks. I see Frameworks as two different ideas: 1) an overarching response that preempts, prefaces, or delinks an entire contention 2) an actual Framework in that it starts the weighing. I used to do this thing were I would write "Frameworks" that are really just Dis- Ads, don't do what I did. If you are doing what I did, then you definitely understand what you are doing. So basically, if you are unsure as to whether or not your framework is really a Dis- Ad, then you are fine.

Speeches

1. Case Reading. Don't go over by more than 10 to 15 seconds is all.

2. Rebuttal. Try to cover everything. Start weighing. If you are good at giving rebuttals then you will weigh in between responses. If you are second rebuttal, you need to respond to turns and should frontline.

3. Crossfires. I will only weigh crossfire if you bring up what happened in crossfire in a speech. And do not be mean. There is a stark difference between rudeness and proficiency in questioning.

4. Summaries (I am a First Speaker, so I have a lot of thoughts)

A) First Summary. You do not have to extend untouched terminal defense, however, I would recommend it. Sometimes it is easy to literally forget a response as a judge even though I have written it down on the flow.

B) Weighing. Basically you need to do it. You have 3 minutes, so you have no excuse not to. Hopefully your partner started weighing in rebuttal, so extending it through 3 speeches is very nice.

C) Collapse. You need to collapse on your arguments. Collapsing will give you more time to actually re-explain your arguments and weigh. In case you don't know, Collapsing is where you decide to only talk about one of your arguments, instead of trying to win both. (Again feel free to ask me...)

D) In General. You should be re-explaining your arguments, and the round should feel as if it is coming to a close. Going line by line in your summary is good, but you still cannot forget to re-explain and weigh.

5. Final Focus. Follow the format that your partner uses in summary. Mostly weighing at this point. Final focuses are pretty basic, so if you are confused I would be happy to quickly explain what the goal of a Final Focus is, and my greater thoughts on them.

Email: cm3054@princeton.edu if you need it for any reason, I prefer docs to email chains but up to you, I like to be shared on the evidence.

TL;DR: Ex-PF debater currently a sophomore at Princeton. Don't spread, for the love of all things debate signpost, weigh WELL, I won't flow after time for speech is up. I'm not well-versed in theory or K's; you're welcome to run it but I can't guarantee I'll understand it. Won't drop you for misconstrued ev but I won't consider it in my eval of the round.

Me: I'm a current Princeton student and ex-debater with 4 years of PF experience. I went to several National Circuit tournaments and won a few local ones. As I was a flow debater, I would consider myself a flow judge; I'm not necessarily up to date on what has happened in the world of PF in the past ~3 years.

Timing: Since I'm judging varsity, please time yourselves. If your opponent is over time, that's up to you to call them out.

Speed: Speak as fast as you would like as long as you aren't spreading. Take that to LD or some other form of debate where spreading is welcome. I'll accept a speech doc if you want to spread, but if you spread without one I'll dock your speaks significantly.

Theory/Kritiks: I am not well-versed in either (again, I haven't been in the PF space in years). I'm decently familiar with disclosure theory but in all honesty I find it somewhat idiotic and get bored listening to rounds entirely on this topic. You're welcome to argue it though. Assume I don't know theory jargon/terms so please make sure to briefly explain them. I can't guarantee I will understand how to incorporate theory and/or K's into my evaluation of the round but run it at your own risk. I really dislike theory run against opponents who aren't familiar with it - imo that's mean and an abusive way to pick up wins, I'll likely drop you if you do this. I'm generally not a fan and think this stuff belongs in other forms of debate unless you are genuinely trying to change the debate space and not just trying to use it to win.

Signposting: Hopefully the following reminder should only apply to novices - PLEASE SIGNPOST! (AKA, "In my opponents' contention 1, [tagline], they say xyz. In response, we say zyx.") In the words of my favorite debater, Dorothea Newman, signpost so much that I feel like I'm driving in a construction zone. My biggest pet peeve is not signposting. I also appreciate numbered responses and if you do this I'll give you decently high speaks; it just makes my flows pretty. I will subtract -1 speaks if you fail to ever signpost in the round.

Weighing: Make sure to do a good job weighing, I would rather vote off of who does a better job weighing than my own personal view of impacts. Additionally - you can't just say "we win off of probability and magnitude (insert other weighing buzzwords)", you must tell me why your argument is more probable/has a greater magnitude. Metaweighing is great.

Reasons for drops: I can and will drop you if you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. Xoxo. Maybe if you run really abusive theory against opponents who are not familiar with theory.

Misconstrued evidence: As disclosure becomes more common within debate, we're seeing less of this, but that being said I won't drop a team for misconstrued evidence, but I will consider that piece of evidence null if it's sufficiently proven to be misconstrued.

Extra: Make the debate interesting!!

Good luck and please don't postround me. I'm just a tired college student. You'll live. Also more than happy to email you a picture of my annotated flows if you don't find the RFD sufficient.

I am a flow judge. if you want me to consider a point in my RFD, you must state it cohesively in your speeches and ensure that you bring up important points. if it’s not on my flow, i won’t consider it.

speed: i’m all right with speed as long as you’re speaking legibly and i can comprehend your words enough to note them down. i don’t see any benefit or reason to spread but if you do, it’s your choice. remember, you’ve to win the judge over, but if they can’t understand you, there’s going to be some problems.

evidence: statistics > anecdotal/theoretical evidence. your argument must be supported by sourced evidence consistently. don’t simply state an argument and expect me or your opponent(s) to buy it. if asked for a card, you must be able to provide. if you ask your opponent for a card, the time you take to view the card will be deducted from your prep time.

*REMEMBER TO SIGNPOST* begin your speech by saying “my framework is...” or “contention 1...” it makes it easier for both the judge and your opponents to flow your case.

i love seeing active clash during crossfires. be quick on your feet and attack your opponents, defend valiantly, and win every single battle. you might not win the round for being able to handle crossfires well, but you will be rewarded with good speaker points.

I did PF all four years of high school and competed often. I never went to TOC (a crime), but this is all to say I'm not a lay judge so feel free to use ~jargon~ and please don't try to wow me with your cx skills. I don't flow cx. If something important happens in cx bring it up in a speech. And like also follow the rules you know but there's a solid 50/50 chance I'll notice that you bring up a card in FF that your partner didn't bring up in summary if I'm being totally transparent.

If you spread I'll flow it but honestly it's kind of a dick move (am I allowed to say that on tabroom? Please don't get me in trouble @thepeopleinchargeofthis) and also why aren't you doing LD or policy.

I found out what the topic was 4 days before this and I might(?) read some stuff on it the night before if I'm feeling bored/diligent/empathetic, but also I debated the THAAD topic in 2017 which I'm sure will have some overlap with this #mad.

Keep it civil (wink). I love a good spicy round with a lot of clash. If someone doesn't leave gcx in tears why am I even watching. KIDDING! But seriously if ur racist/sexist/homophobic/extremely rude/etc I'll be sad and you'll get dropped so its a lose-lose for everyone.

Yktv, signpost (let me feel like I'm driving in a construction zone) weigh please, and don't just say "we win in scope, timeframe, magnitude, [insert other weighing buzzwords here]" and think you've weighed. I know these gambits because I used to do pull them lmao.

Do y'all still call cards in zoom debate? If so I'd like to see the cards at the end of the round because people really try to pull some funny business. The card is either written on somebody's notes app with "new york times, 2021" below the quote or it's super legit and the other team is embarrassed and is like "this card sucks! Anyway..."

As someone who "graduated" last year, I (1) haven't thought about debate in a minute and I'm doing this as a favor to my team because they're dear to me and (2) there are truly very few things as ~aesthetically rare~ as debate, no srsly you guys hs competitive debate is weird asf, so just appreciate it.

If you mention Cardi B's thoughts on foreign policy and nuclear proliferation I'll automatically give you speaks above 28 xoxo

• Competed in PF and Public Speaking in HS
• jasminejw.park@mail.utoronto.ca
• Send me an email before/after rounds if you have questions; feel free to use this email for an email chain
• Minimal spreading is fine but if I can't understand you, it won't end up on my flow
• Clear taglines are helpful
• Tech > Truth
• Weigh in FF with voters!
• I don't flow crossfire; mention it in rebuttal/summary/FF if you want it to go on my flow
• If it takes you more than 5 minutes to find a card, you don't have it
• If you're asking for every single evidence and I don't see why you needed it, it won't benefit you
• Be respectful during the debate

Please speak at a reasonable pace and be respectful to your opponent.

Tabula rasa. I have no preconceptions regarding the arguments. Whoever clashes better wins.

I debated in high school and college some years ago. I am a lay judge. I have judged PF over the past 3 years. I encourage speaking clearly and at a pace that is not too fast. I will flow the round. Explain why you believe your side should win and why your arguments are more compelling than the other side’s. Good luck to everyone!

As a judge, i want to see you as a confident participant, so please speak clearly and precisely.

Hi I'm Swapna! I'm a university debater with 5 years of experience in British, Australian, and Asian Parliamentary but I'm relatively new to PF

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. Im fine with speed but make sure that you're still speaking as clearly as possible. This means enunciating as much as possible which is especially important during an online tournament.

I understand that cards are an important part of PF style debate but please state clearly what evidence you got from what source, not just throwing names around. This helps me take clearer notes.

Please make sure you are weighing your impact versus the other side throughout the entire round.

Good luck!

I'm Cole Presten and I'm currently a junior at Princeton. I did public forum debate for all of high school, so I'm familiar with general terms and jargon.

With that being said, I would prefer a round that would be understandable by a lay judge, or for that matter someone completely unfamiliar with debate. Remember the point of public forum debate. I would especially stress that you clarify your impacts. Telling me that you "win on scope," for instance, without a clear explanation of cause and effect may be true, but making me look at my notes and deciding for myself where you "win on scope" is far less compelling than a clear argument and explanation.

Although it's within your right as a debater to use information so long as it's backed up by a source, I will be skeptical if something sounds fishy, and I hope your opponents will be too. Because of this, I find it useful to say "X of New York Times" when noting your source rather than just "X", because "X" could be a writer from any random blog for all I know.

In general, winning the round ultimately comes down to convincing me that you won the round, not some esoteric system of points here and there. So keep that in mind and good luck.

About Me: I am a parent judge with my first experience starting in 2019. Since then I have judged 30 rounds as of end of 2020. I have primarily judged Public Forum for high school students but have also a few rounds of Parliamentary debate for middle school.

Why Debate Matters To Me: As Scott Fitzgerald wrote, "“the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” To me, debate is one of the best real life arenas where this gets tested. I believe in debate as a forum for highlighting the strength of narrative, expression and persuasion that is based on a foundation of research and thoughtful insights and sharpened by intellect. I see it as a dynamic mix of strategy and tactics that is an essential life skill in any professional or social setting.

Procedural Preferences: A limited list of things that I like to emphasize to help debaters present their case, and for me to do justice in understanding your arguments:

(i) Please minimize spreading - this is not a speed-reading contest. If I as a judge cannot clearly follow your argument, I will have limited basis to judge you on the merits of your contentions and overall case

(ii) Signposting is important - both while setting up your contentions and when rebutting your opponent's contentions, evidence or impact. It helps me establish your case and cross-reference it to the rebuttals

(iii) Identify yourself - at the start. I will ask for this explicitly to ensure that I get your names and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points

(iv) Time yourself - I will not be validating or judging you by how many seconds under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized. I am less impressed when you wrap up 20-30 seconds before your allotted time.

(iv) Be polite - to your opponents. We are not at war. Similarly, the judge is not here to put you down - relax!

Evaluation Criteria: My evaluation criteria goes with the flow. What that means is that, as you progress through the flow, I expect you to build on your contentions, cite the impact of your evidences, de-emphasize your opponents' arguments and rebuttals, and finally summarize the progression in the Final Focus.

With that context here are a few guidelines of my evaluation -

1. Case building will be evaluated on the depth of your research that truly emphasize your contention(s). Great contentions with weakly supported evidences and impact will not get you high points - but, and this is important, I will not unilaterally evaluate the merit of your contention, if your opponent team does not clearly highlight the weaknesses

2. Evidence is important, but your support of that evidence to reinforce your contention and weightage is far more important. Simply citing a source as the truth is not enough, it has to be proven by facts and supported by analysis. Just because a publication or a source says something, does not make it true

3. Cover all of your opponents contentions and evidences in your rebuttals. Leaving a point un-responded, essentially means that you have not been able to find a good contrary argument and evidence and hence strengthens the opposing team's argument

4. Weightage is important, but not just by stating it. It has to be accompanied by reasons why your weighting framework is better than your opponents'

5. Speaker points are provided on 3 specific criteria - presentation, quality of argumentation, and strategic choices. The strategic choices are your extemporaneous evaluation of your opponent's case and how you choose to re-position your case and work through your research to analytically de-emphasize your opponent's key contentions, evidences and impact

That's it. Good Luck to one and all!

Rakesh Purohit

Parent lay judge. Go slow and clear.

Time yourselves and your opponents, I won't be keeping track of time.

Don’t spread.

Hi, I’m new to judging in debate this year. Please speak slowly and clearly.

please avoid using debate jargon, make sure to explain your arguments completely. Wish you the best!

I have debated in the World School's and British Parliamentary debate formats for 5 years now. Because of this, my preferences will be slightly different to a regular PF judge.

As a judge, I will assume the perspective of the average layperson. This means that I prioritize logical, impactful arguments, and will be skeptical of arguments which aren't well explained (NOTE: this doesn't mean that I'll step into the debate and dismiss arguments I don't like. So long as there is some logical explanation, you will get credit). If you have evidence, you have to show why it strengthens your argument and what its implications are for the debate. This can be done by analyzing "stakeholders" -- groups of people who would be affected by the motion in some way. As a judge, I will credit the speaker who:

1) proves that their impacts are likelier to happen (your arguments are more sound)

2) proves that their impacts are more important (explain to me why it's better to live in a world where your side wins)

I will prefer speakers who do the following:

- No Theory.

- Don't spread. I am not trained to understand spreading, so please speak as you would to a layperson. Otherwise, I won't credit any manner of speaking over another; it is my job to worry about your arguments.

- Signpost. I will greatly appreciate it if you explain what your arguments are, and the key takeaways from your speech. Better organized speakers will be more effective, but that isn't the be all and end all.

- Prioritize logic. I don't believe that evidence on its own is compelling in debate. You must explain why your points are logically sound to win me over.

- Act nice. Being antagonistic is not charming. While I won't deduct points for rudeness, I will be biased towards the person being attacked. That is human nature, and while I will try, it is difficult to compensate for.

Speaking of which: I will do my best to consider the biases which I carry. I do believe, for example, that debate judges are often biased towards deeper voices and British accents. This does not mean I'll give anybody an undue advantage. I will simply be mindful of these realities while judging. Hopefully, that will create a more equitable paradigm.

I am a parent judge. I prefer clear, concise arguments over speed (please no spreading). Use signposting - it will help me remember and understand your argument. Do not use debate jargon and keep your own time. Be civil and show respect for your opponents. Good luck!

This is my third-year judging for speech and debate, and I do it for two reasons: to see talented participants and to help those participants build upon their existing ability and improve their performance. As a Public Forum judge, I firmly believe that hitting the key voting issues in the Final Focus is of the utmost importance and helps solidify the victor(s). I expect to see a solid use of Logos as a technique with facts, statistics, and credible quotes for every assertion that you make. It is also of vital importance to keep in mind that no judge should be considered all-knowing in whatever subject or resolution you are working with. Please explain thoroughly and clearly.

It is acceptable to have some semblance of brevity as long as I, the judge, can understand every word you and your partner say.

I am a first year out from high school debate so debate is still relatively fresh in my mind. I debate PF for four years on the national and local circuit in New Jersey.

I will almost certainly disclose at the end of round

I decide who wins on grand cross....just kidding the tldr for my paradigm is that I'm a former debater who will flow and did not like people that were passive aggressive, rude, or did abusive debate when I was in hs, and it's still an ick for me.

----------

Long paradigm:

I'm a flow judge with tech over truth, to a certain extent. I enjoy squirrely arguments but you need to have warrants and cards backing up your argument.

Case: I'm fine with speed but your case should not be over about 800 words

Rebuttal: SIGNPOST tell where you are on the flow or I'll probably put your response in the wrong place. Don't read 15 blippy responses on a contention because this is a really abusive move and I will be very sad :(. Instead, give me 3/4 good responses that are well explained and carded. Furthermore, I want WARRANTING. If you just name drop a card like, "delink this argument because the NYT says that my opponent's argument is wrong" and don't explain it I will not flow this response. I don't expect second rebuttal to frontline; however, I would highly recommend frontlining if you have time remaining.

Second Half: I was taught that if my judge doesn't flow rebuttal or case they should still be able to make an informed decision because you will re-explain your case(with warrants and cards), explain/refute your opponents responses, and read good responses to your opponents extensions. I will of course always flow case and rebuttal, but your skills as a debater should make it unnecessary for me to really look at the top half of my flow when I'm making my decision.

Summary: You need to frontline, extend responses to your opponent's case, re-explain your case, and weigh.

Final Focus: Should be very similar to summary but with more weighing. You need to tell me why I should vote for you and why your impacts are more important than your opponents

Crossfire: Don't be rude, Do NOT pull passive-aggressive moves like "can I talk/or you're not letting me talk" two seconds into your opponent's answer/question. I will not flow cross so if something important happens you need to tell me in your next speech so that I can flow it.

Speaks: I will not give below a 27.5 unless you do something really offensive. Your speaks will be considerably better if you mention The West Wing, bring me candy, give me a good meme on the topic, or have a really funny tagline somewhere. If you work The West Wing into one of your speeches and do it well, I will give you a 30 no questions asked.

Major Nonos:

Don't do really abusive things like saying "my opponents dropped an argument" if they didn't (I will know and I will drop this argument from the flow). Don't use really sketchy cards because if I hear something sketchy I will call for it. Don't belittle or insult your opponent. If you have any questions or need help with anything debate related you can reach out to me at yash.roy@yale.edu

PF debater for BASIS Scottsdale. First time judging.

Try not to speak too quickly.

How I vote:

1. Who is winning the weighing?

2. Who is winning a link into that weighing?

Give me warrants for your weighing and do clear comparisons (don't just use buzzwords).

Tell me why to prefer your arguments -- give me impact comparisons, link comparisons, evidence comparisons. If you do that effectively, you'll almost always win.

Warrant everything. Don't just extend your impact, extend your whole argument.

Collapse. Please.

Signposting is important. Tell me how to vote in FF (treat me like a lay judge in your final focus). I won't call for evidence unless a) it's contested in the round and it'll affect my decision or b) I just think it's interesting.

No progressive arguments please. If you really want to, run at your own risk.

Cross: I don't pay that much attention and don't flow it, so if something important happens, tell me.

Most importantly, don't be exclusive. To anyone. Period.

I am a Varsity PF Debater.

Some things to know with me as your judge:

1. I am a flow judge, if you win on the flow, you will win the round.

2. Please weigh for me in your final two speeches. If you do not weigh for me I will be forced to weigh for myself

3. I do not flow crossfire, but if you are rude during cross that will affect your speaks.

4. Tech > Truth (unless you say something bigoted)

5. Feel free to run Ks, creative arguments, and meme cases. If you run a good meme case I'll give you 30s.

6. I encourage you to run theory and arguments not typically used in PF.

7. If you cite any fascists/ fascist organizations (Breitbart, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson), you will lose the round and I will give you as few speaker points as tabroom allows.

8. If your framework is util or "saving lives" you do not need to say that in round that is the default framework.

9. I'm good with speed.

How to win the round:

1. Respond to all arguments in rebuttal/ summary, but be able to collapse on the most important arguments in final focus.

2. In Final Focus, focus on one or two main arguments that you win and explain why those are the most important and why I should give you the ballot because of them.

3. For summary, please sign-post so I know what i need to be flowing.

4. For second rebuttal, frontline your opponents rebuttal's and give your partner a head start on summary.

5. Extend your most important arguments through to summary and final focus.

hi! i'm a senior at hunter and i do pf :-)

i'm putting this at the top because it's the most important: please warrant and weigh! good warrants >> evidence, evidence + analytics >> evidence. i don't want to intervene, so weighing is important.

i'm tech > truth, but don't use that as an excuse to make outlandish or incorrect claims.

extend your offense (including warrants and impacts) through summary and final focus.

i will not be paying attention in cross, so please bring it up in the round if it's important; let me know if you want to skip cross for prep, i'm happy to do that if both teams agree.

not super well-versed in progressive argumentation but will do my best to evaluate it; make sure your opponent is comfortable with it & run it in an accessible way.

don't read anything racist/sexist/otherwise offensive — i will drop you and give you low speaks.

have fun and feel free to email me (sandhyasethuraman@hunterschools.org) if you have any questions!

Please speak at a reasonable pace. Do not speak too fast. Be concise and clear.

Be respectful to your opponents.

I think strong rebuttals are very important. That shows your overall knowledge of the topic.

Be sure to respond to your opponent's counterarguments.

Your goal should be to strengthen your contentions throughout the debate rather than refuting opponent's points.

High School Teacher (Economics, Govt., History).

I'm a first year parent judge, but will evaluate based on argumentative logic as well as the quality of evidence used.

TL;DR: Don't spread, for the love of god signpost, i agree very much with the wise Krutin Devesh, weigh WELL (metaweigh if possible), make the debate interesting. Table totes prohibited.

Me: I'm a junior with 4 years of PF experience. I've been to several National Circuit tournaments and have won a few local ones. As I am a flow debater, I would consider myself a flow judge.

Speed: Speak as fast as you would like as long as you aren't spreading. Take that to LD or some other form of debate where spreading is welcome. If you spread I'll still be able to understand it but I'll dock your speaks to a 25.

Signposting: Hopefully the following reminder should only apply to novices - PLEASE SIGNPOST! In the words of my favorite debater, Dorothea Newman, signpost so much that I feel like I'm driving in a construction zone. My biggest pet peeve is not signposting. I also appreciate numbered responses and if you do this I'll probably give you decently high speaks. I will subtract -1 speaks if you fail to ever signpost in the round.

Weighing: Make sure to do a good job weighing, I would rather vote off of who does a better job weighing than my own personal view of impacts. Additionally - you can't just say "we win off of probability and magnitude (insert other weighing buzzwords)", you must tell me why your argument is more probable/has a greater magnitude. Something I appreciate that will bump your speaks: metaweighing. This is a relatively new idea in PF but it essentially means to weigh your weighing mechanisms (explain why probability is the most important weighing factor instead of magnitude, etc.)

Reasons for drops: I can and will drop you if you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. Xoxo.

Extra: Make the debate interesting!! Don't just read in a monotone. Make cx lively (I don't flow it or weigh it in round at all but I do listen). A pet peeve of mine - making statement questions in crossfire. Such questions include "[insert evidence] so what do you think of that", "are you aware...", "isn't it true that...", etc. These questions are a waste of time and please try to come up with a more creative way to bring up your points.

Anyway, good luck and you're welcome to postround me if you so desire.

I've done PF debate for three years and have worked with novices for two. I will flow the main arguments, main responses, and weighing. Crossfire is time for you to ask your opponents questions, not speak to me, if you want me to pay attention to something said say it in speech. If you're condescending/rude you will lose points.

Please extend your points and rebuttals throughout the entire round. Don't ask me if you're allowed to do or mention certain things during the round. Time yourself. Any speed is fine. I'm not exploring or making assumptions based on where I think you are going, you guys have to explain everything to me.

I am a mainly a PF Debater but have some experience in CNDF.

General Things:

1. I am fine with speed but make sure it's articulate, although if you can express your thoughts going conversation speed, it could boost speaker points.

2. I flow and expect teams to extend tags, evidence and warrants. I won't flow dropped arguments in later speeches.

3. Although it is good to be critical and I believe good PF debate should be a relaxed exchange of ideas as opposed to suppressed (or not) rage.

4. Make sure you're asking questions during crossfire rather than give speeches. And I appreciate questions that are asked in a way that is super chill.

5. I appreciate theories. No one expects it and you win because of theory and sometimes you even win on theory.

6. I think Impact turns > Link turns (no risk of a link)

7. I typically vote on what happens in the debate, and not on what I know or think I know.

Online debate: Technical difficulties are bound to happen and all i ask is that you are patient as we work them out! If you're a very fast speaker, i ask that you slow down a bit because computer audio can be bad, and I don't want you to lose because I couldn't hear what you said.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Flow judge who will adapt to the debaters. Debate in a way that you enjoy & makes everyone comfortable!

howdy! i'm lawrence (any pronouns) and i did pf at montgomery blair. i now study environmental studies at yale where i do a bit of coaching. if anything here doesn't make sense/if there's anything i can do to make the round more accessible, contact me at lawrence.tang@yale.edu!

short version:

• flow judge comfortable with progressive arguments

• make me intervene as little as possible

• less weight to arguments the later they are made

• time yourselves

im a bit detached from the debate community. i will still draw cool extension arrows but you shouldn't assume i know anything about the topic or ur uber-cool groundbreaking meta-strategy.

general thingies

i will evaluate any argument as long as it isn't violent, exclusionary or compromises anyone's safety (be it bigoted arguments or lack of warning)*. include content warnings and an anonymous opt-in process. all participants in a round (including judges) need to opt-in. here's an example of an opt-in form!

i can handle most pf speeds but i'm also a bit rusty. don't use speed as an exclusionary tool.

no big emphasis on evidence -- how you spin your evidence matters more. i encourage cards though. i'll avoid calling evidence unless it's impossible to resolve the round otherwise.

i have a pretty bad poker face.

i view debate as a game of probabilities with every round having some uncertainty left up to the judge (weighing impacts, evaluating defense, etc). you should minimize that uncertainty and maximize the probability that i vote for you. assume that i'll make some mistake -- i'm not a robot!

this means:

• really spell out how my ballot should look like

• signpost and respond to arguments in the order they're made

• err on the side of over-explaining your arguments, many args I've seen have been super blippy/unwarranted and have left me pretty confused

general rule: the later an argument is made, the less weight i'll give to it. defense is sticky for first summary. don't read defense on your own offensive. concede defense immediately after the speech it was read in.

tempted to say probability weighing doesn't exist. if both teams give me weighing that's cool but i don't know how to resolve that so please interact with the weighing already read.

everything you want me to vote off has to be in final focus even if it's conceded. you don't have to do as much work but please at least breathe on them.

if i can't resolve the round without intervening, i'll presume whoever lost the flip.

progressive stuff: above-average understanding, but don't be exclusive

my defaults are:

• disclosure good, paraphrasing bad, but theory on these is iffier

• fairness is not a voter, rvis bad, CI > reasonability, drop the argument over debater

Phil/FW - some background knowledge but not much. make sure you're not just regurgitating weird academic language and actually explain ideas in normal english.

T - tbh i don't think i've run across a pf situation that needed a t shell. you're fine just saying something is non-topical. i also disagree with the nebel t.

Theory - most shells in pf are fluff. absent legitimate abuse in round, i'll vote on theory but i won't like it. disclosure and paraphrasing are more valid but still iffy.

Kritiks - i wrote a cap k once. familiar with some lit (biopower, orientalism, setcol) but not from debate pov. your strategy can't rely on background knowledge or me reading your evidence. iffy on arguments that weaponize identity or structural violence for the sole sake of a ballot. if you're reading these arguments, be genuine.

other things

• ask as many questions as you want. postround me. i'm always learning and would love feedback!

• always looking for more music, book (literally any type of media) recommendations, so if you have any hidden bangers please lmk!

*given my positionality, i recognize that i'm not neutral and cannot operate under a veil of objectivity. i don't trust my judgment in determining what is violent. however, i fail to see a better alternative :(

I'm a senior and have done PF since freshman year. A few things to note:

- Impacts are the most important part of PF debate. Making sure there is a clear and understandable link chain to access yours and that they weigh strongly against your opponent's/should be valued over theirs will win you the round.

- Be as clear as possible, your speeches should be structured presuming your judges have no knowledge on the resolution going into the round.

- I value well thought out arguments/refutations that make logical sense over a "this statistic says..." with no warranting. You should create a narrative around the numbers/cards you use and not solely rely on them.

- Any speed is fine as long as you're coherent.

- Frameworks are fine but I will not default to yours just because you say so or your opponent doesn't refute it, warrant why I need to weigh the round under this framework.

- Crossfire is for getting clarifications you need from your opponent, I won't be weighing anything that isn't in a speech.

- Unique arguments are always great and probably my favorites, but they must be well thought out and explained clearly. Do not make an argument for the sake of obscurity.

- Please do a roadmap/signpost and follow the order of the arguments as they were set up in the round in your speech's structure. It'll be much easier for me if you don't jump around the flow.

- No new arguments should be made in the summary or final focus. Also, you must extend your arguments across the flow if you want me to weigh them.

- Always be respectful. Any rudeness towards your opponents will not be tolerated (this includes during crossfire).

- But most importantly have fun! Remember you're doing this because you love the event. The best round is a round that everyone enjoys.

Feel free to email me if you have any questions about your RFD: unzel.tariqq@gmail.com

I did World Schools debate in High School in Singapore, and now do Parliamentary debate at Princeton.

Make sure you keep everything clear (i.e. reasonable speed, signpost when it's appropriate)

If you reference a card, make sure to put it into the context of your argument/speech -- I will call for a card if I find something unclear

Please be respectful during cx

Avoid making generalizations in your arguments and please do not make sexist, racist, etc. claims.

PF debater for four years for BASIS Scottsdale.

How I vote:

1. Who is winning the weighing?

2. Who is winning a link into that weighing?

3. If no one is winning a link into any weighing, then I'll either find the best remaining offense, or, if none exists, presume whoever lost the coin flip (that'll be rare, though).

Tech > truth, but I'm probably marginally more inclined towards truer arguments.

I debated pretty quickly and I'm totally good with PF fast, but not policy spreading. If you do really want to spread for some reason, at least provide a speech doc.

Second rebuttal must frontline -- all turns must be frontlined and frontline the argument you're going for.

Weighing is the most important thing for me, and it's typically how I evaluate rounds. Give me warrants for your weighing and do clear comparisons (don't just use buzzwords).

Tell me why to prefer your arguments -- give me impact comparisons, link comparisons, evidence comparisons. If you do that effectively, you'll almost always win. Sidenote: Probability weighing is fake 95% of the time, but if you warrant it well, I'll buy it. If it's the only other weighing in the round, I'll probably also buy it.

Warrant everything. Don't just extend your impact, extend your whole argument.

Please collapse.

Logic is great -- evidence is better, but I'm more than willing to vote on well-warranted logical turns or defense.

If you do cooler weighing mechanisms than just scope/magnitude etc., you get bonus points.

Defense is sticky, but if defense is frontlined, it must be responded to in the next speech.

Signposting is important. Tell me how to vote in FF (treat me like a lay judge in your final focus).

I won't call for evidence unless a) it's contested in the round and it'll affect my decision or b) I just think it's interesting. But please don't misconstrue evidence: if it's really horrendous, I'll drop you for it. Progressive argumentation is fine, but I didn't run theory/Ks in high school. Run it at your own risk (I might not understand it at all).

Cross: I don't pay that much attention, and don't flow it, so if something important happens, tell me. I'll pay some attention though, so don't screw around too much.

Please time yourselves.

I appreciate humor.

Most importantly, don't be exclusive. To anyone. Period.

I'll almost always disclose. Feel free to ask questions.

Hi, I'm Jazmyn (she/her)! I used to debate at Hunter College High School. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to make this round safe for all participants. For email chains, questions, concerns, etc.: wangjazmyn@gmail.com.

Run whatever arguments you're comfortable with (as long as they're not exclusionary); assume I know nothing about the topic; wear whatever you'd like; you decide whether to sit or stand; keep your own time and point out if your opponents are over; pre-flow before the round; use content warnings and allow others involved in the round to anonymously opt-out (we can discuss how to do this if you aren't sure how).

Please warrant and weigh.

For reference, I generally agree with Zoë Kaufmann, Josephine O'Brien, and Adithi Attada's paradigms, but keep reading for some specifics:

- Offense must be extended through summary AND final focus, including warrants and impacts. You can get a pretty good idea of my preferences from the paradigms that I linked above, but I'll do my best to adapt to how you want to debate.

- I'd love it if you slow down. If you feel that you need to go fast, that's okay, but I can't guarantee that I'll understand it/flow it.

- I'm tech over truth, but if you're making factually incorrect claims, my threshold for a response is going to go down.

- Analytics with warrants > cards without warrants.

- Don't tell me that racism, sexism, etc. is the most important impact in the round and then drop it.

- I don't know what the phrase "uniqueness controls the directionality of the link" means.

I debated for 5 years for VDA in PF and currently debate for Rice University in NPDA Parli.

Please include me in the email chain: ww53@rice.edu

Some general expectations for rounds:

1.) The singular most important thing for me is terminalization, warranting and weighing. Please do not just extend taglines and author names. I might not have them down and I'll be really confused and upset. This means when you make extensions you cannot just say "the X evidence" you need to state what that evidence says. I like critical thinking. Well-warranted analytics beat blippy, poorly warranted cards every time. PREETY PRETTY PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TERMINALIZE IMPACTS.

2.) Everything in Final Focus needs to be in Summary. You can clarify analysis present in the round and explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round. A good rule of thumb is that the earlier I am able to hear/comprehend an argument, and the more you explain the argument, the more likely it is for me to vote for the argument.

3.) Must frontline offense in Second Rebuttal. I view any dropped offense that are read in first rebuttal, ie turns, as conceded if second rebuttal does not frontline. Second summary is way too late to present any new frontlines or responses.

4.) Progressive Argumentation. I am familiar with progressive argumentation such as Ks, Ts, etc. If you feel the necessity to run these argumentations, I will evaluate them. If I suspect you are reading progressive arguments against a team that doesn’t understand them for the purposes of getting an easy win, I will drop you on the lowest possible speaks.

5.) Make sure to weigh in round. The easiest way for me to decide a round is if you are creating a clear comparative between your opponents arguments and your own. If the arguments that both teams present to me are uncomparative, then I will be forced to intervene. One team will be unhappy.

6.) Tech > Truth. I view debate as a strategic academic game with arguments as the game’s pieces. I flow and will vote on anything so long as it is warranted, impacted, and weighed against other arguments in the round, and is not offensive or exclusionary. I default to Neg on presumption if there is no offense from either team. I vote strictly off the flow.

7.) Please signpost! It makes it really hard for me to flow if you don't signpost. And if I can't flow, it makes it hard for me to evaluate the round. I'll likely miss what you're saying and we'll both be frustrated at the end of the round because you'll think I made the wrong decision and didn't consider what you said.

8.) Please don't be abusive. Probably the most abusive strategy is reading new contentions in rebuttal and disguising them as overviews. This will make me very unhappy. My unhappiness is amplified if this occurs in the second rebuttal. I will flow these but will not cast my ballot off them unless there is NOTHING else on the flow I can vote off. I am looking for reasons to not vote for these. My threshold for what counts as a good response to these is extremely low.

9.) I do not flow cross. If there is something that you think is important that came up in cross, bring it up in the next speech. Nonetheless, the last thing that I wish to see in cross is people yelling over each other. So please be polite.

10.) Racist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

11.) Speed. I am fairly comfortable with speed but definitely not comfortable flowing anything that is going Mach 5 speed. Please ensure that you are clear or send a speech doc before hand!

12.) Hate calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Every reference to Twoset will boost your speaks by 0.1.

Above all, be nice and have fun!

Second year lay judge.

1. Do not speak too fast. Be Clear.

2. Rather than just reading cards, make sure to clearly warrant everything you say in round.

3. Make sure your arguments are consistent throughout the round.

4. Any arguments made in final focus must have been mentioned in summary.

5. Be sure to weigh clearly. Interactive weighing is great.

6. Do not be rude to your opponents during the round.

While I do not have a debate background, I have judged at numerous tournaments, locally and on the national circuit. I am looking for clear explanation of links and impacts as well as strong comparative analysis. Please let me know if you have any questions before the round.

hey

debated @ Blair for 4 years

debate however you want

Hey there!

I'm a first-year university student studying Political Science and International Relations. I debated for four years in high school -- so you can use debate theory with me, but I wasn't in a progressive league, so it might be best to use traditional jargon so I understand your point! However, if you find it necessary to use a specific technique, feel free! Just be sure to explain the impact of it on the round as a whole.

With that being said, at the end of the day, it'll come down to evidence, logic, and argumentation. Speaking isn't as important to me as the flow of logic and thought is.

Content:

- Weigh the round for me. I shouldn't have to guess why your side should win the round -- tell me.

- If you use frameworks/standards/theses, then carry them throughout the round.

- Evidence (as stated above) is very important -- use reputable sources and don't take someone's statement out of context.

- Impacts are important as well. Tell me why what you just said matters in the round.

Style:

- Please don't talk fast! Speed isn't an effective technique for me. I look more for argumentation -- which is hard to understand when the speed is so fast.

- Once the timer stops, I stop flowing.

- CX should have clash and that's okay! Just don't be rude.

- Make jokes! Or not! Be yourself.

I am a parent judge. I am looking for a fair debate where the kids interact, listen and debate each other. Please don’t speak too quickly.

Good afternoon students! I am looking for good premises that can strongly support your conclusions. Logical fallacies such as bias fallacy will weaken your argument so please try to minimize logical fallacies as much as possible. Throughout your argument, please make sure the premises are true and that they are strongly needed for your conclusions to stand. Also please make sure to work collaboratively with your teammates as teamwork is essential in any debate. Thank you and have fun! I look forward to judging your arguments and I know all of you will do very well!

Hello!

I am a high school senior in my fourth year of PF debate. Here are some things to note:

1. I will be flowing for the entire round. However, if you feel that you need to make clear a point your opponent did not address, feel free to let me know.

2. I will be keeping time, but I recommend that you keep time for yourself as well. If you run out of time, I will let you finish your sentence, but no further.

3. Please be respectful to your opponents!

4. Please signpost! (Let me know what you are discussing by preceding the argument with a contention tagline/main point of the argument.)

Good luck, but most importantly, have fun! I look forward to judging!

1) Organization and Clarity in argument and responses

2) Speak calm and act confident

3) Keep the topic on track

I look at argumentation and clashes. To be more specific, I look at how arguments are carried throughout the debate and how well debaters are able to defend their arguments in clashes.

Hi! I'm a fourth-year university student studying international relations and business admin. I debated for 6 years in CNDF, BP, WSDC, and PF so jargon is mostly fine. If you run theory or K's I'll try my best to follow, but I wasn't a progressive debater so you might want to play it safe by just being traditional.

Public Forum

Content

Tech > Truth

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name. I don't write down author names for cards and I'll have no idea what you're referring to. I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Frameworks are cool but if you bring in a framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what you gain/opponents lose. PF speeches are too short for you to waste your time on a framework debate if winning it makes no difference on the overall decision.

Warranting/logic behind your evidence is very important. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you.

Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. I won't vote on anything that's not extended through summary and brought up in final focus. You must extend responses in summary if you don't intend on me dropping the argument. I also expect extending on defense too, or I will assume it to be dropped. (If you're in varsity you can extend authors)

Weigh the round so I don’t have to. You don’t want to be in the position where I'm weighing arguments for you and putting the decision in my hands. I love impact calc :))

Literally run me through how I should vote, this is the easiest way for you to win.

Cross ends as soon as the timer goes off. To pre-emptively address your questions, you may finish your sentence, but don't add another 4 paragraphs to your answer. Please be polite to each other.

The Second Rebuttal MUST frontline. The First Summary MUST frontline. Please frontline. Thank you :))

Please collapse in summary or final focus, makes the debate way cleaner to evaluate and trying to win on everything is going to make everything a wash.

If you go over time I will not cut you off, I will simply stop flowing. Please don't make me intervene.

Style

If you’re going to talk fast you need to be clear and signpost properly. I’ll give extra speaks if you make a joke. This is NOT an invitation to be rude.

Please do not pause for a long time between speeches, if you're taking prep time let me know. If you pause, I will start prep time :))

I'm generally pretty lenient with speaks, so unless you were rude or the debate was extremely messy, I usually won't give lower than a 27.

I will give a 30 if (only have to fulfill one):
- You and your partner each give 3 Taylor Swift references

- You and your partner can guess ONE of my favorite kpop groups + my bias in that group

I'd be happy to talk to you after the round if you want more feedback. Feel free to ask me for my email or other contact info!

I am a lay judge. I'm not a native English speaker, so I'd like it if debaters would speak slowly and clearly to make it easier for me to listen to, record, and judge your arguments. I also like it when debaters are respectful towards one another. Please don't use a lot of debate-specific words because I have no previous debate experience. Lastly, I trust you to keep your own time during the debate. Good luck and have fun, everyone!