Email: jameshbrock@gmail.com

Handshaking: Even before current viral concerns, I wasn't a fan of hand shaking. If you feel the need for post round physical contact, I will either accept a light fist bump or a full hug of no less than 5 seconds in duration. Alternatively, you can just wait for my decision.

Overview: I am the debate coach at Houston County High School a suburban (closer to rural than urban) school 2 hours south of Atlanta. We don't travel outside of the state much. I am a big advocate of policy debate, but, the vast majority of tournaments we attend no longer offer the event. So, we have switched to PF/LD debate.

I flow. If I am not flowing, there is a problem.

Speed okay. If I am not flowing, there is a problem. The most likely reason I would not be flowing is, that the sound coming out of your mouth is not words. If this happens, I will most likely close my laptop or put down my pen until I can recognize the sounds you are making.

Disclosure Theory: I am a small school coach. My teams are not required to post their cases online. I don't like it when teams lose debates to rules those teams didn't know were "rules". If disclosure is mandated by the tournament's invitation, I will listen. I also, will not attend that tournament. So, just don't run it. Inclusion o/w your fairness arguments.

PF: I judge on an offence/defense paradigm. Logic is good, evidence is better. I'm the guy who will vote on first strike good or dedev. Tech over truth, but I will not give a low point win in PF, and try to stay true to the speaking roots of PF. F/W is the most important part of the debate for me. It is a gateway issue that provides the lens through which to view my decision. I have done a moderate amount of research, but I probably haven't read that article. I may be doing it wrong, but I like logic when judging a PF round. I don't think you have time to develop DAs or Ks, but have no other objection to their existence. Jeff Miller says to answer these questions if judging PF... - do you expect everything in the final focus to also be in the summary? Yes. At least tangentially. The first final focus of the round needs to be able to predict the direction of the the final speech. If it's not in the Summary it gives an unfair advantage to the second speaker. - Do second speaking teams have to respond to the first rebuttal? No, but its a good idea. It makes for a better debate and I will award speaker points will be awarded for doing this. - Do first speaking teams have to extend defense in the first summary? If you want to extend defense in the final focus. - Do you flow/judge off crossfire? Cross is binding, but it needs to be made in the speech to count on the ballot. That being said, at this tournament, damaging crossfire questions have provided major links and changed the momentum of debates. - Do teams have to have more than one contention? No. - does framework have to be read in the constructives? Responsive F/w is allowed but not advisable in rebuttal only.

LD: For me, this is policy light. I understand it, but I try not to be influenced by a lack of policy jargon in the round. IE I will accept an argument that says "The actor could enact both the affirmative action and the negative action." as a permutation without the word perm being used in the round. I tend to view values and value criterion as a framework debate that influences the mechanisms for weighing impacts. I am a little lenient on 1ar line by line debate, but coverage should be sufficient to allow the nr to do their job. I will protect the nr from new 2ar argument to a fault. I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments like "extinction good" or "rocks are more important than people".

tl;dr: Spend a lot of time on F/W. Impact your arguments.

Policy Debate: (Having this in here is a little ridiculous. Its kinda like, "back in my day we had inherency debates. No one talks about inherent barriers anymore...)

Procedural:
I am human, and I have made mistakes judging rounds. But, I reserve the right to dock speaker points for arguing after the round.
I have few problems with speed. If you are unclear, I will say clear or loud once and then put my pen down or close my laptop. I love 1NC's and 2ACs that number their arguments.
I want the debaters to make my decision as easy as possible. My RFD should be very very similar to the first 3 sentences of the 2AR or 2NR.
After a harm is established, I presume it is better to do something rather than nothing. So in a round devoid of offence, I vote affirmative

The K:
As a debater and a younger coach, I did not understand nor enjoy the kritik. As the neg we may have run it as the 7th off case argument, and as the aff we responded to the argument with framework and theory. As I've grown as a coach I've started to understand the educational benefits of high school students reading advanced philosophy. That being said, In order to vote negative on the kritik, I need a very, very clear link, and reason to reject the aff. I dislike one-off-K, and standard Ks masked with a new name. I do, however, enjoy listening to critical affirmatives related to the topic. I am often persuaded by PIK's, and vague alts bad theory.

Don't assume that I have read the literature. I have not.

Non-traditional debate: We are a small and very diverse squad, and I (to some extent) understand that struggle. I have coached a fem rage team, and loved it.

Theory:
I have no particular aversion to theoretical objections. As an observation, I do not vote on them often. I need a clear reason to reject the other team. I will occasionally vote neg on Topicality, but you have to commit. I think cheaty CPs are bad for debate, and enjoy voting on ridiculous CP is ridiculous theory. I still need some good I/L to Education to reject the team.


Parliamentary debate:
I enjoy this format. I will adopt a policy maker F/W unless otherwise instructed.

Spread: Please do not use this technique unless you are able to clearly articulate your arguments while speaking at speed.

I value a well organized and clearly presented arguments. I believe that delivery goes a long way to the power of persuasion. Eye contact, passion in your voice, and a modulated delivery will be factors in my scoring.

Civility and politeness is of course expected.

I value a well constructed and logical argument.

Hi, I'm Casey (she/her/hers)! I’m currently a student at the University of Florida. I thoroughly enjoyed debate in high school and was an active participant. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum throughout my four years in high school. I was a traditional debater, so I prefer traditional-level debate.

Email: caseyglymph@ufl.edu

Conflicts: West Broward HS (Pembroke Pines, FL); Accokeek Academy; DCUDL

Personal Notes

1. Respect your opponents at all times. Regardless of their race, gender, or skill level, show them the same level of respect you wish to receive from any one. Any form of disrespect will be noted on the ballot.

2. Going along with TWs, if you are running a controversial or sensitive topic as an argument, please be respectful. That being said, I don’t like blatantly, offensive arguments at all, especially if they only exist in the world you have created in the round.
3. Please keep track of your own timing and hold your opponents accountable for timing as well.

*Notes specific for virtual debate tournaments*

1. Please keep evidence exchanging brief. I know there are unique challenges with debating online, but please try to minimize time spent sharing evidence. Stopping the flow of the round messes everyone up. A few suggestions would be; to start an email chain before round or share a google doc with everyone and copy and paste cards there.

2. If possible, please keep your cameras on. If there are wifi/connection challenges that is completely understandable. I just like putting a name to a face :)

Summary of my judging style

I am ok with progressive debate, but I am not a pro at it so please take this into account (Ks, theory, etc.). I'm chill with counterplans.

Summaries should focus on FW, warrants, and why you’ve won. Final focus should weigh impacts, don’t try to revive arguments that weren't even touched/mentioned in the summary.

Other notes

Speed: It is your burden to make sure your speeches are clear and understandable. The faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. I do prefer slow-medium pace speed, but I can handle faster speed.

Speaker Points: Speaker points decrease based upon professionalism in the round. If the round is well debated, regardless of who wins, speaker points will reflect. I’m not in the business of screwing people over through speaker points, trust me I know the pain.

Please ask any questions you may have pre-round. Hope you have a great tournament!

I'm a 4th-year varsity debater at Sequoyah High School

*Please show up to your round on time*

How I will evaluate the debate/general thoughts:

• You can go as fast as you want, but please don't spread. And one tip I will give: don't sacrifice clarity for speed (I can't flow what I can't understand)

• Please extend all of your arguments

• Weigh arguments and use ballot directing language - you can do this with an overview in the last speech that tells me how you win or with voters; I don't care.

• Both carded evidence and logic rebuttals are good.

• If you can, please number your responses to arguments so I know if I missed anything

Crossfire:

• You can be aggressive; please don't be rude (Rudeness = lower speaks)

• Overall I will not flow cross, so if you make a good point that you believe should be on the flow, make sure to bring it up in your following speech.

Speaker points and RDF:

• As for speaker points, as long as you speak clearly and know your evidence, you should be fine; adding any puns or references from marvel or star wars will boost your speaker points. Or you can follow me at Mg_haggerty on Instagram and send me your favorite meme!

• I will try to disclose and give you a detailed RDF

If you have any questions at all, you can ask me in round or email me at magghagg927@gmail.com

Have a good time and good luck debating

he / him

My email for the chain is hbharper8@gmail.com but also feel free to reach out with questions about your round / my RFD

tldr: I am okay with anything you run as long as you are respectful.

Fun Facts:

I did PF from 2015-19

I do not like to base my ballot only on disclosure theory or topicality, so you shouldn't make those your only voters.

I do not like when teams try changing the structure (speech times) of the round with theory.

I don't expect you to necessarily run a counter-interp against theory if you don't know how to do that. Just engage with the substance of their theory argument like any other argument.

I will probably tell your first speaker that they went for too much in summary.

I think in summary defense is sticky unless it was frontlined.

The second rebuttal should address the first rebuttal but I will accept responses in second sum as well - just no new turns.

No offensive off-case arguments in the second rebuttal.

Speaker points:

I appreciate funny taglines and puns when they are in good taste.

Yelling / being mean in cross will hurt your speaks.

I am an erstwhile LD/PF debater, and I have been called back to be a judge in this crazy world. Online debating and judging is new for most of us, but I am eager to assist in making this situation more normal-crazy than crazy-crazy. And if we are at a live, real, honest-to-God in-person tournament, then I promise you that the crazy ain't just in the internet: Here, There Be Dragons. I wish you the best of luck and skill as you debate this year!

Email for evidence chains and whatnot: will.hobson911@gmail.com

Ultra Important Ground Rules

In 85% of things, I am a laid-back and low maintenance judge, but I do have a few nonnegotiable rules that must be followed in order to have a fair and fun matchup. These should be common sense, but god knows common sense is less common than it should be.

-Courtesy is the most important thing I consider in rounds. If you do not treat your opponent with respect, chances are that I will not respect you on the ballot. If anyone harms the integrity of the round by being discriminatory, rude, or unprofessional, I will immediately stop the round. You do not have to like your opponent, but you should at least pretend to do so for about an hour. If you have a legitimate problem with the other team, please bring up your concerns before the final focus or final segment.

-Given the circumstances of having to rely on technology for some tournaments, tech problems are not rare. If you have had troubles with connections or hardware, please let me know beforehand so we don't have to trouble shoot problems during the round.

PF/LD Preferences

-Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not spread (i.e. speed-read). I will not be able to understand you, and that's gonna be rough, buddy. If for some reason you must, I will require you to drop your case in the file share for mine and your opponent's benefit so we can at least try to follow your barrage.

-Concision and clarity are key. If I can not follow your arguments or identify your contentions, links, or impacts in my flow, I will probably assume that you are being willfully obtuse which is not a good look. Reminder: Neither PF nor LD debate is about proving that you are the smartest person in the room or showing me that you have the best words; it is about proving that you have the most cogent and sensible argument. This is about communication, not obfuscation.

-Do not, do not, do not introduce new contentions in rebuttals, summaries, or final focuses. That is called playing dirty. Likewise, please refrain from introducing new constructive evidence in the last half of the debate round; defending evidence is still admissible and is encouraged.

-Nuclear Stuff (PF): I know every debater and their mother likes LOVES to throw in nuclear war as the ultimate harm or impact for either their case or rebuttal, so much so that it has become a meme of sorts. I find this to be an exceptionally tiring thing to listen to as a judge. Nuclear war is such a complex, and more importantly a serious and severe topic that using it frivolously in a debate comes across as childish at best, and cynical at worst. Trivially connecting the incomprehensible Horrors of nuclear war with a topic like urban development or cryptocurrency just comes across as intentional malpractice. If your topic justifiably includes nuclear war as an impact, I will need an iron clad link chain and evidence connecting the two, more than just asking me to assume that it will happen. Be professional. (I apologize for my rant and the irritation shown in it).

-I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.

-If you do plan on running a K argument, please let me know before the round starts. If you are, I will probably require you to drop your case in the file share or evidence chain for the benefit of myself and the other team. Likewise, theory arguments are cool (really!), but they must be constructed in a clear and cogent manner. I should not have to work to understand what you are saying.

-Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment. That ain't debate, friend-o.

-Don't assume that I am a genius. Signpost your contentions and your cards, if possible.

Hey, y'all. I'm a senior at Grady High School and captain the PF team. Here are the main things I will be looking for in round:

1. Framework

I like frameworks but not abusive frameworks. If you have a framework that isn't basic like CBA (cost benefit analysis) or utilitarianism, you need to be doing good argumentation for why I should buy it at all. Even if you do have CBA or util, I would like to hear some reasoning for why the round should be weighted that way. Just because your opponent doesn't have a framework, it doesn't mean that I should default to follow your wack framework, so give me reason to.

2. Argumentation

Clash! I don't like pre-written speeches.

Truth > Tech

Quality > quantity

Good argumentation will win you the round, so leave no stones unturned in terms of your opponent's arguments. I will needs links for argumentation, so give me your link chain (hope it's not shaky); in other words, link your contentions to your impacts.

I won't flow CX, so make sure that you bring up anything conceded in CX in future speeches.

Extensions of argumentation are key!!! You and your partner need to make sure that you are building off of each other and reiterating key points.

I mainly judge off of summary and final focus. Summary should include an evaluation of framework (if applicable). Final focus should be a shortened version of summary. Any new evidence brought up in final focus will be void on my flow. For final focus, I like it simple: framework and voters with impact calc.

3. Evidence

For key cards, I need a warrant: why it matters to the argument. I would also like to hear why the source is credible.

I will call for cards (probably after round) when I feel it's necessary. Please don't hold up the round for more than two minutes looking for your evidence.

If your opponent's evidence seems like BS, call for their card. You can start an email chain or send the link in the chat to the card, along with either what they can "control F" to find it or the paragraph where it's found. The prep time of whoever called for the card will start when they begin reading the card.

4. Speaking

I give speaks based on confidence, argumentation and sportsmanship.

Extra speaks for jokes, but make sure they're actually funny so it's not awkward.

Don't spread. Clarity > speed

Don't be rude

Crossfire: I don't flow cross but it will have an impact on your speaks if you don't keep it classy. I know it can get heated, but please be civil. Whoever spoke first gets first question.

If you have questions, you can email me at elena.hubert03@gmail.com . Please don't reach out until the ballot from your round is on tab.

Good luck!

I debated in high school and also was active in Model UN over 20 years ago. I help out my wife who is a speech and debate coach. My job as a judge is to serve as a neutral party. I would rather a competitor make two (2) or three (3) coherent arguments than run with ten (10) ill-conceived attacks. I will not vote based on a dropped specious argument. For example, if someone drops or fails defined a word such as "is". Only run or attack definitions if they are actually pertinent. The average conversation occurs at sixty (60) words per minute. Some debaters speak up to three hundred (300) words per minute. You would never do this in real life. Do not do it in a debate!! Imagine I am a CEO or an executive within the Intelligence Community. Each competitor should work to provide clear arguments to let the judge make a decision. In real life an "elevator pitch" may be the only time you have with a senior leader.

My background is criminal justice/law enforcement/intelligence community. I hold graduate degrees in public administration and national security studies. I judge based on evidence and arguments. In most cases my range of speaker points is between 25-30. If you get below 25 you were either completely unprepared or did something unethical.

In debate/public forum run with whatever plans you want. It is your round. Non-traditional or "outside the box" arguments are okay. I tend to put more emphasis on a good summary and final focus. Tell me why I should vote for your team. I do not flow the cross. I tend to keep very general notes of the cross. I do not disclose. My ballot is normally submitted very quickly after the round. So you will know who won.

I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.

a couple of things:

-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

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

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

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

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

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

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.

Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!

https://vancouverdebate.ca/intrinsic-debate-institute-summer-camp-2022/

Experience: Debated LD when I was in high school. I have judged many PF rounds judged

I love good analysis; not so impressed by blippy arguments. Having a coherent narrative by the end of the round is a good thing.

Evidence: quality over quantity. Understand your evidence. Ideally you should be able to:

- explain any expert opinion you cite (rather than just stating it),

- understand where a statistic comes from (how a study was done, what its limitations are etc),

- defend the relevance of any evidence you present, and

- be sure you’re not misrepresenting evidence.

Weighing is important (not just impacts). Tell me why I should vote for you.

Some speed is ok with me as long as you're clear .

If something isn’t in summary, don’t bring it up in FF.

I sometimes avoid disclosing at tournaments in order to get things moving.

Head coach at the Vancouver Debate Academy. PF, Worlds, Congress experience; taught all of 'em plus LD, BP, CNDF, and the speech formats.

So, I enter my rounds tabula rasa, meaning that I enter without prior knowledge or experience being weighed. Just because I heard something in a past round or I know something to be true, doesn't mean that I'll weigh it in this round. Now, if you tell me the sky is green, I'll know you're lying. I'm not gonna let y'all walk all over me. But I won't hold what you should've said or should've argued against you. You give me the material, and I decide which I buy more. That's who wins.

Also, don't be rude. You don't have to kill each other to win a debate round!

We Out Here.

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

I am a parent judge - 2020-2021 was my twins' final year as high school debaters, and I usually judged at almost every tournament, so I have been lucky enough to see a bunch of really great rounds. I typically judged PF, but have also judged a fair amount of LD.

I am looking for a DEBATE - not just the best speeches. I will give the win to the team that makes the most compelling case as to why their side is right and/or the opponent is wrong. I tend not to flow every specific point, but rely more on which team's overall argument is stronger. I probably put more weight on cross-ex and final summary arguments than most judges.

I usually am more convinced by a smaller number of really great points that are well defended than a whole bunch of pretty good points (quality of argument versus quantity). I am also looking for the debaters to pay attention to what their opponent says and specifically give a good counter argument to those points.

I was a policy debateron the national circuit in the 1980's, before the internet and before Public Forum Debate. Four years of competitive policy debate has shaped my approach to the ballot, however I like the changes and variety that come with public forum. Evidence is like ammunition in a battle. You have to undertsand it and know how to use it, else it could backfire and create unintednded injury to yourself instead of your opponent. In the end, rhetorical flourish is not important as a demonstrated understanding of the topic, a solid ability to listen to your opponenet, undertand the premise of your case, and explain why your case and the supporting evidence justify a decsision in your favor.

I've debated PF in highschool so unlike parent judges I'm gonna know what I'm talking about as well as be able to to tell if you know what you're talking about and my expectation is that you will.

Strong links are very important. I need to know the logic behind your argument and how it affects the topic. Along with with this, the impact of arguments I will be weighing heavily. Whichever side has a larger scope will have a large advantage in the round.

The last two speeches will be the most important of the round. Simplify your arguments and tell me why you've one. However, all arguments need to be brought up before the final speech. New arguments will not be weighed.

Evidence is important, but what you do with it is more important. I expect that if a card is called for that it is already cut and ready to be shown. Don't be surprised if I call for cards as well. Also please don't cheat, its very annoying for everyone involved.

Don't care too much about speed as long as you are speaking clearly. If you are a confident speaker with good arguments and flow, I will be generous with speaking points.

Procedurally, I prefer it if you start with an off-time road map so I know where you're going in the round. Try not to be arrogant during the round even if you're obviously winning. Jokes are appreciated unless their bad ones.

Looking forward to hearing some good rounds.

Hello Debaters! I have experience in the debate community judging since 2016! I debated PF at Grovetown High School from 2014-2016, and now teach English at Riverwood High School!

I mostly judge PF:

1. Please speak at a pace where I and the opposing team can understand you.
2. Do not assume that I know all the lingo of the resolved. (ex: random treaties, random signed government documents) Please explain when something has been abbreviated.
3. I do not need an off-time road map. If you need to jot one down on your paper for your organizational purposes, cool, but it has no use to me as I am writing down literally everything you are saying, and do not need the order your speech goes in, unless you are just telling me that you are just explaining that the speech has one purpose (ex Impacts).
4. Please. Look. At. Each. Other. During. Cross. Not. Me. It’s. Weird. You’re arguing and questioning each other. It’s not a speech, It's a time to question each other!!
5. Please take prep time when reading another opponent's evidence.
6. Please do not give me the impact of POVERTY. Debaters usually try to link some huge world problem in the resolve with the impact that poverty is the end all-be-all, and is the worst thing ever. Global poverty is a systemic issue that people cannot help as it is an effect of systemic racism, capitalism, etc. Poverty is the reality of many inside and outside of the debate community, and you never know what someone is carrying into a round with on their back. I have seen this impact so over used and incorrectly used in the past years it has been harmful to me as a judge. This is a complex issue that 14-18 year olds cannot solve, and is usually only given harmful, exacerbated solutions to, therefore I no longer want to hear about it.
7. I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.
8. Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment.
9. Debate should be a fun, enjoyable and equitable experience for all parties involved. If I hear students making discriminatory comments towards other teams or arguments discriminating others I will report you to the tournament leader and your coach, and have you pulled from the tournament. You are representing your school, your community, and your family when you are at these events. This is bigger than you.
10. If I close my eyes or look to the side while you are speaking during your speech, I am trying to focus and listen. I have combined type-ADHD, and I am just trying to SUPER FOCUS on the WORDS YOU ARE SAYING!! PF has so much info, I don't wanna miss a second!! Please do not take offense!

11. I prefer not to be included on email chains. If I need to see a piece of evidence that is called into question, I will look at it for myself.

12. Please, use your manners and let each team finish speaking during the crossfire. Let each other finish the question and talking. It's rude to treat your opposing team like that. Use your southern manners Y'all.
13. Give me a second while I am entering a round for the first time to set up everything. I be carrying junk around in my bag.
14. Please extend arguments and impacts in your summary and Final Focus, I understand it can be tempting to summerize your contentions. The other team and I listened to the whole hour plus of debate too, tell me how your contentions still stand and WHY! Give me impacts of those contentions. WHY THEY MATTER!!

15. I disclose after every round because I hate typing. :)

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at storyariel@gmail.com

See you out there! Happy Debating!

I am the PF captain at Midtown/Grady High School this year and am not competing.

In general, I prefer "tech over truth". If you tell me something I would like evidence presented and explained, but it ultimately comes down to your opponent's capacity to respond. Please signpost to keep me clear on your arguments.

Debate can get heated, but try to remain civil. It will affect your speaker points. Speaks will generally be 25-30 unless you are blatantly prejudiced.

Please give trigger warnings for graphic subjects.

I don't flow CX, bring up what happened in your rebuttal/summary if you believe it's relevant.

To help me earn my vote, ensure I flow the way you want me to: Signpost, mirror summary/ff, and tell me how I should weigh. If impacts aren't quantified and a weighing mechanism isn't given, I have to go off of my best assumption, which you don't want.

The most important thing to me in a round is that I want to see a genuine clash.

I won't vote off of nontopical arguments (abusive theory, Ks, CPs, etc.)

Whats up guys, Im hype to judge this tournament and I'm here to watch great rounds and hear good debates. This paradigm is just going to be over a few brief points that are important for round and I would appreciate you knowing them before round starts.

First, I'm not a parent judge, I know what I'm talking about and can sniff out BS. Ive competed in local, national, and international circuits and am blessed to be a state champion in PF. With that being said lets get into what the round should look like.

1. Argumentation

- LINKS LINKS LINKS LINKS, I cannot stress enough the importance of links!!!! If you want me to buy into your argumentation then you have to show me your train of thought and why your contention links to your impact.

- Either as important if not more, weighing is big for me in the round. Tell me why your impacts are more important than theirs. Weighing gives me a reason to care for your argument. Depending on if your opponent does the same, weighing could be the reason why a round is won or lost, not in consideration of what was said.

- I DECIDE ROUNDS ON THE LAST TWO SPEECHES, SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS ARE VERY IMPORTANT. Do not think of it as a time to slack off, these two speeches are the key to simplifying the round and telling me why you have won. (small tip, I would highly suggest using a good chunk of time in FF to weigh, that would be sweet)

- With the above being said, if it was a piece of evidence, contention, or turn that is brought up in FF that was not brought up in Summary, consider it dropped. New logic is always welcomed, but if you want me to decide the round with it, it needs to be in both speeches.

- I dont flow cross

2. Evidence

- Evidence is cool, but if you don't tell me why its important or how it works for you then whats the point? Be sure to use evidence beyond just saying the year and last name.

- I dont like cheating, its mad lame. To prevent any claims of it, please have your evidence ready. Cards should be cut and ready to show within like 2 min if its called out. If it takes an abnormal amount of time, the evidence gets dropped from my flow.

- Dont be surprised if I call for cards, a lot of people BS evidence and thats not cool.

3. Speaking

- I can handle fast speeds but please be clear, I would rather a moderate speed speech that is clear than a speech that is fast and jumbled.

- I value the art of oratory, I give speaks based on the logic of the argument, flow, and confidence. Make yourself present and look like you belong.

4. Sportsmanship

- Dont be a dick

- Jokes in round are cool, just make sure their funny cause if they're not it'll be awkward.

- Cross should be a battle of wits, not who can take up the most time.

"Tout ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément." ~Boileau

I vote on the clarity of the arguments and on the clarity of their articulation, so it is wise to avoid spreading.

I am looking for proof of your argument - make sure you cite cards throughout, and be clear about what point you are drawing from the evidence you're quoting.

Language matters! Don't assume that speaking faster / louder = making a stronger point. If the words you're using are not clear, or if your syntax / grammar is obscuring what you're trying to say, then it doesn't really matter how loudly you shout it or how fast you say it. There are plenty of examples of overemphasis in the world; be different. You should aim to stun your opponent & judge with an argument (or speech) that is worded with precision, starting from a solid framework, methodically laid out with a logical progression, and reinforced throughout with sound and airtight research / data that you have thoroughly cited.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, be respectful of your opponent(s). You can and will lose your argument if you resort to incivility. Again, there are plenty of examples of rudeness in the world; be different. And please, keep your own time.

Ph.D., Emory. I've judged on the regional and national circuit, mainly LD and PF, although I've also judged speech a bit and quite enjoyed it. ;)

Email: lupadhyay@chapin.edu

My Clout:I am a PF debater and currently captain of Houston County Debate Team. I have debating varsity for over 3 years, and currently my partner and I are the state champs in Varsity PF so ya know, I really like debate.

I mainly judge PF debate so I love dynamic speakers and good presentation. I can do like a little spreading, but if you're spreading don't be surprised when I wasn't able to understand/flow what you read. Also I really like when a team has good synergy, it is so annoying when debaters act like they hate their partner. I love humor, idk like a pun or something, ya know a lil chuckle.

I don't flow cross, so it does not have a influence on my ballet unless it is brought up in another speech (and yes it has to be extended). I DO NOT tolerate rudeness or being obnoxious during any speech, and do expect you to be aware of the dynamic of you and your opp. Like why do you need to yell, I'm right here. You will automatically lose the offense if you extend through ink, misread cards, or gaslight in any way.

I believe in signposting as much as possible, especially front lining in second speeches such as second rebuttal and summary, like I need to know what is going on if you just start in the middle of your flow and go with it. I prefer when the summary is a clean split between offense and defense, but really it's not a huge deal as long as your addressing arguments. Theory argument is fine, just please warrant it and place weight on it. Most importantly I should be able to flow clear impacts and voters from your F.F. PLEASE for a clearer debate condense the round in summary and F.F nobody has time for you to attack everything in the round PLEASE.

I usually disclose, please do not argue or try to alter the vote in any way. Thank you! oh and ask questions if you need to I don't mind :)

My Clout: I am currently the 2020 Varsity Public Forum State Champion, captain of the Houston County High School Debate Team, and I have been debating VPF for over 3 years.

Truth>Tech

I'm here for argumentation, as such, having great presentation and being the team commanding the round will definitely earn you higher speaks. As a PF debater, I definitely will be looking at the synergy of your team, I absolutely hate teams who seem like they don't like each other or have never debated together.

Truth>Tech

I don't flow cross, but I definitely pay attention, however, if you want it on the ballot it MUST be extended!! I don't tolerate rudeness or arrogance but I definitely enjoy a good pun, especially if it makes me cackle. I require frontlining in all second speeches, such as rebuttal and summary, and please, please, PLEASE signpost.DO NOT extend through ink.

MOST IMPORTANTLY I am not here for you, so don't make me do more work- HAVE IMPACTS. Please make sure summary and F.F mirror each other. For a clearer debate, please condense the debate in summary and F.F..

Thank you, and may the odds be ever in your favor :)