Hey guys, I'm writing this for my mom on her tab account. I do Varsity PF debate, so yeah this is a parent judge.

Background: My mom has worked in healthcare for 30 years, she has a Masters in Public Health and before that she was in the Peace Corps. She cares a lot about respect and making people's lives easier. She is very smart, so please don't completely lie and expect to get away with it. She listens to me rant about debate so she knows what's going on. Even though she is a parent judge and technically lay, she says she flows on paper. She has been judging for three years now, so I would treat her as more of a flay judge.

When you enter the round, definitely introduce yourself. It isn't super important but it will help her remember who is who.

She prefers when you time yourself, just don't go too overtime or under time or it'll probably look bad.

Try to be polite in the round, do not belittle your opponents. It is better for you to let each other speak than interrupt each other too much.

Speaking of, my mom can understand when you speak fast. If you're full on spreading you might want to let her know beforehand. That being said, if you don't need to spread, then don't spread.

My mom doesn't love it when debaters demand she has to vote a certain way or else. Instead, I would recommend saying you urge a con/pro ballot or even saying "please vote..."

Lastly, she isn't a fan of disclosing. She will disclose if it is necessary for a tournament or in a final round.

Okay good luck hope you do well. Please be nice to her!!!

Short version: I'm an experienced judge and know what I'm doing. I keep a rigorous flow. I can handle speed, but don't particularly like it. Please signpost. My background is in economics. Not a big fan of K's.

I like to think most of my preferences are pretty conventional, but if you want the long version:

Background

I am a debate coach at BASIS Independent McLean with a background in PF, LD, and Extemp. I competed in LD and Extemp in high school (Downers Grove South, IL), a tiny bit of Parliamentary (APDA) in college (Georgetown University, DC), and have coached middle and high school PF, speech, and parli at BASIS DC (Washington, DC, 2012-2016) and BASIS Independent McLean (McLean, VA, 2016-present). I have a degree in economics and am an economics teacher by day. For the past several years, I have spent most tournaments in the tabroom rather than judging per se, but as a PF coach, you can usually expect that I will have a reasonable degree of background knowledge on the topic.

Clarification for tournament officials

"BASIS Independent McLean" is the official name of my school. We are *not* an "independent" entry in the debate sense; we are fully school-sponsored/supported/recognized, etc. I am a full-time employee of the school. You are welcome to verify this via our school website, or reach out to me with any questions.

Public Forum

Overall/Structure: Like most judges, I want to see strong line-by-line in the opening speeches, moving towards big picture and crystallization in the Final Focus. All the standard stuff. For the line-by-line I really, really appreciate clear labels, with numbers/letters, of what point you're responding to. If you're grouping or cross-applying arguments, make that explicitly clear. Call drops (give me the tagline, briefly remind me of the warrant/reasoning, and extend the impact). Previews in the intro are always appreciated. There's a lot of ways you can go about crystallization in the Final Focus: voting issues, weighing criteria, world comparison, etc. I'm happy to hear any of them as long as you're telling me in a big picture way what I gain by voting for you over your opponents. (Of course, this doesn't mean you have to confine weighing to the Final Focus. Early weighing goes a long way.)

Speed & speaking style: While I am a relatively experienced judge, I am still a believer in PF as a debate activity that should be accessible to a broad audience. That means keeping debate jargon to a minimum, speaking at a pace a lay judge would be able to follow (slightly above conversational is fine as long as it's not excessive), and using basic tools of public speaking like eye contact and vocal variety. Still, ultimately the winner is determined by the flow, and the arguments on it, not rhetorical flourish. I also understand that at national circuit tournaments the norms lean more towards faster speed, and I won't dock your speaks for doing what you gotta do to cover the flow. That all said, keep in mind that the fastest speed at which you can talk and I can reliably understand you is still probably higher than the optimal speed for me to get everything onto to the flow - if you want judges to vote off the flow, you need to speak at a speed optimized for someone writing, not just listening.

Frameworks/Observations: Use whatever you're comfortable with. If a framework is not specified I will default to a general balance-of-harms/benefits utilitarian calculus. My personal favorite follow-up to a framework is those of the style "In order to win, the [other side] would need to show [X]," but only if it's actually done fairly/reasonably, and you should still do whatever you're comfortable with.

Crossfire: Look at the person you're trying to persuade (the judge) during crossfire. For tournaments that follow NSDA rules, first question in each crossfire should come from the first-speaking team. For NCFL rules, first question goes con-pro-pro for the three crossfires respectively. I'd ask everyone to stand for the 2-person crossfires, and remain seated for the grand crossfire. If you've been asked a question at the end of crossfire, you can give a short 1- or 2-sentence response, even if it's past 3 minutes.

Frontlining/rebuttals: I generally expect that the second team's rebuttal will both attack the opponents' case and defend their own. I know that puts an asymmetrical expectation on the teams, but the alternative is that the first team doesn't get a chance to respond until final focus. It's also what I'm used to seeing in my area. I am not of the belief, as is now apparently floating around, that absolutely everything in FF had to have also been in summary - but I also don't like voting for things I heard once in constructive and then not again until Final Focus, so please call drops and extend things in either rebuttal or summary.

Finally, PF is not, and ought not be, Policy-lite. I am not a fan of kritiks or too much in the way of off-case arguments in general, with the exception of some basic theory when debating frameworks or identifying abuse.

Also take a look at the "general procedural matters" section at the bottom of this paradigm.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am largely a "traditional" judge, and most of my LD experience, as both a judge and a competitor, comes from outside the national circuit. I have spent far more time judging/coaching PF than LD. While I'm familiar with basic ethical philosophy, it's best to assume that I'm not particularly familiar with any one author outside the basics of standard Mill/Kant/Bentham/Rawls/etc. greatest hits.

I keep a fairly rigorous flow; make sure you're giving me clear signposts in your responses, with numbers/letters, not just tags. I can mostly keep up with moderate speed - as long as it is not excessive - though I don't particularly enjoy it. I care a lot about dropped arguments, so please call them and don't make me fill in for you, but especially in LD I need you to be explicit about why the argument matters and how it fits in to the Values/Criteria in the round.

I generally find myself well-persuaded by historical examples and concrete studies. Hypotheticals have a place in an LD round, but don't lean too heavily on them. By default, I'm more skeptical of off-case arguments and kritiks - I want to see a debate about the resolution itself. But I will vote on whatever framework is carried through the round. If you do try to run a k, despite my warnings, treat me like a lay judge, and lay everything out in the clearest possible terms. I am familiar with close to none of the literature behind the k's floating around these days, so start from scratch.

General Procedural Matters (both PF & LD)

Off-time road maps are great, just make sure a) You tell me very explicitly it's an off-time roadmap, b) it is short, and c) it is literally just a roadmap, not argumentation.

I don't care where you stand to speak, though I do expect you to make reasonable eye contact wherever you're speaking from. I do care who sits on what side, but I won't know which side that is until I hit "start round" in Tabroom. PF: I don't care about seating position for first/second speaker, though I will ask who's who before we start.

I do care about keeping the tournament running on time, so you will get on my bad side quickly if you do anything to drag us out unnecessarily.

After the round: As long as the tournament permits it, I'll take a few minutes to prepare a decision, and give verbal feedback and disclose. If there's another round/flight scheduled for the room, I'll take us into the hallway. I do prefer quiet while I'm going back through the flow so I can concentrate. Once the ballot has been submitted my decision is final, but feel free to ask questions, or find me in the cafeteria if I had to speed through the RfD for an incoming round/flight.

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

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

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

Parent Judge.

Be clear, don't rush, don't be nervous.

I'm a parent judge, my preferences are standard across the board.

Speak clearly and persuasively, NO spreading. You can speak fast or slow, but I prefer Quality over Quantity.

I'll weigh everything throughout the round. Public Forum should encourage well-rounded, persuasive debating.

I judge on your preparation, ideas, evidences, logics, impacts, arguments and summary. My final decision comes down to all of them on both sides.

Be respectful throughout the round. If not, I'll deduct your speaking point or even lose the round.

Have fun!

Lexington High School 2020/Northwestern 2024

Before the round starts, please put me on email chain: victorchen45678@gmail.com(no pocket box, and flashing is ok with no wifi)

Scroll down for PF/LD paradigm

Policy:

TLDR: tech over the truth but to a degree. (no sexist, racist, other offensive arguments) You do you, and I'll try to be as objective as possible. Aff should relate to the topic and debate is a game. Just make sure in the final rebuttal speech you impact out arguments, explain to me why those arguments you are winning implicate the whole round.

2022 season: I have absolutely no topic knowledge on this year's topic so expect me to know nothing and make sure you explain the stuff in a very detailed yet not convoluted manner.

The long paragraphs below are my general ideas about the debate

Top Level Stuff

1. Evidence -- I believe debate is a communicative activity, thus I put more emphasis on your analytical arguments than your cards. That being said, I do love good evidence and enjoy reading them. I think one good warranted card is better than three mediocre ones. I am cool with teams reading new cards in all the rebuttal speeches. A good 1AR should read more than 3 cards and don't be afraid to read cards in the 2NR. I believe that at least one speech in the block should be pretty card heavy, otherwise it makes the 1AR a lot easier. I will read the tags during rounds for the most part and read the text usually after rounds, but I won't do the extensive analysis for you because you should have already done that in the round.

2. Cross X is incredibly important to me and I flow them---I find it extremely frustrating when the 2N gets somewhere in 1ac cx, and then the 1N doesn't bring it up in the 1NC. Winning CX changes entire debate both from a perceptual level and substance level. Use the 3 minutes wisely, and don't ask too many clarification questions. You can do that during prep.

3. Be nice -- Obviously be assertive and control the narrative of the debate round, but there's no reason to make the other team hate the activity or you in the process. I am cool with open cross x but you should try to let your partner answer the questions unless they are going to mess up.

4. Tech over truth, but to a degree- If an argument is truly bad, then beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted, and unclear args( quality over quantity). The only real intervention is when I draw the line on new args, but you should still make them and somehow convince they aren't new.

5. Pay attention to how I react in-round --I will make my opinion of an argument obvious

6. Make 1AR as difficult as possible. I know a lot of 2Ns want to win the round by the end of the block. However, that doesn't mean you should just extend a bunch offs terribly. In response, the 1AR should make the 2NR difficult- reading cards and turning arguments.

7. Please please have debates on case. I understand neg teams like to get invested in the offs, but case debate is precious. A lot of the aff i have seen are terribly put together, especially at the Internal Link level. Even if you don't have evidences, making some analytical arguments on why the plan doesn't solve goes a long way for you. I vote on zero probability of aff's ability to solve so even when you go for a CP, you should still go to case so I would have to vote you all down twice to vote aff.

8. Impact/Link Turns-- love them; i don't care how stupid the impact is(wipeout, malthus, bees etc), as long as you read ev and the other side doesn't argue it well, I will vote for you. As for link turn, I don't really need a carded ev for that, just nuanced analytic is sufficient for me to buy them.

9. Be funny-debate is stressful and try to light up the mood. Love a few jokes here and there, but since I am someone not invested in pop culture too much, some of the references I probably wouldn't get. If you do it well, your speaker point will reflect it.

10. Speaks- I am very lenient on speaks. I just ask you to slow down on the tags and author name and any analytical args but feel free to spread through the text of the card. I love any patho moments in the final rebuttal speeches on both sides. Here are how I give speaks

29.7-30: A debate worth getting recorded and be shared with my novices.

29.3-29.6: You are an excellent debater and executed everything right

28.7-29.2: You are giving pretty good speeches and smart analytics

28.5-28.6: You are an average debater and going through the process. I begin the round with that number and either go up or down.

28.0-28.4: You are making a few of the fundamental mistakes in your speeches or speaking unclearly.

27.0-27.9: You are making a lot of fundamental mistakes and you are speaking very unclearly

<27.0: You are rude ie being mean to your partner, opponents, or me (hope not).

Clipping card results in automatic 0 speaks and a loss, but I won't intervene the round for you, you have to call out your opponents yourself. If one team accuses the other team for clipping, I will stop the round and ask the team if they are willing to stake the round on that. If the team says yes I will walk out with the recording provided by that team and decide if the cheating has happened or not. A false accusation results in an automatic loss of the team that got it wrong. Spakes will be given accordingly.

Now on arguments

DAs

Yes, love them(Idk if there is anyone who doesn't like a good DA debate) -- go through their ev in the rebuttals; this is where i would like a team to read A LOT of evidence on the important stuff. You can blow off their dumb args, especially the links.

Zero Risk is very much a thing and I will vote on it.

If the 1ar or 2ar does a bad job answering turns case and the 2nr is great on it, it makes the DA way more persuasive -- and a good case debate would greatly benefit you as well.

Politics is OK -- fiat solves link, da non-intrinsic are arguments that I will evaluate only if the other team doesn't respond to them at all. However, I do want to see good ev on why the plan trades off with the DA.

I think it's best to have a CP and DAs together because there are just a lot more options at that point. If you really wanna just go for the DA, you need to have a heavy case debate up to that point for me to really evaluate the status quo since most of the aff are built to mitigate the status quo.

CPs and theory

I dislike process CPs-- I really don't like these debates -- I've been a 2n as well as a 2a, but I will side with the aff - this goes for domestic process like commissions as well as intermediary and conditional that lurk in your team's backfile. However, I have a soft spot for consult CP (my first neg argument). Just make sure you do a great job on the DA.

States, international, multi-plank, multi-actor, pics, CPs without solvency advocates are all good -- i'll be tech over my predispositions, but if left to my own devices, I would probably side with aff also

Condo -- all depends on the debating -- I think there could be as many condo as possible. but I also believe zero condo could be won. Still, my general opinion is that conditionality is good and aff teams should only go for them as a last resort.

I will read the solvency evidence on both sides. Solvency deficits should be well explained, why the solvency deficit impact outweighs the DA.

I don't like big multi-plank CPs, but run it as you like and kicking planks is fine

Judge kick unless the 2AR tells me otherwise.

Ks

I have some decent knowledge with a lot of the high theory Ks, but I am probably most well versed in psychoanalysis. That being said, I do want you to explain to me the story of the k and how it the contextualizes with the aff well in the block. Don't just spill out jargons and assume i will do the work for you. A good flow is important. What happens with alot of K debates is that at some point the negative team just give up on with ordering and it's harder for me to know where to put things. Any overview longer than 3 minutes is probably not a good idea but if that's your style, go for it, just make sure you organize them in an easy to flow manner. I probably will do the work for you when u said you have answered the args somewhere up top, but i would prefer the line by line and your speaker point will reflect how well you did on that.

FW should be a big investment of time and I think it's strategic to do so. That being said, you have to clearly explain why the aff's pedagogy is problematic and the impacts of that.

I am meh with generic links, just make sure you articulate them well. That being said, most of these links probably get shielded by the permutation.

Alt debate is not that important to me. I don't believe a K has to have an alt by the 2nr. I go for linear DA a lot, but make sure you do impact calc in the 2nr that explains why the K impact outweighs the aff. For the alt, I would like the aff to read more than just their cede the political block, make better-nuanced args.

Planless affs

I am probably not the best judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible

Framework:

The aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. At the very least, the aff has to have some relationship to the topic. I want the offense to be articulated well because many times I get confused by the offenses of these affs. I think fairness is absolutely an impact as well as an I/L. I default to debate is a game and it's gonna be hard to convince me otherwise.

I think the ballot ultimately just decides a win and a loss, but I can be convinced that there are extra significances and values to it. That being said, I have seen a lot of k aff with impacts that the ballot clearly can not address.

T

Not a big fan of these debates and never have been good at it.

From Seth Gannon's paradigm:

"Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have cancelled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum."

On this topic specifically, I dislike effect Ts

These debates are boring to me and I will side with the aff if they are anyway close to being Topical, and that's usually how I have voted.

Reasonability = yes

LD:

I feel like most of the policy stuff should apply here. I never debated LD but I have judged quite a bit and I almost always see it as a mini Policy round.

PF:

I am more tech than truth, but I will absolutely check on evidence quality to make sure your warrants indeed support your claims. Feel free to run whatever arguments and I am willing to vote on any level of impact as long as good impact calc and weighing is done. If you have strong evidence you shouldn’t worry. I will not evaluate anything that’s not in summary by the final focus. And also please don’t stop prep to ask for another card. Ask for all the cards you want in the beginning and you will see plus on your speaks.

I did two years of Public Forum at Byram Hills and two at Lincoln Sudbury High School.

General Ideas

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in second rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

Overall, I was not super experienced in a lot of aspects of tech debate. I think I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a young man and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. Do with that what you will. I'd say generally don't change your style of debate for me, but be conscious that I might not be on the same page as you if you're being a big tech boi.

I don't know as much as I probably should about theory and K debating. I'm open to voting on them, but I'll let you know right now that I am not super informed and you'd have to explain it to me like I'm a dummy.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

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

Add dcigale01@gmail.com and planowestdocs@googlegroups.com to email chains.

I am a first time parent judge and looking forward to the debate. Please do not speak fast or rush your arguments. It is always best to use your own language as you present these complex ideas. Your comments should follow logically from one another and build an argument. The more your ideas are generated from real-world possibilities, the better. Please be respectful of your opponents and help to create a positive debate space.

Hi, as a relatively novice judge, please help me by clearly signposting and weighing. The more clearly you state your contentions, claims, warrants and impacts, the easier it is for me to give you appropriate credit. No new evidence in final focus please. Have fun.

Debate as hard as you can absent racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, classist and ableist arguments.

When you think about giving your last speech explain a clear reason you win and why the other teams loses . Compare and contrast concisely , engagement or clash is very important to me as well as impact analysis /calc.

why do your harms or impacts matter in the world of the current debate. So what if the aff isnt endorsed ? why is that bad ? why is the neg the worst scenario in the context of your aff case ?

I try not to call for evidence to avoid interpretation bias but i may have to if you dont explain it well enough . do your best to cite and remind me of what you were saying and why that means you win and they lose , again why they lose and you win with evidence comparison and offensive and defensive arguments

Slow down on main points

Have fun!

I'm a parent judge.

Please speak slowly, be clear, explain abbreviations and don't use jargon.

Don't simply state a plethora of sources. Instead, provide me with logical, well explained, and well-supported arguments.

Keep your own time and be honest!

Don't insult your opponents. Don't talk over your opponent. Be a respectful debater.

Make debate fun.

I have debated in Lincoln-Douglas Debate for 4 years in Science park high school. I recently graduated and I am now on the Rutgers Newark debate team. I've qualified to the TOC in both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate my senior Year.

I give high speaks if you are clear and really good in the big picture debate. I like a good story.

email is: adegoke.f.boss@gmail.com for email chains

Check out my latest EP. Link below.

https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/goke2/hamper-of-the-heart

Hi all! 

I did in PF at Scarsdale for 4 years and do Mock Trial at Columbia now, so I have ~some experience~ with the cult that is debate. 

If I'm judging your round, I suggest you read below: 

I flow a round but I do not base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighting. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.

Please be civil during crossfires. I love drama, but I like to watch it exclusively on the Real Housewives. If you start attacking the opposing team, I'll stop listening. 

Also, hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. 

Purposely miscontruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.

The bottom line is: although your cases/contentions are important, I think what distinguishes PF from other forms of debate is your ability to think on the spot, use coherent logic, and WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH.

Let's have fun children. 

I'm a parent judge for Acton Boxborough.

Please talk slow. It is hard to make a decision if I don't know your arguments.

I listen to crossfire in order to scope the strength of your arguments.

Evaluate me as a lay judge.

My name is Jonathan Freedman. I am a lawyer, and while I did not debate in high school, I have been judging Varsity Public Forum for three years, and JV Public Forum for two years prior to that. If I can't understand you, I can't flow for you, so please speak slowly, clearly and loudly. No spreading, please. I judge tech over truth, so I won't argue for you. It helps me to flow your speech if you give me an off time roadmap, so please do so. If you have any questions, ask me before the round starts.

I know things like theory and kritiks are starting to show up in PF, but I am probably not the right judge for that kind of argument. I will only vote on the substance of the resolution.

I debated public forum for Shrewsbury High School in Massachusetts, competing in local and national tournaments. I broke to elimination rounds at the 2013 TOC. I am a "flow judge" and will use my flow to determine who wins the round. Speak clearly and don't spread. If your argument isn't in my notes because you spoke too fast, I can't evaluate it.

My personal speaker point scale: 30=perfect 29=exceptional 28=good 27.5=average 27=below average, etc...

I'm a parent judge, former litigator, and currently a bank regulatory and policy attorney. I'm also a volunteer firefighter.

I'm fine with moderate speed, as long as it's clear and isn't spreading. Please frontline in 2nd Rebuttal, and weigh in Summary and Final Focus.

For the round, please time yourselves, and when time ends, then simply complete your sentence and defer.

Be respectful of your opponents, and during crossfire and grand crossfire please strive not to speak over your colleagues and remember to always ask questions (and not soapbox your contentions).

Best of luck!

I did 4 years of pf at stuyvesant in nyc (2016-20)

how i evaluate a round

- usually i only be look at summary&ff unless i have a reason not to (e.g. the impact to this turn wasn't in rebuttal, evidence from case, etc.)

- who wins framing? if there is a framework debate i look there first to decide how i should evaluate the round. usually whoever has better warrants + compares their framework to the alternative and explains why it's better wins.

- i look at the offense that each team has extended in summary & ff. extended means that the entire argument is present-- uniqueness (if it's weird or contested), links w/ warrants (all the way from the resolution to the impact, e.g. rtw --> fewer ppl in unions b/c they don't have to pay dues if they're not members --> weaker unions b/c their power comes from collective bargaining which requires union members to effectively strike/negotiate b/c there is no leverage if a corp. barely loses any workers --> less of the benefits they collectively bargain for --> impact). then, i look if there is any terminal defense & if so has it been responded to? this goes beyond justa response and requires a response that engages with the warrant/evidence of the defense: does the frontline make this response untrue? if there is terminal defense i don't consider the offense, if it's handled i then look to mitagatory defense and factor it in (it helps if the team who reads mitagatory defense tells me what that means in the case of me evaluating the round)

- if there is unresolved clash at the link level, i see if either team has compared the links (e.g. is it more important for unions to have money or members for their effectiveness?) and if they have whose comparison is better (if you compare the comparisons and tell me why your warranting is more true i'll vote there). if it's at the impact level again i look to see which team has given me better comparisons. if you metaweigh and compare your weighing i'll evaluate it how i'm told to.

- if anything is not compared i have to independently decide how i treat the clash/weighing. this puts your fate into my hands! pls don't do this

stuff

- if you say "time starts on my first word" or "time starts in 3, 2, 1" etc i reserve the right to dock speaks

- frontline in second rebuttal (necessary for offensive responses, recommended for defense)

- warrants matter more to me than impacts but i'm never really comfortable voting on an incomplete argument (missing a link, warrant, etc)

- blippy extensions aren’t compelling — you don’t have to pretend i’ve never heard the argument before, but you do need to re-explain it in its entirety. fontlining does not mean you're extending your case! feel free to extend while you frontline, but make sure the necessary warrants that don't have any ink on them and are not being frontlined are also extended.

- a lot of summaries try to do too much, you don’t need to win every arg to win the round. i rarely end up voting for teams with multiple pieces of offense, time trades off with extension quality

- good warrants > evidence with warrants > warrants > evidence

- extend cards for emperics

- if you want me to vote on a turn it needs to be warranted, implicated and impacted when you read it and it needs to be weighed in summary & ff. happy to vote for a turn & dropped case if you do this, though!

- if i call evidence it means the round is closer than you should let it

- tech over truth but it’s not absolute. the more ridiculous an argument, the more leeway i give for responses

- weigh, and not just with buzzwords ! do the work to compare the offense and convince me to vote for you in spite of defense. if the clash happens at the link level, i need explicit reasons to prefer your warrants/evidence

- most of the rounds i’ve judged are decided by (1) which team extended a complete argument through ff with links or (2) which team weighed better

- i don't love to judge evidence debates, and it's unlikely i will call for evidence if there is a way for me to evaluate the round without doing so. i will accept any indict as true unless it is responded to in-round

- assume 0 topic knowledge if it's my first tournament judging the topic

- in person email chains are weird

progressive argumentation

- my understanding of the round will trade off with speed. if you plan on spreading send a speech doc to greenicamilla@gmail.com

- i attended 1 progressive argumentation lecture at ndf in 2019. that is the extent of my understanding of the technical aspects of a theory debate, i probably won't vote on it. if there is an abuse in case that you genuinely think is bad for norms, make the argument in rebuttal. if there is an in-round safety violation, say something in a speech and i'll be pretty comfortable dropping the debater.

I am a parent judge representing Regis High School in New York City. I have been judging debate for over three years at some of the larger regional tournaments, states, and local tournaments, judging principally Varsity PF, rounded out with a BQ qualifier and BQ nationals.

I work in finance. I'm familiar with basic debate jargon (turn, extend, etc.) but I'm certainly not a very 'debatey' judge. Off time roadmaps are welcome. Please be sure everything you say is understandable. Speed is okay but you must be clear. If I can't follow you it will be harder for me to understand connections between your contentions, warrants, and impacts or challenges to your opponent's arguments.

When time runs out, please finish your thought and stop speaking.

I will vote off the flow.

My name is Jack Greenspan, I'm a Scarsdale High School alumni, and I currently attend Trinity College Dublin in Dublin, Ireland. I did Public Forum all four years in high school, and I know that it's a challenging event, so good for you for debating. The following is how I analyze each round:

Weighing

Weighing is an absolutely necessary part of each round. You need to do this by telling us which arguments outweigh which arguments, and WHY that's the case. The best cards to weigh on either have a high magnitude (effect) or high probability. I'll accept cards that speak in generalities when weighing, but I'll prioritize hard numbers. An examination of the two different worlds that would happen is a good way to help me visualize the impacts.

For Novice debate, rounds essentially come down to Weighing, Weighing, Weighing. If you do a good job weighing, you'll have won the round 95% of the time.

Collapsing

Upon the summary, the round should be focused on one or two points of contention, and your summaries and final focuses should address these. I will still flow through other arguments, but when considering the round, I'll be more favorable to the team that wins on these main points.

Rebuttals

Try to address every point that your opponent has made. If it is not addressed, then it will be flowed through on. your opponent's flow if your opponent simply mentions it in their next speech. Additionally, even if there's a point that seems obvious, if you haven't linked it into your argument, I can't just assume that it's there -- I need clear links.

If you can explain your arguments in a clear, logical manner, you'll make the most sense to me, and I'll be most likely to vote for you. Having stellar links between claims, evidence, and impacts are very important.

Cross Examination

I won't judge off of this, but it's good for you to ask clarifying points about your opponents case and to explore holes in their argument. Honestly, I'm fine with skipping cross if you all are. If you see me on my phone or doing homework during cross, don't take it personally.

Summary and Final Focus

To flow an argument through, I need it mentioned in either your case or your rebuttal AND either your summary and final focus. The sooner you bring up a point, the better, and key evidence should appear early in the round. If you opponent hasn't addressed the contention, just a mere mention ("My opponent has not addressed our ____ argument") will be sufficient enough for me. If it's an argument with more clash, I expect to see more time spent on it (see "Collapsing" above).

Presentation

As long as I can understand you, I don't care about the strength of your presentation (eye contact, body language, etc.), and will not be using it to create a decision.

Preferences

I don't need an off-time road map, but if you choose to give me one, that's fine. Please try to time yourselves. Additionally- and this is very important- SIGN POSTING is vital. This is where you reference specific arguments and cards before you address them. This makes it a lot easier for the judge, and if you make my job easier, I'll be more likely to vote for you.

I like to start rounds early, so try to be early if you can.

Finally, I do disclose and give feedback at the end of the round. Best of luck!

I am a parent judge who values common sense and clear logic in argumentation. The following are my preferences:

1. Always organize and collapse on your arguments.

2. If your evidence contradicts your opponent's, convince me with logic. More recent evidence may not be better.

3. Slow down if you do not articulate your words.

4. Be respectful and let your opponents answer the questions you asked during crossfire.

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.

Debate History: I debated for Towson University & Binghamton University (4 years college).

First and foremost, I will not tell you how to engage in the debate. Whether it be policy or K affirmatives I'm open to debaters showcasing their research in any format they choose. However, I do prefer if debaters orient their affirmative construction towards the resolution. 

When evaluating a debate I tend to weigh the impacts of the affirmative to any disadvantage or impact the negative goes for in the 2NR. Therefore, if the affirmative does not extend case in the 2AR it becomes more difficult for me to evaluate the debate unless you tell me the specific argument I should be voting on otherwise. 

Next, is framework. I evaluate this before anything else in the debate. If you run framework in front of me go for decision making, policy research good, learning about X (insert topic related policy discussion i.e. warming, tech, economy, education, etc.) is good, clash or ground. I do not want to feel as though your framework is exclusionary to alternative debate formats but instead debate about its inherent benefits. 

I also really enjoy case debate. If you are on the negative please have case turns and case specific evidence so that the debate for me is a bit more specific and engaging. 

CP's and DA's are also arguments I evaluate but I need to have a good link for both or it will make it difficult for me to vote for them. 

Please focus more on explanation of evidence and not on the amount of evidence introduced in the debate. 

I tend to keep up on politics and critical literature so don't be afraid of running an argument in front of me. I will always ask for preferred pronouns and do not tolerate racism, white supremacy, anti-blackness, sexism, patriarchy, transphobia and xenophobia. 

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

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

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

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

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and be respectful of your opponents.

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

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

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

I did 3 years of public forum at Poly Prep (2015-2018) and I'm a senior at uchicago. Email chain: sophialam@polyprep.org

- here's how i make my decision: i look at who wins the weighing/framework. I evaluate that argument. If you win the weighing/framework and the offense with a terminalized impact, you'll probably win. If no one weighs then I'm gonna go with scope or the argument with the least ink.

- I don't like frivolous theory. If you read it you better go for it. Ks are cool, but I reserve the right to intervene if I feel like you're running it in a problematic/game-y way.

- I like warrants. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I'm likely to give them some ground. I prefer your counter warrant/ev as a response rather than just their lack of supporting evidence.

- speed is fine as long as you aren't speaking unclearly.

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense from rebuttal unless second rebuttal frontlines. Turns/Offense you want me to vote on need to be in both summary and final focus.

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech

- I don't time, if your opponents are telling me time is up I'll stop flowing but give them at least 5 seconds. Don't hold up your timer .5 seconds after the speech time is over

- i default neg if there's no offense

I am interested in the thoughtful exchange of ideas. Students should be prepared to engage issues in a calm, focused manner without emphasis on the technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate.

I have never judged World Schools before. Ignore everything below

---

Auto 30s if both teams agree to skip all crossfires and prep time. Auto 29s if both teams agree to skip all crossfires, or if you offer + the other team refuses. Otherwise I cap speaks at 28. If you want lots of time to write your speech, do policy.

I have a short attention span. Don't make the round unnecessarily long, or I will be in a bad mood.

---

I debated for hunter college hs ('20) in nyc and broke at toc. I coached bronx science ('20-'21) and do some apda at harvard ('24).

1. All 1st rebuttal to 1ff extensions are fine, including offense. I don't care if you frontline in 2nd rebuttal, or extend turns or defense in 1st summary. No new 2ff weighing. I presume 1st speaking team. I have a high bar for not presuming - if it takes longer than 120 seconds for me to decide the round, I will presume. This includes when both teams are winning offense but neither weighs, even if the weighing is obvious.

2. "If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time."

Speed is fine, I will clear you if necessary, send me the doc if going 300+. Don't interrupt women in cx.

---

Theory: Paraphasing is good for debate. In general, I default reasonability. Running theory asks me to intervene, by not evaluating substance, because the in-round abuse supposedly outweighs. You have to make me actually believe that the abuse was significant and outweighs substance, or else I won't intervene. If in doubt, ask before the round.

All online tournaments: If you choose to read any cards, disclosure theory is a TKO. You must send all your case evidence in card form with reasonable context and proper cites to the email chain before you read case.

I care very little about what your evidence says, and I won't read ev unless you tell me to. In fact, I would love a round in which neither team reads any evidence. However, teams seem to be obsessive about evidence-calling, and in this online format, in-round evidence exchange is incredibly clunky and results in a colossal waste of time. Just get it over with before the round. I don't particularly care if you post it on the wiki, and it's fine if you paraphrase your cards in the speech, but the other team needs to be able to read your evidence quickly and readily without wasting everyone else's time while stealing prep time and pretending the email hasn't arrived.

Hi, I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly! I have judged many pf rounds before, but I am still definitely not a flow judge. In round, make sure that you're using logic to explain your arguments thoroughly as well. If you see me writing, don't take it seriously, I am just taking notes. Don't be rude and have fun!

---

Hi this is his daughter that does PF and from what he's told me abt judging here are some tips if he's judging you:

-he doesnt flow everything u say :((( so make sure you're emphasizing the most important things he should be flowing

-he won't feel comfortable voting off your argument if he doesn't understand the logic (if he doesn't understand either side he randomly chooses lol so TALK SLOW and MAKE SENSE)

-he likes it when you have arguments that directly clash (pro and con both run the same arg i.e. innovation) but he also likes clean extensions of args that go conceded

-he adores clean signposting

-also he works in like biology/physics/medical related stuff and knows a lot abt pharma so be accurate lol or he'll know

I am a parent judge who values common sense, clear logic, and coherence.

1. Arguments shall be clear and well-articulated, even if they do not cover every aspect.

2. If your evidence contradicts your opponent's, convince me with logic. More recent evidence may not be better.

3. As for mechanics, I am pretty flexible and should be comfortable with speed as long as you are clear. (However - I'm definitely not used to a policy level of speed so send me a speech doc if you do so). I'm open to theory, as long as it is not frivolous. I default to reasonability.

4. Have evidence ready, shouldn't take longer than 2 mins to find it or send it out. Also, I will take it from your prep if you're prepping when your opponent is getting a card.

5. Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in every speech, and collapse on voters in at least FF, if not summary.

6. Be respectful and let your opponents answer the questions you asked during the crossfire.

Fourth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.

I've coached and judged all major debate topics. I work most closely with our Congressional debate team, but also have experience judging PF, LD, and Parli.

PF: I think it's important for you to remember the goal of the event. Anyone should be able to walk into your round and follow the debate. With that said, I do flow and will try to give tech feedback as well as general commentary. I think some speed is ok in PF, but I think spreading absolutely does not belong.

LD: I am not a former debater myself; I really struggle to follow theory debate, K's, and spreading in general. I've learned a little about it over the past few years, but if you are a tech/theory/spreading team you should probably strike me (just being honest!). For all other levels--I will flow both framework and case and have voted on both. Try to be concrete in connecting your evidence to your claims. I've found that LD debaters can sometimes get carried away with "debater math"...and no, not everything can lead to nuke war. I am partial to probability arguments--I'm a realist at heart :)

Congress: As a teacher of Government & Politics, I really enjoy this event. You should always be roleplaying being an actual representative/senator. What would your constituents think about your speech? Why is your advocacy in their interest? I really like constitutionality arguments--we have a federal system, and sometimes bills being debated are directly in violation of those principles. Feel free to cite those Supreme Court cases all day. As you get later into the round, I will be highly critical if you are just repeating points from previous speeches. I want to see crystal/ref speeches later on--as do your fellow competitors, I'd presume.

I have no background in high school or college debate, but I have been a practicing attorney for more than 35 years and have been judging PF debates for 8 years.

I am a great believer in the “citizen judge” roots of Public Forum. The debater’s job is to persuade the man on the street, with no background as to the resolution of the month, that pro or con should win. Thus, clarity and focus are paramount. Your job is to persuade, not confuse, me. Well-structured arguments and effectively utilized evidence are key, but so are articulation, modulation, and engagement. A glance up from your laptop from time to time can work wonders, as can staying in the Zoom frame in a well-lighted room.

I do flow arguments, but not in a very technical way. A dropped argument will only count against you if it is material to your overall presentation and not offset by more meritorious arguments that make it through Final Focus.

Spreading and the pointless acceleration of pacing it engenders are strongly discouraged. You should choose your arguments carefully and deliver them at a pace, and with an energy and focus, that are designed to persuade.

Use your evidence fairly and judiciously. Do not overstate its significance or twist its meaning beyond recognition. I will only ask to see your card if the outcome of a round turns on an evidentiary dispute, but, if it comes to this, you want to be confident that your card can be read as presented. Also, feel free to request your opponent's cards, but do so sparingly and only when necessary to dispute a material contention or buttress a key argument.

Unfortunately, only one team can win; that’s the way it is in real life and in every courtroom I have ever appeared, so try to roll with the punches.

Most importantly, have fun. Few things are as satisfying as a hard-fought win; or as motivating (for the next round) as a too-close-to-call loss.

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

For 1st Speakers:

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

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

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

For 2nd Speakers:

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

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

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

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

General Stuff:

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

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

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

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

Hello! I'm a first-year assistant coach and former debater from South Dakota. I was an LDer in high school but am focusing mostly on PF as a coach. I will vote based on my flow, but I'm just re-entering debate after some time away, so you might be best thinking of me as a flay judge. I'm open to nontraditional styles and approaches as long as you make sure I know where you're going throughout. Finally, absolutely do not make important points faster than I can flow; if it's not on my flow, it won't be on my RFD. Please feel free to ask before the round if you have any questions.

LD

I'm most familiar with traditional-style LD. Unless I'm asked to consider another path to the ballot by either debater, this is how I evaluate all such rounds.

1. Which value better satisfies the moral obligation of the resolution?
2. Which criterion better achieves the chosen value in (1)?
3. Whose contention-level arguments better meet the chosen criterion in (2)?

That means that a key to winning a round with me in the back is having strong links. For both your sake and mine, please explicitly link your value to the resolution's moral obligation, your criterion to both your and your opponent's values, and your contentions to both your and your opponent's criteria; even if the links are obvious, I can't consider those links unless you're the one making them.

If you're planning your 1NR or 2AR, consider:

• walking me through the RFD by explaining how answering these three questions should lead to a ballot for you; and
• using phrases like "Even if you don't buy (x), you'll still vote (aff/neg) because (y)."

PF (or LD rounds with consequentialist frameworks)

Unless I'm asked to consider another path to the ballot by either debater, I default to util/impact-weighing for PF ballots. That means you need to weigh impacts in your speeches, too. Don't assume your impacts are more powerful than your opponents'; give me warrants to prefer your impacts over your opponents'. I'll be happier if, by the end of the debate, you've walked me through the RFD by very clearly weighing impacts and giving warrants for that calculus, and by giving me multiple independent voters or paths to my ballot.

I'm skeptical of nuclear armageddon impacts. I won't rule out any arguments before they're made, but if you do make this argument, I'll want you to tell me why your opponent's world leads to nuclear armageddon (and your world doesn't) when it has never happened thus far in the real world, despite plenty of opportunities. (Then again, your opponent also needs to make this skepticism argument in the round if they want me to vote on it; otherwise, I'll begrudgingly have to weigh it on my own ballot, but I won't be very happy about it.)

Miscellaneous (all debate events)

I don't like speed, and I detest spreading. If you're wondering, "Is this too fast?" the answer is yes. If I can't understand what you're saying, then I can't flow it; if I can't flow it, I can't weigh it; and if I can't weigh it, I most certainly can't vote on it.

I am strict on time. If I raise a closed fist near the end of a speech, that indicates time has expired; at this point, I will stop flowing, and I will not consider anything said in the overrun on my RFD. Feel free to ask for time signals so you don't have a time drop, but please don't tell me how to time you.

In addition, please signpost clearly. If I don't realize where your argument fits on my flow, I may mistakenly think you dropped that argument. Even if I do figure what you're extending or responding to, the time it takes me to figure out where you are on the flow is time I'm distracted from what you're actually saying, which might mean I miss something important. All in all, always signpost.

Feel free to ask me any questions you might have before the round begins. I hope you enjoy your round, and best of luck!

I am a recent high school graduate from Scarsdale High school, and I debated PF for 2 years in high school.

I understand how stressful debate can be, so here are some tips and some of my preferences:

-I know it can be hard, but try to stay calm and speak loudly and clearly

-Use off-time roadmaps or sign-posting to keep your speeches organized

-Make sure you clearly explain your claims (I.E. always tell me a clear logical flow for why/how something happens)

-Be respectful to the opposing team, do not speak over them or interrupt during crossfire

-I believe that probability isn't weighed a lot and I think that works against teams.

-I will pay attention to cross but I will not flow most of it unless it is something that is being contested the entire round.

-Identify and clarify your voters in summary and final focus.

-I know how irritating it is to not have the round disclosed. I will do my best to make a decision and disclose the result, but sometimes it needs extra time. If I do disclose and you would like some more reasoning/tips after RFD if you ask me politely I will be more than happy to help.

-I won't usually call for a card unless it is the deciding factor in the round or I believe it is being misused.

-If possible keep debate jargon to a minimum

-I don't evaluate Ks and theory

Finally, just have fun and do your best.

I am a librarian and in my 5th year as a Public Forum and Parlimentary debate judge. I believe a well-presented argument relies on speaking clearly and thoughtfully, rather than rushing to present every piece of information. State your contentions clearly and use this to create a reliable, well-structured argument.

Lexington High School '20

McGill University '24

email: andrea.reier@mail.mcgill.ca

------

Background: I was an LD debater for 3 years in high school and primarily ran fem critical theory. I also dabbled a bit in policy as well. I lean truth > tech, but I will evaluate most arguments in a debate. Just please crystallize and clearly delineate a ballot for me in the 2A/2N. Don't just extend arguments, explain why they're important to the round and weigh.

Tabula rasa (minus tricks, do not read these args.) But please be clear and do not speak super fast, I am not used to the high-tech jargon anymore.

Debate PREFS: PHIL > Ks > LARP > Theory* (In order of how well I evaluate these debates)

* = Good at evaluating as long as it's not frivolous theory & the round is arguably unfair.

Other stuff:

Low-point win (risk): reading off the doc the entirety of the debate i.e your 2N is 100% pre-written (you should know how to exempt args and contextualize them within the round)

**IMPORTANT** - I expect debaters to give trigger warnings before reading material with graphic and/or sensitive content (sexual assault, graphic descriptions/images of racial violence, etc.). If you defend not giving a trigger warning on very sensitive content, I will auto drop you and give zero speaks.

"also pls don't use racist/sexist/ableist language because i will tank your speaks/will not hesitate to vote on discourse. Also, please be polite to your opponents- do not be rude in the name of being assertive." - Shweta's paradigm.

have fun and good luck! :)

For best debate experience, please read my paradigm in its entirety.

Debate as you feel comfortable doing.

I appreciate eye contact.

I care about cross-X, I won't flow but I will pay attention, and I expect you to address important things in Cross X in your speeches. Cross X will also affect your speaks.

Don't be abusive in Cross X, but don't let the other team walk all over you. If you ask a question, let the other person finish. But if the other team is babbling and stalling, don't let them do it.

I don't mind if you call for cards, I think this is good practice as long as it's not abusive.

Don't say "basic economics".

If you actually know what you're talking about, I will be happy.

I love weird cases, if you have one, run it. (I've run my fair share)

I don't like jargon, if you hit me with K, T shell, or any similar jargon I will not be happy. Explain all these things using regular English. :)

Bonus points for accurate pronunciation in Spanish or French. It's just nice to hear.

Be organized and signpost, it makes my life easy.

I will always disclose if allowed.

If the opposite team places a burden on you, you should contest it thoroughly and right away.

If you place a burden, you should be ready to defend it early and often.

I won't tolerate general abusive behavior.

Be friendly to each other.

I really appreciate using logic and analysis in conjunction with cards. However, refrain from using logic INSTEAD of cards. This usually ends up with both teams making weird analogies that no one understands - this does not make for fun rounds.

I believe I am a fair judge. That being said, if you have an issue with my decision, you can respectfully tell me that.

I competed in public forum debate for 4 years at Poly Prep (2014-2018), coached Lake Mary Prep HM (2018-2019), and currently coach Poly Prep (2019-2021).

Add me to the email chain: hschloss2@gmail.com

Warrant your turns

Do comparative weighing

Tell me why your evidence is better

Bad evidence bad speaks

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

Pretty standard flow judge.

General Stuff:

Don't speak too fast.

Please weigh.

Be organized+signpost.

Don't mislabel turns. 

I value humor.

Rebuttal:

-I like overviews/terminal defense.

-I prefer good logic over just dumping a bunch of cards on me. If you read evidence, contextualize it.  If you just have a massive card dump without explanations, I won't flow the responses if they are not immediately understandable to me. 

Summary:

-Structure summaries around voters.

-You are much better off collapsing arguments into one/two voters, rather than blippy extensions

-Don't extend through ink

-Summary overviews are also nice

-Please weigh in summary and provide actual justifications for your weighing.

Final Focus:

-I will not really consider any offense in Final Focus that was not in Summary

-Provide specific voters that carry from Summary.

Crossfire:

-I don't really flow Crossfire, but I will pay attention/write anything down that is important. If you want me to consider it, it needs to be brought up in speech.

Fiat(Copied from Uzair Qadir):

• I grant Neg pretty much 0 fiat. I think this is the intention of the vague "no counterplans in pf" rule that people bring up all the time.
• This means that if you're negating a normative resolution, I think you are restricted to defending the status quo.
• if you're running some sort of alternative solvency on neg, you need to prove to me that this alternative will occur in the status quo, but that the affirmative advocacy is preventing the alternative from happening or trading off with it in some other way.
• I grant the aff the weakest fiat possible. You can fiat that the resolution will happen, but beyond that, you're pretty much restricted to defending what would most likely happen in the real world given the conditions set by resolution. This means you can't fiat out of political conditions like backlash, political capital, cutgo, etc.
• Also, this means that your advocacy should be a likely implementation of the resolution in the real world. If the resolution says we should send ground troops to Iraq, you can't fiat that this means we should send troops to only one specific village in Iraq because realistically, this isn't how a ground intervention in Iraq would go.  

I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.

MAIN STUFF

I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice.

Here's how I make decisions

1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.)

2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW

3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches

I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.

SPEAKING PREFS

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants )

Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time, I only need to know where you're starting.

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh.

I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.

Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

Reading tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.

Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure.

Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. Track each other’s prep.

Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable.

PROG STUFF

Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership

I'm a debater parent and I've judged PF debates for 3 years. My evaluation is based on a combination of flow, delivery, and clarity of thought.

I'm an engineer/scientist by trade so I value logic and data-driven arguments and quality over quantity. Rather than overwhelming me with debate jargon, extend a few well-researched warrants through your crossfires into your summary and final focus with clearly articulated impact.

Please speak slowly and clearly, and maintain civility and courtesy, especially during crossfires. If you'd like me to vote on a particular claim, be sure to include it with appropriate evidence in your summary and final focus.

Please refrain from creating too many distractions by obscure interpretations of facts or by calling for evidence/cards unless there is a clear need to establish integrity or accuracy.

Above all, enjoy the debate and good luck!

Background:

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

Judging Experience:

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

Preferences:

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

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

I am looking forward to my first experience as a lay judge. I recommend that you speak clearly and slowly so that the judges can understand everything you are saying. Also, please use your own logic as frequently as possible. I think it will be a more productive debate if it's fueled by critical thinking and logic, rather than statistics and analyses that can be found online.

I am a parent judge. Make sure you:

1. Speak slowly and clearly.

2. I'll be able to evaluate your arguments better if you make your links clear.

3. Please signpost and frame your arguments in a logical flow.

4. Don't extend your arguments through ink.

5. Be courteous, polite and respectful to your opponents. Crossfire is meant to ask strategic questions; if crossfire gets messy, I won't evaluate what is said.